<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:go='http://ns.gigaom.com/'
xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Carriers Aim to Keep Rural Broadband Under Their Thumb</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2009/04/17/carriers-aim-to-keep-rural-broadband-under-their-thumb/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/04/17/carriers-aim-to-keep-rural-broadband-under-their-thumb/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:40:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Obama, Mobile Broadband Won&#8217;t Save Us: Broadband News and Analysis &#171;</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/04/17/carriers-aim-to-keep-rural-broadband-under-their-thumb/#comment-581687</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Obama, Mobile Broadband Won&#8217;t Save Us: Broadband News and Analysis &#171;]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:00:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=46198#comment-581687</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] is a poor substitute for the faster wireline broadband; it&#8217;s more expensive, and it&#8217;s not subject to network neutrality rules, which means anyone surfing the web on a wireless connection may end up with a fragmented and [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] is a poor substitute for the faster wireline broadband; it&#8217;s more expensive, and it&#8217;s not subject to network neutrality rules, which means anyone surfing the web on a wireless connection may end up with a fragmented and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Politics Matter: Verizon Picks West Virginia for LTE Launch: Tech News &#171;</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/04/17/carriers-aim-to-keep-rural-broadband-under-their-thumb/#comment-302753</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Politics Matter: Verizon Picks West Virginia for LTE Launch: Tech News &#171;]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:28:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=46198#comment-302753</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Given how fast LTE is (Verizon expects its network to deliver speeds of 5 Mbps to 12 Mbps down) the government is hoping that mobile broadband will expand both broadband availability as well as price competition. Unfortunately for those in power, such hopes are likely to be dashed due to the pricing plans carriers are likely to implement and given the lack of wireless network neutrality provisions. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Given how fast LTE is (Verizon expects its network to deliver speeds of 5 Mbps to 12 Mbps down) the government is hoping that mobile broadband will expand both broadband availability as well as price competition. Unfortunately for those in power, such hopes are likely to be dashed due to the pricing plans carriers are likely to implement and given the lack of wireless network neutrality provisions. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Google&#8217;s Lame Defense of its Net Neutrality Pact</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/04/17/carriers-aim-to-keep-rural-broadband-under-their-thumb/#comment-167754</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Google&#8217;s Lame Defense of its Net Neutrality Pact]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 22:56:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=46198#comment-167754</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;[...] for the selling out on wireless net neutrality, Google notes that discrimination on wireless is less likely because wireless is a more competitive [...]&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] for the selling out on wireless net neutrality, Google notes that discrimination on wireless is less likely because wireless is a more competitive [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Genachowski, Man Up! And Silicon Valley, Wake Up!</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/04/17/carriers-aim-to-keep-rural-broadband-under-their-thumb/#comment-167753</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Genachowski, Man Up! And Silicon Valley, Wake Up!]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:48:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=46198#comment-167753</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;[...] hope that mobile broadband will save folks from a lack of competition becomes moot, because a wireless network that can discriminate against traffic becomes sub-par compared with a wireline network that [...]&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] hope that mobile broadband will save folks from a lack of competition becomes moot, because a wireless network that can discriminate against traffic becomes sub-par compared with a wireline network that [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Genachowski, Man Up! And Silicon Valley, Wake Up!</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/04/17/carriers-aim-to-keep-rural-broadband-under-their-thumb/#comment-167752</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Genachowski, Man Up! And Silicon Valley, Wake Up!]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2010 19:53:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=46198#comment-167752</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;[...] hope that mobile broadband will save folks from a lack of competition becomes moot, because a wireless network that can discriminate against traffic becomes sub par compared with a wireline network that [...]