I'll be starting up the MBB again, but with a little twist. Every so often, when I come across or think of a subject of interest or something I want to discuss, I'm going to write a bit on the subject and leave it open for comments. This one is on a subject I've often thought of writing a bit about since it affects me directly.

I live in a technological backwater. I don't say blackhole, because its true that I do have broadband and cable TV. At least, broadband as defined by the FCC. And the TV does, in fact, come through a cable. None of the major providers serve the area I live in. It is serviced by a small privately owned cable and telco. Meaning that the company provides telephone service (local only... any call out of my town is a long distance call, so you must have a long distance provider to call anywhere) and cable TV. The cable TV isn't anything to speak of either. Their 'expanded' package has 60 channels, analog of course. Two of the channels are QVC type channels, plus the Speed channel (I hate car racing), the Inspirational channel (I'm not religious, so I'm definitely not getting preached at 24/7), the hunting channel (this transplanted city-slicker does not hunt), the Golf channel (I don't do golf either), the local bulletin board channel that never has any announcements except that you can put bulletins there, and, oh yeah, one channel that is nothing but a camera mounted at the cableco/telco's office building in town that points towards the street in front. Every once in a while a pickup truck drives by.

In order to get cable Internet service from this company, you must buy their 'expanded' cable TV package. Their cable Internet speeds are 512kbps download and 128kbps upload. So for those speeds and the amazingly lackluster 55 or so channels of watchable cable TV, I pay around $75 a month. Of course, satellite TV is available out here. In fact, it's extremely popular out here in the countryside. No surprise, really. For many places that are out in the deep country, satellite is their only way of receiving TV... unless you go with the old fashioned rabbit ears to get a few staticy local channels if you're lucky. But for those of us who want our broadband too, satellite is just not worth it... at least those within the area of my local cableco/telco. If you're out of town or in the deep country, then satellite broadband is your only choice and way of getting any kind of broadband, so if you want broadband, its worth it - if you can afford the setup.

However, since I live within the local private cableco/telco's area, and although satellite Internet has faster download and upload speeds, satellite service makes no sense. First there are the setup costs that run into the $200 - $300 range, then the horrible ping times that are just a fact of satellite broadband, reliability problems due to weather, and the draconian FAPs (Fair Access Policy) that satellite providers impose on their customers. In my situation, the faster speeds do not offset the ping times, FAP, and cost. Although the cable TV is severely lacking and the broadband I get from the cableco/telco is barely broadband, at least the broadband is not limited in any way. If I bought satellite TV and Internet, due to the number of TV's (4) and the number of computers sharing the connection (4), the price isn't worth it. And just getting satellite TV so I can have decent channels is out of the question, because no one in their right mind would pay $75 a month for 512kbps down and 128kbps up if they can help it... on top of the cost for the satellite TV for four TV's.

The local cableco/telco just started offering DSL service, with the same speeds as the cable service. However, like their cable TV/Internet requirements, they require you to have their useless full phone service to get the DSL, so you end up paying the same as cable TV/Internet, plus more with the Universal Service Fees and the long distance providers fees if you want to make a call to someone out of town. Then you have to add on the cable TV or satellite TV costs on top of that. And, of course, your cell phone costs too.

The story is almost the same for cellular service where I live. I should say at this point that since we found the local phone service policy to be ridiculous (see above), we are totally wireless when it comes to phones. I had Verizon Cellular for quite a while, with no complaints. I was even able to get 1x service (amazing for out in the country). But then Verizon gobbled a couple companies out here, and some other companies bought out some other small providers, and suddenly we weren't able to make or receive calls... even though there is a Verizon cell tower only six miles from my house. Verizon did actually let us out of our contract with having to pay the $200 cancellation fee, but not before they gave us new phones to try and then sent techs out to our house and area twice just to see for themselves that we didn't get service even though there is the tower six miles from our house. Neither AT&T, Sprint/Nextel, T-Mobile, or any other provider services our area or provides full service (not just the ability to make and receive calls) except, thankfully, Alltel. Its almost literally a wireless blackhole since all the aforementioned providers do in fact provide full service just miles from my house.

And forget VoIP. I tried that. My Internet is just plain too slow to support VoIP calling.

OK, so up till now, you're saying to yourselves that this is just another rant. I have cable TV. I have cable broadband. I could have DSL. I could go all satellite if I wanted. I have choices. Yeah... and what choices they are! Except for the expensive satellite with its limitations, all services come from the same company who requires you to buy all their services just to get Internet. And only one of the major cell providers actually fully works. All because I live in a rural area. Drive half an hour to 45 minutes away to the urban and metropolitan areas, and they have Comcast and other cablecos, Verizon DSL and FiOS, other telcos and their DSL and TV services, WISPs, even BPL. And all the major cell carriers work just fine. So this brings me to my point.

