There have been discussion in a few various threads from people who have difficulty getting online because they are in a rural area. Sharyl Attkisson did a report on her show this week about "The Internet Divide." It doesn't mention mystery shopping, but I thought it was interesting given some of the discussion that has taken place on here.

[www.youtube.com]

Thank you for positing! In my "other job" my primary focus is studying, researching, and planning interventions to address Digital Equity and reduce the Digital Divide, this topic is near and dear to me. I encourage anyone interested in this topic to check out NDIA (National Digital Inclusion Alliance) and PPDD - the Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide for great resources and how you can get involved.

Even in areas that are considered to be "served" like Seattle, 43% of households do not have broadband internet at 25 Mbps, which is what the FCC says is the minimum adequate speed.

Yes, the chasm between the have's and have not's definitely expanding.

So sad.

I appreciate this concept and know that some people might feel left out if they are not connected. Some workers and students might experience unwanted social, logistical, and financial effects of being digitally disconnected.

OTOH, I like digital but would rather live so far out in the boonies that cell towers cannot be placed on my vast expanses of land. If I could afford to do that, I would be happily off the grid. Once, I painted this concept. Someone told me to add a house... "just... there" because you cannot have empty space. I said, "No! My dream house is so far from anyone and anywhere that you will see this type of view from every angle!"

Mickey B , I am totally in an urban area living in Los Angeles proper. I have 9 mbps of service and the only reason i have so much is due to my internet provider having enough available "lines" as I suspect no one in my high priced area wants to have 6 mg of service so they were able to double my lines somehow.
The only even half way affordable internet available where I live is Spectrum and my current provider Frontier. Frontier has not upgraded my area to Fios and from what they have told me they have no interest in doing so any time soon. I have also read that they are in or close to bankruptcy. The other provider Spectrum does not allow two internet connections in one house. I have two houses on my property and the other house has Spectrum so I cannot unless I am willing to piggyback on their service. I really do not want to share internet with a random person. In my case the other person is very nice but that is not always the case..
But this is an issue even here in urban America. Last school year spectrum had set up hot spots around the city and also provided low cost internet to students to access their schools during covid 19. In and around LA there are tens of thousands of families and singles who might not even know or be friends with the person renting the other bedrooms, sharing one house, renting out a garage of a house or a shed or whatever they can find if they are low income. I contacted Spectrum to see if my daughter who was enrolled in class that had become online suddenly could be able to use something faster than my slow internet but was told no as my address already had a person with internet thru them.
So this is not just a rural issue. The only alternative I could find is to pay over S200 a month for dish service.

@MickeyB wrote:

Thank you for positing! In my "other job" my primary focus is studying, researching, and planning interventions to address Digital Equity and reduce the Digital Divide, this topic is near and dear to me. I encourage anyone interested in this topic to check out NDIA (National Digital Inclusion Alliance) and PPDD - the Partnership for Progress on the Digital Divide for great resources and how you can get involved.

Even in areas that are considered to be "served" like Seattle, 43% of households do not have broadband internet at 25 Mbps, which is what the FCC says is the minimum adequate speed.

That is going to be a huge issue at the end of this school year and likely will cause far too many kids to be "left behind". It's one of the reasons that I strongly object to any type of standardized testing for this year or next (despite what the Education Secretary is pushing) - too many kids don't have the necessary internet and technology to have an equitable education during virtual and/or hybrid schooling. It's not as easy as many people think to decree "just go online" or that kids will be OK. Too many segments of our society will suffer real harms from not having access to technology.

Hi Karen, in my state standardized testing scores are only used on the individual basis to inform the student and parents where they stand vs the state and district scores. They are not used to decide whether an individual student is passing or failing their grade. The individual teacher makes that decision based on the test scores of tests taken that she/he gives their class and assignment grading. In theory a child could score at the 10th percentile on standardized testing but pass into the next grade with a 95% average on school work the classroom teacher scores. Or vica versa, a child in the 90th percentile on standardized tests and below D average on classroom work may not pass into the next grade. At least in my school district, unless there is proof of cheating or something like that, the parent could certainly challenge the teacher deciding not to pass the child into the next grade if their classroom work is passing.
Given all that I do think there is too much standardized testing in my school district. However, the standardized testing is meant to show where there are gaps in the overall education in various schools and districts. I do not know if they will be doing standardized testing this year but it would certainly be a good thing to see how much progress the district has lost as a whole due to the pandemic. (or possibly gained???)

@KarenMSW wrote:

That is going to be a huge issue at the end of this school year and likely will cause far too many kids to be "left behind". It's one of the reasons that I strongly object to any type of standardized testing for this year or next (despite what the Education Secretary is pushing) - too many kids don't have the necessary internet and technology to have an equitable education during virtual and/or hybrid schooling. It's not as easy as many people think to decree "just go online" or that kids will be OK. Too many segments of our society will suffer real harms from not having access to technology.

Too many people use most of their Internet time on Facebook, buying garbage from Amazon or watching adult oriented content. The authorities should limit Internet access so people are forced to read books or study.

You are preaching to the choir, sort of. I would rather read actual books and delve into whatever topics I want to explore. And I am fortunate in that I finished formal schooling long ago and am free to be a self-motivated and unfettered learner. I am limited most by time constraints. At this age, I have to spend time working. But in future, I should have all the time I want for books and other things I want to do.


How do you think the authorities (whoever or whatever that means) could limit internet access? They would have to intrude into everyone's lives in order to know who is not compliant with your goals for them...

@Book wrote:

Too many people use most of their Internet time on Facebook, buying garbage from Amazon or watching adult oriented content. The authorities should limit Internet access so people are forced to read books or study.

Just move to China, then.

@Book wrote:

Too many people use most of their Internet time on Facebook, buying garbage from Amazon or watching adult oriented content. The authorities should limit Internet access so people are forced to read books or study.

I just checked my computer speed. I'm paying for 45 mps (?), and I'm getting 11.

On upload (if I don't have that backwards), I'm getting .6. Yes, point 6.

I'm not sure what that "net neutrality" is about but pretty sure it's not good for "the people "

@ceasesmith wrote:

I just checked my computer speed. I'm paying for 45 mps (?), and I'm getting 11.

On upload (if I don't have that backwards), I'm getting .6. Yes, point 6.

My download speed is 59.14 Mbps. Upload is 55.60 Mbps. Sounds like the bosses of your Internet company are spending your fees on women and alcohol instead of new cables.

Just checked again. I am up to 95.30 Mbps for downloads!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2020 10:55PM by Book.