It kind of depends on what the majority of people in the entire country
thinks ought to be standard levels of infrastructure.
If you live in the country, which things are you willing to not have
just because there aren't as many people to distribute the cost for?
Certainly street lights aren't expected in rural areas (and they're
probably not wanted anyway).
Is a hospital within a reasonable distance one of those things? What's
reasonable?
Electricity. Should everyone have it with a reasonable cost? The people
that came before us decided that electricity was a basic service that
everyone should have. Same with phone service.
We are now debating this same thing with regard to internet service, and
further whether it should or should not be provided over fiber.
I sit firmly on the fence on that last one. I can see arguments going
both ways. The one thing that's clear is that providing basic internet
service to rural areas can be a lot more expensive than in urban areas.
Fiber-based internet service is maybe another level of expensive.
And we've all seen what happens when trying to level the playing field
is done the wrong way. Hopefully we are smart enough to learn from past
mistakes.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 10/29/2016 1:58 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote:
Because I have run the numbers myself and performed the market
research. The average person in my community is unwilling to pay
enough to recoup the investment in an acceptable time-frame. That
being the case, why is it someone else's responsibility to pay for
what our community is unwilling to pay? I want a Bugatti but I don't
think you should get me one.