&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] hope that mobile broadband will save folks from a lack of competition becomes moot, because a wireless network that can discriminate against traffic becomes sub par compared with a wireline network that [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Antiverizonist</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/04/17/carriers-aim-to-keep-rural-broadband-under-their-thumb/#comment-167751</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Antiverizonist]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 04:31:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=46198#comment-167751</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;I share your feelings for Verizon, I live in an eare similar to your perhpas a little less rural seeing there is a small handfull of houses nearby. Same cell coverage here, by of course only Verizon. As for the phone service here the phonelines here were last replaced roughly in the 60&#039;s. We have all we can to just to maintian reliable phone service here let alone broadband. The phone lines here are bad enough to where dialup dont even work right most time online spent reconecting.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;What really bites me is another nearby phone company Altell was bought out by Windstream, within 2 years they had replaced all of their copper lines, soon followed by the addition of DSL. That same company serves half the houses near where I live in fact two of them are with 300 yards of where i live, the line it self crosses our property. What I&#039;d give to dissoconect from Verizon to connect to windstream. If a smaller company like Windsreamt can do it what can&#039;t a corprate giant like Verizon do it.&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I share your feelings for Verizon, I live in an eare similar to your perhpas a little less rural seeing there is a small handfull of houses nearby. Same cell coverage here, by of course only Verizon. As for the phone service here the phonelines here were last replaced roughly in the 60&#8242;s. We have all we can to just to maintian reliable phone service here let alone broadband. The phone lines here are bad enough to where dialup dont even work right most time online spent reconecting.</p>
<p>What really bites me is another nearby phone company Altell was bought out by Windstream, within 2 years they had replaced all of their copper lines, soon followed by the addition of DSL. That same company serves half the houses near where I live in fact two of them are with 300 yards of where i live, the line it self crosses our property. What I&#8217;d give to dissoconect from Verizon to connect to windstream. If a smaller company like Windsreamt can do it what can&#8217;t a corprate giant like Verizon do it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Broadband Isn&#8217;t Just the Web &#8212; It&#8217;s Our Future</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/04/17/carriers-aim-to-keep-rural-broadband-under-their-thumb/#comment-167750</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Broadband Isn&#8217;t Just the Web &#8212; It&#8217;s Our Future]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:38:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=46198#comment-167750</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] being dropped in order to meet the capabilities of the lowest common denominator technology. That perpetrates a digital divide whereby folks in wealthy neighborhoods get fiber to the home (private lines!) while those in rural [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] being dropped in order to meet the capabilities of the lowest common denominator technology. That perpetrates a digital divide whereby folks in wealthy neighborhoods get fiber to the home (private lines!) while those in rural [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: What to Expect From the New Net Neutrality Rules</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/04/17/carriers-aim-to-keep-rural-broadband-under-their-thumb/#comment-167749</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[What to Expect From the New Net Neutrality Rules]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:17:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=46198#comment-167749</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] one Internet from a regulatory perspective, not one defined by the methods of access technology (which is important because wireless may turn out to be the optimal choice for delivering universal broadband to rural [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] one Internet from a regulatory perspective, not one defined by the methods of access technology (which is important because wireless may turn out to be the optimal choice for delivering universal broadband to rural [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: How The Broadband Stimulus So Far Fails Innovation</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/04/17/carriers-aim-to-keep-rural-broadband-under-their-thumb/#comment-167748</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[How The Broadband Stimulus So Far Fails Innovation]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:51:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=46198#comment-167748</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] carriers would have to abide by net neutrality provisions if they accept federal grant money, it may not be something to which the larger carriers are ready to [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] carriers would have to abide by net neutrality provisions if they accept federal grant money, it may not be something to which the larger carriers are ready to [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dejah</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/04/17/carriers-aim-to-keep-rural-broadband-under-their-thumb/#comment-167747</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dejah]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:01:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=46198#comment-167747</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Apparently, none of y&#039;all live in rural areas, I mean REALLY rural, like where 3/4 of your neighbors are fields. We have satellite &quot;broadband.&quot; It&#039;s in quote because of what a JOKE it is. Our monthly bandwidth limit is 12G. We REGULARLY run out and have the net slow to an absolute crawl. My daughters want to watch youtube, not constantly, just normally and they cannot. They get in trouble for clogging the pipes because of the limits. My husband and I often run close to the limit just with normal web surfing activities.

