The Broadband Task Force set out to rural parts of Minnesota to hear from folks across the state. But it seems in Fergus Falls it was an opportunity for folks to be heard by local media too.
The Fergus Falls Daily Journal posted an editorial yesterday explaining why dialup Internet access is not sufficient – citing “that residents as close as 12 miles from a community as large as Fergus Falls are only able to receive Internet access through a dial-up connection.”
I have to assume they are referring to the couple who spoke at the Task Force meeting last week about their frustration with dialup. The editorial confirms what most readers believe to be true – that dialup stinks. What I think is really interesting is the comments.
People wrote in suggesting satellite and mobile broadband. Others wanted to make sure that government does not get involved with providing broadband. Other just wanted to complain about cost and/or quality of local broadband service.
It kind of gets back to Ben Winchster’s comment yesterday price matters.
The satellite and mobile broadband solutions imply you don’t care about latency. Teleconferencing, VPN, and gaming (ask the kids) all take significant hits here and make them unusable. So while it makes services available, it does not mean they are accessible.
Data speeds on mobile phones are not exactly fast, btw and depend on signal strength. Coverage in the more rural places (my house in Hancock) gets zero bars of data on my phone – thus no data plan for me. And if you want data on your mobile phone, you take a hit in voice reception strength.
btw, a gentle reminder that we wouldn’t have electric service to our rural areas if government didn’t get involved…
Sincerely,
Ben
Ben,
I just had that online chat with a friend on Facebook. He was advocating that satellite and mobile broadband were fine (as in good enough) in rural areas. But I don’t think he had ever used either. I doubt the folks who commented on the Fergus Falls article have either.
I used mobile all summer in Dublin. It’s not the best. It’s OK for email and maybe even a lot of surfing – if as you point out you’re in a good location – but try uploading anything. If you want to contribute – you’ve got to have more.
Satellite as you point out has its own challenge. For example Skype via satellite – forget about it. As new applications are developed the latency will become a greater issue. Again we have to consider if we aren’t disqualifying a whole population because of their net access. http://blandinonbroadband.org/2009/08/14/are-we-disqualifying-an-entire-population-because-of-net-access/
Thx! Ann
One of our staff committed to the 2-year cell phone wireless plan recently. She lives in a map-says-broadband-available-but-not-really township near Marshall. Sometimes it works just fine to get online. Sometimes.
Satellite & mobile wireless are great options when there’s no other option. They’re better options for secondary options. I think of wireless like a motorcycle–it’s transportation, but not a great primary vehicle for a family of 5 during the winter.
john shepard
I love that description! I just told someone today I was jealous of their motorcycle *except* I didn’t see it getting my kids to school on time.
I hate the extended contracts. In Ireland it was easy for me to get a pay-as-you-go mobile broadband connection. In fact that was one of the biggest selling points to me. It worked much better in Dublin than it did in any small town – but that’s what I needed. With a pay-as-you-go I think mobile broadband is a good secondary option.