There is precedence for the proposal. Govenment did not promote or provide water or natural gas to rural residents, but it did help bring electricity to them.

On balance, however, I dont see internet service as crucial to life as we know it. The Republic certainly will not fall if internet service is not provided at at government expense. Finally, those people who move to the country have to be aware that services provided to them are limited. That's the choice they make.

Where does this entitlement stop? Shouldn't each of us have the "right" to a new car every year?

Why can't everyone have access to the high speed internet now? Everyone, regardless of location, should have the choice to have high speed internet. The majority of the population will benefit from this. I'd be willing to bet the people who feel this is wasteful spending live in an area where they already have access to high speed internet.

They already have rural broadband. It's called Satellite.

darwin1,
Hopefully you include government monopolies when you say that "monopolies are bad."

When Rep. Kim Hixon was asked how he can help bring jobs to Janesville, his answers were rural broadband, a bus from Milton to Janesville, and improving Hwy 11. Rural broadband is part of the socialistic "Don't waste a good crisis" mentality.

Oh, and note.... the Evansville intermediate school has science books from 1984. Friggin 1984! Can we take care of the basics and get some updated education prior to worrying about everybody sitting like lumps and watching Charlie the Unicorn on Youtube?

How ridiculous.
I'm as rural as you get and get great broadband on my Sprint cellular modem. And surprise, I work and pay for it myself.

Why the heck is the government even suggesting this? I would like to see a larger organic meat selection at Piggly Wiggly too, but have to accept what comes with living in a rural area.

I may have to pay $50 a month for a cellular modem, but don;t havr to deal with thugs, either (they know we all own guns out here)

As long as high speed internet access in this country is regarded as a commodity, under served areas will remain under served. Cricket Wireless has a broadband 3G data plan for $40/month that would cover a portion of Rock County. Check http://www.mycricket.com/cricketcoverage... for details.

If you live in the sticks, then you have consequences. Use a satellite dish.

This discussion is really of no value. You are going to basically have your left and right opinions, and the poll shows that so far. And there are MANY communities in Rock County who have a tight grip on their money and don't see that education even deserves a little extra coin. It is really too bad. We were just talking the other day about how Orfordville is hoping to get a new library just as Brodhead did, but my pesimism is taking over here, because I remember the uproar over the need for a new high school. I can't imagine the people of Orf wanting to contribute to a library.

While the focus on this seems to be on rural areas, I feel it's imperative to the success of any urban community to establish a fiber-based municipal area network, including code-required fiber-to-the-premises for new construction of residences and businesses. The municipally-owned network should be viewed as a public utility much like water and sewer and streets. At the very least, the network should be viewed as a necessity for municipal operations and public safety use. This is a better use of taxpayers' funds than the expensive, low-bandwidth telecommunications circuits that are generally is use today.

If done right, a fiber-based plant will have an expected life of more than 30 years. The municipal area network should allow for any legitimate ISP to co-locate their own point-of presence on the network to allow for true competition. Network operations could be outsourced based on stiff competition. Above all, the network needs to provide for low-cost, true high-speed Internet (20Mbs+ upload and download) that will retain existing businesses and attract new businesses that require such network capacity (such as high-paying, high-tech companies). If our communities wish to truly compete in the global economy, they must provide much better network infrastructure than what currently exists.

Unfortunately, because of their business models, the traditional carriers and cable companies cannot be relied upon to provide the necessary minicipal area networks. For example, the carriers view an upgrade of network capacity and speed as a price-point and marketing opportunity. It's in their best interest to make incremental improvements in service (e.g. 5Mbs from 3Mbs cable connections) and thereby justify seemingly modest price increases. Such incremental network changes guarantee that communities will stay stuck in the mud in terms of competitiveness, especially considering the exponential network improvements that have already been made in Asia and Europe. American communities are literally being left in the dust in this regard, and the economic ramifications may prove to be staggering.

WI-FI has use for extending the municipal network to areas that are not yet built-out with fiber. WI-FI also has niche uses for public safety such as deploying surveillance cameras in high crime areas and, of course, meter reading.

Sorry for my rant, but this topic strikes such a note with me!

It's not the government's job here. It's up to the companies to come up with a solution to this project. It's called competition. The company who can figure this thing out and have the best service should be most rewarded. That's what makes free enterprise so great.

I live in an area that dial up speed at best was 18.8K. The phone lines are so old that anytime there is a lot of rain or the rodents chew on the wires we lose service even to the phone. Last time I was getting calls for a neighbors number. Then they fixed it. Now my other neighbors phone rings when someone calls me. The service tech says there are too few customers on our end that they won't replace the lines. DSL is not available because of the line conditions and distance from the terminal. I went with WIFI, but its not cheep because the equipment is expensive and the monthly rate is high also. Someone on a low income or fixed income is screwed. I use a cellphone for phone service now because of the poor quality land lines.

