Comments on: Taking What You Can Get: Broadband Life in Rural Upstate New York

By: Rachel

Rachel — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 01:15:42 +0000

There are lots of problems with WiMax that I can see. The product promotes using the internet in the car. We already have enough problems with distracted drivers and cell phones. But more important, wireless technology is coming under a lot of scrutiny for causing health problems ranging from insomnia to cancer.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:38:55 +0000

WiMax is a good alternative to have, but it’s no substitute for a wired coax or fiber internet provider. Two biggest problems with WiMax are getting a clear signal to the nearest tower, and the high latency that negatively impacts applications such as voip.

By: George Steeves

George Steeves — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:46:56 +0000

WiMax and LTE technologies have already been implemented in Viet Nam and Rural India. Several areas in the US such as Allegany County, Maryland and a three county area in Western Virginia are already supplying less than $20/month wireless broadband to their residents. The Schoharie County Government is in bed with MidTel and they are the only broadband alternative being considered. Wireless is not even being considered.

By: Phillip Dampier

Phillip Dampier — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:41:52 +0000

If you are getting those kind of speeds, there is probably a line fault somewhere along the line and you should call TW and have your cable line checked. Shared connections are an issue with cable modems, but most cable operators would not permit a connection to drop in speed to that level without doing some node splitting, which would alleviate congestion problems.

Also, DSL speeds are highly dependent on the distance one lives from the central office. Within 5,000 feet speeds can be consistently high and dependable. From 5,000-10,000 feet, fastest speeds are not consistent and problems can erupt. Beyond 10,000 feet speeds can drop dramatically, especially if they were marketed at 7Mbps or above.

In my case, a 10Mbps marketed DSL service from Frontier, in a suburb less than one mile from the city of Rochester, could only sustain a 3.1Mbps connection because I was some 15,000 feet from the central office. Compared with Road Runner, which gives me speeds I paid for, Frontier’s DSL could not come close to competing.

At slower speeds, distance can matter less, which is why so many telephone companies offering DSL in rural areas routinely max out their marketed speed at the 3Mbps level.

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:41:22 +0000

This article had a lot of good and valid points, but I must disagree with the DSL vs. cable modem point.

I am not sure the author realizes most, if not all, cable modem/broadband providers sell the service as “up to xMb” and that the bandwidth is shared amongst your neighbors on your street. So the more people using the service the slower the connection speed. I have TW Cable’s service at my home (upper middle class neighborhood) for $44.95/mo and I average about 1.8Mb to 2.0Mb of download speed.

DSL gives you a dedicated connection to your home and as is the case at MIDTEL, they guarantee the speed you pay for. I would take that any day over an “up to” service. It would be like buying a car and the manufacturer telling you that some days it will go 80mph but other days it will go 20mph, you have no control over it. I’ll take the 60mph every day, every time version please.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:36:06 +0000

Those prices aren’t bad at all.

In Alaska’s capital and major cities you can’t get unlimited cable internet without buying a bundled package from GCI which will run you $100/mo for 3mbit plus basic cable.

Or 1 to 3mbit DSL from the telco which will run you $80-95/mo.

and finally AT&T WiMax of 1-2mbit for $50-$60/mo IF you can get a reliable signal.

Going with a slow 384kbps service from any of those 3 options would only save about $15-20/mo.

Neither the telco nor the cable companies have any vested interest in offering unbundled internet at an affordable prices due to conflicts of interest. Cable is worried about users getting their video ala cart as they want off the internet from the likes of Hulu, YouTube, Netflix Streaming, etc.

Telco has seen losses from landlines and long distance calling, they have need to recoup and profit off forcing broadband consumers into expensive DSL packages that include basic phone and long distance as well.

By: Damian

Damian — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:32:52 +0000

One thing I would comment on is that people in these area typically pay less in property taxes than those in cities. So them paying more for broadband which has to be run long distances for few customer is somewhat okay to me. Its the trade off of rural life. However I do sympathize with the lack of availability, the critical mass argument keep it from my hometown till into the 2000s.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:02:54 +0000

These rural communities need to take the bull by the horns and start doing it themselves. If they need to start installing fiber, on their own, they need to if they want to attract people and businesses to the area in the future. Either install their own network or install a WiFi network with towers located in strategic positions. Those are your two options. The phone company slash cable company isn’t going to do it anytime soon if at all.