This is something the telecoms learned after a couple of rollouts. You start hyping the next big thing to cover up that the last big thing ain't rolling out so well or doing half what it was promised to do and only reaches a percentage of subscribers.
I am starting to learn first hand of the plight of rural Americans and internet. I'm closing in on retirement and am looking for a piece of land so i can spread out and have some elbow room. You can't go 10 miles outside of a major built up area in a primarily agricultural state and know you can get reliable, high-speed internet.
I've been trying to confirm availability of service at multiple locations as I find properties that I think fit the bill. I'm now fending off tons of calls/emails from the providers in those areas about what equipment i want to purchase, what tier of service, etc. when all I am asking is "do you provide service at this address?".
It's like a broken record. I get a call or an email from a sales person. When I explain i just need to know if service is available because it will weigh on my purchase decisions, the come back to say "oh sorry, we do not service that address, but you can talk to this group to find out how much it would cost to get service at that address".
Why is there not a simple portal to be able to see if an address has service? It really looks like it is a mounting battle to get any type of internet service in rural areas and everyone wants to push you to fixed wireless with a max speed of 25mbps and 250gb data caps w/$10 per gigabyte block or whatever overage charges.
I've looked at around 12 locations and have not been able to identify one from any coverage map (if there is even a coverage map) or service portal that has service, so it requires a revolving conversation to find out that it does not, or does, but it's only fixed wireless or 3mbps dsl.
It's 1920 out beyond the metropolitan limits.
sorry, i thought i was commenting on the previous article about SmileDirect. not sure how I got here.
There is no drawback to a company requiring a non-disparagement clause even if it is illegal.
Most people don't know that it is illegal and will acquiesce simply to get their refund. If they do disregard the non-disparagement clause these companies have scary lawyers to try to beat people into submission with legalese.
I recently left a company I had worked for many years, and as a condition of receiving severance I was required to sign a non-disparagement agreement. I did, simply because I needed/wanted the severance pay and it was far easier than fighting. This company has been written about many times on this web site, and even though I know the non-disparagement clause is illegal I refrain from commenting, simply because I don't want the hassle involved if they should get wind of it and try to claw back any part of my severance.
someday the only thing left on the internet will be the ability to purchase whatever goods and services the big corporations are pushing.
that and what the government wants you to hear.
whichever government happens to be in power.
If you watch the video, as those of us in Central AR have repeatedly, the police asked both men many times to move away from the scene and neither did. As a fellow Arkansas pointed out earlier, this guy's whole routine is to sue the LR city government out of existence. The Joshua intervenors have held LR hostage for a long time and financed John Walker through his many, many lawsuits.
Time to start carrying the cone of silence in public if you plan on having a conversation of a personal nature.