![Microsoft Microsoft](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/microsoft_64100.png)
![Businesses Businesses](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/business_64.png)
![Communications Communications](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/communications_64.png)
![The Almighty Buck The Almighty Buck](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/money_64.png)
![The Internet The Internet](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/internet_64.png)
Microsoft Pledges To Bring Better Broadband To Two Million Rural Americans in the Next Five Years (recode.net) 99
Microsoft on Tuesday announced a new campaign to try to "eliminate" the gap in high-speed internet access in the country's hardest-to-reach areas -- an effort called the Rural Airband Initiative, which will set an ambitious target of bringing better broadband to two million Americans within the next five years. From a report: The Redmond, Wash.-based software giant plans to start its efforts in 12 states, offering seed money -- Microsoft wouldn't specify the amount -- to local telecom providers that are trying to improve internet access through means like "white spaces," which are the invisible, wireless radio airwaves that aren't already owned by broadcasters. From Microsoft point of view, this approach -- aimed at delivering speedy wireless internet -- is the best way to improve connectivity in parts of the country that broadband providers long have ignored, given the prohibitive costs of building and sustaining networks there. By Microsoft's count, more than 23 million Americans in rural areas currently lack high-speed internet access, despite billions of dollars in federal investment. But the company emphasized that it is not looking to become a telecom provider -- it's only providing capital to local firms -- and does not seek to profit from the endeavor. Through revenue-sharing agreements, Microsoft instead plans to invest any money it raises in additional projects in other states where internet access is lacking.
IE only no firefox or chrome for you! (Score:1)
IE only no firefox or chrome for you! NEXT!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you mean EDGE? That is their current browser of choice but your sentiments are correct.. Windows 10S is a glimpse of the future MS wants for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. This will surely require a Microsoft Modem and the modem driver will keep resetting your browser preferences.
Always-on Internet will also help with the tracking, the massive 'updates' to the OS and whatever lame device they come up with to try and compete with Amazon Echo.
Zune II?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't tell people I use Edge.
"I was at my computer Edging."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What did Google get out of Google fiber?
Re: (Score:2)
Or the effort to float balloons over Africa?
Re: (Score:1)
Buckets of red ink.
Re: (Score:2)
Me? I'm guessing the package will include Microsoft's "Zune II".
(Or whatever the hell they decide to call their answer to Amazon Echo/Google Home)
Re:Microsoft Internet! (Score:4, Insightful)
It does make you wonder what they are trying to get out of this
They are increasingly in the business of selling subscribed-to services that individuals and small businesses (say, farming operations in rural America) can't use without reliable high-enough-speed connectivity. Tens of millions of people lacking decent connectivity represents a lot of potential that MS can't eventually market to. To say nothing of the near impossibility of someone living on the side of a mountain somewhere getting their copy of Windows 10 patched/updated over the wire when they've got - at best - DSL or awful satellite service.
Just spent the last weekend driving around parts of Virginia, in the outskirts of the Charlottesville area. We're talking about people who own multi-million-dollar horse farms and wineries who have to drive 30 minutes into town to use the WiFi at a Starbucks. But they can't get cable or fiber out to their properties because nobody will do it, almost regardless of the price offered. Some sort of terrestrial wireless solution on poles, hilltop-to-hilltop, is the only way to go. LEO sats MAY provide some relief, but not likely enough to bank on when you're trying to run a point-of-sale system at the tasting room of your thousand acre winery with two hundred guests trying to give you money.
Re: (Score:1)
We should be demanding municipal/state fiber or copper to fix the last mile issue. Something like the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. That's what we pay taxes for, so yes, we are entitled..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They run the power lines and even the phone lines. They can do the same for coax or fiber. Fiber should be cheaper than copper anyway. And I'm not against wireless. I'm only against the corruptly granted monopolies. The market should be wide open to everybody, including the state.
