This has always confused me. Why is wireless never discussed or mentioned by the government when speaking on nation wide coverage. Yes if the option is there I like my hardwired internet connection due to enhanced speed and abilities. However; if I was in a remote area I would much rather have a somewhat lesser (at least in speed up/down and a few other things) connection than no connection at all. Mind you the internet did start for me on a phone line modem anyway, which even wireless internet puts to shame in general. Either way for companies or the government it would be relatively inexpensive to blanket the nation with wireless internet. Much less if used specifically in specialized area where hard wire connections are harder to implement due to terrain or numbers of connections (being to low for fiscal cost's). So it seems rather uneducated in the least to not put this into a wide usage implementation in the US. As it would be cost advantageous and blanket the whole country with ease. Then the areas where wiring schemes are in place, easily attainable, or greatly wanted (and therefore fiscally attractive to providers) they can and will be an active part of the market. However; and in most cases just like cable TV still good for the commercial market as well.
NEWS TIPS |
This site is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. The contents are the views and opinion of the author and/or hisassociates. All products and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All content and graphical elements areCopyright © 1999 - 2014 David Altavilla and HotHardware.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy and Terms