UPCOMING SHOWS:
RECENT SHOWS:
TAGS:
A Route to Rural Broadband?
- LATEST COMMENTS
- MeanMachine2, The problem is that Ms. Starrett's appearance seemed ... - mweinberg
- Pete, everyone has a right to present their views. Otherwise ... - MeanMachine2
- Yes, before they move. I'm talking about people who ... - trurl9
It may only be on the scale of a rounding error compared to the total $787 billion stimulus package, but the $7.2 billion to bring broadband internet service to under-served areas was music to Onno Husing's ears. He's been agititating for faster internet in rural areas for years, and now he's hoping that a federal cash injection will be enough to convince regional ISPs to go the last mile for thousands of Oregon residents.
The details are still to be worked out, but some of the basics are known. (And you can always read the full bill here; a search for "broadband" will take you the relevant section.) The Departments of Commerce and Agriculture will offer grants to companies to provide broadband access to schools, libraries, medical and health care providers, public safety agencies, and colleges. They'll also make a national map — the first of its kind — of who is offering what broadband services where.
And there's even a lofty section describing the kinds of benefits Congress will be looking for from increased broadband availability:
advancing consumer welfare, civic participation, public safety and homeland security, community development, health care delivery, energy independence and efficiency, education, worker training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial activity, job creation and economic growth, and other national purposes.
(Apparently YouTube videos of cats vs. printers aren't enough for the Feds.)
But spread out over the country, will $7.2 billion be enough to encourage previously recalcitrant cable and telephone companies to lay new lines in sparsely populated areas? Will this mean that — five years from now, say — a home business owner at the end of dirt of road in Gold Hill will be able to send hi-res photos to Dubai, or Skype with a customer in Shanghai?
And let's say you agree that broadband internet has become a necessary link for commerce and culture. Does it follow that the federal government — ie you, the taxpayer — should subsidize its availability to rural Oregonians? If not, can rural communities pull themselves up by their own broadband bootstraps?
GUESTS:
- Shayne Maxwell: Telecom activist from Rogue River
- Onno Husing: Executive Director of the Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association and chair of the Oregon Telecommunications Coordinating Council
- Ray Baum: Commissioner on Oregon's Public Utlities Commission and chair of the Committee on Telecommunications for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
- Richard Ryan: President and CEO of Hunter Communications
- Mary Starrett: National Political Communications Director of the Constitution Party and the party's gubernatorial candidate in 2006
Tagged as: broadband · internet · rural-urban divide · stimulus
Photo credit: Nohrz / Flickr / Creative Commons
COMMENTS: (43 total)
-
What about when taxes are required to be filed online? What about when a doctor requires you to make your appointments online? For one thing, it will benefit in many ways to make this type of capability to all, just like we all get mail. More and more, the internet is the only way to access certain things. Why fight it? Do you consider your phone a luxury? well, I suppose so. But shouldn't we all be able to call 911 if we need to? Or have a neighbor call us if there's some problem? As a society, we progressively decide what basic services we should collectively have.
-
At the age of 3, I tired of urban life and moved to the sticks forever, often sucked back into cities only to earn a livelihood, but those days are over. My entire livelihood depends on broadband Internet in a deeply rural area, recently troubled by break-ins -- tweakers from the city at the bottom of the hill. As all of my neighbors have an Internet link via newsgroup, we've been able to set up a community Neighborhood Watch. We can track a marauding raccoon and Mapquest the little masked bastard, let alone catch two-legged vermin when they come up here to pillage. The Internet is a form of universal suffrage, as I see it. It connects the other 7/8 of Oregon to Portland.
And what a teaching tool! Or it could be, although our current system of crowding hormonal adolescents into crowded rooms to learn socializing and share microbes, and driving them down there in buses from far up in the hills, and back ... hey, what a great system. But a better one is underused.
I believe with all my heart that if the federal government turned over every dollar in the coffers and Fort Knox to Oregon, stood way back, and asked us to watch the money for a while because they seem to be too stupid, the investment would grow faster than, uh ... the economy would be tumescent, instead of flaccid.
