I don't have the data to prove it one way or the other, but I highly doubt that's the case. There are decades of subsidies that have already gone into rural broadband.
By contrast urban/dem areas present a naturally better business case and require less subsidy to attract investment.
Funding and investment by the ISPs has disproportionately been used in urban. That’s where the best ROI is. The purpose of USF and government subsidies is to level up. I think the people that grow our food deserve internet access as much as the urban population regardless of party.
Another way to look at it is that all funding and investment in broadband to date has gone to disproportionately connect democrat majority locations.
This is just a function of the rural/urban divide.
I don't have the data to prove it one way or the other, but I highly doubt that's the case. There are decades of subsidies that have already gone into rural broadband.
By contrast urban/dem areas present a naturally better business case and require less subsidy to attract investment.
That's what I'd assume anyway...
Funding and investment by the ISPs has disproportionately been used in urban. That’s where the best ROI is. The purpose of USF and government subsidies is to level up. I think the people that grow our food deserve internet access as much as the urban population regardless of party.
I obviously agree.
I think I'm getting hung up on the term "funding". I certainly agree that most of the private investment has gone to those areas.