What It's Like To Live in America Without Broadband Internet (vice.com)

Motherboard has an interesting piece which serves as a reminder that even today in every single state, a portion of the population doesn't have access to broadband, and some have no access to the internet at all. From the piece: Wilfong (an anecdote used in the story) is one of the more than 24 million Americans, or about 8 percent of the country, who don't have access to high-speed internet, according to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) -- and that's a conservative estimate. Most of them live in rural and tribal areas, though the problem affects urban communities, too. In every single state, a portion of the population doesn't have access to broadband.

The reasons these communities have been left behind are as diverse as the areas themselves. Rural regions like Wilfong's hometown of Marlinton are not densely populated enough to get telecom companies to invest in building the infrastructure to serve them. Some areas can be labeled as "served" by telecoms even if many homes don't actually have internet access, as in Sharon Township, Michigan, just a short drive from the technology hub of Ann Arbor. Others are just really far away. These places are so geographically remote that laying cable is physically and financially prohibitive, so towns like Orleans, California, have started their own nonprofit internet services instead.

Comments

Know this full well

[Strider-]

I operate the internet connections to two remote communities in Washington State. In the end, I have between 80 and 100 people connected via a 3.3Mbps/900kbps satellite link. Collectively, they push between 20 and 30 GiB a day through the link. The only thing that makes it usable is the extremely aggressive QoS I have on the link, ensuring everyone gets a fair kick at the can.

So why Satellite? In the case of these two communities, it's the only viable option. They are both in extremely rugged terrain, surrounded either by National Park or federal wilderness area. The nearest cellular tower is probably 50 miles and 2 or 3 valleys away, the nearest telephone pole about the same. It would be theoretically possible to lay a submarine fiber cable up the lake, but the lake is 1500' deep making a cable laying effort comperable to a short oceanic cable run. And there's no way the costs would be recouped from under 200 residents.

I once plotted out what it would take to link out via fixed wireless, and it would require two self-powered repeater sites, in areas that easily receive 400" of snow a winter. The added bonus is that one of these repeaters would have to be located on a ridge in the federal wilderness. Making this happen would literally require an act of congress to approve, and given how dysfunctional congress is... Plus the whole system would probably cost about $400k to build, again not something that's going to be recouped from the small number of users.

So, in the end, we pay our satellite fees. Those who want faster service arrange their own links via ViaSat or similar, and we continue on. If SpaceX ever gets StarLink off the ground, that could easily be a good option. However, I'd love to see how their flat Ku-Band antennas will work in areas that get significant snowfall, and have a limited view of the sky due to rugged terrain.

They're hyping the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I've lived in one of these "underserved" rural areas for almost a decade, and have become something of an expert in non-traditional internet options. I've had fixed microwave (Rise Broadband), mobile cellular (Verizon Mifi, Sprint), fixed cellular (Verizon LTE installed), and currently have Viasat satellite. With the exception of Rise Broadband (which was horrible), all of the options worked reasonably well (stable, speeds consistently north of 10Mbps) and would be defined as broadband.

For this article to act like someone in my position has no good options for internet is disingenuous at best. It would be more accurate to say there aren't good, CHEAP options for internet. In most areas you will pay at least $100/ month to get more than 15GB of data per month. This greatly limits the amount of video you can watch online, but allows most other critical functions. I currently pay $120 a month for 150GB cap with Viasat, The speed is good except when there's a thunderstorm in the area, and I'm overall satisfied with the service.

I see articles like this and think it's overstating the problem to cause pressure on lawmakers to throw more money at building infrastructure in these areas. This may seem like a good idea, but the issue is that infrastructure is an ongoing cost. If there's not a population base to support the cost of the infrastructure, then the government will always be on the hook to pay for upgrades and maintenance. I think we'd be better served to help offset the cost of the options that do exist.