The US Rural Broadband Crisis 586
Ian Lamont writes "Rural US residents don't have the same kind of access to broadband services as those who live in urban or suburban areas. According to the federal government, just 17% of rural U.S. households subscribe to broadband service. But the problem is more than a conflict between Wall Street and small-town residents wanting to surf the 'Net or play Warcraft — the lack of broadband access prevents many businesses from growing and diversifying rural economies, as it's expensive or impossible to get broadband. From the article: 'Soon after moving to Gilsum, N.H. (population 811), [Kim] Rossey learned that he couldn't get broadband to support his Web programming business, TooCoolWebs. DSL wasn't available, and the local cable service provider wasn't interested in extending the cabling for its broadband service the three-tenths of a mile required to reach Rossey's house — even if he paid the full $7,000 cost. Rossey ended up signing a two-year, $450-per-month contract for a T1 line that delivers 1.44Mbit/sec. of bandwidth. He pays 10 times more than the cable provider would have charged and receives one quarter of the bandwidth.' The author also notes that larger businesses are being crimped, from a national call center to a national retailer which claims 17% of its store locations can't get broadband."
Ounce of Prevention (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't have hookers on every corner (Score:5, Insightful)
Rural == Not A City!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
We do happen to have relatively good Internet via cable (1 mb) but you can't take anything for granted. Yes, the big, evil Telcos don't want to put stuff out here because it costs a lot. And yes, they should be soundly trashed because it was already "paid" for.
A crisis? Oh well. Caveat Emptor.
Good argument for municipal-owned networks (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, like electricity, people could for a Co-Op and get their own broadband.
There's options, but they suck... (Score:3, Insightful)
But it's expensive ($80 or more a month), slow (I had it for 2 years, best DL speed I ever got was only 5 times faster than a 28.8 modem), unstable (hard rain = No internet), unsupported (well...okay, they have people on the other end of the line, but they aren't very good, and they can't fix your problem), and high latency (1500 ms ping is quick. VPN doesn't work, and forget about gaming).
We need a Tennessee Valley Authority-like program to get Rural America on the net.
Geeks in Space (Score:4, Insightful)
why should broadband be a special case? (Score:3, Insightful)
rural areas have always suffered from having limited access to luxury items when compared to more densely populated areas. i just don't see the logic in this complaint. i'm not saying its fair...but its nothing new.
if internet is really more important than living someplace that is sparsely populated then you pay a premium to get what you need...or you move. my in-laws live on a dairy farm and they still drive 45 minutes just to buy groceries.
dude.
Re:They don't have hookers on every corner (Score:3, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with density, after all he proposed to pay the entire cost of expanding the cable by himself. They just can't be bothered.
The problem is that to get good service for anything, you either need real competition between several commercial parties, or serious government investment in infrastructure. It seems that rural parts of the US lack both. Also, barriers to entry for new competitors are huge, and large government investment would probably mean raising taxes and the people always vote that down.
So the rural US can forget it.
Re:Ounce of Prevention (Score:5, Insightful)
1) the guy has solved the problem by shelling some money.
2) the money he is paying is only 100$ more than my commute costs. And I guess his house is much bigger and cheaper than anything I could find in NY. So he probably was wise to pay that price.
3) he offered to pay all the connnection costs for the cable company and they refused.
So, I really can relate to this guy and think he really is the good guy here.
Re:Ounce of Prevention (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm surprised that the cable company wouldn't offer it. DSL is more restricted by distance, but I also have to wonder if Fiber would be a better solution for these people.
Again, it's a terrific business oppotunity - if this guy's willing to spend $450 on a T1 line, I bet he'd be willing to spend $75/month for a fiber connection.
Re:why should broadband be a special case? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit, this is 2007, not 1997.
Or maybe a dash of creativity... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know, some cable plans don't like that... but on the other hand, it's not like they were planning to sell it to those folks anyway. Also, in my area, you can pay for "enterprise cable" service which is very reasonable, and they won't complain about what you run on it.
NO! Do NOT say "they should move to the city" (Score:5, Insightful)
If AT&T, Sprint, Verizon and ilk refuse to upgrade their rural networks then pull the subsidies and make them compete on their own merits. At the VERY least they would provide WiFi broadband at reasonable rates.
