Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Pledges To Bring Better Broadband To Two Million Rural Americans in the Next Five Years (recode.net)
Microsoft on Tuesday announced a new campaign to try to "eliminate" the gap in high-speed internet access in the country's hardest-to-reach areas -- an effort called the Rural Airband Initiative, which will set an ambitious target of bringing better broadband to two million Americans within the next five years. From a report: The Redmond, Wash.-based software giant plans to start its efforts in 12 states, offering seed money -- Microsoft wouldn't specify the amount -- to local telecom providers that are trying to improve internet access through means like "white spaces," which are the invisible, wireless radio airwaves that aren't already owned by broadcasters. From Microsoft point of view, this approach -- aimed at delivering speedy wireless internet -- is the best way to improve connectivity in parts of the country that broadband providers long have ignored, given the prohibitive costs of building and sustaining networks there. By Microsoft's count, more than 23 million Americans in rural areas currently lack high-speed internet access, despite billions of dollars in federal investment. But the company emphasized that it is not looking to become a telecom provider -- it's only providing capital to local firms -- and does not seek to profit from the endeavor. Through revenue-sharing agreements, Microsoft instead plans to invest any money it raises in additional projects in other states where internet access is lacking.
...will detect what kind of system you're using and block access if it isn't Windows, Windows Phone, or Xbox.
IE only no firefox or chrome for you! NEXT!
Google should approach MS, Apple, Facebook, and Netflix and suggest that they invest into Google Fiber. At that point, rename it to American FIber and then push this all around America. Seriously, if all of these companies simply invested into this and focused on any of the places in which telcos were screwing over others (ok, all of America), then it would solve a LOT.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
how else will they be able to maintain QoS for their forced updates and telemetry?
Nobody really wants to actually deliver. But there are a lot of subsidies to be had for empty promises and no sign of abatement. I mean, why slaughter the goose laying golden eggs?
In Seattle we only get dialup because of Directors rules.
I wish someone would bring better internet to mid-sized cities in the US.
We're still stuck with low quality monopoly cable internet paying 3 or 4 times what you guys in big cities with Google Fiber get after competition drives prices down.
Yeah... I'm sure very-rural America would love to have cable speed connections but a big bang for the buck could be had by removing cable monopolies on broadband internet in the mid sized cities.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Now even quicker reshares of fake news from your racist uncles
Thanks, Microsoft
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
lets give more money to the telcos that were already paid to build out their networks by the taxpayers.
While it's nice to Microsoft embrace the white spaces of Python, I'm not sure how that's supposed to help with rural Internet access.
"...and does not seek to profit from the endeavor."
Of course they do. I don't have a problem with it either. They stand to gain more customers. As long as they don't somehow start forcing the people who get connected to use Windows as part of the deal.
through means like "white spaces," which are the invisible, wireless radio airwaves that aren't already owned by broadcasters.
"invisible" - The only radio airwaves that are visible are referred to as "light waves".
"wireless radio airwaves" - Redundant? Is there such a thing as "wired radio airwaves"?
"aren't already owned by broadcasters" - That is the vast, vast majority of the radio spectrum, "broadcasters" control just a small fraction of the radio spectrum.
This plan is to allocate and dedicate one unused UHF Broadcast TV channel in each market for high-speed data transmission. So this proposed service, which broadcasters object to, would be located in the midst of spectrum controlled by TV broadcasters
Ken
White space would be nice in providing much needed "I'll take my business elsewhere" competition. It could also provide revenue to local stations by siting the white space transmitter there. And last the use of utility fiber for broadband seems to be one dark horse that never amounts to anything even though it's penetration should be bigger than cable or DSL. Also while the devices are in their infancy they could be shrunk down to cell-phone size.
The only options available in many places around Microsoft is 1.5 Mbps from Frontier. How about helping the locals first
We built electric power out to every household in this country. We built the telephone network out to every household in this country. Are you telling me we can't do the same with fiber-optics? When did we become a bunch of lazy defeatists?
The government should be nudging (gently at first, then onto a hard shove) the private sector to deliver high speed internet to rural areas. Not private companies. Private companies will place their own ends above what's best for the public.
Fiber would cost a lot to run.
oh my GOD, how many HOURS of RESEARCH did you need to do to come up with that gem? WOW what an argument
You'll have to sign an agreement that you'll only use Windows 10 to connect to the Internet ...
... or
It'll only be compatible with Windows 10, all other connections will be rejected
That's the sort of thing I expect out of Miscreant-o-soft these days.
Why connect rural White Americans to the internet? Certainly not to give them economic opportunity in today's world of brown domination. An Indian Technology company like Microsoft should know better than to let rural whites read Trump tweets. Get enough white folk riled up and they could get in their trucks and storm the cities and kick out the brown H1Bs.
MS knows how bad access to decent Internet is in many places in the US, rural or otherwise. They also know that any attempt to sell an OS like Windows 10, with its bent toward creating a subscription-based revenue stream relies on the type of Internet access seen in other countries. Otherwise how will you sell a subscription that relies on getting your software, etc. from a central location? However, MS doens't want to get into the ISP/Telco/Fiber/Wireless biz in any direct way, and you can't blame them there. It's not altruism, that's for certain.
This is the phone company's job, not Microsoft's. WTF am I paying a Universal Service Fund then?
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
A computer and operating system should be fully functional with zero internet access.
Just say no to rental software and control of the user.
Stop buying laptops without optical drives. Insist on physical media for your operating system and software.
Through both direct government subsidy and extra fees, the phone companies have been collecting money for years that was supposed to be going to exactly this purpose.
The BIGGEST problem with having "broadband for everyone" is how spread out America is. ALL of Europe, including England, would fit inside the land area of the USA, with room to spare. It's why it cracks me up, when I see misleading statements about how poor the USA is, in broadband speed. Heck, you can take a ferry from England, to Holland, rent a car, and drive across Europe in about a day. If two cars leave the Texas/Oklahoma border at the same time, one traveling north, the other south, the one traveling north will enter Canada, before the one traveling south hits Mexico. And that is just ONE state. I drove from the southwest part of Missouri, near the Missouri/Oklahoma/Kansas border, to Detroit Michigan, and it took TWO days, and I don't drive the speed limit, and, all of my trip was on interstate highways with 70mph speed limits.
The fact is, there's no substitute for good, wired broadband connections. All of these attempts to provide service to unserved areas with wireless technologies are second-rate solutions that still leave rural customers at a disadvantage.
Pretty much anywhere in the U.S., I can set up a satellite broadband connection and have "high speed Internet" -- only it's subject to a lot of terms and conditions. High latency is a big show-stopper with it for many things, like online gaming or VoIP telephony. And then you have the high cost and bandwidth caps that come with it.
In many rural areas I've been in, you have at least one area ISP offering microwave type broadband, where you put one of their receiver antennas on your roof and get service that way. Again, it's better than only DSL as an option, but it's not great. It's costly and slower than speeds people are used to getting with cable modems.
In other places, you can hobble along with an LTE cellular hotspot and whatever limitations come with the cellular subscription you've got with it.
The point is -- none of this stuff is really very good. They're all wireless solutions that inherently have more issues than a piece of cable stuck in the ground or running along a pole to your property.
areas, they'll get information from something besides AM radio and become better informed. They might even stop voting for idiots like Trump.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00OV98F44