Although I am an old and analog dog, yesterday I skyped for the first time. In the middle of a move, with my pickup truck playing possum, without a phone by choice ... were it not for electronics up here, I might just get a great notion ... and who knows how many Oregonians have been saved from cabin fever by the color TV?
$7.2 billion will probably be enough, provided Oregon receives it all. Otherwise, most of it will go to graft, pork, and CEO bonuses.
Yes, We Can: Rural Oregonians can fly, if we have the proper bootstraps to pull on. But if you take away our broadband, don't you boys come up here canoeing with your city guitars and compound bows. We'll slide right back into inbred clans and rusting Camaros up on blocks. Only the Internet keeps us civilized.
-
Oh God, Jeff, hilarious. It'll take me all day to get the banjo music out of my head.
I don't know about turning money over to Oregon's elected officials though. Money has got to get into the hands of the unwashed masses and not get stuck upstream. (I'm none amused when I see images of CEOs being indignant and blustery when they defend their unearned bonuses.)
But I've also realized that Obama's stimulation isn't going to do a darned thing (directly anyway) for my wallet's tumescence. Oh well, I shouldn't be relying on the government to bail me out in the first place.
Sigh. Letting the days go by, after the money's gone, once in a life time, water flowing underground. Same as it ever was....
-
I am a volunteer, officer and board member in a local non-profit in Portland specializing in broadband issues and activities, and I can tell you that many parts of Portland are underserved. One of our member-volunteers moved a few miles (to the heart of NE Portland) and found that he could not get DSL service.
Last-mile service, no matter where you are, urban or rural, Oregon or another state, is not working to the benefit of the users. Regulation isn't working. Control of the last mile should be in some kind of public ownership, like our streets, water and sewer services are. You don't have Walmart or Chrysler owning the streets, controlling where you can shop. Why should a private for-profit company own your communications?
The technology is here now (it is called Fiber Optics), it has massive capacity compared to what is currently deployed. If people cooperate, it is not that expensive to install. And if we can avoid the rent-seeking behavior of a private company, it can serve the interests of all the citizens.
I am in favor of users building, operating and paying for their own networks, for their own benefit, in common to the degree necessary. If grants or loans can get those efforts off the ground, I'm in favor of those as well.
Ask for it by name: Publicly-Owned Fiber-to-the-Premises network.
I would welcome the chance to work on rural networks. Please contact us at the Personal Telco Project and maybe we can help: info@personaltelco.net
-
We already paid for this once years ago.
Why are we paying again? -
I do think the connection system should be publicly owned and publicly funded. When we let the marketplce decide, we get insane things like for or five different companies laying their own parallel cables down the I-5 corridor while nobody connects up eastern Oregon. We need an organized, robust, fully connected national internet, and I don't see any way to get that except by handling it as one system, like the national highways.
As a compromise, maybe what we need the national government to do is bring the "highway" to every community, and let the community itself take it from there.
-
"When we let the marketplce decide, we get insane things like for or five different companies laying their own parallel cables down the I-5 corridor while nobody connects up eastern Oregon."
Yeppers!
That was the result of De-Regulating by Conservative Republicans bought by Ken Lay of Enron. If we had kept Utilities Regulated we could have planned out and run fiber and connected everyplace and the shareholders would have made a decent profit instead of losing their money to Enron and the other companies that competed against Enron in just burying their money side by side.
By cooperating through Regulating, everybody would have benefited, the public, the shareholders, businesses, governments, etc.
This is just another nail in the coffin of Conservatism, short term greed by a few that screws up long term gain for everyone.
-
We've been growing our rural broadband network for 7 years now with our own money. We applied for RUS funds when we started, but there was no way to meet their demands. It has been our goal from day 1 to provide broadband to ANY community or area which needs it. Now we are upgrading to allow those same subscribers to have the speed they need to watch online TV. Imagine living in a rural area and having enough bandwidth to allow you to not need to pay the satellite and cable TV companies.
This year we are beginning our rural FTTH project.
Would I take money if it were reasonable and available? Sure I would. Everything helps when getting the services to these communities.
If anyone says that they don't have access, we haven't heard from them yet.
