> Title II is a Depression-era regulatory regime, designed back when people thought that things like government-regulated rates and prices were a good idea.
The principle of universal service at a "reasonable charge" (though not the USF) dates from the same period and is also outdated.
Life is full of trade-offs and where to live is certainly no exception. Some people have affordable houses on acres of land at affordable prices, pure mountain air, and outdoor recreation at their fingertips. I live in a tiny apartment, directly above a highway, and have to travel a few hours to go camping. It is no more appropriate to ask those who live in areas where it is less expensive to provide telecom services to subsidize those who live in areas where it is expensive than for the federal government to impose a property tax on properties over half an acre to subsidize green spaces in cities.
That's a ridiculous position. Should we also deny people electricity because they live outside a metropolitan era?
Declaring entire swaths of the population of a country like the United States unworthy of access to things like telephones and access to the global network is ridiculous enough. But it's particularly offensive given that it's cheaper to run and operate these systems today than it ever has been before.
Universal service is about more than telephones in the wilderness. I live in a state capital, about 500 yards from a major fiber optic termination point. Pretty sure my employer has a 40GB line on the telephone pole that I can see from my front porch. I have access to 20/1 cable service or 30/5 cable service at a 70% cost premium. Because there are few poor people there, the surrounding suburbs have FIOS and Cable, and the cable service is significantly less expensive.
No one's denying anyone anything. If it's so cheap to do so, plenty of companies should be happy to do so at an affordable cost without needing a subsidy.
There are many things that are cheaper in rural areas and more expensive in cities, I don't see any rural dwellers lining up to pay extra for goods and services that are cheaper in those areas in order to equalize prices in cities.
Are you honestly suggesting that if I moved to a house in unallocated territory, that I not only have the right to demand that someone run power to it, but I have the further right to demand that somebody do so at no greater a rate than the guy who lives next door to the power plant?
One can choose to live without green space. It is far more difficult to choose to live without communications. Everything from banking to education needs fast Internet access, and what better way to ensure that rural residents can make a better life for themselves than to offer them the opportunity to become educated by Internet without having to come up with the funds to attend an expensive university?
The grandparent said that they were both equally appropriate, presumably with the argument being that since there is no push to charge rural areas a "green access fee" to build parks in cities, the opposite shouldn't apply either.
One could argue that the very highway the grandparent lives by is a government-provided service to make it possible for him to go camping, but I don't know how the cost of building highways is shouldered by rural vs urban areas.
The principle of universal service at a "reasonable charge" (though not the USF) dates from the same period and is also outdated.
Life is full of trade-offs and where to live is certainly no exception. Some people have affordable houses on acres of land at affordable prices, pure mountain air, and outdoor recreation at their fingertips. I live in a tiny apartment, directly above a highway, and have to travel a few hours to go camping. It is no more appropriate to ask those who live in areas where it is less expensive to provide telecom services to subsidize those who live in areas where it is expensive than for the federal government to impose a property tax on properties over half an acre to subsidize green spaces in cities.