Internet in Rural Life - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

genuinegirly · 02-17-2011, 02:43 PM

Do you find yourself cussing when a call is dropped? How much do you cringe when Hulu is choppy or Netflix is on the fritz? Don't you hate it when gmail is down? Can you imagine running into those road blocks several times every day?

A huge portion of America's population would call themselves lucky to have good enough internet access to even run into those problems. Whether living in rural America, or just too financially strapped to afford a computer, they're frustrated.

Share with us your stories of poor internet or cell phone service.
Have you lived someplace rural that would benefit from internet connectivity?
Do you have family or friends that refuse to dive into using this technology?
Do you currently live without internet access in your home?

I found this article from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/us...d.html?_r=1&hp
Here are some snippets:

Quote:

Digital Age Is Slow to Arrive in Rural America
By KIM SEVERSON

COFFEEVILLE, Ala. — After a couple of days in this part of rural Alabama, it is hard to complain about a dropped iPhone call or a Cee Lo video that takes a few seconds too long to load.

As the world embraces its digital age — two billion people now use the Internet regularly — the line delineating two Americas has become more broadly drawn. There are those who have reliable, fast access to the Internet, and those, like about half of the 27,867 people here in Clarke County, who do not.

In rural America, only 60 percent of households use broadband Internet service, according to a report released Thursday by the Department of Commerce. That is 10 percent less than urban households.

Over all, 28 percent of Americans do not use the Internet at all.

“This is like electricity was,” said Brian Depew, assistant executive direction for the Center for Rural Affairs, a nonprofit research group in Lyons, Neb. “This is a critical utility.”

“Ninety-five percent of the people in this county who want public water can have it, but people can’t even talk to each other around here,” said Sharon Lane, 60, who owns a small logging company with her husband and lives just outside of Coffeeville. It took her three days to try to arrange a meeting with the governor 150 miles away in Montgomery because such inquiries cannot be made over the phone...

It is a hard sell, especially among older residents or people with less education. A study last year by the Pew Internet & American Life Project showed that a fifth of adults do not use the Internet because they feel it is not relevant to their lives.

“The people who could benefit from broadband the most use it the least,” said Amelia Hall Stehouwer, a researcher from Auburn University who works with rural Alabama communities.

Still, it will be a long road to the digital age here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The article mentions elderly people not seeing the internet as pertinent to their lives, but I don't really relate to that concept. My grandmother had an e-mail account before anyone else in my family, she loved keeping in touch with family and reading her news on the internet.

On last summer's road trip we noticed that there was absolutely no cell phone coverage through most of South Dakota, even on the major highways. It made me re-evaluate my definition of poor coverage. Now it doesn't seem like as much of a problem to walk down the street to have cell phone service at my in-laws, or deal with crappy edge-network coverage when I'd rather have 3G.

That's just cell phone... I can't imagine trying to live someplace where even clunky computers at a public library didn't have internet access.

Baraka_Guru · 02-17-2011, 03:31 PM

All I have time to say at the moment is that there are times when I wish I could go Internet-free for a month. But because of work, it's just not possible.

StanT · 02-17-2011, 04:29 PM

I live in a 90 home subdivision in the middle of the national forest, 15 miles and 3100' vertical feet up from the plains. 26.4 is the best we can do with an analog modem. Party lines were common when I moved in 11 years ago.

Thanks to a neighbor with a 65' tower and a business on the plains, we bring a DS3 up the mountain on microwave and distribute it via 802.11 with directional antennas. It works surprisingly well and is pretty much requirement for my employment.

Charlatan · 02-17-2011, 04:34 PM

I am always astounded at the state of American broadband.

