Forcing ISPs to offer broadband to rural customers?
ISPs to rural America: Live with dial-up
As population density drops outside of metropolitan areas, it's impossible for telecommunications companies or cable service providers to justify the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars per mile it can cost to bring fiber to every rural community, let alone every home. The result: Today, just 17% of rural U.S. households subscribe to broadband service, according to the Government Accountability Office. And a recent report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says the U.S. dropped from fourth in the world in broadband penetration in 2001 to 15th place in 2006.
The author of this article goes on to suggest that perhaps government needs to force ISPs to offer rural broadband service.
By coincidence, yesterday, I returned from a trip to Vermont, and a pretty rural section. I had to deal with dial-up only access while there, and it's definitely frustrating. I had dinner with some friends of mine who moved up there a few years ago and they told me they contacted Comcast about getting high-speed access to their house, which currently was not available. Comcast sent out a technician to investigate and found that the cost would have been $87,000 to grant that access. Now, even given that there are a few other people on their road, why should Comcast be expected to pick up that tab? (They offered to cover $6,000 of the cost, leaving my friends with the remaining $81,000, which could be split among the residents of their road.) It would take prohibitively long for Comcast to recoup their investment, if it were even possible to do so once maintenance and other expenses are taken into account.
At a certain point, you have to take the good with the bad. Living in a rural area gives you cleaner air, less traffic and noise, being close to nature, just to list a few benefits. But it comes at a cost: newspaper delivery doesn't occur, snowstorms can leave you stranded for a few days, high-speed Internet access can be unavailable. As often happens in life, there are trade-offs to every decision. Expecting others to cover the negative consequences of your decision is just selfish.
Comments
I live in such an area. You're right - it is my choice and the peace & quiet makes up for the inconveniences. I don't expect the world to beat a path to my door. In fact, I would rather everyone just stay away. :)
As for internet service, technology already exists to solve the problem. We use a broadband service that connects via an antenna on my roof to an antenna on a nearby hilltop which also serves everyone else in the vicinity. The monthly fees are a bit more than people in the cities pay, but no wires are necessary.
Posted by: Patrick | August 28, 2007 1:25 PM
Satellite TV companies also provide broadband. No infrastructure cost there either.
Posted by: Duffy | August 28, 2007 3:59 PM
I've looked into satellite internet as well. The problem is you get a small time lag with each link up or down. It's only a second or two, but for real-time applications like online gaming or VOIP the delay is intolerable.
However, for people in VERY remote spots satellite is probably their only broadband option for now. They will just have to live with the latency problem.
Posted by: Patrick | August 28, 2007 4:52 PM
My friends in Vermont discussed satellite as well. Some of their coworkers have used it and aren't thrilled with the performance. (My friends aren't technical enough to worry about time lags and such. They just want to download music.)
Posted by: Paul Smith | August 30, 2007 2:47 PM