4 ms·

These days buying a house without internet is like buying one that has no running water or not functioning electricity. How can an area in the US not have any s

These days buying a house without internet is like buying one that has no running water or not functioning electricity. How can an area in the US not have any sort of internet coverage? When does the FCC step in and provide this basic utility to the tax payer?

mbreese 11y ago
There are plenty of parts of the US that doesn't have any sort of wired internet access. It's a big country with lots of people living in rural areas. The best my dad can get is a satellite connection that is metered. He can get a phone line, electricity, and water - but not internet. 10GB per month doesn't go very far...
rosser 11y ago
More than a quarter of the US states — most of them very large — have population densities below 50 people per square mile. Even providing wireless internet to all those people is a staggeringly expensive undertaking. I'm not saying people shouldn't have internet access. They absolutely should. But it's not something you can just should into existence, either.
- revelation 11y ago
  I wonder how they did that with telephone service back then. Must have been the superior technology and productivity.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    I like how you put it into perspective nicely. :)
- amazon_not 11y ago
  I call BS. Finland has less than 48 people per square mile and universal cell and broadband service. By law the locally dominant service provider has to deliver a minimim of 1 Mbps to all inhabitants. In practise the delivered speed is a lot more and the minimim will be raisdd to 10 Mbps shortly. 3G is almost 100% and 4G covers most areas. The population density excuse is just that, an excuse not to do cell and broadband service properly. As such broadband definitrly falls into the should category.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Rhetoric aside, I'm not sure the broadband situation in Finland is actually any different: http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim2/2014/01/11/OECD-fixed-broadband-type-by-country.png http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim2/2014/01/11/OECD-fixed-bro.... The U.S. has a larger percentage of people on fiber, and Finland has a much larger proportion of people on fixed wireless. The U.S. has way more people on cable, while Finland has way more people on DSL. 94% of the U.S. has access to at least 4 mbps broadband. 59% has access to at least 100 mbps, versus 50% for Finland. According to Akamai, average connection speeds are about the same for the two countries: https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/report/akamai-state-of-the-internet-infographic-q3-2014.pdf https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/report/aka....
    - amazon_not 11y ago
      I have no idea where you got the idea that people in Finland use fixed wireless. The OECD graph is few years old anyway. Here are the most recent statistics from three months ago: https://www.viestintavirasto.fi/en/aboutthesector/statistics/internetandtelephone/fixed-linebroadbandsubscriptionsbyconnectiontechnology.html https://www.viestintavirasto.fi/en/aboutthesector/statistics... The access methods by popularity are: xDSL, cable, Ethernet, FTTH and others, which might include some obscure fixed wireless operators using Wimax in the 3.5 Ghz band.
      - amazon_not 11y ago
        Furthermore, I'd say that the broadband situation in Finland is substantially different from the US, despite the very low popularion density of Finland. In Finland everybody that wants broadband can get broadband. In fact everybody that wants it has it. 92% of Finns have an Internet connection, either fixed only (22%), mobile broadband only (i.e. 3G or 4G at 28%) or a combination of both (42%). Source: https://www.viestintavirasto.fi/en/aboutthesector/statistics/internetandtelephone/take-upofbroadbandconnections.html https://www.viestintavirasto.fi/en/aboutthesector/statistics... Fast broadband (100 Mbps or faster) is actively promoted and developed by the government. All permanent recidences shall be within a mile of an Internet backbone access point where service is available at 100 Mbps or more. This means local residents, co-ops or ISPs will easily be able to hook up anybody at 100 Mbps or more. Since a mile is the maximum distance average loop lenghts will be much shorter. Source: http://www.lvm.fi/pressreleases/4425644/broadband-for-all-2015-project-gathers-steam http://www.lvm.fi/pressreleases/4425644/broadband-for-all-20... Funds are actually made available to provide broadband access to not-spots. The last 5% of a population is always hard to reach with fixed broadband, but subsidies are provided to hook up areas which aren't commercially viable otherwise. Source: same as above. 3G/4G mobile broadband is cheap, unlimited and uncapped with three facilities based operators and a handfull of MVNOs on top of that. 4G is actually faster and cheaper than a xDSL connection. Mobile broadband is thus actually a viable fixed broadband substitute. 20% have a fixed broadband connection of 100 Mbps or more. Not as in has access to, but as actual delivered connections. 46% have 10 Mbps or more and 7% 30 Mbps or more. Source: https://www.viestintavirasto.fi/en/aboutthesector/statistics/internetandtelephone/fixed-linebroadbandsubscriptionsbyconnectionspeed.html https://www.viestintavirasto.fi/en/aboutthesector/statistics... It is left as an excercise for the reader to figure out why Finland does better at broadband than the US despite a low population density. Further required reading: Regulatory capture in telecommunications
- grecy 11y ago
  I worked for the telco that has the largest operating area of any in the world (far Northern Canada).. with unbelievably low population densities, and it was mandated we provide a minimum of 5Mbps to all people living there, and 4G.. we were slapping up 4G towers in isolated, fly-in only "communities" with 50 people.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
wiredfool 11y ago
IIRC, when he was buying the house, the Cable Company said that they could install internet, but when it came down to actually doing the install they decided that they weren't going to do it.

