The arguments for and against rural broadband

The rural broadband brouhaha. It's an argument which is never going to die down - or at least not until everybody in the country is surfing away to their heart's content at speeds far in excess of the dial-up dawdle. (And even then somebody, somewhere will still bear a grudge.)

Since last Friday we have been inundated with your feedback about the issue of broadband internet in rural areas.

The problems here are manifold and opinions are fixed and fervent. There are those who say everybody should be entitled to the same level of connectivity - a statement favoured by 62 per cent of silicon.com readers in a recent survey.

Then there are those who counter by arguing that such magnanimity would only be in keeping with the existence of a state-run telco with a universal service obligation. And that was rendered outdated when Thatcher privatised BT. Now the only obligation the telco has, beyond a plain old telephony obligation, is to its shareholders. (So, if you want to blame anybody - blame the milk-snatcher.)

Ah but, comes the argument, BT should be rolling out these services with subsidies from the government - as favoured by 20 per cent of you.

'Rubbish!' counters the anti lobby once more. If people in rural areas want broadband then there are alternatives to BT's ADSL. They may just have to pay more for them - self-subsidies if you like.

After all 'Why should people paying through the nose to live in cities, where pollution, crime and congestion are the downsides accepted in return for better services, also pay more to subsidise better services for those people who get to live in the countryside, where it's cheaper and the air's cleaner... doesn't sound fair?', we hear.

That one goes down like a concrete kestrel with the pro lobby - and in retaliation we've received complaints from a number of people in rural areas, complaining that their taxes are going towards galleries and museums in towns and cities that they will never see. London gets the most investment - goes their argument - so it's only fair its residents should subsidise the rest of the country.

And it descends into an argument as age old as the very first cities. It's not an argument about broadband - it's just an argument about the countryside versus towns.

By the time we all have fat pipes the argument will have moved on to some other in-demand service, or tax breaks, or development grants, or public transport... the list goes on.