That's some serious voodoo economics. If connecting rural consumers generated network benefits that outweighed the cost of connecting them, then telecoms would do it without any government programs. As it is, all USF does is shift money from certain telecom customers to other telecom customers, in a way that almost certainly generates a net deadweight loss.
> For these reasons, I'm skeptical of anything that governments tender away except on a lease basis, whether it be land, spectrum, infrastructure corridors, etc.
It's impossible to talk about all of the things local governments have done in one breath, but by and large, it's hard to argue that their efforts have been a net benefit for the telecom companies. Read a typical cable franchise agreement. There's no handouts of land or rights of way, just random money grabs for public services (public access TV, etc), and requirements to build out to unprofitable low-income or low-density areas.
> For these reasons, I'm skeptical of anything that governments tender away except on a lease basis, whether it be land, spectrum, infrastructure corridors, etc.
It's impossible to talk about all of the things local governments have done in one breath, but by and large, it's hard to argue that their efforts have been a net benefit for the telecom companies. Read a typical cable franchise agreement. There's no handouts of land or rights of way, just random money grabs for public services (public access TV, etc), and requirements to build out to unprofitable low-income or low-density areas.