Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
But they also deserve to have or enjoy the benefits that comes with
living in the big cities
I grew up in a rural area served by dialup for the first 15 years of my life,
so please don't misunderstand what I'm about to say. No, they don't.
Living in a rural area is a different set of value propositions than living in
the Big City, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. Do people living in the big
cities reap the benefits of living in the country? No ambient noise, no air
pollution, low crime rates, neighbors you know and can trust your children
with? No, they don't.
That isn't to say that broadband technology won't (or shouldn't) find ways of
serving people in rural areas with increasingly usable levels of throughput
while decreasing jitter and loss; it already is (and should), and the situation
is constantly improving. But I think it's a mistake to say that people who
have made the decision to live in the Big City should expect to enjoy the same
benefits as people who have made the decision to live in rural towns, and vice
versa. They'll never be the same, and unless I'm very much mistaken, that's
actually OK.
There's truth to what you say, but there is another side that often gets
missed. The rational for universal telephone service isn't just that
rural residents need access, but that folks in denser areas need to be
able to reach them - the value of a network connection lies not only in
who can reach you, but who you can reach.
A similar argument applies to broadband. In today's economy, supply
chains are spread all across the map - extending networks into rural
areas, is not just for the benefit of those who live in those rural areas.
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
