|
No, I believe that as a consumer, you choose what is important to you. You are just throwing out a straw man. For some people, lots of cheap land is important. That's what got my sister out to the sticks. She bought 80 acres for less than a normal sized house in many urban areas. The trade off is that since she is a low population density area, it simply isn't economical to run high speed cable to each and every house. Nor is it economical to have enough cell towers to give everyone a strong signal. Those are just the cold,hard, economic facts of life. Nothing elitist about it. I can assure you that the urban area that I live in would not be on anyone's list of elitist places. It simply has the population density to support lots of stuff.
She finds that satellite internet gets the job done for her. Not a perfect solution, but it's much faster than dial up and getting better all the time. I read last week that Google is looking at putting up a fleet of satellites to provide fast internet for rural areas.
If you want to have multiple fast internet providers in your home town, then do a little research. Find out why you don't have multiple fast internet providers. Is it because your local government granted a monopoly to one provider? Is it because there just isn't the population density to support multiple providers? Most places should have at least cable and DSL. Anyway you look at it, it isn't a federal issue (remember when don't make a federal case out of meant something?), it's a local issue, to be solved locally.
|