The Rural Broadband Myth
Finally, high-speed Internet is coming to rural America, and to hear the Obama Administration tell it, not a minute too soon. Rural America has fallen into a communication abyss, but don’t worry the Government is here to help, and it’s only going to cost 4 billion dollars.
In a press release dated July 1, 2009, the USDA announced that Vice-President Biden will be passing out money like candy on a tour to celebrate broadband coming to rural America. We’re saved!!! There’s just one teeny little problem: we already have high-speed Internet access in rural America. Have for years.
Our farm is one mile out of town, and we are the last place that can get DSL. But because I’m a professional blogger, writer, and Web developer, I need to have constant access to high-speed Internet. So, in addition to my land-based high-speed service, I have an AT&T broadband card. Others in my area choose high-speed satellite. It’s not we don’t have access to modern communication technology; the problem isn’t even the cost. The truth be told, it doesn’t cost me any more for my AT&T broadband card than it does for my DSL. When I talk to my friends and relatives who live in urban areas, they tell me their DSL and AT&T broadband access cost exactly the same as mine. We also agree that DSL is more reliable than wireless broadband and satellite access. So why do we need to spend 4 billion to solve a problem that doesn’t exist?
I’ll concede that broadband and satellite Internet access present problems: dropped service on cloudy days, interrupted service during peak access times, and intermittent slow connections. Yes, these do affect the online experience of rural users, but news flash people, even DSL users report slow connections and dropped service. It happens, not because of where we live, but because of poor technology. And that’s where the Government comes in; they’re going to improve rural communications technology so our service is as unreliable as it is in urban areas. (I think it’s supposed to be considered an upgrade.) According to Vice President Biden:
Today’s announcement is a first step toward realizing President Obama’s vision of a nationwide 21st century communications infrastructure – one that encourages economic growth, enhances America’s global competitiveness, and helps address many of America’s most pressing challenges.
There it is in a nut shell folks: this isn’t about improving communications technology; it’s about fulfilling President Obama’s vision. Not once does the Vice President mention the benefits to rural America, because it isn’t about us either. Rural broadband is a myth, the sanguine longing of Utopian elitists who believe rural people are ignorant. Once again, a Government program aimed at rural America won’t benefit us, but should bolster the political careers of more than a few political types in D.C, and at only 4 billion, it’s a steal. Someone’s getting robbed alright.
Tags: Obama Administration, Rural Broadband, USDA
|
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:25 am
Congratulations on having broadband internet access that you find tolerable – and a whole mile outside of town! I live four miles outside of a town of 13,000 in western Wisconsin, a town with a branch of the University of Wisconsin no less. My options for internet access are: dial-up (~3 Kbps on a good day, often much less), ISDN (for which I currently pay through the nose – 112 Kbps, and fairly reliable), and satellite (up to 1.5 Mbps, but unusable for me as the performance with the VPN my employer uses is worse than dial-up due to latency issues). So ISDN it is. I’d go for an AT&T or Sprint card, which could get me 400 Kbps to 1.6 Mbps (they claim), but the terrain here kills the signal just before it gets to me. I’d take the DSL service you complain about in a heartbeat. My friend, a farmer on the other side of town, has line-of sight access to a wireless tower, and enjoys highly reliable 2.5 Mbps service. But for me and most of the people who live nearby, the options are bad, worse, and truly horrible.
The dearth of rural broadband is not a myth. It’s real. And the fact that you don’t experience it doesn’t make it less real. And the fact that an individual on one road on one side of a ridge has it doesn’t mean that a bunch of poor slobs on the other side of the ridge also have it. It just means that it’s not uniformly distributed.
I’ll bet your farm has electricity. How did it get there? Did you pay the electric company an arm and a leg to run the lines out there? I’ll bet not. Just like many, many other rural customers, the cost of stringing wires to your farm were most likely subsidized, either by the government, or by urban customers through elevated rates. Does that bother you? Doesn’t bother me a bit – that’s the way it ought to be, because having electricity in this age is not a luxury. And neither is access to internet access of high enough bandwidth to get real work done.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:45 am
Thanks for the comment.
I don’t know what you are talking about. 3 kbps? Even in the early days of dial-up, we could get it at 9.6 kbps.
My AT&T card is faster than the DSL, and they cost about the same.
