I grew up in a small town in South Dakota and lived there for most of my adult life. My home town, population 800, has been provided broadband Internet for years by a company based in Wall, SD (home of the famous tourist spot Wall Drug) without any government meddling. There are places in South Dakota that are remote, have populations of less than 100 and do not have broadband service. However, neither do these places have Starbucks. Should the government tax the latte customers in New York City so that with massive subsidies the residents of Buffalo, SD can have a money losing Starbucks?
Don't give em any ideas! Although this nation has a peculiar way of responding to caffeine taxation. They briefly speculated about it in Wash state a decade ago and almost got the bums rush.
“There are places in South Dakota that are remote, have populations of less than 100 and do not have broadband service. “
So just where does satellite-based broadband fit in? Every night I see ads for HughesNet offering broadband service that is comparable to wireline-delivered products, and their sales pitch is to “rural areas” not served by ground-based systems. Seems to me that just like satellite-based TV serving rural areas, this should not be a problem. The other thing here is the notion that even with all the “real serious problems” with which Trump is having to deal, these people who are “quick to blame” him seem to have the idea that he is “all-knowing” about every little bitch any small group may have that the want government to “fix.” We have become a gaggle of candy a$$ed complainers and ninnys.