In Singapore, I almost never get a dropped call, and that includes being on the phone in elevators and subways. I have also visited remote islands and still find I have a signal. People take their connectivity seriously here.

snowy · 02-17-2011, 05:24 PM

In terms of cellular service: I have Verizon. It reaches just about everywhere out here. When we went camping with friends for our bachelor/bachelorette trip this summer, our friends were borrowing our phones to make calls, because AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint just don't cover rural Oregon the way Verizon does. Our friend with a Droid on Verizon was still able to look up stuff while we were bullshitting around the campfire.

Internet: I know a few people who live in rural Oregon, and have access to crappy Internet. Take my husband's grandparents. They live in a pretty rural area and can only get a dial-up connection. Would they like to have broadband? You bet. Grandma would love to be able to Facebook with her grandkids and look at pictures of her great-grandkids online. She'd love to be able to post pictures online. But she can't. The last time we were down there, my husband tried to get online to show her some pictures, but it was like being on the Internet circa 1996.

I think we could do a much better job of supporting infrastructure to bring broadband to more people, but it's hard to dictate that to companies, y'know--they're going to do what's best for their bottom line.

Lindy · 02-17-2011, 06:42 PM

As far as internet goes, I grew up in a small western Kansas town and remember AOL dial-up from when I was a little kid. I think I was in college (mid nineties) when we got broadband through the local cable TV company.

Broadband now seems better (faster) there than it is here in Boston.
I don't remember having any trouble getting connected on the road, and I regularly stay in small town Super 8 and Best Western motels. They all have broadband, although some only offer plug into the wall ethernet connection, with no wireless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowy

In terms of cellular service: I have Verizon. It reaches just about everywhere out here. When we went camping with friends for our bachelor/bachelorette trip this summer, our friends were borrowing our phones to make calls, because AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint just don't cover rural Oregon the way Verizon does. Our friend with a Droid on Verizon was still able to look up stuff while we were bullshitting around the campfire.

Like Snowy says about cellphones, I think it depends a lot on your carrier. When I drove across South Dakota and Montana (on I-90) to Yellowstone last September with my Sig other, he had a lot of no service trouble (AT&T) but my phone (Verizon) worked fine everywhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowy

Internet:...I think we could do a much better job of supporting infrastructure to bring broadband to more people, but it's hard to dictate that to companies, y'know--they're going to do what's best for their bottom line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I am always astounded at the state of American broadband.
In Singapore, I almost never get a dropped call, and that includes being on the phone in elevators and subways. I have also visited remote islands and still find I have a signal. People take their connectivity seriously here.

Part of the problem is the sheer size of the United States. And the sparse population in some areas. So, yeah, kudos to Singapore.

Singapore is about half the size of Rhode Island. I should hope they could get good coverage.

There are COUNTIES in the western US that are several times the size of Singapore, with only a few hundred people.

Lindy
How quickly we come to take things for granted. My grandma talks about how wonderful it was in 1951 when they got electricity on the farm. That meant they could get a pump for the well and have running water and indoor flush toilets. And a radio. And an automatic stoker for the big coal fired furnace.

bagatelle · 02-18-2011, 12:53 AM

We weren't first in the moon, but...

Quote:

Finland has become the first country in the world to make broadband a legal right for every citizen.

Finland makes broadband a 'legal right'

In July 2010 the article said: It is believed up to 96% of the population are already online and that only about 4,000 homes still need connecting to comply with the law.

Personally, I rarely have connection cut or any malfunction in internet service.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

All I have time to say at the moment is that there are times when I wish I could go Internet-free for a month. But because of work, it's just not possible.

I could use my time different than at the computer all the time, even if I cut off all personal contacting and gaming via net, I would have to pay bills and check the notifications kids get from school and what comes to my own email, just in case it's important.

Martian · 02-18-2011, 10:40 AM

I have a lot to say on this subject I think, but I'm going to try to keep it relevant.

