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."
It's disturbing (Score:2, Interesting)
This doesn't even bring up the point of pricing structures of broadband in urban environments. Cable is around $50 a month (give or take) for 10mbit. A T1 (granted, a dedicated line) is around $400 for 1.54 mbit. Tell me that makes sense?
It isn't just rural economies affected (Score:5, Interesting)
We have a couple of clients in the exurbs who do logistics: mainly deliveries into cities. The warehouses are in the exurbs where land is cheap.
But they can't get broadband at the warehouses. Remote assistance means "bring the laptop to Panera so I can remote in."
One major problem is regulation... (Score:4, Interesting)
I wrote an earlier post [slashdot.org] on the subject about the same thing going on in my neck of the woods.
Re:Good argument for municipal-owned networks (Score:5, Interesting)
So What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Broadband is not "unavailable", it is merely more expensive. Wherever you live, some things will be more available and others will be less available. Get over it. The fees that were (stupidly, I believe) tacked on to all phone bills to fund rural access are still there - just a big pot of cash that the telco's squabble over even though routing phone service to rural areas is no longer a real issue.
Whenever I hear talk of rural access fees, I wonder why the same people aren't championing an urban affordibility fee. Tacking a huge additional fee onto transfer and property taxes in rural areas to help fund the ability to live in San Francisco or Silicon Valley makes about as much (non)sense.
Re:Geeks in Space (Score:3, Interesting)
In general it worked fine; I had a home lab to go with my home office, so I never had to upload images to a remote lab for testing purposes. I could check in C text files using CVS reasonably well. Checking out a large source tree however was painful (too many connections being made; the connection startup overhead was large) so I would typically ssh to a remote host, do the checkout there, tar it, then I'd scp it over the satellite (one connection, and then 400-800Kbps once it was streaming). That was ok.
Of course, using ssh over that link was horrible; I could type a whole command line before seeing any remote echo, and forget line edit...
Now I have a T1, and I share it to my closest neighbors (150 and 250 meters away) for a small monthly fee, which barely makes up for the time I spent setting up their networks; their use doesn't crimp mine, and all seems well. No, T1 isn't 6Mbps; however, the service is amazing. It's *never* down, and *never* throttled at all, up or down link. So reliable, and monitored, that it's almost a pain - if I shut down my router for more than 5 minutes, I can expect my cel phone to ring with AT&T on the line checking if they should roll a truck about an outage.
As far as costs go - $300/mo - so if you're considering T1, do your research, there are deals out there. The best I could get until I found this was a 3-year contract at $525/mo, which was clearly out of the question for me. I called around many times over a couple of years, and one day I got an email from a reseller who said they could work a deal (SBC was trying to keep someone else out, I forget who, but if you had had a quote from the other guys then SBC was willing to go a 3 year contract at 300/mo). Given that first Telstar 8 went dead with no warning for over a week, and I had no service for that time; and then I had a satellite modem keel over dead and had to scramble to get another one; I jumped at the chance.
All said, I'd prefer a "typical" broadband with a $50-70/mo price tag. However, I really enjoy living in the country, 10 minutes away from a great town with lots of culture (thank tourism I suppose, and lots of retired folks, and some well-to-do ex-hippies), so the resultant $200/mo for my T1 (after my neighbors pitching in) is a small price to pay for a 12-foot commute...
Re:Ounce of Prevention (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Or maybe a dash of creativity... (Score:3, Interesting)
In many rural areas (NW Iowa and Eastern SD) are my most recent surprising experience) they have EDGE data networks (I-Wireless and/or Cingular) that I have absolutely rocking speeds on (compared to metro areas like MSP) in the middle of farm fields.
It never ceases to amaze me when I'm in the middle of farm land [lazylightning.org] on a minimum maintenance road in rural South Dakota [google.com] that I have full data service.
Why not try tethering or a PCMCIA data card? If you can't get *anything*, that's better than nothing.
Same situation for me (Score:4, Interesting)
No cable on our road; too far out for DSL. I had used dialup, but I'd rather choke myself to death with a hampster. Tried satellite, but interactive use over a satellite is like shooting yourself in the foot, day after day. Finally found a local business which had cable with line of sight. I pay him $20/month rent to host a cablemodem, router, and antenna on the roof. I pay the cableco for a 5MB/512KB business connection, and I'm all set.
Taxes have already paid for this service (Score:4, Interesting)
Second, internet access in rural areas is a huge boon to job growth in those areas where land is cheap. It is a win for everyone involved. I'd rather "outsource" to rural America than to India.
Third, huge urban sprawl is an ecological nightmare. The government needs to provide incentives to redistribute populations on a wider geographic basis. Not having access to basic business infrastructure makes this very very hard.
Re:Good argument for municipal-owned networks (Score:2, Interesting)
Frankly, I was completely shocked that this speed was available here. When I worked for a rural ISP, we were lucky to get 9600bps connections with a 56k modem in some places.
The irony is that people in rural areas stand to benefit the most from the Internet. The options for learning and seeing different perspectives are limited out here. Most of the people I work with forget that there is a whole big world out there. I'm one of the strange few who gave up my high paying job to live in the country and be the only technical support person for about a 40 mile radius. Unlike most of the residents here, at least, I have lived elsewhere and experienced the "rest of the world."
