On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:27 PM, Tim Jackson <[email protected]> wrote:
> The truth is that to deliver ubiquitous broadband in the US is a > multi-hundred-billion dollar undertaking, that no company or companies > will do because there's no real return on investment. > My belief is that people see near 100% coverage in the US of standard POTS and electric service and assume that it's just cheap and easy to build out internet service. The fact is that rural coverage of those services is paid for by people who live in cities. I used to live on a farm where there were three houses that had 1/4 mile of electric lines and the same of phone lines just for us. Go to Kansas and there are folks who have a few miles of wire all to themselves. The only feasible way to get wired broadband to everybody is something similar. I believe wireless is going to be a better option, though, for a lot of folks. This has become a major issue as we look for a new house and realize that Williamson County is a broadband desert with a few oases from Comcast and AT&T scattered here and there. Michael -- Michael Darrin Chaney, Sr. [email protected] http://www.michaelchaney.com/ -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NLUG" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nlug-talk?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NLUG" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
