My blog post last week about the OECD’s broadband rankings led to some interesting discussions – some using the blog comments and others who communicated the old fashioned way – by phone.
A couple folks commented on the difference in price between broadband in the city and that offered by rural alternatives. It comes down to a question of redistribution of money: Is it fair for someone in rural Canada to have to pay more for slower speeds than what is available in the city?
This is a question of government policy. I have my own views, in part prejudiced by the fact that I personally chose to pay a lot more to live close to all sorts of conveniences: arts, sporting and cultural facilities, shopping, internet. Not everyone in rural Canada is impoverished – not by a long shot. It is an insult to equate “rural” with “impecunious”. Not everyone in the city can afford traditional supplier rates for broadband.
Should others pay to provide rural Canadians with urban prices and services for broadband, with subsidies based solely on a rural designation? Should connectivity to multi-million dollar cottages be the beneficiaries of subsidies?
Why would we stop with broadband services? I noticed that milk and other groceries are more expensive outside the city. Mind you, I have noticed that the LCBO charges the same for liquor in Keewatin as it does in Toronto. Of course, you may need to travel to Thunder Bay to find a decent Vintages selection. It is interesting to see the products for which we believe in levelling prices.
In the meantime, the CRTC has signalled in this week’s price cap decision that it is ready for rural telephone rates to move upward toward covering the costs.
I’m still waiting to see how Ontario moves forward with its budget statements to extend broadband into rural and northern communities. Maybe the best approach to stimulate broadband adoption is through an income based tax credit – independent of where people live.