> > is much more expensive per user in the country and is thus cross subsidised by urban tax payers. > This is not actually true. The cost is a wash because th

> > is much more expensive per user in the country and is thus cross subsidised by urban tax payers. > This is not actually true. The cost is a wash because the roads last longer. Is that's why providers are falling all over themselves to build fiber infrastructure in the country? Ah no they don't, instead the government created big subsidy programs to get rural areas connected. You seriously don't understand how infrastructure is build finances and ages if you think the cost of infrastructure in the country is the same as in urban areas. And I'm not even talking about infrastructure like hospitals that require staff to run. > And the urban tax payer plans to eat what exactly, and buy what goods, without the suburbs? Just because the tax value of what suburbs make is lower that doesn't make it less needed. Since when is food grown in the suburbs? Also just because food is grown in the country does not mean that lots of people need to live there.