Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Leo in Woodinville on December 9, 2011:

One of the commonly overlooked differences when comparing the US to Europe is the sheer distance involved in trying to reach everyone here. For example The Netherlands is 16,039 square miles (thanks Wikipedia!), while my home state of Washington is over 4 times larger at 71,300. The distances involved and the population density makes a tremendous amount of difference, just as it does in the within-the-US city-versus-country comparison.

I'm not justifying having dark fiber sitting a block away -- that's horrible. But the comparisons to most countries in Europe (or the other common examples like South Korea) is one of apples to oranges.

Posted by Gene, Everett, WA on December 9, 2011:

Now, we just need the appropriate cartoon mascot a la Willie Wiredhand.

Posted by Kelson in Los Angeles on December 9, 2011:

I used to work at a local ISP. We provided dial-up service for Orange County, then later started reselling another company's DSL service.

I remember nervously watching the waves of consolidation and upheaval in the DSL industry early last decade. I also remember the established telcos (SBC and the like) insisting that the reason they couldn't provide broadband to rural areas was that the government required them to lease access to the newer telcos, and therefore they had no incentive to build out the infrastructure if they were going to have to share it with their competitors.

The FCC removed those requirements in 2004, ushering in a golden age of rural broadband...or not.

Posted by kris, alabama on December 9, 2011:

Power lines can deliver Internet services. It's a technology called BPL -- Broadband over Power Lines. A neat concept that really fails to live up to the hype. Check out the offerings of one provider, IBEC in Huntsville: they offer, for example, 256 megabits for $50/month.

Cellular companies have them beat for both speed and rollout -- we've been waiting for IBEC BPL for years, and while we were waiting, Verizon and AT&T both have gotten 4G networks in place. We're still waiting for IBEC.

---

When they are rolling out new power lines (or phone lines or water pipes), they can string fiber optics at the same time for very little cost (which, I know, isn't the same as BPL). But as you've also found, just because they "can" doesn't mean they actually go online. -rc

Posted by Jason, Annville, PA on December 9, 2011:

Don't you think wireless is more likely to reach the rural and ultra-rural faster and more cost effectively? It also doesn't require government money (as much).

---

I haven't seen any wireless technologies that can send gigabit-speed signals over a long distance, but with luck it's coming. -rc

Posted by Jennifer Duncan, BC Canada on December 9, 2011:

Here in British Columbia there is a 10-year plan for rural connectivity. "Currently, 93 per cent of British Columbians have access to broadband Internet and the goal is to expand high-speed connectivity to 100 per cent of British Columbians across the province in the next 10 years."

Posted by Joseph, Wisconsin on December 9, 2011:

I understand your frustration. I live in a rural area and got frustrated with dial-up, switched to satellite, and now use cellular. I don't even run a business off or around it but I do shop, so I pay for the speed. I still have problems with using government force to accomplish your goals though. Part of the problem is government regulations. Government sanctioned monopolies in power and telephone distribution make it impossible for competitors to offer a better deal and environmental laws protect us from new start-ups because they are too expensive and the licensing and permitting also adds to that. If I were to point fingers at the problem with infrastructure I would look to history and the belief the government is the answer. Everyone said if there was going to be cross continental railroad, government had to pay for it. But J.J. Hill did it...maybe we need to start over with how we build infrastructure.

---

I wasn't proposing a method of getting to ubiquitous broadband, but rather noting that government intervention has been successful with power and telephones. Governments build our roads and bridges to make the highway system work for us all, but that's not called socialism. Why? -rc

Posted by Wayne, California on December 9, 2011:

I know what you are talking about. I spend 6 months in Arkansas. Had Dial up to start so slow my computer was like a Commodore 64 it was so slow. Then got satillite and was instantly unhappy with it. Got locked into a contract that makes me pay even when I'm not there. In rural Arkansas there are no options. Phone service for internet is just as bad. They had cable TV but it stopped about 1000ft from my house. They said it would cost too much for me to have it. Since then they have removed the cable because the electric coop wanted too much money for the pole attachments. I would say rural Arkansas has NO CHANCE of ever getting broadband internet service.

Posted by Roger / Wisconsin on December 9, 2011:

As a practical matter, the Internet is slowly but surely replacing the Post Office. The problems this creates are illuminated by this week's news about many small sorting centers closing, making First Class Snail Mail even snailier than ever, largely for rural and small town residents. IMHO, this development makes extending broadband to the rural areas all the more urgent.

By my reading, the post office plays a particularly interesting cameo role in the U.S. Constitution. You can't really say that the Constitution "mandates" the Postal Service. There is no direct mandate to be found. But it's my impression that the Postal service is even more deeply entrenched in the Constitution than a mandate. It is *presumed*. It's so much a part of the colonial and post colonial culture that the government will provide postal service, that they don't even bother with the mandate. They simply talk about the Federal Government's power to build post roads (the only government road-building justification the Constitution mentions) as if, "of course their will be a Federally operated Postal Service." All of the few Constitutional mentions of the postal service have this presumptive air about them.

So why shouldn't we now presume that the Federal Government will provide us with a modern-day communications infrastructure that will serve the entire citizenry -- just as with the original US Postal Service? Moreover, why shouldn't we presume it will be run in a non-profit manner, by the government? With the operating burden being shared by all citizens? On a type-of-use basis, rather than on the basis of their distance from a large-city phone office?

The US Postal Service, deeply rooted in the US Constitution, is the correct model. And the work is 20 years overdue.

---

Yes, the USPS is suffering, but they're a lot better at hauling packages of goods than the Internet! -rc

Posted by Joseph, Wisconsin on December 9, 2011:

"Governments build our roads and bridges to make the highway system work for us all, but that's not called socialism. Why? -rc"

Not call socialism by most people. I would have to find it, but I recently read an article that most of England's roads were originally built by private concerns, and funded by toll. That article suggested it was efficient and inexpensive. I didn't research it further, but again, maybe we need to rethink how we build our infrastructure.