In keeping with your argument, just because you are unhappy with your service, it doesn’t mean everyone’s service is unsatisfactory. And just because you are experiencing some perceived disenfranchisement, it doesn’t make it real. I live one mile out of town, population 403. The nearest town of the size you describe is forty minutes a way. Now, why does my service rock and yours stink? Hmm. It’s a simple issue of supply and demand.
By the way, I run at the highest speeds on all my communication devices. I don’t have any more problems with access than my urban colleagues. You get what YOU pay for.
I does bother me that urban people should have to pay for my luxuries, and Internet access is a luxury. You don’t need it to survive. I know several people that live completely off-grid, Internet included. They’re doing well.
And if you think the Government is even remotely capable of managing anything, let alone rural communications, well, all I can say is put down the Koolaid.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:43 am
You’ll have to forgive my typo. I meant to write 30 Kbps for the dial-up. The other rates are accurate.
No, the fact that I’m unhappy with my options is not evidence that everyone else is unhappy as well. I don’t believe I made any such argument. Your claim is that a lack of rural access to broadband is a myth, and I’m telling you you’re wrong. Of course I know there are people who live just east of nowhere who have service I’d die for. That doesn’t mean everybody has it so well.
I also made no mention of the government managing anything. I would support requiring broadband providers to provide access where it doesn’t exist as a condition of being able to serve the places they’ve already cherry-picked. I’d also support offering them subsidies to take the sting out of the added cost. That doesn’t equate to government managing my broadband service.
You seem to have a bug in your shorts about government in general. So be it. Too bad you can’t see the shades of gray between the black and the white. Some things government does well, and some things government does poorly. No Koolaid here.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Actually, you made several faulty arguments:
In your first post, you claim high-speed Internet is the only way to get any “real” work done. I just got in from the barn, where I yank teats, scrape crap, and do some pretty heavy lifting…that’s real work. What you and I do on the Internet is not “real” in any sense of the word. It is, by it’s nature, virtual. Further, your use of the term “real” to define how you work belies an elitist nature.
Why should providers be required to guarantee service where it doesn’t, and as you point out, can’t exist because of the terrain? Why don’t we just blow up the mountains and ridges? It’s cheaper, faster, and would guarantee service. It’s just ridiculous. If your job requires you to have such access, then you need to move to where that access is available. Just like farmers can’t milk in urban areas, some people can’t work in rural areas.
(BTW, back in the day I was the produce manager at the Whole Foods Coop. If you happen to stop by, tell them I said hello.)
Of course I have a bug in my shorts about the Government….we’re organic farmers (award-winning producers for Organic Valley). We were “green” long before the Gore and Moore Show happened on the scene. We have suffered greatly because of Government policies implemented by urban elitists.
Like President Eisenhower said: “Farming looks might easy when your plow is a pencil, and you’re a thousand miles from the cornfield.”
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Jeri, I think its pretty obvious that rural broadband isn’t ubiquitous. Should it be? I don’t know; there are benefits to rural life not shared by urban Americans (cleaner air, less traffic, etc.). As I see it, there is a cost for those benefits, part of that cost means by living in rural areas, you forego some of the benefits (and problems) of living in urban areas.
Ultimately, I don’t have a problem with ubiquitous rural broadband. The question is, how to pay for it. Do we really need another REA-like program or should we allow the market to decide? That’s a policy call and being conservative by nature, I have my views on how it should be, but liberals are in power now and its their turn to run the show.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:20 am
[...] The Rural Broadband Myth Finally, high-speed Internet is coming to rural America, and to hear the Obama Administration tell it, not a minute too soon. Rural America has fallen into a communication abyss, but don’t worry the Government is here to help, and it’s only going to cost 4 billion dollars. I wouldn’t want government built broadband., would you? I mean, look at Amtrak. [...]
July 3rd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Is it acceptable that only 1/3 of farmers have high-speed access? I don’t think so. Access varies widely by where you farm as you can see by this chart from the latest Ag Census in 2007
http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/2007mapgallery/album/Farms/Number/slides/Percent%20of%20Farms%20with%20High-Speed%20Internet%20Access.html
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Thanks for the comment.
