Well, what service offered in the US would you perfer, Nano? Just curious.
DSL via FTTH.
The best there is here ATM, is FTTC, but since the entire system isn't yet, they won't upgrade the equipment to offer faster service. Not until the copper lines have been replaced.
It makes sense, as it prevents the need to run dual systems in the exchange. But since such cable replacement has been so slow due to very little funding set aside for it (this is classed at the lowest priority = non existant ATM), it's going to be some time before additional bandwidth service is available. They keep pushing the date back everywhere, and it was supposed to be completed years ago. Here that means "indefinite hold".
Given the cost of laying fibre (or copper for that matter), it would make more sense IMO to go ahead and lay enough for an FTTH system. It's cheaper in the long run, as the cables that run parallel can be set at the same time to reduce labor & equipment costs. That way upgrades would only need to be made to the exchange equipment for future increases in bandwidth.
As for FIOS and corporate greed, there's a line that runs along the State Route a stone's throw away from my residence, and nobody along said State Route is offered service. The only service besides satellite that I can get at my residence is Broadstripe.
Unfortunately, this isn't uncommon.
It tends to be a large pipe from one area to another, but it's too saturated to allow for additional connections to serve other users along it's route.
unrelated note; In a twist of irony, I fought *very* hard at my residence for an ISP change away from Hughesnet. Now I'm using Wildblue, the other major satellite provider. Upside, I can finally download a Linux ISO without running into a limit. Downside, ping times are higher. Needless to say, I'm not amused.
Next year (even though I will have moved) AT&T will put in cellular internet. For all intents and purposes, while providing a broadband option over air seems cool and all, nothing will replace wire. After I move I'm getting internet over a wire, no ifs, ands, or buts.
This is my perspective on "broadband" in Rural America. Sickening.
I've been that rural in the past (PA). Internet was dial-up or satellite. No DSL or Cable access whatsoever. So you can opt for molases covered granny in sub zero temps or an expensive and rather flakey faster service (i.e. fast as heck at late night, but during peak hours, not so wonderful, and then there's bad whether to cause dropouts).
I bet Nanofrog would prefer municipal fiber, such as they offer in Lafayette, Louisiana. $30/month for symmetrical 10 mbps. Or $58/month for symmetrical 50 mbps. They rolled it out and then the local cable companies started offering better services.
Only the threat of competition from the government moves these cheap jerks. Few other industries can get away with this crap.
Yep. I actually live in NE Louisiana. It's sort of dismal. I'm too far away from the exchange to get the faster plans, which is only 6Mb/s max anyway.
Here, I have to consider myself lucky just to have access to DSL.
And you've hit the nerve directly. Without competition, there's zero motivation to invest one cent to improve service. They're actually hoping the government will pay for the lines that are necessary (or at least part of it), so they don't have to.
While it may not have relevance to why Apple do this; some customers can't buy computers with wireless hardware built in due security reasons. Perhaps the more likely reason is that they know that something like that isn't going to stop someone buying a Mac Pro so they have no reason to include it.
It's also cheaper to leave such things out = more $ to the bottom line.
