Should internet be subsidized for rural dwellers? (Reagan, Clinton, Obama)

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by crone

The universally hated and grossly misunderstood FCC regulations have been, in a way, subsidizing rural phone service since 1920. They switched to cell service a couple of years ago.

Just another unfair cost past on to urban living people by the USA Congress. It is the 4.5B a year Connect America Fund. Paid for by a tax on phone bills.

The congress needs to get out of the business of making all of us pay for everyones's life style choices. But that would require some thought. They considers long range planning what they are going to do after lunch.

Governments also subsidize rural farmers so that you city dwellers can have food on the table. Hungry much?

[Joe90]

Nope. My interent access is so bad and pricey, that I just rely on dialup instead. It's not for someone else to pay though.

Same with farm subsidies -free market sorts the wheat from the chaff.

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

Governments also subsidize rural farmers so that you city dwellers can have food on the table. Hungry much?

As well as corn so that you city folks will have more car problems due to ethanol.

[DUNNDFRNT]

Originally Posted by AnsleyPark

Governments also subsidize rural farmers so that you city dwellers can have food on the table. Hungry much?

That's more about keeping inflation down, rural areas produce food that's their product it's not like they give it away, factory farming is done by corporations who are based out of cities they own rural land or have some sort of serfdom like relationship with farmers, you don't like it do something else with your land, you are not a hero because you decided to grow food and sell it.

[ohhwanderlust]

That would be incredibly expensive. The US is a huge country geographically, and in rural areas, are all spread out.

[tinytrump]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

Any person in a rural area can get Internet via satellite dish. The government has no business trying to "solve" this "problem".

very expensive for those who are making no money- and crappy internet

[Frank DeForrest]

No. Cheap Internet isn't a right.

[RedZin]

Originally Posted by War Beagle

No. And that's coming from someone who would love to live in the sticks.

Agreed.

I'm starting to think some of these folks had better lives before Internet was available inside their homes at a subsidy.

If they had to work to pay for it, maybe they'd actually use it to learn and search for work instead of just reading Breitbart all day.

[s1alker]

Most rural areas do have internet, even if it's just satellite or dial up. Of course there are places that are extremely remote. But I doubt it's worth the cost of investment for those places.

[bawac34618]

I think wireless is the way to go for rural areas. Satellite is expensive and unreliable and the DSL available out there is many times very outdated as well (not much better than dial-up). It's simply too expensive though to put the fiber infrastructure in place to bring quality Internet to many places in this country where the density is so low that they will never recoup their investment. Google is currently working on a fixed wireless technology however that could solve the problem. Place a transmitter on a radio tower, and customers can place a dish on their roof aimed at the tower. This works much, much better than satellite and is much cheaper in implement.

One thing is certain though...people who move to the country know beforehand that some conveniences of living in a populated area won't be available, Internet being one of them. The only argument I can think of for subsidizing rural Internet is for education. Students who live in these areas are at a disadvantage compared to their connected urban counterparts.