It's better for nobody to have fiber than for wealthier areas to get it while communities that can't afford it don't. This is like saying that if you can't bri

It's better for nobody to have fiber than for wealthier areas to get it while communities that can't afford it don't. This is like saying that if you can't bring poor people up, the answer is to bring rich people down, keeping everything frozen until the technology is cheap. And I presume that the assumption that underlies this is that the wealthy have done nothing, or not enough to deserve the lives they lead? Do you have any idea how vicious that sounds? (Also, the revenues generated from early adopters often pave the way for later generations of lower-priced goods. Do you have any idea where we'd be if no one was allowed to sell smartphones until they became cheap enough for "everyone?" We'd still be stuck with those awful feature phones if that were the case.)