Geography is a challenge when it comes to serving up rural broadband, but maybe not as much of a challenge as some people think. In most cases, wireless broadband is an option where traditional copper or fibre-based solutions aren't viable -- and those copper-based solutions would be viable in a lot more places if the major companies responsible for these things (Bell and Telus here in Canada, Verizon and AT&T down south) were willing to invest in areas where the rate of return isn't as high. Why bother pumping millions into expanding your DSL coverage into rural areas, when you can get a much better return by buidling out fibre or VDSL service in the city?

The US government is pushing wireless as a solution for the problem, but I'm not convinced. Anyone who uses internet on their cell phone already knows that wireless connections aren't the most reliable ever, and the throughput is likely to be a bottleneck again in a few years anyway. Supporting a buildout of hard infrastructure would be a much better option, but it comes down to the same thing again. Who wants to spend that much?

Don't trust AT&T when they tell you it costs too much. They're not a neutral party.

ASU2003 · 02-18-2011, 03:41 PM

I think individual people need to buy fiber lines to their neighbor. Or use directional antennas in the HDTV region if too far away, if it is totally free to get on-line after the initial equipment cost.

Basically, we need to go back to a distributed internet model, where if one section disconnects, the rest still functions.

bum4evr · 02-18-2011, 08:24 PM

3 years ago I used to live and work at a doggie rescue kennel in california, It was in a rural area - well, of course it was, who wants to hear 150 dogs barking next door to you?

I was stuck with dial up internet access and 33k was the best I could get. It was HELL!! One MP3 took 10 minutes to download!!

But I survived somehow. I moved to a small town in Idaho and now I have cable internet.

AHHHHHH this is like heaven... youtube videos just play all the way through without me having to stop and wait 15 min for them to load. And then I discovered.... Netflix

fiper28 · 02-22-2011, 04:02 PM

Neither my internet or cellphone coverage is that great where I live (AZ). I got this thing from T-mobile that boosts my signal that has been helping a lot! Its called a cel-fi and I got it by emailing moresignal[at]t-mobile. com, so if you have t-mobile signal problems, try that!

Martian · 02-22-2011, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

I think individual people need to buy fiber lines to their neighbor. Or use directional antennas in the HDTV region if too far away, if it is totally free to get on-line after the initial equipment cost.

Basically, we need to go back to a distributed internet model, where if one section disconnects, the rest still functions.

Wait, what?

The internet is a distributed model. It's very nature is to be distributed. If it weren't distributed it would not be inter, nor would it be a net. It would just be a computer.

Also, your first paragraph is like trying to read Italian. I recognize those words, but they don't make sense in that order. Why would I want to spend $3-5k (or more, if you're rural and have to cover miles instead of yards) digging a trench and running fibre to my neighbour? How does that accomplish anything?

spindles · 02-23-2011, 02:23 PM

The Australian government have started a company whose job is to roll fibre out to 93% of households, with the remaining 7% covered by either wireless of satellite:

Coverage - NBN Co Limited

The estimated cost will be 26 billion dollars, but I think it is money well spent. If you leave it to private enterprise, you get duplication in the areas with high population and nothing to the sparsely populated areas - it just isn't good enough.

Wireless will never (or at least not for a long time) be able to reach the speeds achieved by a wired connection.

02-17-2011, 03:31 PM	#2 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	All I have time to say at the moment is that there are times when I wish I could go Internet-free for a month. But because of work, it's just not possible. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

02-17-2011, 04:34 PM	#4 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I am always astounded at the state of American broadband. In Singapore, I almost never get a dropped call, and that includes being on the phone in elevators and subways. I have also visited remote islands and still find I have a signal. People take their connectivity seriously here. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-17-2011, 05:24 PM	#5 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	In terms of cellular service: I have Verizon. It reaches just about everywhere out here. When we went camping with friends for our bachelor/bachelorette trip this summer, our friends were borrowing our phones to make calls, because AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint just don't cover rural Oregon the way Verizon does. Our friend with a Droid on Verizon was still able to look up stuff while we were bullshitting around the campfire. Internet: I know a few people who live in rural Oregon, and have access to crappy Internet. Take my husband's grandparents. They live in a pretty rural area and can only get a dial-up connection. Would they like to have broadband? You bet. Grandma would love to be able to Facebook with her grandkids and look at pictures of her great-grandkids online. She'd love to be able to post pictures online. But she can't. The last time we were down there, my husband tried to get online to show her some pictures, but it was like being on the Internet circa 1996. I think we could do a much better job of supporting infrastructure to bring broadband to more people, but it's hard to dictate that to companies, y'know--they're going to do what's best for their bottom line. __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