Here’s the problem with the chart. Everyone who wants high-speed access can get it. All they have to do is purchase an AT&T broadband card, or a satellite. Yes, it is expensive. But it is no more expensive for rural people than it is for anyone else. The price is the same. I pay over $100.00 a month for my high-speed DSL, and $79.99 for my AT&T card. The same as everyone else.
Some people can’t get access because of the terrain. This is true in urban and rural areas. I’ve been in plenty of urban areas where my AT&T card wouldn’t work, nor would my phone, because of highways and other infrastructure issues. Out here in the country, if you live in a valley or in the forest, chances are, you’re not going to get high-speed anything. What would you have the providers do, slash down the trees and blow up the ridges so a few people, who may not even want high-speed Internet can get it?
If people’s jobs require them to have high-speed access, then they should move to where that service is available. Just like we had to move to the Northwoods from River Falls, WI to milk cows. Can’t do that in the city, now can you?
As for the government’s numbers—yeah, right. They don’t even have a definition for “family farm.” To them, we’re all the same as David Letterman (See Letterman to Taxpayers: Thanks for the Money, Suckers.) I’ll bet he has high-speed.
I am a farmer, first growing organic vegetables near River Falls, Wisconsin. (Which is ANYTHING but a rural community. It is more accurately a suburb of the Greater Twin Cities Metro Area. That’s why we moved. Too many urban elitists moving to the country and telling us what to do.) The Internet isn’t God. Having it doesn’t make one any smarter than not having it. Don’t worry about us real farmers; if we want something, we know how to go about getting it. We’re a tough lot and pretty smart if I do say so myself.
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Good point. The Government building anything is a joke. Besides, rural communities won’t see a penny of the 4 billion. I’ll bet the farm that 4 years from now, people who don’t have broadband today will still be unable to get it.
July 4th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Here’s the problem with your comment. You are fortunate live close to the Cites and have AT&T 3G Broadband coverage. Most of rural America does not have this coverage and have to rely on slower ways to access the Internet.
See the facts from AT&T’s comment about their coverage and their tools to check it.
“Cities Supporting AT&T 3G/Mobile Broadband
The AT&T 3G / BroadbandConnect network is currently available in most major metropolitan areas and is expanding rapidly. Click on a major metropolitan area below to view coverage for that area.”
http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/popUp_3g.jsp
Sure, one can pay more and get a satellite but that view is similar to our national health care. What we have is good but it is expensive.
And then there is rural health care. We have good hospitals but they are more expensive then they should be and are often a long way away from the farm.
Given your apparent attitudes towards the value of government, I would guess that you don’t see any national need to address rural health care either.
July 5th, 2009 at 1:55 am
GL,
I don’t live anywhere near the Cities. What on earth gave you that idea? I live on the edge of the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in the Northwoods of Wisconsin. (No global warming here. We’re coming off of a seven-month winter.) The closest town has a population of 403. Sorry, but my coverage is just fine here.
I feel the same about health care as I do about broadband. You get what YOU pay for.
If you can’t afford health care…there’s always the welfare system. In Wisconsin it’s called Badger Care. And a family of 3 can make up to $40,000 a year and qualify. Health care, like most issues, should be handled at the state level, especially rural health care. I don’t want anyone in D.C. making those kinds of personal decisions for me.
I grew up in what was then West Germany. I am familiar with socialized health care. I’ll take my chances with the private system.
July 5th, 2009 at 2:43 am
ROFL I think you truly made your point and I can tell by some of the comments. Where in the world would anyone get the idea that rural people need subsidies to get broadband! LOLOL Exactly proves your point that the elite and progressives think the rural people are some how under privileged and on welfare. Good grief. For crying out loud, monasteries out in the middle of nowhere have it. They pay for it same as anyone else. And anyone can get internet for $19.95 if they want a less fast one. I have spent the last 9 years without broadband and so what? Oh my gosh. I can’t believe what I am reading! Reminds me of college when all the gals from Chicago thought there were bears in the woods 60 miles outside of Chicago.
Rural health care. Bolonie. There are urgent care facilities all over in rural areas that anyone can use. Rural people are rural because they like it there. City people have NO clue the beauties of living rural and I find that a shame. Caught up in toys and what you can buy. And believe me…I have lived in the city and in the rural. And I have worked for the government and know full well that young people…..under 40…are totally clueless. Get a life…get out of the city and find out what is real and true.