Re:It isn't just rural economies affected (Score:3, Insightful)
Research, yes, but (Score:5, Insightful)
The crisis is that what's good for business and economic development on the whole is often not taken care of by the incumbent carriers, who have discovered ways to make more profits elsewhere without delivering particularly good or advanced services, just by squeezing customers they already have. It's not that they couldn't make real profits in rural areas, but that they'd have to do some actual work to earn them, rather than just live off the legacy of the networks they've already built.
Too bad (Score:2, Insightful)
You would think that rural economic development entities would be trying to encourage broadband...
Perhaps states and counties could encourage broadband expansion into rural areas via incentives.
Re:They don't have hookers on every corner (Score:5, Insightful)
The virtues of regulated monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly the same thing is true of the post office. It costs the postal service more to mail a letter to Alaska than to mail it across town, but the price of the stamp is 41 cents.
Universal service is only possible if the service provider is allowed to cross-subsidize the areas that are expensive to service with revenues from the areas that are cheap to service. Competition and the free market will always produce wildly varying prices and cream-skimming (in which the most profitable markets get service from multiple suppliers and the least profitable get no service at all).
If the Internet is now as fundamentally important as the telephone or the postal service, then--just as with the interstate highway system, or the system of air traffic control which enables airline service to be nationwide--there will need to be national policy to that effect. Otherwise it won't happen.
Re:Ounce of Prevention (Score:4, Insightful)
Well... a couple of things. First, most ISPs won't actually give you a real map of where there coverage is. It's really sketchy. Sometimes you can't even tell until you go to order the service. I remember doing a check a few years ago where I entered my address into Verizon's online thing, and it said I could get DSL. Then I tried ordering it, and they said that the website was wrong.
Second, if you RTFA (or even the summary), the guy bought a house three-tenths of a mile outside the broadband coverage. So basically that means that they guy down the street could get broadband and he couldn't. It's pretty understandable why he wouldn't catch this ahead of time.
Re:They don't have hookers on every corner (Score:5, Insightful)
While definitions of "broadband" may vary, you may find that availability of a DSL or cable connection is on par between Western Europe and Big City America, levels are different.
You can get 100 Mbps connection in Sweden and a few other European countries for what a 5 Mbps one costs in the U.S. Want it weighted by population density? Fine. Pick a big U.S. city -- any one. Just ignore the rural part and compare it to Europe on a country-by-country basis, including their suburban and rural parts.
I used to think like you do, that it was population density that curtailed U.S. broadband in comparison to places like Korea and Europe. Then someone pointed out that U.S. broadband is crappy-to-mediocre in the largest U.S. cities with high population densities. What is the excuse for New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta and Washington D.C.?
Re:They don't have hookers on every corner (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It isn't just rural economies affected (Score:3, Insightful)
The point being that this isn't just an issue for a couple of hicks in cabins.
Re:They don't have hookers on every corner (Score:5, Insightful)
New England (and this article refer to NH) does have a population density, including distribution of urban-vs-rural areas, comparable to Western Europe.
Face it, "We're number 17!". Broadband availability in the US sucks, and the mono/duopolist providers have no interest in improving coverage (quite the opposite, they've actively fought changes in the way they can report availability statistics that would paint a more accurate picture).
Re:why should broadband be a special case? (Score:1, Insightful)
Bullshit, this is 2007, not 1997.
if you can, give me one, just one example of a situation where you cannot survive in this world without internet access. i hypothesize that any daily activity you decree to be necessary involving internet access can, in and of itself, also be considered a luxury.
the majority of things that we use on a daily basis are luxury items...the perception of technological ubiquity in ones daily life does not immediately relegate things to the level of necessity.
dude.
Re:They don't have hookers on every corner (Score:4, Insightful)
1. I called the cable company and asked if I could get cable at the house. They responded yes.
2. I bought the house and requested that they hook it up for cable.
3. A technition arrived the next month (yes month) and informed me that he didn't have enough wire. He would reschedule and come back. But it might take another month.
4. I wait a month, no notice of a new appointment. I call again, explain the situation and they send another tech out. He reports that he never got the message that he would need longer lengths of cable and had to reschedule. I made him call IMMEDIATELY from my house on the cell (This was the second day of work I had to miss)
5. The third technition arrives and informs me that they have to do an extension. It requires a survey. He schedules the survey.
6. The cable company does the survey, never informs me. I call back 1 month later and tell them that "Yes, proceed with the work" They tell me that it may take up to 2 years to get the permits... (WTF?)