And for this, we pay 4x what people in the nearest town (about 10 mi) and 10x what people in the nearest major metro area (less than 30 mi). We pay $100/mo for severely limited slower then DSL unreliable as f*ck service that goes out every time it rains and produces a massive number of transport errors every other time. In the city, they pay $40/mo for 5Mbps. In town, they pay the same for 3Mbps.

I love living in the country, but GOD, I miss real broadband. And I don&#039;t mean just for YouTube. You see, in early 2008, I lost a five-figure contract because the latency times on satellite &quot;broadband&quot; caused the Internet application I was supposed to document not to run at all. It cost me about $25K in business and alienated a major client.

THIS is what the result of &quot;letting the market decide,&quot; folks. Because out here in the sticks, it&#039;s NOT profitable to put in real broadband. Just like it wasn&#039;t profitable to put in phones or electrical service. Yet somehow, we have those things. You see, back in the 30&#039;s it was deemed an economic imperative for rural people to have phone and electricity. And broadband is the 21st century version of that imperative. My kids can&#039;t even do school projects sometimes because of the unreliable internet.

And don&#039;t get me started on cell coverage. I get ONE bar outside my house. Often as not, I get NO bars in the house. And we have ONE carrier with any service at all: Verizon. And they are expensive and SUCK.

Save me from the free market. There is an economic imperative to seeing that rural areas--many more rural than mine--get REAL, unlimited broadband. Otherwise, we really WILL end up being a nation of haves and have-nots.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Apparently, none of y&#8217;all live in rural areas, I mean REALLY rural, like where 3/4 of your neighbors are fields. We have satellite &#8220;broadband.&#8221; It&#8217;s in quote because of what a JOKE it is. Our monthly bandwidth limit is 12G. We REGULARLY run out and have the net slow to an absolute crawl. My daughters want to watch youtube, not constantly, just normally and they cannot. They get in trouble for clogging the pipes because of the limits. My husband and I often run close to the limit just with normal web surfing activities.</p>
<p>And for this, we pay 4x what people in the nearest town (about 10 mi) and 10x what people in the nearest major metro area (less than 30 mi). We pay $100/mo for severely limited slower then DSL unreliable as f*ck service that goes out every time it rains and produces a massive number of transport errors every other time. In the city, they pay $40/mo for 5Mbps. In town, they pay the same for 3Mbps.</p>
<p>I love living in the country, but GOD, I miss real broadband. And I don&#8217;t mean just for YouTube. You see, in early 2008, I lost a five-figure contract because the latency times on satellite &#8220;broadband&#8221; caused the Internet application I was supposed to document not to run at all. It cost me about $25K in business and alienated a major client.</p>
<p>THIS is what the result of &#8220;letting the market decide,&#8221; folks. Because out here in the sticks, it&#8217;s NOT profitable to put in real broadband. Just like it wasn&#8217;t profitable to put in phones or electrical service. Yet somehow, we have those things. You see, back in the 30&#8242;s it was deemed an economic imperative for rural people to have phone and electricity. And broadband is the 21st century version of that imperative. My kids can&#8217;t even do school projects sometimes because of the unreliable internet.</p>
<p>And don&#8217;t get me started on cell coverage. I get ONE bar outside my house. Often as not, I get NO bars in the house. And we have ONE carrier with any service at all: Verizon. And they are expensive and SUCK.</p>
<p>Save me from the free market. There is an economic imperative to seeing that rural areas&#8211;many more rural than mine&#8211;get REAL, unlimited broadband. Otherwise, we really WILL end up being a nation of haves and have-nots.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sen. Kerry Wants Wants His iPhone Unlocked</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/04/17/carriers-aim-to-keep-rural-broadband-under-their-thumb/#comment-167746</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sen. Kerry Wants Wants His iPhone Unlocked]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:02:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=46198#comment-167746</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] their ability to think clearly about wireless broadband. That&#8217;s unfortuante, because it could be the method of access for rural Americans in the years to [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] their ability to think clearly about wireless broadband. That&#8217;s unfortuante, because it could be the method of access for rural Americans in the years to [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: New Circular Logic Doesn&#8217;t Justify Wireless Net Neutrality &#171;</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/04/17/carriers-aim-to-keep-rural-broadband-under-their-thumb/#comment-167745</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[New Circular Logic Doesn&#8217;t Justify Wireless Net Neutrality &#171;]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 14:54:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=46198#comment-167745</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] post by Stacey Higginbotham of Gigaom effectively connects Free Press&#8217; latest demand that the FCC [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] post by Stacey Higginbotham of Gigaom effectively connects Free Press&#8217; latest demand that the FCC [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Javier</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/04/17/carriers-aim-to-keep-rural-broadband-under-their-thumb/#comment-167744</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Javier]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 08:16:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=46198#comment-167744</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes Brett, we know that that you have a financial stake in controlling internet communications. However in regards to Net neutrality and your postal service analogy, the post office does not discriminate between packages. I would also like to note that it is the responsibility of the ISPs to adjust to our needs (more bandwidth) we should not have to adjust to theirs, WE PAY THE MONEY!  I will say that again. WE PAY THE MONEY! If they can&#039;t handle providing the services required of them, they should get out of the game and let less greedy people do the job. Bandwidth caps are about controlling online content. ISP&#039;s should not even  be allowed to even offer media content and internet access when it is a clear conflict of interest. Being a Internet Service Provider is a privilege, not a God given right.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes Brett, we know that that you have a financial stake in controlling internet communications. However in regards to Net neutrality and your postal service analogy, the post office does not discriminate between packages. I would also like to note that it is the responsibility of the ISPs to adjust to our needs (more bandwidth) we should not have to adjust to theirs, WE PAY THE MONEY!  I will say that again. WE PAY THE MONEY! If they can&#8217;t handle providing the services required of them, they should get out of the game and let less greedy people do the job. Bandwidth caps are about controlling online content. ISP&#8217;s should not even  be allowed to even offer media content and internet access when it is a clear conflict of interest. Being a Internet Service Provider is a privilege, not a God given right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Free Press Asks Congress for Metered Broadband Inquiry</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/04/17/carriers-aim-to-keep-rural-broadband-under-their-thumb/#comment-167743</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Free Press Asks Congress for Metered Broadband Inquiry]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 04:01:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=46198#comment-167743</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] their service as an alternative to wired broadband in the National Broadband Plan without having to play by the same rules as wired broadband providers.    [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] their service as an alternative to wired broadband in the National Broadband Plan without having to play by the same rules as wired broadband providers.    [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Glass</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/04/17/carriers-aim-to-keep-rural-broadband-under-their-thumb/#comment-167742</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brett Glass]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:03:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=46198#comment-167742</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sorry to puncture your fantasies, Vahid, but bandwidth is far from infinite and costs quite a bit of money. As an ISP,  I have plenty of big bills to prove that. And if I don&#039;t buy enough to cover peak usage, users complain and quit.

