Rural Internet: A Myth or Reality?

Posted by Resident on August 3, 2010 · 1 Comment 

Over the past few years there has been much noise about rural internet in Canada. Service providers clamoured at the government teat, pleading for resources to offer the unfortunate country dwellers internet connectivity. The funny thing is, I can’t recall anyone talking about the quality of the service, just that rural inhabitants deserved broadband like the their urban counterparts.

Sure, I watched as my parents struggled to find decent high-speed internet service in rural Grey County. Moving from dial-up, to a sketchy (and costly) wireless connection that was off-line more than it was on, internet connectivity remains an issue for them. With recent news from the west of the province that Bell’s rural service was working just fine for a neighbour, I was hopeful that connectivity wouldn’t be an issue for us just south of Ottawa. And initially, it didn’t appear that it would be.

Wonder of wonders, there were three options for wireless high-speed internet and nearly all of the major communications service providers had mobile offerings. While I was  suspicious of the  claims realtors in the region were making that at their listings high-speed internet was available, it appeared that there might be some truth to it after all. The pre-purchase research was all returning positive results.

Then we started soliciting quotes for service.

We rely heavily on the internet. We don’t have cable television, we don’t even have an antenna. In fact, all our viewing pleasure comes via an Apple TV. I work from home and require the internet to access client history.  Regular interruptions in connectivity is something I’d prefer to avoid. Moreover, we would need to pay an initial $500 or so to install a small tower on our roof just to access services.

We then looked at some of the bigger service providers in the area. Ripnet told us that we would need to install a tower, either on the roof or as a 40-foot addition on the side of the house. I had anticipated the need for towers and whatnot, even expecting to pay upwards of $1000 for it. This wasn’t a problem unto itself, so long as the service actually worked. What I didn’t expect were the additional charges. This particular service provider offered us a fifty percent discount on the TV tower, regularly priced at $499 (plus taxes and a $99 installation fee), if we signed up before July ended. We would, however, have to commit to a three-year contract with upwards of $60-a-month in service charges – and equipment rental charges amounting to $26 plus taxes. These additional monthly equipment rental charges prompted me to inquire what the cost would be to purchase said hardware outright – a staggering $999.99 plus taxes. So, without a discount, as it is now August and we still haven’t come to a conclusion, we would be looking at a $1600 installation charge for a $60-a-month service, plus taxes, locked in for the next three years. All this for a service that many in the region have told us is dubious.

The third provider, Xplorenet, after informing us of the requisite site visit to test reception levels, never got back to us.

That’s when a colleague renewed my interest in the mega-providers’ mobile internet offerings. Contacts had been trying it out at cottages and it seemed to work. Moreover, this sort of internet, running off of cellular networks, offered upwards of 21 Mb download speeds, as opposed to the whopping 2 to 3 Mb offered via wireless. The only question was whether or not it would work at Crowder House. The online coverage area maps suggested that it would.

So, with tempered hope I endeavoured to contact both Bell and Rogers last week. Armed with cellular reception levels gleamed from the Man’s Blackberry, I first tried Bell’s customer support. Emily (as they like to call their annoying automated customer support service) responded that she could not assist in answering this request, but referred me instead to the many options for contacting their experts.

I then sent a message asking for a specialist to call the Man, twice. Both calls were disconnected before they could verify if the service would work. Determined, and growing desperate, I sent an email.

The next day a Bell support worker (#….) replied noting that I had not provided my mobility number. Of course, I pointed out that I had not yet become a subscriber and was asking whether the service would actually work before buying the $174.95 Turbo Stick or more expensive Hub. This was followed up a day later by yet another support worker, who informed me that the only way to find out whether the service worked or not was to buy the stick and sign up or check out the service area maps online.

I still haven’t heard back from Rogers.

Fortunately, our office has a Rogers-powered Rocket Stick that I can borrow the next time I visit Crowder House. Despite the shoddy customer service offered by both mega-providers, if the internet works in the testing phase we’ll likely adopt. At the very least I can bundle the internet and cell phone subscriptions. We’ll keep you posted.

After all of this, I at least now know the answer to one mystery. Internet service providers who boast rural offerings aren’t posting idyllic pictures of happy country users because their service is so great – but because such service can be simultaneously so poor and expensive, yet for lack of any better options rural users have no choice but to sign up for one of them, ensuring that the internet companies don’t even really need to respond to potential customers to make a profit. These idyllic pictures surely represent the happiness of the company gouging a captive market, not the satisfaction of their customers with services offered.

Advertisement

Filed under ICT · Tagged with connectivity, crowder house, do it yourself, internet, rural internet, wireless