Re: (Score:1)
I think the solution is going to be fixed wireless, whether it's dedicated infrastructure or piggybacked on cellular. Current LTE deployment in those rural areas is fair to middling, and can provide acceptable speeds and latency in most areas. The advent of 5G could shake things up even more, not only by increasing the infrastructure capacity on 5G itself, but also by freeing up capacity in 4G as more device move to 5G. The only problem is that all cellular providers, and most other fixed wireless providers
Re: (Score:2)
Xbox Live subscription revenue.
Re: Microsoft Internet! (Score:1)
Updates too big, cheaper to deploy broadband than fix Windows Update.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure Google wanted to float balloons over Africa [x.company] and create a mesh network, so that neighboring tribes in rural Africa could "like" each others Facebook postings...
Seriously, they do have a Project Link to tie cities together with fiber optic cables and yet another plan to use vacant TV spectrum for wireless internet in a very select region of Africa...
Oh look, Microsoft trialed this technology in Africa [cnn.com] a couple years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
...will detect what kind of system you're using and block access if it isn't Windows, Windows Phone, or Xbox.
Says somebody w/ no clue about Microsoft's recent marketing on Windows Phone. It's pretty much disappeared from the Microsoft Store. While they do sell an HP Icon as a Windows phone, the other phones they have on display are Galaxies. The main thing they now promote is Office on Android, which anybody can download from the Play store. And their apps - like OneNote, OneDrive, Office - are all there both on iOS & Android.
Actually it would be a good idea if Microsoft drops the idea of a Windows subs
too bad they are all doing this wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:too bad they are all doing this wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Then you would have a bunch of counterfet bills laced with lead.
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast, AT&T etc are far too embedded to let this happen. Aren't there places where competition is illegal (or just impossible due to the payoffs made to local government officials)?
I see the move by MS a good idea but they really need to join forces with Google, Apple etc. That way they will have the legal muscle to get in on the final mile. That's the bit that costs the most. Google has experience in this area.
But will they take this opportunity to give the incumbents a huge kicking? My guess is that
Re: (Score:3)
There's nowhere that overbuilding competition in entirely illegal (Federal Telecom. Act of 1996), but there are lots of places where the local kickbacks pay to keep it virtually so. Rules that forbid (much cheaper) aerial drops, for instance, even though the incumbents are grandfathered with the right to aerial drops. Rules that say a new provider must provide 100% citywide coverage in three months of getting a franchise (when the incumbent doesn't really have 100% coverage), etc.
AT&T in particular (C
Re: (Score:2)
Google should approach MS, Apple, Facebook, and Netflix and suggest that they invest into Google Fiber.
A wireless solution would be easier to implement if one existed. Right now, the only option on my mountain property is very weak cell service or satellite internet. Both costly and very limited in bandwidth. Fiber would cost a lot to run.
Re: (Score:2)
A wireless solution would be easier to implement if one existed. Right now, the only option on my mountain property is very weak cell service or satellite internet. Both costly and very limited in bandwidth. Fiber would cost a lot to run.
I'm in a rural part of the country. I have a 900mhz antenna that points to an access point (2 miles away) across the valley (through 150' Doug fir trees) and the access point relays to another tower which connects eventually to the ISP. (00Mhz bandwidth is limited - I get 4Mb on a good day. But it beats the hell out of dialup.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in a rural part of the country. I have a 900mhz antenna that points to an access point (2 miles away) across the valley (through 150' Doug fir trees) and the access point relays to another tower which connects eventually to the ISP. (00Mhz bandwidth is limited - I get 4Mb on a good day. But it beats the hell out of dialup.
Curious.. how is the access point managed? A friend who lets you connect, an ISP account on a utility pole?
Re: (Score:2)
Curious.. how is the access point managed? A friend who lets you connect, an ISP account on a utility pole?
The ISP remotely manages the access point. It's mounted on a tower they placed on someone's property. They may have some deal with the property owner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
2. There's no need to rely on those companies to prevent telecos from screwing us over - we already have that power. Telecos and cable companies don't have a natural monopoly. They have a government-granted monopoly. Your local municipal government entered into a contract with a teleco/cable company which gave them a monopoly. To get rid of it, all you need to do is convince your local government to change the deal and allow competi
Re: (Score:2)
Telecos and cable companies don't have a natural monopoly. They have a government-granted monopoly.