You also obviously don&#039;t understand that when an ISP sells a connection to a residential user, it isn&#039;t selling that user a connection that can be 100% saturated without a surcharge. If it were, a 1.5 Mbps connection would cost $300 to $600 per month -- the price of a dedicated T1 line.

There&#039;s no &quot;bandwidth fairy,&quot; Vahid. I don&#039;t get it for free, and I can&#039;t give it away for nothing.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry to puncture your fantasies, Vahid, but bandwidth is far from infinite and costs quite a bit of money. As an ISP,  I have plenty of big bills to prove that. And if I don&#8217;t buy enough to cover peak usage, users complain and quit.</p>
<p>You also obviously don&#8217;t understand that when an ISP sells a connection to a residential user, it isn&#8217;t selling that user a connection that can be 100% saturated without a surcharge. If it were, a 1.5 Mbps connection would cost $300 to $600 per month &#8212; the price of a dedicated T1 line.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s no &#8220;bandwidth fairy,&#8221; Vahid. I don&#8217;t get it for free, and I can&#8217;t give it away for nothing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brett Glass</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/04/17/carriers-aim-to-keep-rural-broadband-under-their-thumb/#comment-167741</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brett Glass]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:47:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=46198#comment-167741</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why not try a wireless ISP (WISP)? See http://bennett.com/blog/2009/02/thought-you-had-no-alternatives-for-broadband/]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why not try a wireless ISP (WISP)? See <a href="http://bennett.com/blog/2009/02/thought-you-had-no-alternatives-for-broadband/" rel="nofollow">http://bennett.com/blog/2009/02/thought-you-had-no-alternatives-for-broadband/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

