If it isn't economically feasible for these operators to build fiber out to serve all these rural customers who would love to have the same high-speed options that city folks enjoy then why did they allocate funds to do this at least twice? (USA, not sure about other countries). It is interesting to note that in each occasion the providers basically took the money and invented excuses for not following through.
That's part of what the hell I'm going on about.
Satellite internet is a game-changer but like I said, the internet in general has become a useful tool for propagandists to promote whatever message they need to disseminate in order to gain or maintain control of public opinion, allowing then to gain power or to remain in power.
I totally agree that people who grow food, though they don't grow much of mine since I have a fully functional garden/orchard, should be able to chat with friends or family and stream videos if that's what floats their boats.
Part of my family lives in a highly rural area where bandwidth was an issue for them in their lives and jobs. They had to use expensive line-of-sight internet services that frequently suffered during weather events making it difficult for them to stay online during a workday. Their cell service out there was dicey and complicated by the fact that they live in a metal sided house that they built themselves so there were lots of times that they had to step outside to get a signal to use their phones. They have upgraded to starlink now I think and they have fewer issues.
Another family member loves online gaming and has twice bought a home in a rural area with very limited internet access options. Each time before they bought I have reminded them to check the availability of internet access for the properties. Each time I got to listen to them gripe that the only option out there was thru Hughes-Net or some other expensive provider with severely limited bandwidth.
I understand the issue about rural broadband access a little more than you gave credit for.
That's part of what the hell I'm going on about.
Satellite internet is a game-changer but like I said, the internet in general has become a useful tool for propagandists to promote whatever message they need to disseminate in order to gain or maintain control of public opinion, allowing then to gain power or to remain in power.
I totally agree that people who grow food, though they don't grow much of mine since I have a fully functional garden/orchard, should be able to chat with friends or family and stream videos if that's what floats their boats.
Part of my family lives in a highly rural area where bandwidth was an issue for them in their lives and jobs. They had to use expensive line-of-sight internet services that frequently suffered during weather events making it difficult for them to stay online during a workday. Their cell service out there was dicey and complicated by the fact that they live in a metal sided house that they built themselves so there were lots of times that they had to step outside to get a signal to use their phones. They have upgraded to starlink now I think and they have fewer issues.
Another family member loves online gaming and has twice bought a home in a rural area with very limited internet access options. Each time before they bought I have reminded them to check the availability of internet access for the properties. Each time I got to listen to them gripe that the only option out there was thru Hughes-Net or some other expensive provider with severely limited bandwidth.
I understand the issue about rural broadband access a little more than you gave credit for.