Should The Government Fix Slow Internet Access? (fivethirtyeight.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a story from Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight site about "the worst internet in America": FiveThirtyEight analyzed every county's broadband usage using data from researchers at the University of Iowa and Arizona State University and found that Saguache, Colorado was at the bottom. Only 5.6 percent of adults were estimated to have broadband... It has some of the worst internet in the country. That's in part because of the mountains and the isolation they bring... Its population of 6,300 is spread across 3,169 square miles 7,800 feet above sea level, but on land that is mostly flat, so you can almost see the full scope of two mountain ranges as you drive the county's highway...

But Saguache isn't alone in lacking broadband. According to the Federal Communications Commission, 39 percent of rural Americans -- 23 million people -- don't have access. In Pew surveys, those who live in rural areas were about twice as likely not to use the internet as urban or suburban Americans.
In Saguache County download speeds of 12 Mbps (with an upload speed of 2 Mbps) cost $90 a month, and the article points out that when it comes to providing broadband, "small companies and cooperatives are going it more or less alone, without much help yet from the federal government." But that raises an inevitable question. Should the federal government be subsidizing rural internet access?

Comments

universal service fund

[Spazmania]

Before Clinton converted it in to a "laptops for schools" program, the Universal Service Fund was used to fund telephone lines in rural America where the cost was too high. It worked: telephones became ubiquitous. The Universal Service Fund should be restored to its original purpose with the simple tweak: fund the initial builds for broadband Internet access in rural America.

Re:universal service fund

[GerryGilmore]

You're already at +5, so my mod point won't matter. Therefore, I'll burn the ability to mod to say: Right On! In the same way that: railroads, then the telegraph, paved roads, electricity and - to your comment - telephone service were always rightfully seen as ways to use public money to yield a much greater public good, expanding internet access to all areas is Good(TM). While some yokels may chortle about faster porn, the reality is that NO business will voluntarily locate to an area without decent internet access today. This deprives those areas of an equal opportunity to gain new jobs and grow their economy. As a people, we are not slow learners, just very fast forgetters.

Re:Nine most terrifying words...

[Anonymous Coward]

The US government has been paying for nothing for years.

Verizon Knows You're A Sucker: Takes Taxpayer Subsidies For Broadband, Doesn't Deliver, Lobbies To Drop Requirements

Shocker: Billions In Broadband Subsidies Wasted As Government Turns Blind Eye To Fraud

Wired to fail

Re:Isolation

[Euroranger]

I'm sure you'll take equal comfort in that notion should they decide to stop shipping food to you in whatever city it is that you infest, right? I mean, you decided to live way the heck out in the middle of a city to enjoy the fruits of civilization but now want food? Why? See how that works? That said, the government funding something is the worst way to go. They should encourage the existing electric providers (who already have infrastructure in those areas) to add internet access via BPL/PLC. The technology exists, much of the infrastructure is already there...give them lowered tax rates or whatever. However, at base, the government shouldn't have an interest in providing internet access to citizens. It's not a fundamental need (despite what city folk think would happen to their lives if they were without net access for more than an hour). The government can serve a community purpose but needs to encourage the private sector to step up and do it.