Telcos do. Cable companies do not. But you don't have to be a telco to be an ISP, and the ISP part of the telco operations have never been a monopoly.
Your local municipal government entered into a contract with a teleco/cable company which gave them a monopoly.
The term is "franchise", and while telco franchises are exclusive, cable franchises (for cable TV systems) are not. Federal law prohibits that.
If only there were a way for citizens to influence what their government does...
No, if only there was a company that wanted to be an ISP and accepted all the same conditions that the existing franchisees had to meet to get their franchise, instead of trying to cherry pick the limited customer base.
Re: (Score:2)
The current corrupt government would need one hell of a lot of lobbying (bribes) to convince them to let their buddies the telephones monopolies face any sort of competition.
You can't be serious.
Where do you live that the telephone companies have no competition?
Telephone companies provide:
wired phone service - seriously, ever heard of cell phones, internet phone services, satellite phone service?
wired internet - I have internet access on my cellphone, I can get satellite internet access, and my cable TV company offers internet service as well.
Cable TV providers offer all the above services and face the same competitors, but for television service they also compete with streamin
How about Seattle first? (Score:2)
Mid City America (Score:3)
I wish someone would bring better internet to mid-sized cities in the US.
We're still stuck with low quality monopoly cable internet paying 3 or 4 times what you guys in big cities with Google Fiber get after competition drives prices down.
Yeah... I'm sure very-rural America would love to have cable speed connections but a big bang for the buck could be had by removing cable monopolies on broadband internet in the mid sized cities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We're still stuck with low quality monopoly cable internet paying 3 or 4 times what you guys in big cities with Google Fiber get after competition drives prices down.
I'm not sure what counts as mid-sized cities in your book, but a lot of fiber cities seem like they'd count:
Stanford University
Kansas City
Austin
Provo
Salt Lake City
Charlotte
Atlanta
Research Triangle (Raleigh–Durham)
Nashville, Tennessee
San Antonio, Texas
Huntsville, Alabama
Louisville, Kentucky
The biggest cities aren't on there. I'm not familiar with verizon's fiber plan in new york, but from what I can tell it seems to be a typical scam. "Pay us tax dollars for promises we're not actually
Re: (Score:2)
OK, they have some midsized cities but I do consider cities like "Austin, SLC, Charlotte, Atlanta, Raleigh-Durham and maybe San Antonio to be big".
If you have a couple million or more people in your metro area it's hard to call the area mid sized.
Re: (Score:2)
but a big bang for the buck could be had by removing cable monopolies on broadband internet in the mid sized cities.
You do understand that this situation was created by state and local politicians/regulators, not the federal government. If everyone, in say, Ohio, wants to eliminate "cable monopolies on broadband internet" they need simply petition their local politicians.
Of course, you allowed the monopolies to be created to encourage comprehensive build-outs by removing competition, so removing the monopolies will leave unprofitable regions of the state under or un-served while competition abounds in the more densely po
Re: (Score:2)
If everyone, in say, Ohio, wants to eliminate "cable monopolies on broadband internet" they need simply petition their local politicians.
"Cable monopolies" other than defacto are infacto illegal. If you want to eliminate a defacto monopoly on broadband internet in any city, create another company that offers broadband internet.
so removing the monopolies will leave unprofitable regions of the state under or un-served
The monopolies were removed more than 20 years ago, and there are still under-served areas.
The answer is wireless broadband, which is typically exempt from existing monopoly agreements
You cannot be exempt from what does not exist. But wireless proves the point -- there are no ISP monopolies. The government has never granted a single one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the snag. Rural residents are an important political and economic demographic, so it gets paid attention to. These aren't necessarily poor people. What's missing from broadband are the in-betweens. poorer sections of cities, small towns, regions dominated by minorities, etc. It's all about extracting money from consumers rather than connecting the citizens.