In the meantime, I investigate every option. Satellite (will not work with what I need). ISDN (the phone company no longer deals in this area) DSL, I'm 16000' just too far. Wireless, I'm on the wrong side of the hill. EVDO: not broadband in my area, pretty much dialup.
7. 8 months pass and I have to call again "Umm, where the hell are you?" 3 weeks later they finally hook it up.
So thats what I went through with a company that WANTED to hook up my cable. I paid them to do it. I think it is more that some schmuck didn't want to be bothered with filling out the form to send a truck out to his home.
Re:Ounce of Prevention (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ounce of Prevention (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't think it would've affected my closing, but I may have kept looking for just a bit longer.
Re:Good argument for municipal-owned networks (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. I really don't know why people fail to categorize the Internet as "infrastructure". Roads, bridges, sewers, water, electricity, and the Internet are all the same sort of thing.
Sure, you think of the Internet as a bit of a luxury, but I bet running water and paved roads were considered a luxury once. Individuals, private businesses, and governmental organizations are all relying on the Internet on a daily basis. It seems like this sort of infrastructure should either be public or heavily regulated.
Re:Ounce of Prevention (Score:2, Insightful)
And learn the meaning of the word 'troll'. Your opinion does not factor into the meaning of it. Thanks.
That's right, defend the mega corps. (Score:2, Insightful)
Keep it up, man. Keep making America great. I mean, who needs to be on the leading edge of service anyway?
Re:Yes, it makes sense. (Score:1, Insightful)
Not seeing the forest for the trees (Score:5, Insightful)
The basic problem here, and throughout the U.S., is that the so-called "last mile" lines are tightly controlled by the local monopoly, and closed off almost completely to any competition. When you don't have competition, you have no incentive to offer better service.
The only way we'll ever see either wider deployment, or 100 Mbs to the house in the next 10 years, is if the Telephone companies are divested of the Central Offices. That is, these are spun off into businesses which sell the lines to competing companies. Only then will you have motivation to upgrade the last mile with better services and speeds.
What I find amusing is that there's always someone who will say "but there won't be any interest in upgrading the rural areas". They always fail to realize that there is no interest right now, and isn't any on the horizon.
If you make this market truly competitive, then there will be interest. Now, granted the price will necessarily be higher, and that's where the main objection from people living out in the rural area comes from. But at least there will be service for a price. And that's what is needed to get the infrastructure ball rolling to deploy better solutions than just a T1 (which really looks rather pathetic these days).
It's also amusing that America is facing internation pressure on this front (while doing nothing about it). Other countries are deploying high-speed internet (100+ Mbs), while the best we've got being rolled out is a pathetic 6 Mbps.
Silicon Valley in particular is extremely lacking here.
Unless this is changed, and soon, there will be a lot of other countries which are in a better position to compete than the U.S.. The next 10 years will be interesting.
Bigger ISSUE!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's EVERYTHING about density. (Score:3, Insightful)
Golly gee shucks. The original poster talks about crying a river, but I guess the cable company shouldn't have contracted with the government to guarantee a monopoly if the terms were just so damn onerous.
Re:They don't have hookers on every corner (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't an entirely valid analogy. If you remember from the summary...
"According to the federal government, just 17% of rural U.S. households subscribe to broadband service." (emphasis mine)
That doesn't mean that everyone who has access to broadband subscribes to it. A better analogy would be that only 18% of people in rural areas using hookers means there's a hooker crisis. A lot of slashdotters just can't wrap their minds around the idea that some people simply don't want broadband.
what I think is interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm largely libertarian (I know, I know, I've surrendered my credentials with this post alone) but some things, like mail service, phone service, water service, and yes, internet, aren't profitable enough on the small scale for the greed factor to make it worth providing service to houses scattered across the prairie, or even in small towns. So we have to choose between no internet at all or cries of encroaching socialism. The question is whether the economic benefits of internet access are enough to warrant the problems caused by government involvement.
Were the benefits of phone or mail access enough to warrant government involvement? Anyone want to speculate on the economic life of a town with no phone or internet or public roads? The phone system may not have been government-supplied, but they did guarantee the monopoly that made it sufficiently profitable. The distinction isn't that important, in this context.
Re:why should broadband be a special case? (Score:5, Insightful)
Modern life / business / education / etc however has added many other things to the list of "basic needs".
