I personally have been asking why they don't do this for a while. Ever since the internet connectivity nationwide in the US cam into political question. I imagine unless it is at least done in 4G it won't be as fast as a DSL connection, but it will still be there nationwide. It just seems to me to be the best option for the money and universal US connections.
I thought Intel was working to bring WiMax out and this was to solve this problem for people in urban areas as WiMax has a much broader range.
Opposition from broadband companies will stifle this effort and make it nil.
Uncle Sugar just doesn't have the power to go against 'Big Business' anymore. We all know that they own too many politicians in this day and age. Government is a hobbled joke.
Dogs are great judges of character, and if your dog doesn't like somebody being around, you shouldn't trust them.
Till the gov does something to make it an incentive to put broadband access available in rural areas, that 35% is going to stay that way. Where i live Verizon owns the phone lines, meaning no one but them can give local phone service. Since there is no cable out here period, DSL is the only way to get broadband speed from the phone company. So instead of spending money to get dsl out here, they can do nothing, charge 25 bucks for a basic phone line, and 15 bucks for dialup. Since most people that do lots of internet usage and still want to receive phone calls since cell phone service is hit or miss by miles out here, they get a second line. So at the very least, Verizon can rake in $50 for 60+ year old phone lines that have long since been paid for, rather than pony up the cost to bring dsl out and then wait to get a return on their investment.
The gov has had grants in place that any company can use to get money to fund rural broadband initiatives, but since Verizon owns the phone lines, a company doing this would have to have an agreement to use Verizon's lines to carry a broadband signal. Rest assured Verizon doesnt want competition and will make the price so high that service will not be any cheaper than satellite internet which basically screws the consumers.
Businesses first and foremost will do whatever it takes to make a profit. What they do after that is their choice since it is their money. If they dont wish to expand into a rural area for broadband, they dont have to since it will effect their bottom line quite a bit. Till a new tech comes out that kicks the crap out of dsl and cable, is cheaper, and can reach anyone, or some gov mandates that something gets done, nothing will change.
A+ Certified PC Repair Technician Associates Degree in Computer ScienceBachelors Degree in Computer Information Systems
DFI Lanparty UT NF3 250GB Dead.......Replacement Abit KV-85Learn more about Comp TIA A+ Certification.
it will never happen, and if it does i bet it will be much like the radio as above. sure its free, but you have to sit through 15min of commercials ever hr or so. So to will the the free internet. you can use it for 45 min then it will give you 15 min of add to sift through or watch... nothing is free.
"Never trust a computer you can't throw out a window."
Z77 GIGABYTE G1.SNIPER
G.Skill Ripjaws X 16gb PC2133
Asus Blu-ray burner
Seasonic X650 PSU
Patriot Pyro 128gb SSD
Do you guys think that the FCC is pushing this so they can just have control over the internet? It's really the only reason that I could think of them doing this.
Wait. Seriously, wait a moment. Over the past 150 years both the individual states and the federal government have supported, regulated, and sometimes funded the construction of a number of mass transit / mass communication platforms including:
And now, possibly, the Internet. (I'm unsure to what degree the federal and state governments have supported cellular buildouts).
Does the government "control" the phone lines, the TV stations, or the highway system?
Maybe I'm using the word "control" too loosely. I made the connection of how the FCC control what goes on the TV. I figured, that if they provide this wireless internet access to those who currently don't have it, that the FCC will also want to regulate what websites they can visit and the content that they can view.
It probably doesn't matter though, especially if we consider what Drago said in his post.
Well the government has already given a LOT of money to build out internet access. I honestly wouldn't mind them being in control if it actually got rolled out.
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