Is broadband a luxury like cable TV, or is it a necessity like water and sewer? In the US, we act as if it is a luxury, and efforts to treat it like a necessity have been thwarted by cable and telephone companies.
Australia is about to do the opposite. The country has announced plans to build a nationwide fiber network over the next few years. The national government will build and own the network, and Internet providers will compete to provide service on it.
The plan sounds like a good way to deal with the issue of "the last mile". When broadband providers own the cable to the house, they are likely to flex their monopoly muscle. But when government owns that cable, they can create a market where tens or hundreds of providers compete. It's a smart way to create a vibrant market for a service that's critical for economic development.
Comments
My 2¢:
Rural highspeed Internet service is the 21st century equivalent of rural electric & telephone service in the 20th century, and rural mail service in the 19th century.
Mr. Massa's hero, FDR, was instrumental in making rural electrification and and telephone service happen.
As for the last mile, WiMax, a wireless network technology with a range of miles, is a possible alternative. Already, there is a commercial Internet Service Provider serving Penn Yan and the Keuka Lake area with WiMax service. Their price is the same or less than Time Warner's, although I do not know the speeds offered or if they have bandwidth caps.
It is interesting to see Time Warner offering their "Turbo", extra highspeed service. It has been my experience that there are very few servers that can deliver data at rates that are constrained by normal Time Warner speeds; this "turbo" service seems like a scam to me.
The main problem I see with AirXcess is that the company requires the customer to buy the receiver, etc. at a cost of $200, which does include "installation". And they retain ownership of the hardware. I don't believe they have any caps. If they do, they're buried somewhere.
Nonetheless, it is an alternative to TWC–the only alternative I know of on the bluff at least.
qka - The whole "turbo" thing is ridiculous for a company that's trying to limit usage to 40G per month. That's a day or two of "turbo" usage. If poor little TWC can't make any money selling their current offering because we awful users actually want to use some of the bandwidth they provide, certainly "turbo" will put them out of business. Why are they even considering it?
groundhum - good to know some rural areas have an alternative.
Since my first post, I have heard from AirXcess that they do not have any caps, or at least at this time.
Also, their upload speed is supposedly 50% their download speed. Compare that to TWC, whose upload speed is 5% of their download speed, in my experience.
The whole receiver thing is a bummer - I just consider it a $200 installation. On the other hand, I started with Adelphia before TWC took them over. They charged $5/month for the cable modem, so I bought my own figuring it would pay for itself, and it did. The thing about one time costs is that they amortize over time to the point where their cost is negligible.
I'm curious how much power the AirXcess setup draws. That's the 24/7/365 cost that most people ignore. I have seen one of their setups, and it is powered by a small transformer, so I'm guessing it's comparable to a cable modem.
The alternative is satellite Internet. My father lives in the Great Smoky Mountains in Tennessee, and he has that through Hughes. If I remember correctly, cost is $60-$70/month; don't know speeds, caps, etc, but all that should be on their website. As I recall, there may be another company in that market. Also, satellite is not good for telephony or high speed games, including XBox, etc. The round trip time to the geosynchronous introduces noticeable delays