2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

The cost of infrastructure (to provide high speed internet to rural areas) makes it a tough business case indeed.  I am too far from town for DSL and, although a fiber optic cable runs ~100 feet from my property line, tapping into fiber optic cables does not seem to be feasible.

We started using a broadband satellite service (the only thing that seems practical for the low densities of rural dwellings), but pay dearly for the lowest level of service they offer.  It is a huge step up from dial-up, but still not great for video (for example).

Will rural dwellers get a subsidy, or a tax break for amounts spent over and above $XX.X?

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context