On 12/06/2011 1:42 a.m., Lynda wrote:
Mostly, I've just ignored this,
As do I with most treads on this list. However I found the link in the
OP's post offensive on so many different levels that I choose to put
some comment in with a great deal of subtly and hopefully a little humour.
Clearly, judging by the off list comments I got, some people got it and
some people didn't.
I'm not sure which comment in the OPs link I found most offensive, but
the suggestion that most folk in small rural American towns are drug
dealers and addicts was up there with the suggest that the entire reason
for poor broadband in USA is the sole fault of AT&T.
Perhaps that's not what the article was saying. However it is the
impression I took from what I read, which is what compelled me to comment.
I confess that I didn't even read the entire article... by the time I
got though reason 2, I was already offended enough.
since it wasn't really contributing to a
solution for anything I could see, and wasn't finding it as amusing to
read as the author did to write. This statement, however, needs a bit of
changing, sir.
I am sorry the humour was lost on you. :)
I did change the subject heading on purpose, specifically so people, who
weren't interested in the obvious direction of the thread, could simply
ignore it.
I'd say that "people in rural America" (many of whom are my neighbors)
are adept at making do, and very clever at finding solutions to the
problems that the author of this piece did not.
Agreed. As I come from a country that has an extremely large rural
economic component and is as far from market as we are, I very much
understand the need to adept and make do.
Please note that the
author seems to be yet another transplanted city boy, and as such, might
not have been aware of how to solve this problem quickly, and in the
most expedient manner, but that does not mean you should lump rural
America in one large bucket...
No it does not mean you should lump rural people in any bucket, being
the whole point, of my first post, by suggesting that I should get help
with setting up a farm in the centre of down town Manhattan, from the list.
Again, it's up there with the suggestion that the only way to get
broadband in rural America is to wait until one of your drugged out
neighbours dies from an over dose and you can then take over the free
port on the DSLAM.
I should also point out that the author of the article isn't even *in* a
rural setting. Contrary to popular belief, living in a small town is not
rural. I've lived 5 five miles out of town, and we barely considered
that rural. We had neighbors less than a quarter mile walk away.
I've lived in a country where it take 3 hours to drive to your next
closes neighbour, while in my own country we call a town rural when it
has 3,000 people in it and the housing density is not far off the urban
suburb I live in today - at which point we seem to currently consider
they don't need ftth and 5mbit's of contended mobile broadband is more
than enough.
In addition (since my annoyance factor seems to be set on high), I'm a
bit curious as to how someone living in New Zealand is so concerned with
broadband access in the US.
I'm interested in broadband access around the world, not just the USA.
New Zealand culture is very influenced by the United States.
The United States is a large trading partner from our point of view.
What you do in the USA has global impact. For example if the USA says
it's ok for rural folk not to have decent broadband then out countries
around the world, such as my own, point to the USA as a point of
reference. Same if you decide that every farmer must have 100Gbe
connections.
D