Yay (Score:1)
Now even quicker reshares of fake news from your racist uncles
Thanks, Microsoft
Re: (Score:2)
telcos that were already paid to build out their networks by the taxpayers
Please explain how you imagine the "taxpayer" directly paid telcos to "build out their networks"...
Some telcos were/are given cash subsidies, collected as fees from telephone subscribers by the federal government to improve coverage and off-set increased operating costs in under-served rural areas, which represent a small percentage of the telephone network.
"Telco subscribers" is no the same thing as "taxpayers" (but there is a lot of overlap between the two).
Telcos were able to deduct the business expense
Re: (Score:2)
The "taxpayer" did not directly fund the Telco networks, anymore than the taxpayers directly funded your employer's IT upgrade last year.
Pure semantics! When the govt. forces you to pay extra so that said money can go where they want it to go, it's a tax! If they renamed the Income Tax deducted from you paycheck every week to Employee Usage Fee, would you fell any better?
Other white spaces... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how your comment is supposed to help Slashdot with this discussion.
Once my skinny vanilla latte [amzn.to] kicks in, I'm sure it will make perfect sense.
Re: (Score:2)
SO you eat two garbage bars, and a skinny vanilla latte, to the tune of approximately 750 calories before 10 am... and you expect us to believe you eat no more than 750 calories for the rest of the day?
That's 650 calories by 10AM. Sandwich at 12PM is 300 calories. Yogurt at 2PM is 150 calories. And 400 calories for dinner at 5PM.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new to Slashdot.
Lousy explaination (Score:2)
through means like "white spaces," which are the invisible, wireless radio airwaves that aren't already owned by broadcasters.
"invisible" - The only radio airwaves that are visible are referred to as "light waves".
"wireless radio airwaves" - Redundant? Is there such a thing as "wired radio airwaves"?
"aren't already owned by broadcasters" - That is the vast, vast majority of the radio spectrum, "broadcasters" control just a small fraction of the radio spectrum.
This plan is to allocate and dedicate one unused UHF Broadcast TV channel in each market for high-speed data transmission. [broadcastingcable.com] So this proposed service, which broadcasters objec
Re: (Score:2)
We did not build out the electric power grid to "every household", nor did we build out the telephone network to "every household" in America. We did build out both to "nearly all" households, and this initiative hopes to address the gap between "nearly all" and "every household" for internet service.
It's not uncommon for a person building a house in ultra-rural America (miles away from their neighbor) to have to invest upwards of ten thousand dollars to run power and wired telephone service to their house.
Re: (Score:2)
The government should be nudging (gently at first, then onto a hard shove) the private sector to deliver high speed internet to rural areas. Not private companies.
It does. [fcc.gov]
Private companies will place their own ends above what's best for the public.
Then why not outlaw private corporations, since they only serve their own needs? Then everything will be great, like in Venezuela.
Dammit phone companies (Score:3)
This is the phone company's job, not Microsoft's. WTF am I paying a Universal Service Fund then?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Haw-haw, you got scammed.
Weren't we paying the phone companies for this? (Score:3)
Broadband in the USA (Score:2)
Crappy stopgap measures ..... (Score:3)
The fact is, there's no substitute for good, wired broadband connections. All of these attempts to provide service to unserved areas with wireless technologies are second-rate solutions that still leave rural customers at a disadvantage.
Pretty much anywhere in the U.S., I can set up a satellite broadband connection and have "high speed Internet" -- only it's subject to a lot of terms and conditions. High latency is a big show-stopper with it for many things, like online gaming or VoIP telephony. And then you have the high cost and bandwidth caps that come with it.
In many rural areas I've been in, you have at least one area ISP offering microwave type broadband, where you put one of their receiver antennas on your roof and get service that way. Again, it's better than only DSL as an option, but it's not great. It's costly and slower than speeds people are used to getting with cable modems.
In other places, you can hobble along with an LTE cellular hotspot and whatever limitations come with the cellular subscription you've got with it.
The point is -- none of this stuff is really very good. They're all wireless solutions that inherently have more issues than a piece of cable stuck in the ground or running along a pole to your property.