Re:Ounce of Prevention (Score:4, Interesting)
Fortunately, I can get a 3 meg DSL connection that seems to do a little better at times so I wasn't too disappointed outside not having the Internet for almost 2 months after being told it would be hooked up a week after my move. My neighbor on one (about 200 yards away) side can get road runner and on the other side (about 6-700 yards away) uses satellite but there is a $1500 installation fee in my area that needs to be paid before you get the service.
Checking this stuff out first might not always work. AS for the article, I'm sure there would be something available cheaper then $450 a month but there is a need to service these areas. Time Warner and the Telco's offering DSL or Internet are doing so because they had all the competition blocked while they were setting up their networks and running the infrastructure. They have an unrepairable advantage over any startup that might want to service the area and would likely use this advantage to undercut pricing models and run the other companies out of business if there ever did turn out to be a market worth having (profitable).
What's up with the US? (Score:4, Interesting)
See here [broadband.gc.ca] for more info. Commercial broadband internet has been available for years, and residential popped in more recently. Here's another town with a population of a little under 3000. [jurock.com] We've got areas that are little more than a smudge on the map that have decent broadband, since both Telus and Shaw cable have a good trunk. On top of that, smaller or more-local providers such as OCIS [ocis.net] provide internet via shared/leased connections (with their own infrastructure added to make the last mile) and other technologies such as wireless etc... without being strangled off by the big guys
Sorry, but if we Canucks can manage it, the US can too. I'm fairly sure it's a case of piss-poor implementation, support, and just basic greed that keeps it from happening.
And before people start pointing out that the US has more population to reach, I'd like to point out that Canada has plenty of area, and plenty of open space between locations but still manages to for the most-part get internet out to nowheresville across plenty of long-empty distance and nasty unpleasant environmental conditions (no, we don't have 365 snow here, we go range from as much as +40c/104F in summer to -40C/-40F in winter, so we get it *all*)
Re:Ounce of Prevention (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:why should broadband be a special case? (Score:2, Interesting)
Brriiiittt (sound of phonograph needle scrathing record or finger nails on a blackboard).
All that I see here in the replies is a bunch of useless condemnation of living in the country by most probably underaged semi-illiterate urbanites who think that Starbuck's coffee is a necessity and not a luxury. You probably don't even know where your food comes from; it just magically appears in the Whole Foods Market near you. And one other thing, if you call the Internet entertainment, then you are probably a telecom astroturfer!!
Now that I have gotten my rant off of my chest, let me try to be reasonable. Broadband was not a necessity 10 years ago, however it now is a utility. Unfortunately the American public has been ripped off for the past decade by a combination of congress and the telecom companies when it comes to the introduction of broadband in rural areas. VoIP is rapidly replacing POTS (Plain old telephone service). More and more business is being done over the Internet including providing support for farming and ranching (I recently saved about 30% delivered cost on a part for a farm implement by buying on the internet).
As to the parent post's -- So far, all I hear is "I want it faster!" --, when one has to deal with the huge file size of current webpages over dial-up, then even minimal broadband is a necessity. Before I got wireless broadband, AT&T's copper gave me a whopping 21k bps data rate. It often took 1 to 3 minutes to download minimal pages from the Internet. I don't have all day to wait, I've got work to do.
This has been a good lunch break.
Re:Trade-offs (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ounce of Prevention (Score:4, Interesting)
I personally believe that the greed of the phone companies with respect to T1 pricing is at the very core of why the US is losing (and losing badly) on the bandwidth front with respect to the rest of the world. We are getting worse broadband, at higher prices than EVERYONE else in the WORLD. Sometime in the next decade this is going to technologically cripple the US and we will lose the rest (we've lost a lot already) of the leadership we have in the internet. The next google, youtube, myspace, etc. may well have incredible multimedia potential and come from another country, and be unusable by most of the people in the US. Eventually, the world will make use of their expanded bandwidth, and will leave us behind.
And its all because the telcos were addicted to their premium prices they've always charged for T1 lines....
Re:Taxes have already paid for this service (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you're wrong there.
Most people who live in Manhattan use fewer resources and walk more than people who live in the suburbs. The real problem isn't urban life, but suburban life. By putting everything far away from everything else, you encourage people to drive. And by making people drive, you have to pave more for roads and parking spaces. Not only that, but you also have to account for the increased energy needed to distribute goods over those long distances.
All other things being equal, urbanization is better for the environment as a whole than suburbanization. Indeed, people who live in urban environments are healthier than those who live in suburban or rural areas. And a well-designed urban area, with walkable stores, reliable mass transit, and well-maintained parks is a joy to live in.
I should know, I live in one. (But I still can't get good broadband!)
Western Europe isn't that great, either (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ounce of Prevention (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, the 400-1200 ms latency (average in 500 to 600 ms range) doesn't help anything either; nor do the up-front-costs, etc. Then, of course, you have to deal with the fact that its portioned out, so if you're not using all your bandwidth all the time then it may take a while to ramp up to the bandwidth when you are doing something that needs it - if you are lucky enough that your need outweighs the others using the same Sat network. (Yes, they over provision too.)
