

U.S. should spend $44 billion on broadband - ccraigIW
http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/12/18/US_should_spend_44_billion_on_broadband_1.html

======
mdasen
I guess I'll be the first to say it: why?

Rural areas cannot have the same connectivity as urban areas without
government subsidy or people paying more per month. So, why shouldn't they pay
more per month?

If they shouldn't pay more per month, should they subsidize my rent so that I
don't have to pay more for housing than they do? Why shouldn't we encourage
people to live in places that it is economical to provide services?

Rural living is different. You get a lot of privacy, freedom, land, etc. In
exchange, you loose out on things that require a dense population such as the
latest internet connectivity, theaters, stores open late at night, etc. It's a
trade off.

If we are going to stress rural broadband, I think the best idea is to push
Verizon and AT&T in their rollout of 3G wireless services. Wireless is much
easier and economical to roll out to rural areas. It isn't as fast, but it has
a good upgrade path (with speeds increasing to several Mbps in a year or two
and continuing on from then). It's also easier to upgrade. In rural areas, you
could have one tower serving many square miles and all you need to do is
upgrade that one tower. No fuss, no muss.

In urban areas with dense populations, wireless actually makes less sense
because so many people would be sharing bandwidth that you'd have to put cell
sites everywhere and that isn't so feasible. Rural areas are really prime for
wireless. Push the wireless carriers to serve these areas a little faster.

~~~
makecheck
The article does indicate that the rural roll-outs will be wireless.

Also, the money is not all spent on them, it is also meant to improve current
services. Compared to countries like Japan, for instance, U.S. "high speed" is
like a 9600 baud modem and could really be better.