Regards,
Steven Sugg
-
Rural broadband gives more economic options to rural dwellers, and collectively, they really need these options. Increased options and economic flexibility is especially important in a time of economic crisis.
Moreover, almost anything that let's us do more with less driving (and less paper) not only reduces living costs and increases productivity, but also moves us in the right direction in terms of essential reductions in our greenhouse gas emissions - which is incredibly important in its own right. This effect is much greater for people who live in rural areas, because they tend to have longer to drive.
This is the very essence of green stimulus.
Meanwhile, the percentage of the US population who work at home has been steadily increasing at about 25% per decade since 1980 (based on US Census figures). Rural residents need these facilities just as much or more than urban dwellers, but just as government needed to supplement the free market to get them electricity and phones, so we need to supplement for for modern communications.
Good jobs created putting the stuff in, leading to ongoing cost-savings, carbon savings, and expanded economic opportunities once it's there. Sounds like a winner.
-
A great example of the benefits of high speed internet can be seen in the comparison of the depressing, hopeless news coming out of the current economic crisis with an interview Charlie Rose did with Marc Andreessen, which was about all the possibilities he sees and is investing in, most based on a foundation of high speed internet.
-
I moved to rural Beavercreek, Oregon in 2003 from New York City! I was astounded to find out that we had no choice in phone service (even with the Telecommunications Act of 1996!), because we're rural - and we have a "cooperative" telephone company! That company did not provide any sort of high speed internet access! Satellite was not an option as we're in the woods with tall trees! I was astounded this could exist in America! I took me two weeks to even get local phone service installed (although the previous resident of our home had phone service - it was a switch they needed to flick - no home visit or installatio needed!). I finally got high speed internet by going to another cooperative phone company (who technically was not "allowed" to provide us service), but who went to bat for the residents in our area and filed a law suit for us! As of now - I have DSL through one cooperative phone company -but I have no other choice. No other phone company is allowed to provide DSL to us. No cable modem exists here, Satellite is not an option! I'm very concerned about a lack of choice - we're at the mercy of what one company chooses to charge and the quality of service they choose to provide! Whatever happened to antitrust laws in rural Oregon?
Michelle Lipka
Beavercreek, OR
503-898-1919 x 106
-
The cooperatives and municipalities in Oregon don't have to play by the same rules. In the end, the comsumer is the one who suffers.
Until Oregon requires co-ops and municipalities to play by the same rules, you'll continue to pay more and you'll usually pay more for lower quality services.
The original idea of the co-ops was good. However, times have changed.
Pressure your representatives. It's your only hope.
-
Why, in the supposedly most developed nation in the world, should anyone still be paying for internet when in various Asian and European countries, high-speed internet is broadcast for free? Is this a problem of logisitcs, cost or the sheer size of the U.S.? Or is it simple unwillingness on the part of the telecommunication companies?
I am a rural resident and business owner and I would love to have access to high-speed, however, the greater question I would like to have answered is why not take a forward-thinking economic development approach and make internet access free to all?
-
I must say that your comment, especially as a business owner, makes no sense whatsoever.
Do you give your goods/services away for free? If so, how do you stay in business? If not, why would you ever expect a telecommunications company to buy millions of dollars worth of equipment, pay salaries to employees, and then give the product away for free.
The equipment, support, staff, utilities, network access fees, and more all cost a great deal of money. If you don't pay for access, how are these bills supposed to get paid? If the bills don't get paid, wat happens to the "free" access?
I have yet to see any business owner willing to invest large sums of money only to give away the products.
The Internet was started to offer freedom of idea sharing, not as a free playground.
-
Yikes, the 'under represented' are being squashed just as in every (OR / WA) election.
It is impossible to balance the checkbook or renew business and vehicle licenses, much less do e-commerce via 'pay-by-the-byte' dialup that is frequently down due to hungry mice somewhere between home and town.
