Wednesday, September 7, 2011

The Rural Divide

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced last week that telecommunications companies in 16 states would receive federal funding to expand broadband Internet access in rural areas. More than $103 million – $90 million from infrastructure loans, the rest supplied by the USDA’s Community Connect grants program – will be shared by Alabama, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

The funding is intended to minimize the information gap between urban and rural areas. Recent reports estimate that 1 in 10 American’s don’t have access to a quality Internet connection. An FCC report titled Bringing Broadband to Rural America reported that 28% of rural America, or about 19 million people, have insufficient Internet access.

The logic behind the funding is this: Without access to a quality broadband connection, people in these rural areas have reduced economic opportunities. In addition, the educational infrastructure suffers. Proponents argue that, long-term, younger people won’t stay in these remote areas without quality connectivity.

But would they stay anyway?

For the sake of argument, consider the following: If there were no jobs or growth opportunities in an area, would the people in that area flee no matter where they were located? People will always search for a better way of life. If you choose to live in a remote part of the country, is it the government’s responsibility to provide you with the connectivity comforts of a more populated area?

What’s your take on the subject? Are the potential downstream economic advantages worth the associated costs?

Labels: Fixed Wireless Broadband, Rural Broadband, USDA