"USOs are a standard and widely accepted concept for public services like electricity, water and telecoms. Everything you have said about broadband could also be applied to electricity."
Yes. Well said. Its a rich world problem. Now as a rich country these are things we can afford to piss money up the wall for middle of nowhere and so we do.
"In the real world, councils are obligated to provide various services to all constituents, regardless of their remoteness."
Based on the fact that we are one of the richest places on earth! This is still not justifying fast broadband for the sticks where uptake will be minimal and a large piss away of money.
"Your discussion re: schools misses the point. Schools are subject to USO - children are guaranteed a place in a school. But rural schools typically skate along the minimum permissible, whilst urban schools are able to pool more esoteric resources."
It doesnt miss the point, that is the point. It really is the point. It is the exact thing you need to read and apply to internet. You need to read that exact paragraph to understand why blazing fast download speeds to a place of almost insignificant utilisation makes it not worth the cost. This paragraph is hammer meet nail.
"There is no reason we should deepen the inequality by leaving people off an increasingly important communications channel."
Cool so the few in the sticks who want it can pool together and pay for it? Compared to the costs of bare minimum schooling in the sticks its sod all, so why dont they? Go back to hammer meet nail paragraph, its not worth it. Too expensive for next to no value.
"Ah okay, we just won't have farmers then. The Americans seem keen to sell us their food."
Is that your decision or peoples decision what they do? I asked if they could have a different perspective to you. They may not agree with you wanting to dictate they cant be farmers because they cant have gigafast broadband.
"Don't be facetious"
You just suggested ditching farming because if they cant have superfast FTTP they shouldnt be doing it.
"That is only just restarting. No amount of money will get you FTTP if the provider won't do it"
These people are willing to cough up for FTTP! If there was much demand for it in the sticks then this service would be available. But as you said there are ways.
"I'm not against rural users having to stump up some cash to contribute to OR building out their network, but it has to be a reasonable and proportionate fee."
So not the cost of actually doing it? They should get expensive FTTP but not pay for it? Reasonable and proportionate would be to pay for the cost of it. Thats what everyone else must do, but being higher density population spreads the cost for a line vs low density to pay for a line.
"It's funny that you think a farmer could simply roll over and drop £15k for FTTP to be laid."
I dont. Thats the point, they cant even over subscription pay the cost of an expensive country to be laied to their door in one of the richest places on earth! That should scream the answer at you. Its a damned expensive problem because there is a huge negative value associated to it. A lack of actual benefit. Which is exactly what I keep explaining.