I do pay $33 / day in property taxes ($12,000/yr) for the schools / libraries for others... (We homeschooled many years ago, no kids / grandkids in the public school system)
It would be nice to recognize that being 'wired' is important to the commerce and growth of the whole country. I had better connectivity 10 yrs ago while living in Asia, that I do living less than 20 miles from PDX. Living in the 'Gorge Scenic Area' is restrictive in many ways, ESPECIALLY trying to get 'connected'. (no dishes, no towers...) The USA is the loser. (as if this is not evident)
Disgusting... This message cost a few bytes...and a few bucks
-
To the man in Portland who does not want to subsidize people who choose to live in rural communities---should we all move into the city and bring our cows, crops and tres with us???
Who does he think produces the food that people in the city eat????
Somebody has to live 'in the sticks' so America can eat!!!
-
Oregon won a grant in November 2007 for rural broadband, nominally for health care but there may be opportunities to share this modest network with communities as well
source: Oregon Health Network
Oregon Health Network Pilot Project Receives Funds from Historic FCC Program to
Build Telehealth Network Throughout the State
Oregon receives more than $20 million to interconnect health care facilities
Portland, OR – Communities from all corners of the state received a significant financial
commitment from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Commission has
allocated up to $20,182,625 over a three-year period to establish the Oregon Health Network
(OHN), which will link more than 300 health care facilities in urban, rural and frontier
communities through broadband connections.
-
The following are links about the $20m+ FCC grant for rural broadband that Oregon won in 2007 - described above. It would be good for Think Out Loud to check this out.
http://www.oregonhealthnet.org/pdf/NR_100908.pdf
http://www.oregonhealthnet.org/pdf/NR_112707.pdf
-
What about satellite internet?
My parents live in a rural community in Colorado and my dad manages to run a pipeline engineering company via high-speed satellite internet.
I know that satellite can't support services like VoIP, but things like participating in e-commerce, and education are completely possible using this connection.
This mode of connection certainly costs more, but I believe that they pay about $70/month, a premium of about $30/month. For the nominal amount of $360/year these people could have access...that would pay for about 6 feet of fiber-optic cable.
-
Getting the broadband to the rural communities is a great first step. In could be copper wire, fios or cable. After it's in the area then cheap, wireless (WIFI) repeaters and gateways can be added to extend the network. The big money is needed only for the first connection to the local area. After that folks can set up inexpensive wireless mesh networks to take it the rest of the way. One vendor of wireless repeaters, Meraki, is doing this all over the country now.
-
I was just going to make a comment about possibly less expensive last mile solutions using satellites for downloads and using existing telephony for uploading...but I'm listening to the need for the upload to be fast as well. Yep, the speaker is right. We do need the "wire."
That said, the state is asking the providers where to spend the money? How about spending it where it will have the most impact for economic development and improved health and safety...AND helping lots of other folks get the fast down/slower upload that may be far more affordable in the meantime?
-
We live on a farm eight miles from Salem, but until recently worked in information technology. We both needed the ability to connect with critical systems (one at a hospital, the other at a high-profile state agency), to solve problems which didn't respect our work week. It was an enormous struggle to finally get DSL to our house, but it's been great most of the time. We're uneasy, however. When we changed phone carriers a couple of years ago, we didn't specify to keep the DSL, and when we called to be reconnected, we were told we didn't qualify for service because our address was too far from the nearest hub. Now, our house hadn't moved, so we were baffled at that response. Long story short ... we called every day for a month, getting a different customer service representative each time, and finally were reconnected!
-
The U.S. is behind many other countries in the expansion of broadband. Elsewhere, the government funds the expansion of broadband into all areas, not just the urban areas where companies can make the most profit.
I am a heavy user of the internet. It is the best learning tool there is. All people in this country should have low-cost access to broadband.
What intellectual loss will occur in the future because some bright child out in a rural area because she doesn't have access to the Internet?
We need to get out of the "me only" mentality in this country. It's an investment in our future as a viable country. When we all cooperate for the common good, we all benefit.
-
The debate over how to expand broadband access (especially in rural areas) has been going on for the better part of a decade. In that time, the speeds and technology that we need have vastly expanded, and even our cities have fallen behind the rest of the world.
