>Mandating high speed internet access for everyone sounds great until you look at the costs for running new infrastructure to some of our more remote, rural cities.
Yes but broadband companies have already been given tax breaks and subsides to do that very work. They just haven't because (as an example) AT & T argues DSL still qualifies as sufficient for internet access. The original article was about upping the speed required to meet the definition of broadband from 25 down 3 up to 100 symmetrical. I'm not sure that'll actually make a difference unless broadband providers are required to install that new infrastructure.
When you’re talking about subsidies, cable companies are in a totally different boat than phone companies, because they’re regulated under an entirely different section of the communications act. It wasn’t until the Obama administration that broadband even came within the ambit of federal subsidies. Until then, the money was just for phone.
Yes but broadband companies have already been given tax breaks and subsides to do that very work. They just haven't because (as an example) AT & T argues DSL still qualifies as sufficient for internet access. The original article was about upping the speed required to meet the definition of broadband from 25 down 3 up to 100 symmetrical. I'm not sure that'll actually make a difference unless broadband providers are required to install that new infrastructure.