mbreese 11y ago

There are plenty of parts of the US that doesn't have any sort of wired internet access. It's a big country with lots of people living in rural areas. The best my dad can get is a satellite connection that is metered. He can get a phone line, electricity, and water - but not internet. 10GB per month doesn't go very far...

rosser 11y ago

More than a quarter of the US states — most of them very large — have population densities below 50 people per square mile. Even providing wireless internet to all those people is a staggeringly expensive undertaking. I'm not saying people shouldn't have internet access. They absolutely should. But it's not something you can just should into existence, either.

revelation 11y ago
I wonder how they did that with telephone service back then. Must have been the superior technology and productivity.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  I like how you put it into perspective nicely. :)
amazon_not 11y ago
I call BS. Finland has less than 48 people per square mile and universal cell and broadband service. By law the locally dominant service provider has to deliver a minimim of 1 Mbps to all inhabitants. In practise the delivered speed is a lot more and the minimim will be raisdd to 10 Mbps shortly. 3G is almost 100% and 4G covers most areas. The population density excuse is just that, an excuse not to do cell and broadband service properly. As such broadband definitrly falls into the should category.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Rhetoric aside, I'm not sure the broadband situation in Finland is actually any different: http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim2/2014/01/11/OECD-fixed-broadband-type-by-country.png http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim2/2014/01/11/OECD-fixed-bro.... The U.S. has a larger percentage of people on fiber, and Finland has a much larger proportion of people on fixed wireless. The U.S. has way more people on cable, while Finland has way more people on DSL. 94% of the U.S. has access to at least 4 mbps broadband. 59% has access to at least 100 mbps, versus 50% for Finland. According to Akamai, average connection speeds are about the same for the two countries: https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/report/akamai-state-of-the-internet-infographic-q3-2014.pdf https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/report/aka....
  - amazon_not 11y ago
    I have no idea where you got the idea that people in Finland use fixed wireless. The OECD graph is few years old anyway. Here are the most recent statistics from three months ago: https://www.viestintavirasto.fi/en/aboutthesector/statistics/internetandtelephone/fixed-linebroadbandsubscriptionsbyconnectiontechnology.html https://www.viestintavirasto.fi/en/aboutthesector/statistics... The access methods by popularity are: xDSL, cable, Ethernet, FTTH and others, which might include some obscure fixed wireless operators using Wimax in the 3.5 Ghz band.
    - amazon_not 11y ago
      Furthermore, I'd say that the broadband situation in Finland is substantially different from the US, despite the very low popularion density of Finland. In Finland everybody that wants broadband can get broadband. In fact everybody that wants it has it. 92% of Finns have an Internet connection, either fixed only (22%), mobile broadband only (i.e. 3G or 4G at 28%) or a combination of both (42%). Source: https://www.viestintavirasto.fi/en/aboutthesector/statistics/internetandtelephone/take-upofbroadbandconnections.html https://www.viestintavirasto.fi/en/aboutthesector/statistics... Fast broadband (100 Mbps or faster) is actively promoted and developed by the government. All permanent recidences shall be within a mile of an Internet backbone access point where service is available at 100 Mbps or more. This means local residents, co-ops or ISPs will easily be able to hook up anybody at 100 Mbps or more. Since a mile is the maximum distance average loop lenghts will be much shorter. Source: http://www.lvm.fi/pressreleases/4425644/broadband-for-all-2015-project-gathers-steam http://www.lvm.fi/pressreleases/4425644/broadband-for-all-20... Funds are actually made available to provide broadband access to not-spots. The last 5% of a population is always hard to reach with fixed broadband, but subsidies are provided to hook up areas which aren't commercially viable otherwise. Source: same as above. 3G/4G mobile broadband is cheap, unlimited and uncapped with three facilities based operators and a handfull of MVNOs on top of that. 4G is actually faster and cheaper than a xDSL connection. Mobile broadband is thus actually a viable fixed broadband substitute. 20% have a fixed broadband connection of 100 Mbps or more. Not as in has access to, but as actual delivered connections. 46% have 10 Mbps or more and 7% 30 Mbps or more. Source: https://www.viestintavirasto.fi/en/aboutthesector/statistics/internetandtelephone/fixed-linebroadbandsubscriptionsbyconnectionspeed.html https://www.viestintavirasto.fi/en/aboutthesector/statistics... It is left as an excercise for the reader to figure out why Finland does better at broadband than the US despite a low population density. Further required reading: Regulatory capture in telecommunications
grecy 11y ago
I worked for the telco that has the largest operating area of any in the world (far Northern Canada).. with unbelievably low population densities, and it was mandated we provide a minimum of 5Mbps to all people living there, and 4G.. we were slapping up 4G towers in isolated, fly-in only "communities" with 50 people.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

wiredfool 11y ago

IIRC, when he was buying the house, the Cable Company said that they could install internet, but when it came down to actually doing the install they decided that they weren't going to do it.