We need to make sure that as we tackle this issue, we don't waste time and money solving yesterday's problems. On every level, from neighborhood associations to the federal government, we need to realize that Fiber Optic Internet, regardless of the provider, is the solution. Otherwise, instead of debating how we will bring our rural areas up to speed with our urban areas, we will instead be asking how the US as a nation will catch up with the rest of the world.
One way to do this is, the way Personal Telco would like to see it done, is community/public owned fiber, to every residence and business, that allows any provider to access the network in a wholesale manner and sell services on an equal footing. This will benefit consumers by bringing universal high speed access, it will benefit businesses by giving them access to the best technologies and it will benefit ISPs by giving them the opportunity to market services to their customers without the Telcos and Cable companies having the sole deciding power over what services will be offered.
Michael Weinberg, President, Personal Telco Project, Inc.
www.personaltelco.net
-
Great idea!
-
Shouldn't the person who moves to a rural area be responsible for performing due diligence to determine what services are available BEFORE THEY MOVE? If phone or Internet is not availabe then the new rural resident has to figure out how to get that service provided.
I'm all for folks who already live in rural areas to have Internet access but who and how will it be paid for?
When I had a land phone line my bill contained a fee to pay for rural phone development. The fee was inexpensive and as far as I know everyone was paying. That seemed fair. Together, if we all pay a little we can create advantages for everybody.
I want stimulus money for rural development to be spent efficiently and effectively. Right now everybody is grumbling about paying for somebody else's service, or businesses don't want to provide rural service because they can't make a handsome profit. Selfish think will be overcome by motivated individuals and businesses.
-
""BEFORE THEY MOVE?""
Like 3 generations ago? Dial-up would be fun on the 'party line' phones I grew up with. I guess a few things have improved... but I do miss laying in bed at 2 AM and listening to the ring tones to see if the call was for me or one of my eight neighbors.
As mentioned 'driving' the 10mpg farm truck to the library (during the few hours they are open) is real "Green" & works, as long as you can get it all done in your 1 hr allotment. City folks must be really fast!
-
Yes, before they move. I'm talking about people who live in cities and decide they want the rural life, but they forget to do their due diligence to see if services like broadband are, or can be, available where they want to move.
For those of you who have lived in rural areas all your lives, you're faced with the dilemma that for-profit businesses realize providing service to relatively few geographically disperesed customers doesn't make business sense.
If I lived in a rural place I wouldn't expect anybody to provide services if I lived relatively far from the grid. I'd expect to pay for service and probably a lot more than people who have easier access to infrastructure. Every choice we make has consequences and trade offs.
I would research what technologies might serve my rural location. I'd talk to neighbors to see if there were a "group" solution that might serve everybody.
But sometimes the reality is it's too expensive or difficult to provide Internet access to a location given the state of today's technology. I'm sure these problems will be solved eventually. Hang in there. Keep researching. Good luck.
-
WHy not encourage WiMax in rural areas?
No wires and faster to put in.
-
I believe WIMAX is the solution for rural connectivity.
My parents live in small (22,000 pop.) town in Northern Idaho. The city and surrounding farms & ranches are all served by a small local ISP's WIMAX network. The cost-per-megabit is equivalent to what I pay in Portland for cable broadband.
Perhaps, a not-for-profit corporation should be formed to assist rural communities in setting-up and managing their own WIMAX networks at little, or no cost to the residents.
-
WIMAX is nowhere near the capacity of a T1 line and would be just a step towards real access.
-
Actually, WiMax is sometimes faster than T1, and certainly comparable. The problem is that T1 is exceptionally slow for today's Internet. The future of communications--Internet, Telephone, TV--is literally technology and speeds that many of us have never had an opportunity to use.
Wireless technologies are decent for mobility, and make some sense today for fixed services, but they are very limited when we look at the next 10 years. Now is the time to join the rest of the developed world, and deploy an infrastructure that supports 50-100Mbit connections. Otherwise World Have Your Say will be discussing whether the United States needs IMF "stimulus" grants to get our broadband system up to global standards.
