Comments on: Why Rural Broadband Access Matters

By: David Deans

David Deans — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:54:27 +0000

@Tõnu Otsason, thanks for sharing that perspective.

Agreed, informed local insight will be invaluable in these situations.

0 likes

By: Tõnu Otsason

Tõnu Otsason — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:31:55 +0000

That is a remarkable amount of investments which we put in for saving rural potentials in less developed countries, and also developed states
In centres we can’t discover the ways and means by with these investments will go back.

This is question of Return of Investments (ROI). But the local farmers and entreptreneurs have more knowledge about local resourses and implementation complexities.

Local people have this knowledge. It is important to empower their networks for development through cooperative knowledge sharing and e-education.

0 likes

By: David Deans

David Deans — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 15:22:59 +0000

@Jonathan, thanks for sharing that point of view. Moreover, people in large metro areas can easily forget why rural economic development should matter to them as well.

0 likes

By: Jonathan Michael Colwill

Jonathan Michael Colwill — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:32:20 +0000

MiFarms primary mission is to combine space age technology with traditional and modern farming technologies to promote a techno agrarian environment accessible to all. It’s primary goal to create profitable farms capable of supporting a family comfortably on just 2 – 6 Ha.

It’s secondary and tertiary missions to stimulate village and market town communities by stimulating their respective economies at a local level from the ground up, severing the connections between them and the instabilities of the stock market.

Britain’s rural econmony has greater significance to Britains growth than most people realise, in fact it is its taproot. A root so important that without it that we would have lost the last war. If we dont feed the roots, than the flower will surely wilt or die…

1 like

By: David Deans

David Deans — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:51:59 +0000

@Mark, thank you for adding your perspective to this debate.

Understood, regarding the investment required to lobby government (including state an local entities) in the U.S. marketplace. To put this into perspective, for our readers in other countries, it’s reported that the large incumbent telecom service providers in America each spend about $3 million per quarter on vaious Federal lobbying efforts.

0 likes

By: Mark Landers

Mark Landers — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:50:32 +0000

I know I’m a little late in my reply, but I believe the “risk assessment” by access providers might have a large component in it called “Government funding risk.” Quite simply, the risk-free nature of the federal dollar isn’t what it used to be. Funding comes and goes with every new Congress. Now combine that with the boatload of strings that will (undoubtedly) come attached, and it’s easy to see why it’s easier for providers to build out in an estabished, but understood market than take a risk on a government partnership, especially one where socio-economic factors work against your business model.

The politics of who gets the awards for rural services also has to be considered. The smaller companies are more risk-tolerant, but might not be able to compete in the halls of Congress or the FCC for favorable rights vs. larger companies. They just don’t have the lobbying resources to get a seat at the table.

Just my two cents…

0 likes

By: David Deans

David Deans — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:31:08 +0000

@CJ, thank you for sharing your experience.

The incentive question is likely best answered after a comprehensive assessment of the local environment. What I’ve learned, by monitoring the U.S. competitive access provider market over the last decade, is that alternative telecom service providers don’t assess risk in a predictable way. Clearly, government policymakers have been puzzled by this phenomenon.

A case in point: most alternative fiber facilities-based service providers have proven that they would gladly invest in being the third or fourth provider in the business district of an already over-served major metro area, rather than venture into an under-served rural market. They don’t fear carrier competition; they’re more concerned about the apparent demand for service and the potential for paying customers (or the lack thereof).

0 likes

By: CJ

CJ — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:20:35 +0000

I would have to say it is largely a ROI issue. The problem trying to reach Rural America is getting the money to do so.

Fortunately, right now I work for a company that is doing just that. We are pushing our fiber further and further into areas that nobody is going, trying to get broadband into the rural areas in upstate NY.

I fully agree we need to service the rural parts, but at the same time, it has to make business sense for businesses to pursue it.

So what can we do to incentivize business to pursue those markets?

0 likes