Also, don't forget how the Sat Comms are affected by:
So, there are a lot of factors in there, and I'm guessing a few of them probably give people the "it sucks" view point.
Re:Not seeing the forest for the trees (Score:0, Interesting)
In the same token, there's a nature crisis in urban areas. Urbanites can't own horses and chickens in suburbia (unless they are recent immigrants who think they can)! There's a nature crisis I tell you!
New mission for the 21st Century Post Office (Score:2, Interesting)
No, I am not a Socialist.
Re:They don't have hookers on every corner (Score:1, Interesting)
National public radio did a piece about the build your own broadband story in the wilderness of West Virginia. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor
Re:a disaster (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ounce of Prevention (Score:1, Interesting)
It is costing me an extra $100 in rent where I'm living now for half the space but I get cable,VoIP, and 3Mb Internet for less than I paid for the lousy FAP loving Direcway.Worth every red cent,if you ask me.Don't EVER say that Sat is broadband.It is like the retarded money sucking cousin to dialup.It sure ain't broadband.
Three hours on the phone every time I had a problem,lousy tech support,and you could get better downloads from shotgunning two modems together thanks to their FAP,and their "TOP" consumer edition at $89.99 a month cuts you off at 380Mb.Total crap.
And as for those "rural" users,I'd just like to point out that we the people PAID the telecomms to run broadband to rural areas,in the form of tax breaks and monopolies.They simply stole our money and didn't do what they were PAID to do.
As much as I hate regulation,in todays "screw quality and our customers,make a quick buck at all costs" climate I don't see any other way we as a country will get the service we paid the telecomms for,except by forcing them through regulation.We're not talking about running miles of cable here.In my case they wouldn't run TWO BLOCKS even if I paid for the line.
If there had been real free market competition I'm sure I could have found someone to sell to me.But thanks to the monopolies we gave them in return for the service they didn't provide they can make the most quick cash by simply sitting on their butts and enjoying their monopoly.And if the US is going to compete we are going to need a real working nationwide infrastructure,which without regulation I don't see us ever having.
What does cable and a pigeon have in common? (Score:3, Interesting)
They both crap all over you.
Granted, he pays roughly 10 times, if you already have cable and phone through your cable company, and if you don't count the taxes and fees that specifically get added for cable internet. 8mbps cable is $46 / month where I live. What people don't realize is that at 1.544mbps, you actually get the full bandwidth and a stable connection. You have 24 64kbit direct links to your ISP. With cable, everyone's data is transmitted over the cable lines, so you share your bandwidth with everyone on your node. If you happen to be on a node with few subscribers on it, you will get the full 8mbps. More than likely, you will get a MUCH slower connection at least during busy times. Also, a T1 is very reliable, and cable internet is NOT. I tried cable internet twice in two different areas and got rid of it both times due to slow speeds and dropped connections. Eventually it was going out almost every day. I would call tech support and be on the line for 45 minutes while he had me unplug MY COMPUTER. Come on, my computer should have NO EFFECT on whether the little green link light on the cable box is on. You know how many times our T1 has gone down at work over the last three years? ZERO.
I think the most misleading portion though is claiming 1/4 the bandwidth. The upload speed on cable is actually a MAXIMUM of 512kbps, that used to be 128kbps and might vary from area to are and depending on how active your node is. If you have people using P2P on your node, forget about it. A T1's upload speed is actually three times as much at 1.44mbps. Also with a T1 you have lower latency than with a cable box. Both of these items are important for a web programming business, this guy should be happy with the increased value of a T1 over cable internet. Combine that with the improved reliability (also very important if you're running a business), and I would get the T1 over the Cable even if it was available.
Re:They don't have hookers on every corner (Score:5, Interesting)
The difference with internet is that only the last mile is a natural monopoly. Many different companies could plug their backbones into the last mile going to your house, and in fact many different companies could share the same backbone lines, and your traffic would not be "mixed" or confused with your neighbor's traffic like it would if many water companies were plugged into an analogous hub. The internet is a very unique utility in this way. In fact, the phone system works the same way, but only recently (since digital telephone transmission), and of course telephone providers still maintain their "natural monopoly" status along the whole length of the line, left over from the analog days.
So the solution in this case is, I think, to separate the last mile providers from the connection providers. Allow the last mile providers to be a natural monopoly, either run by a city/town/village or heavily regulated, just like the rest of the utilities (but separate from the data providers). However, allow free market competition from companies providing Internet service to that last mile hub. This would be even further aided if the last mile providers created a universal standard for providers to plug into, which only requires a software change in order to change providers, instead of a truck changing a physical plug. All data (internet, phone, cable) would come into your home with the same type of cable, whether it comes from a telephone company, a cable company, or some other newcomer. When customers can switch Internet providers easily (as they could when the last mile is owned by the city and software switchable) there will be a real market at work, and all the wonderful pro-consumer effects of supply and demand would suddenly kick in.
It's their choice and we shouldn't . . . (Score:2, Interesting)