It was the recent articles about EarthLink, Metro-Fi, and how Muni-Fi in general is turning out not to be the answer for cities that made me think about this. Why is Muni-Fi seemingly not working out well in a lot of the cities where it is deployed? Many articles say the cities blame the ad-supported business model. Others point out the fact that the Muni-Fi providers underestimated the scale of deployment and the number of repeaters and such needed. Still others point out that customers in metropolitan and urban areas already have other choices that are better deals in many cases. Triple play packages, etc. So why deploy city-wide WiFi networks in these areas? Why deploy this technology when many of these areas are already saturated with different services? Business-wise, it might make sense on paper. These areas are where the people are, where the technology is 'needed'. Where people will most readily buy a cheaper service, or afford the extra services. Where people who can't afford broadband and other technologies need a cheaper alternative.

But, except for that last statement, it doesn't figure in real life. Sure, hotspots at Starbucks, etc. make sense on paper and real life in those areas. Hotspots are a convenience that people can appreciate in that setting. But deploying a city-wide WiFi network in areas that already have good choices and speeds? That doesn't make sense to me at all. Maybe putting up a mesh network in underprivileged areas so they can afford to have broadband, yeah, that makes sense and should be done. But deploying yet another service in saturated areas? Not so much.

But what about WiMax? Ubiquitous WiMax in these urban settings is also, to my mind, another convenience - not a true service. A big deal is being made about Sprints deployment of the technology. But where are they deploying? In these same saturated areas.

So, now you can probably see where this is headed. Let's be real. None of the big players are -ever- going to come near an area like where I live. Rural areas. Farm country. They don't want to spend the money on a rollout for what probably will be a small, slow return. Or no return at all. OK, that also makes sense to me from a business point of view. I can understand the reluctance, and the big boys are probably right. In rural settings, its just not worth the time, effort, and especially the money for them. So they leave the very rural areas like mine to whoever wants to give a shot at providing service. Satellite's niche, as the satellite companies like to spout so very much. Or small, privately owned companies like the one in my town who, like the satellite companies, can impose whatever prices and restrictions they want. And they seem to impose as many limitations and as little service for as much money as they can squeeze - because they know the customers out here have no other choice if they want to join the 21st century.

This has probably been talked and written about before, but why don't these companies who are deploying muni-fi, those who are deploying WiMax and even BPL, target rural areas that are wide open and just waiting for someone to step in with reasonable services at reasonable prices? The major providers pretty much flat out say they'll never service rural areas. It's pretty much a given that we'll never see FiOS or anything like that out here in the country. We'll never see 20 or 30 Mbps or whatever. Why then do they keep blocking muni and other efforts, especially out in rural areas? Let the big boys duke it out over urban areas. They can have them. For the most part, they already do.

But a company who is determined to deploy one of these new technologies in such a wide open market could make a killing with a reasonable service. To my mind, this is what muni-fi, WiMax, and BPL are best fit for. Sure, you won't see FiOS type speeds, but you'll see better speeds at cheaper prices. Such a company or such companies would attract many out in rural areas who don't or won't invest in high speed Internet because of costs, or because it just isn't available. If some companies stop having tunnel vision and look around, they'll find a whole new market ripe for the picking and money to be made using developing technologies like WiMax and BPL.

Actually, in my humble opinion, examining the available and coming technologies, BPL is probably the best way to hook rural areas up with good high speed Internet at a reasonable price. After all, everybody has power from somewhere. And, compared to building out muni-fi or WiMax, it would be the best speed-wise and most cost effective technology to roll out in these kind of areas right now. I know of at least one experiment going on with BPL near me, but again its happening in a good sized town that has decent telco and cableco services- not out in a rural area where its really needed.

Hey, I don't get jealous when I write a Product Spotlight on the big boys like Verizon FiOS, Optimum Online, and Comcast HSI (shameless plug: I'll be posting a new provider profile on Verizon DSL this week) and read in the reviews and in the forums how people are complaining they're only getting 6000Mbps of their 8000Mbps service or 15000Mbps of their 20000Mbps service. Well, OK, that's a bit of a lie. Of course anyone who is into high speed Internet and the services available wants those kind of speeds, heh. And I guess I'm a little luckier than some out there whose only choices are expensive satellite service or dinosaur dial-up. But the point is you want to get the service you pay for, right? That's understandable. I would too. The difference is that out here in the rural areas, we want a good service to pay a reasonable price for. And it's not like it can't be done. Someone just has to take the leap.

Are you listening Muni-Fi providers, WiMax providers, and power companies?

Which technology and/or business model do you think is best to bring true broadband to rural areas? Discuss.