

Tubes for the Sticks: Internet for Rural America - Silentio
http://www.graphpaper.com/2009/02-02_tubes-for-the-sticks

======
iigs
_Some [...] might say that people who choose to live in the country have by
definition chosen to live a technologically backwards (and, importantly,
increasingly unsustainable) existence. That the responsible and ethical choice
for any modern human is to live somewhere easily and affordably accessible by
wires and roads and mass transit (and food and water)_

I find this attitude galling. I grew up in the rural American midwest. We
bought our beef, a half-cow at a time, from families within a long walking
range (maybe a five minute drive). My next door neighbor and childhood best
friend lived on a 40 cow dairy operation -- I drank milk that hadn't been out
of a cow ten minutes. My water came out of a hole in the ground maybe 250 feet
away from our house. Food doesn't come from big glass boxes and isn't grown on
trucks. Water doesn't come from pipes or big processing plants. My daily
commute in Seattle is longer than any normal commute I would make into the
city as a child. In fact, small town America looks a lot like the mixed-use
urban utopias that all of the enlightened people are trying desperately to
recreate -- small groups of people each near the resources they consume,
banding together to collectively look out for each other and improve their
world.

End rant.

 _What’s more, I really don’t think people who lack access to technology have
any idea about the user experience they are missing._

My largest gripe with living in the midwest (until ~2000 when I left) was
that, as a geek, I wasn't able to find a lot of other people who shared my
hobbies -- kind of a recreational version of the advice to live in SFO if you
want to start a business. Threeish years after I left my parents were able to
get broadband internet, via 12 mile (!) 802.11b shot from a hilltop to a tall
building in the nearby city. I certainly knew what I was missing, and I think
easy access to internet in a lot of the smaller communities (say, less than
25,000 people) could have a transforming effect on the USA in both directions
-- culture in to and culture out of rural America.

~~~
askrom
Hi there... I am the article's author, and I hope I was clear that with
regards to the first quote I was not talking about myself, necessarily --
although I sympathize with the urban-centric point of view, I also know that
we have to have a diverse culture and country life will always be a part of
it.

But more importantly, regarding the second comment: This statement is in
response to real-world polls that show that a huge number of people lacking
broadband _specifically say_ they don't want it. Your experience proves my
point that these polls simply cannot be correct. If anyone actually says they
don't want broadband, they can't possibly know what they're even talking
about. I can only suppose that they think there's a hidden cost to it (money,
or maybe learning something new) and that the pollster is asking a trick
question.

~~~
iigs
I recognize that and assign none of the original attitude or my frustration to
you. Furthermore, I recognize that you said "blah may say..." essentially
making my rant a (response to a) straw man. me->eat(bait); :)

I contend that life in rural America (from in the country to 10,000 person
towns) probably contributes less carbon per person than suburban life (say the
outer 1/3rd of any city over 500k people). Furthermore, while there are always
exceptions, people who live in towns where everyone knows their name have a
great incentive to maintain order and not ruin resources (wells, sewer/septic,
grade the land or irrigate irresponsibly).

As for the polls, I agree. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. For better or
worse, there's a southern and midwest stereotype that regards curmudgeonly
behavior very highly. These are the people that claim to not want anti-lock
brakes or fuel injection but sure don't whine too much about their cars
starting better for the last 20 years. Maybe those people won't ever want
internet, but their children certainly will.

------
mdasen
It's a wonderfully well-written and calm piece. Kudos to the author for
choosing to let their piece rest on its argument rather than shock and awe to
rile up a group of people.

However, there is one thing lacking: how we should pay for it. Should
urbanites subsidize internet for the rural? Should rural folk subsidize rent
for urbanites? More importantly, what is broadband? Does 768k DSL count? It's
definitely way above dial-up.

Part of it isn't even a last mile issue. Part of it is that many people don't
live within 100 miles of an internet backbone. It's physically impossible to
get that far from a backbone in places like South Korea or Japan and a lot of
Western Eruope. It means that you have to draw fiber a lot further in terms of
distance and that costs a lot more.

That's partly why I think wireless will be the savior here. It isn't as fast
as hard lines, but it can cover big distances (especially fixed wireless where
you have a stable antenna on your roof which is what you can install for
homes) and current technology could probably provide 1.5Mbps to rural areas
today with increases coming at a decent clip. It's no 20Mbps cable modem, but
it will allow them to use VoIP, video, etc. And it would be a lot cheaper than
running so much fiber to rural areas.

I have a love/hate relationship with "great projects" and I think the internet
is a wonderful thing and would love to see more have access to it, but I don't
think rural areas can see parity. Likewise, I think we can work to close the
gap. If we moved the USF (<http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/tapd/universal_service/>) to
focus on broadband we could get the ball rolling and it's something that
already exists for a similar purpose. Give the telecoms a little incentive to
push 3G into more rural areas and offer fixed wireless (basically, the same as
a data card only with a nice antenna since it's fixed). Verizon Wireless is
already pushing into areas unserved by DSL and the like with EV-DO.

It's tough, but I think that wireless, especially with LTE, HSPA+, and WiMAX
in the very near future (Verizon has said they're going to have LTE in a few
cities within a year and AT&T is going to be aggressive about HSPA+) is going
to allow us to light up the rural areas in a way that allows them to
participate in the online community nicely.

