ssj12 on 26 January 2009
| mrstickball said: There are better ways to do it than lay down cable in remote areas, IMO. I think Sprint, and some of the other 3G providers have the right idea. It's what I'm using now for rural broadband - rather than lay down expensive cables, use the current cell phone infrastructure, and improve it, to support broadband-speed access for users in remote areas. I am unsure if the govt. getting involved in broadband is the proper thing to do. But if it's proven to help out the average American, then I guess it may not be a bad thing, if it's done intelligently. |
While wireless broadband is a good way to give customers internet at a low cost it does come with its own issues and goes against what Obama is wanting to do.
The major problem is quality of service. While if your close to a tower your great there can be some massive signal issues mattering distance and obstructions.
Obama is also looking at the expansion of physical infrastructure as a way to create jobs. Just doing some updates to radio and cell towers wont create half the jobs that physical infrastructure would.