Michael Weinberg, President, Personal Telco Project, Inc.
www.personaltelco.net
-
I work for a global computer services outsourcing company, and I work out of my home in Portland. I manage servers all over the country, all remotely, while sitting in a room in my home. That is only possible because of the availability of broadband internet access. I tell people that I could be sitting almost anywhere in the world and still do my job, but that is only true if I have broadbrand access. I hope to eventually move to a home in the rural areas, but again, I can only do that if broadband is available where I choose to relocate to.
Working from home will become more common in the future, but it can only work if broadband is available everywhere, including the rural areas.
-
"Mary Starrett: National Political Communications Director of the Constitution Party and the party's gubernatorial candidate in 2006"
Geezo what a whiner! She should not use the internet at all if she is so anti-government! The government researched and developed the internet through DARPA! The government funded the research on computers! The government developed satellites!
Does she drive on government built roads? Use gasoline that was fought for in government wars for Oil? Drink water that was made safe by government funded research on safety and regulations?
Sheesh! Unbelievable!
-
Yes, I agree. And power and other utilities provided to rural communities are also more expensive to provide than for dense communities, but the cost is spread out because we know that we are all connected, and we need them as much as they need the costs spread out. Is she off the grid or something? Does she realize that much of Eastern Washington and Oregon didn't have power until the dams were built (I struggle with dams, but in the end I'm happy for people to have power that was clean and state of the art at the time)?
I'd be interested in seeing her survive in a "community" of her design, where everyone built everything for themselves, or paid obscene costs and rates so that capitalists can profit for providing them. She should visit countries like Russia where they had to rely on private capitalists for development, basically in the end, middle class get nothing, and are hungry. Literally hungry.
Our forefathers/(mothers!) would be proud to know that we were offering this as a public utility in which we share costs, just like they were proud to offer public schools and postal service and roads and other basics that we've been building on as our society changes. We all benefit from making these available to everyone. And healthcare too!!!!!!!!!
-
Can someone please point out to that woman all the things that others have paid for that she has benefitted from, will benefit from, and will be able to benefit from if she needs it? Say, her house is affected by natural disaster, even though she isn't in a flood plain, or how about the goods and services that she recieves because of those located in the flood plain? How about the utilities that she takes for granted that were laid 100 years ago?
Internet is already almost essential for many services, and is becoming more so, and is intentionally becoming more so, and the sites are more complicated requiring more bandwidth. It should be a public utility.
-
I am confused and conflicted. As others have stated, people live in rural areas to be away from the urban areas. There are advantages and disadvantates to this choice. I do not believe high speed internet is a right. Its not like electricity or telephone service. On the otherhand, rural communities should not be totally excluded from accessing the ability to download relatively large internet files.
It seems the struggle is "where to draw the line". What about a ranch or house which is relatively isolated or in the middle of nowhere ? Should this family be excluded because its not grouped with several other homes ? What is the cost-benefit analysis?
Will high speed internet service contribute to more people willingness to live in a rural area which would result in increase population pressures on other resources ? Should rural communities pay a higher rate ? Isn't this corporate welfare ? Why cann't corporations and small businesses who receive such government funding be required repay this investment over time ?
I remain confused and conflicted. I can understand a strong case for both sides. What I do know is the fact that in the long run neither decision will affect me. Its not like I will pay less taxes if the decision is "No" or more taxes if the decision is "Yes". The other thing I am absolutely certain about is that the world is not fair. Which may include another universal rural internet tax for me added to my universal telephone tax.
-
Well, I don't think we would have what we have now, if previous generations hadn't invested for us. Things develop so rapidly now, that I will benefit from my taxes much more quickly than they did. I'm OK with making the investment.
My mother grew up on a farm with no running water and no electricity. That was not that long ago! I'm not even middle aged. Because of that generations investment, we have sources of power and water that serve many more (and better) than then. We have come a long way because of wise infrastructure investments.
-
I have two comments. The first is that Ms. Starrett seems to forget that government plays a key role in the operation of much of our society's infrastructure. To say that government mucks up the process is irresponsible on her part. We have all seen what the proponents of declining government influence have brought upon themselves and us. Anyone who thinks that the answer lies in the private sector and in deregulation boviously has not used the telephone service (deregulated), flown in an airplane (deregulated), or invested in Wall Street (deregulated, and unsupervised). So, we should look to at least some regulation by people or agencies that don't have a dog in the fight.
