We have tired old arguments in the US about mandate versus incentive. They're two schools of thought and I'm not really sure which is better, when given maximal

We have tired old arguments in the US about mandate versus incentive. They're two schools of thought and I'm not really sure which is better, when given maximal effort. Consider this map: https://www.fcc.gov/health/maps https://www.fcc.gov/health/maps You can mandate that the internet become a utility, much how water can be a private utility, and tell a company that for every segment they get in a popular area, where they'll make money, they must establish presence in an area where they'll lose money in the name of service. There's also price approval activity and probably some subsidizing that happens there. This certainly might work. The other is for incentives to be drawn and invested in routinely that draw providers to less populated areas. These would have to be monetary, and you might be able to reason their subsidies look much like agricultural subsidies. Another argument is wireline providers are just not sufficient for scale in the more rural areas. 5G won't work because coverage is abysmal. Starlink and other engineering solutions may be appropriate. I don't really care how it's done, but being out here has made me realize exactly how awful this problem is.