Right, its supposedly also for 2006...

Well, I think I heard quite awhile back that that date was defunct... and no future date mentioned.

dono if it was a change of policy, administration, goals, dreams...
could even still be on.

Someone needs to contact my phone company, and inform them of this deadline. I've talked to them about getting better service, and they have no plans to do anything other than keep patching the phones lines out here (with bubblegum and bailing wire). I'm too far away from the Central Office for DSL, and they have no plans to install the equipment for IDSL (no distance limit). The only plans they have is to continue taking my money.

We have no cable service out here. It's not cost effective to run cable lines out to rural areas.

Satellite cost too dang much, and from what I hear isn't great anyway.

I guess by 2006, I won't have access to the internet. Either my dialup will be done away with, or the phone lines out here will be in such bad condition that connecting won't be possible anyway....... 

actually there is already a 256 connection through cellular service, though I think the pricing is way high right now.

LEO (Low Earth Orbit) Sat system is supposed to be used eventually for more than global positioning. A few years ago I went to this convention where they explained it would eventually be used for public access to the intenet from phone booths, table top touch screen displays, homes, and so on...

Though I wouldn't hold my breath...

Satellite connections are much different that they used to be.  They are quite fast (not as fast as most cable, but faster than DSL).  They are also not *that* expensive.  It costs $69 a month for mine.  Yes, you have to buy a modem, but you have to buy a modem for other broadband, too.  Considering that my only other alternative is dial up through AOL or MSN (only ones with local dial-up) and they cost about $30 a month for as much time as I use, I can't live without Satellite. 

However, mother nature plays a huge part in satellite.  Not only locally, but wherever your processing hub is.  So, there are drawbacks.  that said, it is still more reliable than the dial-up that I had, and it is always on and doesn't tie up my phone line.  (Ever try and use phone support for dial-up?)

I would gladly use DSL or Broadband if it were available.  We are about 7200 feet from either of the two, unfortunately.

Yes, you have to buy a modem, but you have to buy a modem for other broadband, too.

No you do not have to purchase a modem for DSL or Cable. My providers out here - qwest for DSL and Comcast for cable both let you lease the modem for about 2 dollars a month.

I pay 40 a month for wireless 2mbs+ in a town of 5000 peeps.This setup works anywhere you can put up a tower with a T1 line.Radio reaches the backwoods areas and I think they can even set up relay towers.

Durn...speaking of which,my bill is overdue...OH NO! signal...fading...service discon---------------

relay towers

repeaters

No you do not have to purchase a modem for DSL or Cable. My providers out here - qwest for DSL and Comcast for cable both let you lease the modem for about 2 dollars a month.

psst...Kona...I'm not sure about your math, but $2 a month is still $24 a year that you are paying for it.  It doesn't matter if you lease or buy, it still costs money.

Got my dsl modem for free when I signed up. Most ISPs have deals like that every now and then, you just have to watch for them.

My DSL comes with a dial-up account at no extra cost, since DSL is bound to your home line, and you can use the dial-up when you are out and about. This is a decent reason for dial-up to hang around, even if no one ends up using it for their primary connection. The broadband technology we have now won't ever completely replace dial-up. I figure it will be used less and less, though.

Wireless is cool and all, but I don't think there is any way to create universal wireless access on any large scale unless it was a public service and not open to competition. Not a completely far-fetched idea: ( http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/17/1332242&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=126&tid=95&tid=99 ) . If Utah can do that for line-access, it seems like they could for wireless when the technology arrives. I love it on a small scale at home, but a wireless ISP would have a lot of big hurdles to overcome technologically, and legally.

Kinda spooky when you think about municipalities censoring their users based upon their laws, though.

psst...Kona...I'm not sure about your math, but $2 a month is still $24 a year that you are paying for it. It doesn't matter if you lease or buy, it still costs money.

still cheaper than your setup KG, at 2 dollars a mouth plus 30 for the service...

I have ADSL....as well as a 56k modem...in the one machine.....handy for when one or other gets a 'glitch'....

Bakerstreet,wireless here works perfect and was actually pretty simple to implement.The legalities were actually less than for cable providers and way faster.Weather dosnt affect it.Plus you can use it anywhere in town with a laptop and a wifi card.Towers are not special.Atall building works fine and a hill with a small tower works fineto reach lowlying areas.Two guys started this ontheir own and made it work.They have already merged with other companies in the surrounding towns.

A single T1 line goes for about 800 dollaes around here.They now have 2.