You are right that many poor people have cell phones, but as of 4 years ago, a majority of them had computers, and I expect that number has and will continue to

You are right that many poor people have cell phones, but as of 4 years ago, a majority of them had computers, and I expect that number has and will continue to rise. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-americans-poverty-typically-have-cell-phones-computers-tvs http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census... I am not familiar enough with the history of paying for infrastructure by taxes to comment, except to say that sin taxes seem to be more likely to pass then a general tax increase. That said, I think relatively small fees and taxes assessed on items where demand is inelastic probably work fine to promote investment and growth, especially if they were provided directly to municipalities for high speed rollouts and state and federal restrictions were reduced on municipal broadband organisations. Not sure about Baltimore either, though I wonder if it follows the pattern I've seen in a few other American cities where there is a large urban center surrounded by smaller wealthier townships/suburbs who's residents take advantage of the city as a resource by aren't part of the tax base. Maybe the Balitmore Broadband Coalition will comment though.