In my personal opinion, reliance on carrier ISPs is the problem. It is not supremely difficult or expensive to set up a line-of-sight radio network; and when ISP service personnel have to come from the nearest city, it could ultimately be much more reliable. If the government is subsidizing telcos to do the work of expanding to rural or remote areas, then they should make that subsidy available to individuals instead/as well, so they can find the way that will get them the most broadband.
Not an option in rural canada. There aren't any second providers. Even where two may exist for cellular coverage, only one will likely provide reasonable signal in a particular rural location. As for cable/DSL, there is no competition whatsoever. The only real option for protest is through government ombudsmen. hence my point about 5G being used in debates over the provision of broadband services.
I wish more companies and governments would do what the ISPs are doing. Why am I paying for post offices in rural America? Why am I paying to subsidize electricity transportation to rural America?
Different people have different tastes. I enjoy being offline when I am in the countryside. I am fine with a slow connection, as it lets me concentrate on actual work instead of wasting time online.
I pushed the logic further, and since last year, I have no fixed line internet connection at home.
I would love to find a house not too far from the city, yet without broadband. It would be a relaxing place to live. If there is no government mandate forcing ISP to provide connectivity in the middle of nowhere, the savings could be passed back to me in the form of lower taxes.
So basically I would get a) something I want and that is hard to get today b) less taxes.
Sign me up!
The fact that I selected to live here also makes me an uneducated bigot that hates brown folks and will almost certainly re-up in ~38 months.
>lets get it done as cheaply and with as little market distortion as possible.
Why do people act like they're paying for personally? This was already agreed upon by communication companies when they were allowed to monopolize much higher ROI urban markets. The whole point was that the high ROI markets would fund the development of the rest of the infrastructure.
Sandbagging the bandwidth of the rural markets is creating an information void that ends up sandbagging support for research and development in other areas.
There is no free lunch! If you force urban areas to cross-subsidize rural ones, either directly or indirectly, you’ll get lower quality service at higher prices in urban area.
Look at the regulatory regimes in places like Sweden. They don’t have build out requirements or cross subsidies. To the extent the government wants connectivity in rural places, it doesn’t distort the market by having high-ROI places cross-subsidize it. It pays for it directly.
There are so many discussions here about information tech changing farms, generally making them better and more efficient. That needs bandwidth. Want retirees to visit their doc via webcam, which saves money/time for all involved? That too needs bandwidth. Bandwidth is the new electricity.