> In a free-market, rural availability won't improve. That is not a valid statement. If a cable company has to put more money building the network in rural are

> In a free-market, rural availability won't improve. That is not a valid statement. If a cable company has to put more money building the network in rural areas than what it can recover from it, it makes a much greater sense for that cable company to partner with someone like Google or Netflix or Facebook, share the cost and then give preferential bandwidth to these providers. That way it is a win win situation. The best example to illustrate the point is that of India. A desperately poor and rural country. In 2001, Indian government came up with the law that any telecom company that wants to provide telecom service in any city/town must also provide coverage in the rest of the "district". Consequence ? Other than handful large cities telecom companies failed to to expand. They were not interested in bidding for any telecom licenses. When government abolished that clause, it turned out to be a telecom revolution in India.