Note that those requirements weren't even made until LAST YEAR. I don't know what they were thinking either. I couldn't even FIND a digital receiver in any of the local stores until 2003. Then most of the ones I found were open-boxed, because people bought $350 over-the-air-only receivers thinking they would also do satellite. When I bought mine, I was asked about ten times, including several times by the MANAGER, who came out of the back because of it, if I was 100% absolutely sure I knew it didn't do satellite.
And on top of that, the FCC has said they want to include CABLE homes in that number. I don't see why; cable homes will get the digital signal REGARDLESS of what happens--most of THEM have a fiber connection to the station that brings them the signal. The 80% of people who watch cable probably won't even know until one day that one TV in the house that isn't wired for it stops working.
I had always assumed that the 85% number meant 85% of, you know, those who might actually NOTICE the shutoff. You know, the people who DON'T have cable. But then I remembered this is Washington, DC. If I were logic, I suppose I would avoid Washington like the plague as well.
Yeah, considered it for a short time, but there were some problems with it.
First of all, I know two or three people who have it, and I'm told there as much as 20 seconds of lag on it. I actually think dialup would be QUICKER if that's the case on most web pages, which is most of my browsing.
The other problem is the cost. It's like $700 installation and $60 per month. I know you city dwellers don't know much about the country, but we don't have money trees. If we did, it would make things a whole lot easier.
And did you stop and consider that maybe there's a reason I live here beyond wanting to? I live here because my father is ill and living in the city makes it worse.
You people are acting like nobody's going to benefit from this service. NOBODY in the county outside of the fifteen people each who can see one of the three town water towers can get any kind of broadband in this county. There are MANY people who would use the service. Heck, the people here are willing to pay for the service were it available. But it's not, and government WiFi looks to be the only hope of that for a LONG time.
There are places in the US where broadband is not available.
*A collective gasp sucks the air out of the room*
That's right, those places exist. For example, I live in the big empty spot in Virginia west of Richmond, east of Lynchburg, and Northwest of South Hill. There's no service here. The only hope of service is if the local public school system can get permission to put up a wireless network. (Which they're trying to do)
The big corporations do not think it's profitable to wire the area, which is probably true. Heck, there's STILL no cable here; if you want TV, enjoy satellite or an antenna. It's so bad, Verizon won't even update the phone lines enough for me to dial in to any service provider at a speed higher than 26.4k. You read that right.
And that, my friends, is why government should be allowed to provide internet.
- Trip
Slashdot Mirror
Note that those requirements weren't even made until LAST YEAR. I don't know what they were thinking either. I couldn't even FIND a digital receiver in any of the local stores until 2003. Then most of the ones I found were open-boxed, because people bought $350 over-the-air-only receivers thinking they would also do satellite. When I bought mine, I was asked about ten times, including several times by the MANAGER, who came out of the back because of it, if I was 100% absolutely sure I knew it didn't do satellite.
And on top of that, the FCC has said they want to include CABLE homes in that number. I don't see why; cable homes will get the digital signal REGARDLESS of what happens--most of THEM have a fiber connection to the station that brings them the signal. The 80% of people who watch cable probably won't even know until one day that one TV in the house that isn't wired for it stops working. I had always assumed that the 85% number meant 85% of, you know, those who might actually NOTICE the shutoff. You know, the people who DON'T have cable. But then I remembered this is Washington, DC. If I were logic, I suppose I would avoid Washington like the plague as well.
Yeah, considered it for a short time, but there were some problems with it.
First of all, I know two or three people who have it, and I'm told there as much as 20 seconds of lag on it. I actually think dialup would be QUICKER if that's the case on most web pages, which is most of my browsing.
The other problem is the cost. It's like $700 installation and $60 per month. I know you city dwellers don't know much about the country, but we don't have money trees. If we did, it would make things a whole lot easier.
And did you stop and consider that maybe there's a reason I live here beyond wanting to? I live here because my father is ill and living in the city makes it worse.
You people are acting like nobody's going to benefit from this service. NOBODY in the county outside of the fifteen people each who can see one of the three town water towers can get any kind of broadband in this county. There are MANY people who would use the service. Heck, the people here are willing to pay for the service were it available. But it's not, and government WiFi looks to be the only hope of that for a LONG time.
- Trip
There are places in the US where broadband is not available. *A collective gasp sucks the air out of the room* That's right, those places exist. For example, I live in the big empty spot in Virginia west of Richmond, east of Lynchburg, and Northwest of South Hill. There's no service here. The only hope of service is if the local public school system can get permission to put up a wireless network. (Which they're trying to do) The big corporations do not think it's profitable to wire the area, which is probably true. Heck, there's STILL no cable here; if you want TV, enjoy satellite or an antenna. It's so bad, Verizon won't even update the phone lines enough for me to dial in to any service provider at a speed higher than 26.4k. You read that right. And that, my friends, is why government should be allowed to provide internet. - Trip