Just ran across this clip, which caused me for the (approximately) 80 millionth time to wonder just what the hell is wrong with the electorate who keeps returning this guy to the Senate:
I would enjoy watching the Youtubes you post, I'm sure. But I am a rural Jamulian. I am on (shudder) dial up. You tempted us a while ago when you attended a wedding and made a comment about a discussion regarding upcoming high speed internet connections for rural areas. Please expand on that. My neighbors that have tried satellite say that due to the hills and the trees it really is no better. Is there hope?
First on the question of satellite Internet access: I've been using various satellite providers for about eight years now, and I have to say that I am very pleased with it in general. My current ISP is Wildblue; I pay $79/month for their top plan (they have lower bandwidth plans for as little as $49/month). It's not perfect, it's slower than cable or DSL -- but it beats the flaming pants off of dial-up!
As far as better rural broadband: there are several terrestrial (as opposed to satellite) technologies already jostling for position in the rural market. The one that interests me the most currently is long-range WiFi. Much of San Diego Count is already covered by firms such as WindRiver, and the prices of multi-megabit connections is coming down fast (competition is a lovely thing!). If I was willing to pay a few hundred dollars per month, I could get one of them right now, though only by putting an antenna on my (higher) neighbors property. In the technology pipeline are even better WiFi technologies, and some novel ways of getting to people in the hills and canyons (high-altitude balloons and solar-powered aircraft, for example). I suspect the most likely outcome is that our hills will one day bristle with solar powered WiFi repeaters, much like the proliferation of cell phone antennas. When that happens, we can all jump on the broadband wagon...
I would enjoy watching the Youtubes you post, I'm sure. But I am a rural Jamulian. I am on (shudder) dial up. You tempted us a while ago when you attended a wedding and made a comment about a discussion regarding upcoming high speed internet connections for rural areas. Please expand on that. My neighbors that have tried satellite say that due to the hills and the trees it really is no better. Is there hope?
ReplyDeleteFirst on the question of satellite Internet access: I've been using various satellite providers for about eight years now, and I have to say that I am very pleased with it in general. My current ISP is Wildblue; I pay $79/month for their top plan (they have lower bandwidth plans for as little as $49/month). It's not perfect, it's slower than cable or DSL -- but it beats the flaming pants off of dial-up!
ReplyDeleteAs far as better rural broadband: there are several terrestrial (as opposed to satellite) technologies already jostling for position in the rural market. The one that interests me the most currently is long-range WiFi. Much of San Diego Count is already covered by firms such as WindRiver, and the prices of multi-megabit connections is coming down fast (competition is a lovely thing!). If I was willing to pay a few hundred dollars per month, I could get one of them right now, though only by putting an antenna on my (higher) neighbors property. In the technology pipeline are even better WiFi technologies, and some novel ways of getting to people in the hills and canyons (high-altitude balloons and solar-powered aircraft, for example). I suspect the most likely outcome is that our hills will one day bristle with solar powered WiFi repeaters, much like the proliferation of cell phone antennas. When that happens, we can all jump on the broadband wagon...