tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post8709793134877792584..comments2024-02-02T05:45:33.724-06:00Comments on Incoming: John Phippshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03245790061133614986noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-16858425595756130182008-01-08T15:52:00.000-06:002008-01-08T15:52:00.000-06:00Thanks for including your current satellite intern...Thanks for including your current satellite internet provider. As I understand Hughes owns the satellite, and thus all users end up paying them at some point. I chose to go with another company that "rents" bandwidth from Hughes. The cost is essentially the same as what you quoted, but speed is an issue. The plan calls for 700Mbps and the fine print says that it may slow, but should always be between 60-100%. This slows to where it is actually slower than dial-up at various times of the day (10 a.m.-8 p.m.). I'm located in the Pacific Northwest and this may have something to do with the satellite I am aimed at. The provider has been slow-w-w-w to attempt to rectify the problem, but I will keep after them.<BR/><BR/>I now consider high speed internet as a necessary luxury for our family. What with digital photos, kids needing to do research for school online, and today's commodity prices. In January of 2006, I sold my 2005 wheat crop (SWW) for $3.50/bu (basis Portland, OR). Today, I can sell for $13.30 and if I want to pay a little extra storage, the offer is $13.65 for May. Garnering information from USFR and other sources (most of which come to me everyday via the Internet) has convinced me to hold on as long as possible. <BR/><BR/>It is certainly easier to come up with the higher fee for the satellite service than it was just several months ago.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-79112895416783078662008-01-07T12:03:00.000-06:002008-01-07T12:03:00.000-06:00Ros:Thank you for reading and for the pointer.I fi...Ros:<BR/><BR/>Thank you for reading and for the pointer.<BR/><BR/>I find the use of the word "shouldn't" intriguing. This strikes me as another entitlement claim by rural America.<BR/><BR/>Isolation is not just an impediment to commerce, it is a treasured aspect of rural living that ex-urbanites often pay to acquire. Given it has positive dimensions, I cannot justify asking other Americans to offset the disadvantages while enjoying none of the advantages.<BR/><BR/>Low cost broadband would be a plus for rural America. So would better roads, health delivery, etc. Those benefits should be paid for by those who enjoy them.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, I fear much of truly rural America will be essentially empty before we can extend such universal conveniences.<BR/><BR/>More on this topic in another post.John Phippshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03245790061133614986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27951078.post-6767826974596597412008-01-07T11:40:00.000-06:002008-01-07T11:40:00.000-06:00Folks in rural areas shouldn't have to pay more fo...Folks in rural areas shouldn't have to pay more for high speed internet service. Access is so important for the future of these areas. Economic development can be greatly enhanced and needed services like telemedicine, distance education and civic involvement are crucial. <BR/><BR/>The Communications Workers Of America are working to ensure all Americans have access to low cost broadband. Check out their website for more information at www.speedmatters.orgRoger Osburnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09843973697995057701noreply@blogger.com