02-18-2011, 10:40 AM	#8 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	I have a lot to say on this subject I think, but I'm going to try to keep it relevant. Geography is a challenge when it comes to serving up rural broadband, but maybe not as much of a challenge as some people think. In most cases, wireless broadband is an option where traditional copper or fibre-based solutions aren't viable -- and those copper-based solutions would be viable in a lot more places if the major companies responsible for these things (Bell and Telus here in Canada, Verizon and AT&T down south) were willing to invest in areas where the rate of return isn't as high. Why bother pumping millions into expanding your DSL coverage into rural areas, when you can get a much better return by buidling out fibre or VDSL service in the city? The US government is pushing wireless as a solution for the problem, but I'm not convinced. Anyone who uses internet on their cell phone already knows that wireless connections aren't the most reliable ever, and the throughput is likely to be a bottleneck again in a few years anyway. Supporting a buildout of hard infrastructure would be a much better option, but it comes down to the same thing again. Who wants to spend that much? Don't trust AT&T when they tell you it costs too much. They're not a neutral party. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

02-23-2011, 02:23 PM	#13 (permalink)
spindles Mine is an evil laugh Location: Sydney, Australia	The Australian government have started a company whose job is to roll fibre out to 93% of households, with the remaining 7% covered by either wireless of satellite: Coverage - NBN Co Limited The estimated cost will be 26 billion dollars, but I think it is money well spent. If you leave it to private enterprise, you get duplication in the areas with high population and nothing to the sparsely populated areas - it just isn't good enough. Wireless will never (or at least not for a long time) be able to reach the speeds achieved by a wired connection. __________________ who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

02-17-2011, 04:29 PM	#3 (permalink)
StanT © Location: Colorado	I live in a 90 home subdivision in the middle of the national forest, 15 miles and 3100' vertical feet up from the plains. 26.4 is the best we can do with an analog modem. Party lines were common when I moved in 11 years ago. Thanks to a neighbor with a 65' tower and a business on the plains, we bring a DS3 up the mountain on microwave and distribute it via 802.11 with directional antennas. It works surprisingly well and is pretty much requirement for my employment.

02-18-2011, 03:41 PM	#9 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I think individual people need to buy fiber lines to their neighbor. Or use directional antennas in the HDTV region if too far away, if it is totally free to get on-line after the initial equipment cost. Basically, we need to go back to a distributed internet model, where if one section disconnects, the rest still functions.

02-18-2011, 08:24 PM	#10 (permalink)
bum4evr Upright	3 years ago I used to live and work at a doggie rescue kennel in california, It was in a rural area - well, of course it was, who wants to hear 150 dogs barking next door to you? I was stuck with dial up internet access and 33k was the best I could get. It was HELL!! One MP3 took 10 minutes to download!! But I survived somehow. I moved to a small town in Idaho and now I have cable internet. AHHHHHH this is like heaven... youtube videos just play all the way through without me having to stop and wait 15 min for them to load. And then I discovered.... Netflix

02-22-2011, 04:02 PM	#11 (permalink)
fiper28 Upright	Neither my internet or cellphone coverage is that great where I live (AZ). I got this thing from T-mobile that boosts my signal that has been helping a lot! Its called a cel-fi and I got it by emailing moresignal[at]t-mobile. com, so if you have t-mobile signal problems, try that!