Can you get by without transportation, electricity or phone? Sure. Can you participate in modern society without those items? Not effectively.
It's perfectly reasonable to come up with strong arguments that say that broadband Internet access will soon become a "basic need" in order for our society to effectively compete in the global market. In fact, our government (despite total incompetence) has identified this need as real.
Re:why should broadband be a special case? (Score:3, Insightful)
The government subsidized a nationwide road network, electrification and telephone lines because they were by far and away in the best interests of the nation as a whole. Economic booms followed each major project as they greatly enhanced the ability of people and business to conduct trade. In the 21st century, a broadband Internet connection is the equivalent in critical infrastructure. The reality is, if you want to do business, then an Internet connection will be more and more of a necessity. Requiring major population shifts to urban areas just to be able to do business is as short-sighted now as it was before the other major nationwide infrastructure projects.
While leaning mostly towards libertarian policies I can't agree with unlimited, outright subsidies of nationwide broadband, I have no problem with mandated tariffed services. I fully agree with Google's request to the FCC to require any lessor of the 700 MHz spectrum to provide equal access to all. The airwaves are, after all, property of the people and only leased, not purchased.
Re:Ounce of Prevention (Score:4, Insightful)
People in America (I've seen myself fitting into this mold) are used to "sign this contract, we'll considerably reduce/eliminate the upfront cost". For the most part, you don't get this with satellite. I know you didn't when I had Starband living in Yarrow, MO (population, about a dozen or so). I had to pay something like $400 up front (or so, it was quite expensive for what little I was making at the time).
People are spoiled by the phone/cable companies "giving" the modem to you. The satellite equipment is just too expensive. Add to that the *required* non-free (most of the time, 'less there is a promotion) installation.
For stores (like TWE, that was linked from the main article), satellite would work, if the Mall they are located in will allow them to have it installed on the roof. I have a feeling many malls won't, and some just aren't built for it (multi-story, etc -- the cables would probably just be too long, adding MORE cost for amplifiers, or whatever is used for long runs..)
Re:Ounce of Prevention (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They don't have hookers on every corner (Score:5, Insightful)
But the result being that everyone has phone and electricity, and at a reasonable price.
And the internet providers have been given government backed monopolies, but AREN'T required to provide service to everyone...but this is somehow better?
Can you fill in the blanks please?
These services should either be totally open to competition with no government backed monopolies, or the services should be REQUIRED to be provided to all. One or the other. Anything else is just a license to skim the barrel...which is exactly what we have right now.
National Disgrace (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Taxes have already paid for this service (Score:4, Insightful)
Those tax breaks are probably paying for someone's yacht right now.
The government should sue them for the total cost, plus interest, of the breaks/benefits they gave those companies, or some kind of pro-rated amount. Can't pay it? Tough. And no you aren't going to raise rates to make the consumers pay for it.
D'oh! Density again! (Score:3, Insightful)
At this point I have to believe somebody is paying you guys to present these density and last mile arguments.
In sleepy little towns less than pop. 5000 across rural washington you can get fiber to the premises and 100mbps service for less than $40/mo.
The problem is that the incumbent monopolies are milking the market for far more than they should be able to get away with. That is the only reason. All of these logistic and practical reasons are nothing but industry propaganda. I post this in every broadband thread and will continue to do so.
Muni broadband. The incumbents won't build us a bridge to the modern market so the People must.
No sympathy from me (Score:2, Insightful)
I moved to Shasta County, California from Santa Cruz. I know all about this and at least I took the time to research it before moving.
People should take some responsibility for their decisions.
Rural internet information networks ARE (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ounce of Prevention (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been happy with wild blue.
I used to pay $15 for a second phone line, and another $17 for dial-up ISP.
So I found wild blue, and for $15 more than I was paying, I get ~80K down, ~700mS ping...
STOP LAUGHING... It's three times faster than the 28.8K dial-up I was getting on a good day.
Now I can hook up the wireless router, and the kids have two computers, and I can surf from my easy chair.
Yes I have friends who get 250K for $20, but I no longer have police helicopters flying over-head telling me to get inside and lock the doors and windows. So I'm happy with this trade-off.
To sum it up, us rural types don't have a crisis, we have a trade-off.
As a friend once said "$19.95 will get you anywhere... With $19.95 you can get a baby U-Haul, load up all your shit, and move anywhere you want".