6 ms·

I am confused, are you guys suggesting that some cities and towns in Kentucky and other areas within the US lack the same broadband infastructure that I enjoy a

I am confused, are you guys suggesting that some cities and towns in Kentucky and other areas within the US lack the same broadband infastructure that I enjoy access to in small-town Mississippi?

jbawgs 9y ago
I live on the most populous hilltop in Hyden KY. Our only ISP caps at 1mb, and its not terribly reliable. Satellite is of course an option, but the expense is prohibitive if you use a lot of data.
- Muuuchem 9y ago
  Oh wow, maybe since Mississippi is fairly flat, it is just easier to set up decent infrastructure here.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Scoundreller 9y ago
  DSL or wireless?
- jbawgs 9y ago
  DSL is what's available. Wireless is too susceptible to the terrain.
- protomyth 9y ago
  Wow, that just sucks. North Dakota has pretty good rural broadband on the whole. I get the feeling its because we seem to have multiple providers everywhere and the rural electric cooperatives and local telephone companies have stepped up with some serious fiber. Technically, you should have benefited from some of the legislation passed, but after looking at it, it was pretty impossible to access.
halestock 9y ago
It's not the lack of infrastructure, it's the push to ban municipally owned ISPs that's driven by the telecom industries. Several states have already passed laws restricting municipal broadband, and in 2015 the FCC passed rules limiting the ability to expand municipal broadband in the name of competition. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband
gm-conspiracy 9y ago
My small town has DSL with 12Mbps/768kbps (DL/UL) for $45, or a 5Mbps/1Mbps CATV option for $50/mo (plus modem rental - even though the cable provider has FTTH, w/ the ONT having an RJ-45 connector, but requiring customers to use a cable modem). I would love a symmetric 6/6 (would love to host a server).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

I am confused, are you guys suggesting that some cities and towns in Kentucky and other areas within the US lack the same broadband infastructure that I enjoy access to in small-town Mississippi?

jbawgs 9y ago

I live on the most populous hilltop in Hyden KY. Our only ISP caps at 1mb, and its not terribly reliable. Satellite is of course an option, but the expense is prohibitive if you use a lot of data.

Muuuchem 9y ago
Oh wow, maybe since Mississippi is fairly flat, it is just easier to set up decent infrastructure here.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Scoundreller 9y ago
DSL or wireless?
jbawgs 9y ago
DSL is what's available. Wireless is too susceptible to the terrain.
protomyth 9y ago
Wow, that just sucks. North Dakota has pretty good rural broadband on the whole. I get the feeling its because we seem to have multiple providers everywhere and the rural electric cooperatives and local telephone companies have stepped up with some serious fiber. Technically, you should have benefited from some of the legislation passed, but after looking at it, it was pretty impossible to access.

halestock 9y ago

It's not the lack of infrastructure, it's the push to ban municipally owned ISPs that's driven by the telecom industries. Several states have already passed laws restricting municipal broadband, and in 2015 the FCC passed rules limiting the ability to expand municipal broadband in the name of competition. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband

gm-conspiracy 9y ago

My small town has DSL with 12Mbps/768kbps (DL/UL) for $45, or a 5Mbps/1Mbps CATV option for $50/mo (plus modem rental - even though the cable provider has FTTH, w/ the ONT having an RJ-45 connector, but requiring customers to use a cable modem). I would love a symmetric 6/6 (would love to host a server).

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]