Gee, I live 17 miles outside of Janesville, on a rural road. I've got DSL. You know how I got it? I PAID for it.

There are options available for those who want internet access in rural areas. It's not free. If you think that the Government should provide free internet access, I would suggest moving to a Communist country.

J.S.

maybe janesvillian should move to Cuba.

Ah, yes. Competition and capitalism are working out so very well for us. Without competition and capitalism, my mother's retirement fund could have declined even more than 55% yoy! Truly, competition and capitalism have done much for the people of this country. Why, up the street a property that sold for $109,000 in 2006 is now for sale for just $19,900! Clearly, some homeowner is very excited to be participating in the important market activity called "pricing". Capitalism is something that every GM worker today must feel has been a very special boon to them. They are now furloughed, demonstrating the wonders of the marketplace in a very palpable way. Experience the joy of unfettered capitalism as you stand in the bread line! First come, first served! If you're last in line, and you have a quarter, maybe you can execute a trade with someone further up!
.
Utilities very often have local or regional exclusivity, and there is a long history of rural telephone and electric cooperatives. I'm not sure why the internet is a special case.

Government has no business spending money on expanding the Internet. This should be done by a business. We are suppose to be a capitalistic country. "The internet is such a key fundamental communication mechanism today that denying rural access is isolating a major part of our population....maybe that's what some want?!" - The Internet is not a right, its a luxury. So no one is denying it to anyone.

Competition is good. Monopolies are bad.
Competition is good. Monopolies are bad.
Competition is good. Monopolies are bad.
Competition is good. Monopolies are bad.
Competition is good. Monopolies are bad.
Competition is good. Monopolies are bad.
Competition is good. Monopolies are bad.
Competition is good. Monopolies are bad.

chelleandlou: I agree with you. But I think the government can lean on telecommunication companies to force them to start providing low cost broadband services to rural areas.

One stated goal of the 1996 Telecommunications Act was to ensure that consumers “in rural, insular, and high-cost areas, should have access to telecommunications and information services . . . at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas” (U.S. Congress 1996, §254 (b) (3)).

So far the government has failed in so many ways to enfoce this act. No stimulus money should be used to do something we were supposed to have in 1996.

Roll back the clocks and this very same argument was made for and against rolling out electricity to rural homes - and again for rolling out telephone service to these same folks. It took the government to force the companies to service these residence and increase their basic quality levels of living.

In my opinion, this is the exact same argument.

illegalwithrights: air cards are expensive, even when fully subsidized by the carrier you'll be paying at least $60 a month just for internet access. Even then, if you're not in a 3G or EVDO area (most rural areas, duh) your speeds will be less than 1Mb/sec on a good day.

There are already highspeed services available to rural areas. I think there are more important things that stimulus money needs to pay for. Education, healthcare, housing, transportation, food, and clothing for the unemployed and/or poor.

rural area's are NOT denied internet access. They can sign on with someone like Verizon and others that offer an internet air card. It is super slick and can be used anywhere. Why should the government (our tax dollars) have to support people's internet?

yes yes yes... i live in the township of center its off of county H and all we can get out here is satilite and after 7 yrs of when it rains and snows its time for a change. we have been told by both charter and att that it would be out here soon.....that was about 4 yrs ago.....i bet whoever makes it out here 1st will make a killing in our subs...

Centrytel has DSL in the country outside of Milton. Very good, very reliable and fast.

Funny thing is... our government has been giving huge tax breaks to telecommunication companies for years (literally - a decade at least) for rural infrastructure improvements, part of which included high speed ( > 128k ) internet connectivity.

So far, everyone I know in a rural area is stuck with dialup at 28.8k, unless you spend $60 or more for 3G cellular or satellite.

With AT&T dropping "U-Verse" FTTN boxes in every neighborhood in Janesville, so they can sell cable TV and internet in direct competition to Charter.

While I'm all for reducing Charter's hold on data and television distribution monopoly in Janesville, it's very obvious where the telco's are spending their incentive money.

The government would do well to reduce the tax relief for these companies because it's clearly obvious the incentives have done nothing for rural customers.

We've seen what the government does so do we really want them in another part of our lives?
If the need is there and I'm sure it is, and the cost isn't prohibative---then internet providers should take the lead. The internet providers and the people of rural America need to work together to get the service at a cost that isn't too much.

I agree that government should spend the money, but the internet providers should be enticed or even forced to pay it back in some way - the government spending means the providers get the money from the government to get it done, THEN collect from the rural customers as well - so yes, but make them pay it back. OR better yet, make them do it on their own dime, by taxing them according to their level of service (higher service = higher tax benefits), then they have to do it - and they have to make it profitable like everyone else - by working for it.

The internet is such a key fundamental communication mechanism today that denying rural access is isolating a major part of our population....maybe that's what some want?!

The internet service providers are making tons on the big city folk. I think these ISP's should be required to "invest" in the little less profitable areas.