3 ms·

Surely that's a function of "rural" rather than "South"? You can get great internet in some parts of the South, and crappy internet if you move to remote parts

by hugh3 15y ago

Surely that's a function of "rural" rather than "South"? You can get great internet in some parts of the South, and crappy internet if you move to remote parts of California. Or so I would assume, having never tried to get internet in the South or in remote parts of California.

DanielBMarkham 15y ago
Yes. I forgot to qualify that. By being along the Southeast U.S. seaboard, we're physically located close to some of the highest-bandwidth backbones in the world. I live about 30 miles from the Mid-Atlantic Broadband fiber backbone, one of the most advanced fiber backbones on the planet. So it's not like we're lost somewhere in the middle of Utah; there's plenty of bandwidth nearby. This is a local political problem -- no doubt we needed a big pipe, but to take all that time and money and build a pipe that doesn't even help those close-by? My opinion is that when these planners thought "economic growth" they thought about bringing in a new factory or large business. Therefore they spent the money in that manner. But the economy is growing in a different manner entirely. As the article mentions, we have an impedance mismatch between the way the old structures and institutions think things are supposed to work and the way they are actually working.
- lotharbot 15y ago
  > "it's not like we're lost somewhere in the middle of Utah" Actually, rural Utah is remarkably well connected. A lot of major backbones run through Salt Lake City, and many communities in the middle of Utah have fiber to the home (via the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency, or UTOPIA). Right now, I live in a town of under 20,000 people and get both download and upload speeds in the 20 megabit range with pretty low latency. As you said in a few posts up, it's a local problem. This community decided broadband was important, so we voted for it and got it. Other communities and governments don't really recognize the importance, so you can be just a few miles from major backbone and yet be stuck with dialup or weak satellite.
betterth 15y ago
Yes, definitely a function of rural. I live in the South, with a few million suburbanites surrounding me just outside a major city, and I pay Comcast about $50/mo for 24Mbps down. Heck, they offer 100Mbps (and possibly more).

by hugh3 15y ago

DanielBMarkham 15y ago

Yes. I forgot to qualify that. By being along the Southeast U.S. seaboard, we're physically located close to some of the highest-bandwidth backbones in the world. I live about 30 miles from the Mid-Atlantic Broadband fiber backbone, one of the most advanced fiber backbones on the planet. So it's not like we're lost somewhere in the middle of Utah; there's plenty of bandwidth nearby. This is a local political problem -- no doubt we needed a big pipe, but to take all that time and money and build a pipe that doesn't even help those close-by? My opinion is that when these planners thought "economic growth" they thought about bringing in a new factory or large business. Therefore they spent the money in that manner. But the economy is growing in a different manner entirely. As the article mentions, we have an impedance mismatch between the way the old structures and institutions think things are supposed to work and the way they are actually working.

lotharbot 15y ago
> "it's not like we're lost somewhere in the middle of Utah" Actually, rural Utah is remarkably well connected. A lot of major backbones run through Salt Lake City, and many communities in the middle of Utah have fiber to the home (via the Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency, or UTOPIA). Right now, I live in a town of under 20,000 people and get both download and upload speeds in the 20 megabit range with pretty low latency. As you said in a few posts up, it's a local problem. This community decided broadband was important, so we voted for it and got it. Other communities and governments don't really recognize the importance, so you can be just a few miles from major backbone and yet be stuck with dialup or weak satellite.

betterth 15y ago

Yes, definitely a function of rural. I live in the South, with a few million suburbanites surrounding me just outside a major city, and I pay Comcast about $50/mo for 24Mbps down. Heck, they offer 100Mbps (and possibly more).