Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeslice
I don't agree with this proposal. Most of the people who don't get high-speed now are in rural areas, with low population density. So if they put up new towers or cables to reach them, the cost per person is high.
Those people can always use dial-up. If they don't like how slow it is, tough luck. Move to a bigger city.  |
The only reason they (we) can use dial-up is because the Feds forced the telcos to do THAT (in 1996, IIRC).
Here are some fun facts about one particular area with no broadband service-
Per 2008 figures-
Population density: 94 people per square mile
(U.S. average is 86.2; states like Wyoming and Alaska are in the single digits. Kansas, which appears to have nearly universal coverage, is at 33.9 ppm^2)
Median household income- estimated $61k.
(National average, $50k.)
Median home price- $335,373
(National average- $232,100)
Approximately 20 minute drive to the nearest shopping mall or Wal-Mart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smittie61984
Dead on. Because Native Americans in southwest Alaska and Appalachian Georgia meth makers are the staple of our economy. Without the interwebz they can't operate.
|
There's also a lot of farmland that isn't covered. There's also the fact that high-speed Internet enables telecommuting (my wife works for a company on the other side of the country). There are also a lot of niche businesses that are based in rural areas to save overhead. In particular, I'll mention salvage yards, which are often useful to motorcyclists. Hell, living in a rural area means I can have half a dozen parts bikes stashed in the yard, from which I can then sell parts on eBay. Your over-simplification is a gross display of ignorance.
In summary, y'all can stuff that urban elitist bullshit where the sun don't shine
