Ever since the stimulus package was first mentioned, there has been intense debate. From the roadways to the information superhighway, everyone has had an opinion. Many have opinions about the broadband section of the bill, and some believe that the U.S. doesn’t need a broadband stimulus. Yet from my experience in speaking with rural service providers, I have formed the exact opposite opinion. We do need a broadband stimulus package.
I live in San Francisco, so I have a variety of broadband options available. In my apartment alone, I have both reliable wireless and wireline options at my disposal. However, there are a lot of places in the country that don’t have those options. Sometimes, they don’t even have one reliable way to get phone service, much less Internet access.
Last fall before the TelcoTV conference, I was speaking with a rural telecommunications provider in Northern Montana. He explained the challenges he faces in rolling out high-speed broadband to his consumers. Not only does he have to wait for the frozen ground to thaw before sending technicians out into the field to lay fiber, but some of his subscribers are more than 25 miles apart from each other. So the installation year is shorter and the distance to be covered is greater.
Just because people live in remote places in the U.S. doesn’t mean they should be kept from having the same access to broadband services the rest of the country does. If anything, they should have better services to keep them connected over greater geographic distances. I look forward to hearing about the services rural providers will now be able to deliver thanks to the ARRA funds the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will be issuing in the next few years. I hope my new friends in Montana will get to benefit as well.
Comments