|
Hmm... "functionality", I thought there was a good deal of that in my post.
So it seems that many of you believe that companies have extra or unlimited resources
that they can spend on unprofitable endeavors? It seems to me that, functionally, you
want other peoples tax dollars to subsidize something, for you, that the companies see
as impractical due to the lower population density of your rural environment.
I live in the suburbs of San Antonio, while technically within the city limits, I would in no way describe it as an urban environment. Still, I can dream of living out in the real country with my own isolated little piece of heaven. I fully realize that there would be
a number of things that I would have to give up, to have my own slice of paradise. In
today's mobile society I already gave up ice fishing, for a nearly endless summer. There
are plenty of trade offs between living in or near a city and living in the country.
I also feel that this idea that we should have laws passed to protect established
companies and/or their unionized labor force, from the forces of a free marketplace,
to be one of the worst perversions of our system.
If you want any real hope that a technology will be developed, that makes it both
practical and profitable to provide a better broadband service to rural locations, I
would put my money in a private entrepreneur, rather than depending on a government
bureaucrat.
By the way, how is it that you all see a "Muni" broadband as providing more service to
rural locations? How far outside of a small farming community's "city limits" do you expect that the small community network will be willing to support?
In any case you have to pay one way or another, in taxes or provider billing (or both).
Luck;
Ken
|