Part of the opportunity cost you pay for living outside of the city includes more expensive and/or slower network access. Why should other people be forced to subsidize your connectivity just because you choose to live in an inaccessible area? You could always move to a location that has more options.
It's no different than restaurant choices in rural versus urban areas. Should the government force restaurants to run a losing business in rural areas just so people who choose to live there have more choices?
If convicted of copyright infringement, I recommend those involved at the MPAA be sentenced to 5 years of watching the FBI warning on copyright infringement, non-stop.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the opportunity cost you pay for living outside of the city includes more expensive and/or slower network access. Why should other people be forced to subsidize your connectivity just because you choose to live in an inaccessible area? You could always move to a location that has more options. It's no different than restaurant choices in rural versus urban areas. Should the government force restaurants to run a losing business in rural areas just so people who choose to live there have more choices?
If convicted of copyright infringement, I recommend those involved at the MPAA be sentenced to 5 years of watching the FBI warning on copyright infringement, non-stop.