General discussion

Locked

Should tax dollars be spent on providing high-speed Internet access ...

By deepsand ·
to rural areas?

Cast your vote at
[v]http://update.internetweek.com/cgi-bin4/DM/y/eoXy0GPPhz0G4X0DR520EC[/v];

then, tell us your position here.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

1 total post (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Why not

by Oz_Media In reply to Should tax dollars be spe ...

Living in BC and working with dozens of startups and even estabblished businesses in rural areas I can only say that it is a benefit to those businesses.

I don't know if I really agree with TX dollars being used but the line providers SHOULD be making these areas accessible. Just like digital T though, unless the area has a minimun percentage of needy users, it is not mandatory to provide services beyodn the basic.

There are many areas of BC that have JUST had party lines removed for direct service, which is really detrimental to business.

In Canada, as in the USA too I supose, there are a lot of remote businesses. If the providers cannot facilitate services that will allow them to compete effectively in today's marketplace, then perhaps teh government should. Compared to some of the other ways the government spends money, this one wouldn't be that bad actualy. At least people and their businesses would have a better chance of succeeding, which is really why we all live in our chosen countries, the lands of opportunity.

When a company paid to have MY fibre brought in, it was nearly a half- million dollars. That cost was also absorbed by them offering skyshots to the logging camps and other smaller businesses in the region though.

As a result, local business run far more efficiently, people are getting product order from all over North America, if not the world now.

So it DOES pay off, in this case at the expense of a private company (though costs were recovered and I'm sure profitable in the long run), I think this should have been at the expense of the telco or carrier though, THEY get paid for it. If the government regulates it so that the telcos are not forced to offer service, then the government should be prepared to absorb that cost themselves.

There is a rule, again for digital cable, that if MORE than 10% of the subscibers in a remote area access the service, then it must be covered in order for that company to conduct business in Canada. This is how they reduce the number of local start-ups and 'here today gone tomorrow' services.

Small start-ups cannot just be a couple of private investors seeking larger companies to buy them out. You need infrastructure to compete, which is fair on those who HAVE invested in lines and services.

Deregulation took forever in Canada, people were fuming that services were so unregulated and cheaper in the US when we had a US monopoly providing service across Canada.

They took time to see what the problems in the US were and wrote strict regulatory guidelines to ensrue the same wouldn't happen up here. Now we have the benefit of deregulation while offering higher quality service and support to Canadians at a lower cost than before.

These are the same regulations that are slowing broadband and digital cable expansion in Canada.

Back to Desktop Forum
1 total post (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums