[randomdata]

I recently visited a farm in rural Saskatchewan, a province of vast areas of farmland and only one million people residing within. Broadband was readily available even way out on the farm. For comparison, the only US state with a lower population density is Alaska.

I hale from rural Ontario and while our density is greater, we are still a long way away from urban centres. Here, they are working on rolling out fibre right to the farms. High speed DSL has been available for over a decade.

It really is difficult to comprehend that people are still using dialup.

[bonzoesc]

Saskatchewan is not only flat enough for you to watch your dog run away for three days, but also to have long-range wireless broadband. My high school in Florida had that around 2000, but it's not practical around hills (like much of the rural US) and it's lower bandwidth than 4G iirc.

[aquark]

Isn't DSL constrained by the distance to the CO?

We live inside Ottawa's city limits (the capital for non-Canadians!) so could scarely be considered the middle of nowhere and yet don't have a hardwired broadband connection option.

[Vivtek]

Yeah, but pssh, Canada! Economics works differently up there. I hear you even have workable health care and everything.

[sixtofour]

What gets broadband out that far, regulation or business motivation?

[randomdata]

There is no regulation that I am aware of, though the government did provide some assistance dollars a few years back. What is regulated is the price of access, which does make rural access challenging – being forced to sell your services at the same rate as those in the city.

In Ontario we had DSL access on the farms before the government programs were created, so there is room for a business to make it work. What is different in my area is that the customers own the telephone company, so that provides a good motivator to provide the services that customers want, even if it means lower profits at the end of the year.