But it would be an option to connect remote communities.
But not necessarily a good one.
Why are we running 100km of fibre to this hamlet? Because we get a subsidy of $1M/km to lay fibre.
Because then that hamlet might have a 144f or 288f cable occupying part of one duct. Fibre is very cheap compared to the cost of the duct. So it future proofs that small town USA so it's residents can get decent broadband, be able to work from home, provide infrastructure to support businesses that might want to enjoy the QoL etc etc.
Why not just pay for people's starlink subscription? Because paying for services for a citizen is communism.
Because StalinLink is communism as well? Why subsidise Starlink, and not scaleable fibre infrastructure? But Musk isn't (that) stupid, and most of his ventures are very reliant on direct or indirect subsidies. So far, Starlink's been throwing large amounts of money into the sky for an uncertain ROI. If there's lobbying for rural broadband subsidies, then it turns into more of a cash machine. But it also means those rural users would be stuck with a satellite broadband solution rather than a more flexible fibre-based one.
US operators knew these announcements were coming, just not the size of the pork barrel. Trump had announced much the same infrastructure plans as Biden's just done. So now the lobbying ramps up for various interested parties to grab their slice of the pork.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
