• Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
  • default color
  • green color
  • red color

Three Rivers Publishing

Thursday
Jun 20th
Home Editorials Editorials Washington should promote, not threaten, rural broadband
Washington should promote, not threaten, rural broadband Print E-mail
Written by Don Santhuff   
Thursday, 18 August 2011 14:58

Over the past few years, we have seen a proliferation of telecommunications services that were once only thought of in the world of science fiction. These services have made our lives significantly easier and more productive.

    Broadband has made it possible for a farmer to get the latest agriculture prices in real time and has opened a world of possibilities to a local businessman with a great product to sell. Moreover, access to real broadband also allows us to attract interest, and jobs, from larger companies that help keep local communities viable. 
    But the technology that makes these tools available for rural consumers is under threat this summer unless we all take action.
    Most broadband deployment happens behind the scenes. The same holds true for the rules and regulations that govern rural telecommunications providers  The federal government has long been committed to ensuring that rural communities have access to traditional telephone services and, in recent years, the same has held true for broadband access too. Thanks to the Universal Service Fund, it has been financially possible for rural telecommunications companies to provide rural consumers with broadband and all the benefits it provides.
    But now the body that oversees our nation’s broadband infrastructure is considering doing the unthinkable and turning its back on the policies that have ensured that small towns in rural America have the same opportunity to receive broadband as those in New York. 
    Under the name of reform, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has proposed significant changes to the Universal Service Fund that would make it economically unfeasible for companies to provide broadband in many communities.
    The stakes are high. Unless the FCC protects the principle of universal service and broadband Internet access for everyone, millions of Americans living in rural areas would very likely be left behind in the ongoing telecommunications revolution. 
    Small, community-based rural broadband providers have put universal service funds to good use for the customers we serve. We have made basic levels of broadband service available to more than 90 percent of our rural consumers in sparsely populated areas.
    Our broadband services have been essential to helping governments deliver needed services to constituents, providing telemedicine services so patients can get medical care when needed, and for helping small businesses—the backbone of job creation in rural America—grow and thrive.
    By overreaching in the name of reform, the FCC will put vital services at risk and undermine decades of successful investment in vital broadband infrastructure in rural areas. But the FCC’s proposed new rule would do more than threaten higher costs for rural consumers and small businesses. In many cases, companies would not be able to continue to roll out newer, faster services. In some cases, they would go out of business, leaving customers stranded.  Without broadband services, the impact on local business and government would be profound. 
    Our country has long held the belief that people should not be left behind based on where they live, and that public policy in telecommunications should reflect that standard. But the FCC’s proposals would prevent small, innovative telecommunications companies from applying this service to rural communities across America.
    Small telecommunications providers are dedicated to delivering and upgrading the broadband foundation to meet the challenges of the telecommunications revolution. But universal service funding is essential to this task  Go to www.SaveRuralBroadband.org to tell Congress that the FCC needs to rethink and reassess in order to meet the real telecommunications needs of rural America.
    EDITOR’S NOTE: This column was submitted by Don Santhuff, General Manager, Steelville Telephone Exchange, Inc.

Comments
Search
madfireball   |Registered |2011-08-25 16:32:23
@ Steve they should turn off your broadband and see how you like it. Besides
that I have a charge on my phone bill that goes into that account $2.53 every
month. So for the last 5yrs I alone have added 151.80 to the universal fund. My
money should go to my area. Not the big cities.
David Fish  - RE: Rural Broadband   |Registered |2011-08-23 12:27:59
Mr. Santhuff,

Broadband indeed is critical to our nation
Steelville girl  - Not a waste   |Registered |2011-08-19 20:38:14
@ Steve,
I think the rural broadband service is critical to our economic
survival. First of all, satellite internet is not what you think it is. The
satellite signal is weak a lot of times due to weather conditions, and even
though it is advertised that anyone can get it, that is not always the
case.
Yes, it is our choice to live in a rural area, but who else would farm
and produce the livestock and crops to stock your big city supermarkets?
If
you would like, all of those that live in the rural communities can move to the
city and make traffic congestion 10 times worse; make running errands an even
more difficult task due to the sheer volume of people you would have to put up
with.
The use of broadband internet connection in rural areas is critital to
farming and other rural industries. There are many other things that the
government is being neglectful with spending, and helping rural communities stay
connected ...
Steve   |2011-08-19 08:16:36
Rural broadband is just another wasteful gov't. boondoggle. It's the same
situation as the rural airports that are being funded with our tax dollars. The
Associated Press reported last week that travelers at those airports paid
$70-$90 for a one-way ticket and the cost to taxpayers for the ticket was
$4,107. There are lots of disadvantages to living in a rural area, and broadband
coverage is just one of those things. Satellite internet is available to those
in rural areas who want broadband. I shouldn't have to pay for their internet if
that's where they choose to live. With a nearly $15 trillion debt, 9%
unemployment and rising inflation, we can only afford things that are absolutely
necessary, and fast internet for places that average a handful of people living
in a 10 square mile area isn't one of them.
Only registered users can write comments!

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

 
Banner
Banner
Banner
 

Recent Comments

Banner
Banner
Banner
Home Editorials Editorials Washington should promote, not threaten, rural broadband

Page Options

Login Form

Forgot your password? Create an account
Banner