If we were going to spend the money, infrastructure for rural broadband access instead would be my choice.
It's not just about personal use, there are also lots of farms and businesses out here in the sticks that could and would benefit. You can't expand to internet sales or use many business applications on dialup service, and for many rural small businesses the cost of satellite service (assuming it's available) eats into the bottom line. As hard hit as some cities are, the rural economy in many areas got the bust without really benefiting much from the boom years before it. Any hand up to new opportunity would be helpful.
Although every phone bill has included a fee for rural broadband for years, makes me wonder what's been done with that money.
Sadly the huge lion's share of all federal monies is swallowed up by the bureaucracy and never gets to its intended target. That is why I oppose the federal government doing muich of anything outside of its constitutionally mandated responsibilities. Most state governments are far more efficient and local governments evenmoreso--the best solution for most rural problems are private coops by which almost all of the funding collected is assigned to fixing the problem.
I know there are exceptions and we all can probably name at least one. But I think Americans have become far too dependent on government instead of looking to correct what needs fixing themselves. There is a solution for almost every situation if enough heads determine to figure it out and then muster the gumption to just do it.
However there are areas in New Mexico that still do not have any form of public utilities--no electricity, no public telephone service, no broadband, no piped in natural gas, etc. The people who choose to live in those areas accept that as the way it is for those who choose to live where they live. They use propane lighting, heating, etc., or utilize wind chargers or propane fueled generators, satellite phones and computer service, etc. etc. and they get along just fine. After visiting with some of the rugged individuals who choose that lifestyle they wouldn't give up their freedom and way of life for the amenities that we folks in the city enjoy for anything. I sort of envy them actually.
No, I'm not talking about a tax. It's a fee paid directly to the phone company to subsidize them building broadband access in rural areas. It never goes to the government.
I'd like to know what's happening to that money.
Sure, for individuals it's a choice to live in those areas. But until and unless urban farming reaches a scale where cities are going to be self-sufficient in food production, or you want to import all of your produce, y'all need the farms and orchards in more fertile areas near major cities to stay afloat. And the people who live in those areas need to make a living to be able to stay in business, something that's been exceedingly difficult for family truck and dairy farmers in the last 30 years.
And here when they go our of business it's not to sell to agribusiness, it's to sell to developers and that farmland is gone forever. Which means more imported food, more produce lying on a truck for days instead of getting there quickly, and higher dairy prices.
There are a lot of areas like the one where I live, where there are still a huge number of family farms, orchards, and dairies that serve the I-95 corridor. Something as simple as broadband internet access for those businesses can do a lot increase efficiency, which saves both time and money.
In some depressed rural areas unemployment right now is running 20% and real estate isn't moving for people to be able to get out. There are a lot of home based businesses that can be launched or jobs with companies at a distance that can be worked from home to help families cope...but not on dialup.
Yep, I live here so I'm biased. Sue me.
But seriously, if you're going to spend the money isn't it better to invest it in an area where some of it will come back in increased earnings, jobs and taxes than to throw it away?
