[why_at]

>This would simply create a digital divide further increasing inequality in rural areas.

Not sure what you mean? The more remote you get the better your bandwidth gets because you are sharing it with fewer people. This is the opposite of most ISPs which tend to ignore rural areas.

[caeril]

The primary use-case for high-bandwidth consumer connections is streaming brain-rotting video content in UHD. OP is suggesting that people without access to said connections will end up with increased inequality because they won't be able to spend their time on Love Is Blind marathons.

My personal experience, as someone who has lived in, and worked from, rural areas with limited bandwidth, is that latency (for SSH connections) is the only thing that matters for learning and productivity.

But OP clearly knows better, because if we just gave everyone gigabit fiber, the access to UHD Pornhub, Netflix, Amazon Video, etc, will instantly correct the "digital divide". And OP has a point. I know someone who started designing > 500k qubit quantum computers with > 5s coherence after spending two weeks straight watching all seasons of My 600Lb Life.

He kept mumbling something about "It's not in the box, it's in the band"

[threeseed]

Its about giving slow satellite to rural areas as opposed to fibre.

[kortilla]

Starlink doesn’t prevent fiber and there has been zero interest in giving fiber to these people with or without subsidies. So it’s about giving fast satellite internet to people in rural areas or leaving them with much worse than options.

[ta1243]

And how much contention is on that fibre?

At a typical residential contention of 50:1 that's 350mbit

At a really good residential rate of 10:1 that's still 70mbit