Second, Ms. Starrett also missed the boat when she dismisses the importance of the Internet. It is not merely a convenience; it is rapidly becoming a vital teaching tool in our state's classrooms and to deny any student the opportunity to link to the Internet borders on the criminal.
My last comment is that when you have Ms. Starrett on the radio, you legitimize her comments and positions. Leave those comments and positions to Neanderthal Lars, who surely would not have been as polite as you were to Ms. Starrett to those who advocate a position of service to our citizens.
-
Pete, everyone has a right to present their views. Otherwise the station would need to add the words "Selective Public" to its name; and the program would need to also change its name to "Some People Think Out Loud". Its only through a respectful, candid exchange of views that we grow. I enjoyed hearing Ms. Starrett views and their basis. There are any number of people who share her views ust as their are who share yours. As someone who has yet to develop a view on this topic I welcome her input as I welcome yours.
-
MeanMachine2,
The problem is that Ms. Starrett's appearance seemed to elevate her to the level of an expert on the topic. So far as I heard, she had two perspectives to present, neither representing any expertise:
1. Government really should not be in the business of building infrastructure.
2. Her personal experience with rural living is that she didn't need broadband.
Neither of these positions are nearly as relevant to the debate as those of the other guests. Her policy position does not appear to be at all related to rural broadband. It's a blanket position on government spending. Kind of like inviting a vegan to a discussion on how best to cook a steak.
Her personal experience is anecdotal. The question is not whether every individual must have broadband, but whether the option should exist in a community. The fact that Ms. Starrett does not personally feel she requires broadband does not mean that others in her community find themselves in the same circumstances. It is certainly reasonable for her to share her individual experience, but to have her political ideology represented alongside the non-partisan arguments of the other guests did strike me as a disservice to the listener.
It's a shame that Qwest did not appear on the program, as it would have been interesting for them to present their arguments for not building this capacity when it was incentivized in the late 90's, it also would have been interesting to hear how they feel about the current attempts to stimulate this development. I expect I would have found fault with many of their arguments, but at least they'd be arguing from a particular business perspective, rather than political ideology.
-
The cost of infrastructure (to provide high speed internet to rural areas) makes it a tough business case indeed. I am too far from town for DSL and, although a fiber optic cable runs ~100 feet from my property line, tapping into fiber optic cables does not seem to be feasible.
We started using a broadband satellite service (the only thing that seems practical for the low densities of rural dwellings), but pay dearly for the lowest level of service they offer. It is a huge step up from dial-up, but still not great for video (for example).
Will rural dwellers get a subsidy, or a tax break for amounts spent over and above $XX.X?
-
Who is subsidizing my Internet? Not no one.
I choose to live in River City so I can have sewers, lights, Internet and lovely weird neighbors. When I get tired of urban life I will move into the sticks so I can see the stars at night after my bonfire burns out.
On that pyre I will sacrifice my ego, false beliefs, and bad habits along with my mobile, laptop, desktop, Ipod, Garmin, and the beloved high definition telly which is always off now. Technology will undo us unless we choose to use it responsibly, but I suppose that's a topic for another TOL.
How did we survive before the advent of the Internet? The Internet is a luxury, convenience, and is changing society, but the Internet is not a necessity like clean water, food, air and Pokemon.
That said, I imagine a world in which taxes are fairly imposed, citizens and corporations voluntarily pay them, and governments spend the tax revenues expeditiously. Yeah, I like angels, harps, unicorns, and Utopia too, so sue me. All of us could pay a little so that rural Internet and a million other WANTS could be fulfilled.
Unfortunately we settle for a society and financial system that are dependent on making profits based on the disparity between rich and poor. Our system is out of balance because we allow corruption and disparity to exist. Before we build more monuments to our glory we should first make sure they have firm foundations to stand upon.
How 'bout knocking off the b.s., comrades? Our system, zeitgeist, way of being, shared unreality, or whatever you want to call it is broken and you know it. Are we going to fix it?