If we live in a Rural area, should we not have similar choices as do our city cousins?

If we live in a Rural area, should we not have similar choices as do our city cousins? Why do they have more choices at a lower cost? 

Basically, as I have been surveying (and have tried) various "Broadband" Internet choices, here's what I have found:

Dial up was available to everyone on a land-line, same as city, then we tried HyBrid which combined Satellite download and landline upload--same prices and availability in city and rural.

Then we tried Satellite only--not a lot of reliability, download was iffy, upload not so great and latency (Ping) was very high and could not be used for Streaming video. Today, Satellite has higher DL speeds, slightly better upload and some improvement of ability to stream video, but the cap is so low, you would use it up in a few days to stream any video.

Then we tried LOS fixed wireless which improved DL, ping, but still lost DL speed and service due to traffic problems on various sectors of the tower--especially in evenings and on weekends. UL actually deteriorated to .5 mbs upload and see post below of what we CANNOT do with that type of service.

We were told by PUC that a phone company would be bringing in Fibernet nodes with copper lines to homes in our County, but we have since discovered (See website clipping below) that does not include us or our close neighbors, but mainly county roads and "certain" areas--so not universally available and the 10 mbs DL and 1 mbs UL still has limits on streaming and cloud backups, etc.
Here's portions of their website description:
....."bringing faster Internet Service to your community.
As a leading provider of Internet, TV and Voice, __________works hard to make your services more accessible, more affordable and less complicated. We are committed to strengthening and improving the communities we serve. As part of that commitment, we are bringing fast internet connection to over 1.2 million households and businesses across 33 states with a network designed to give you consistent speed every time you log on.
*Roll out of high-speed Internet services of at least 10 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload – services may not be available in your area."
A chat with their customer service rep could not help in any way with where this would be available or what speeds they offer for what prices. And yet we see their Nodes installed just 3/4 mile away.
So, from recent customers of this same Phone company in the Madison area, we have found that the speeds are much lower than expected due to old or long runs of copper lines to customer. (In Brookings County, ITC runs Fibernet all the way to customer's home so they can get the same high speeds as city customers). Also Prices are deceptive--a special promotion price could double after the 1 or 2 year commitment period.

So, what do we do? Do we wait for the Microsoft project also coming to certain areas of SD? A recent white paper they published online describing their proposal to use "TV WHITE SPACE" (old VHF TV frequencies) to provide broadband to rural areas. BUT when? Here's an outtake from that white paper which admits their system is not the most economical answer:

"_However, the most optimal deployment would be to provide a mix of several technologies on a county-by- county basis. This could lower costs by at least 10 percent ($8-12 billion) compared with using TV white spaces alone."

So we are back where we started, some of us in the rural areas have choices I outlined in the post below on Alternate Internet Options:

1. Cellular broadband, which has ridiculously low limits, high charges for bandwidth. We have a T-Mobile hotspot that gives us about 15 MBS Download, and maybe 5 MBS Upload, BUT regardless of the package you get, the upper limit is 22 gB and that way above $75/month. We do the $20/month for 2 gB (for backup)

2. Satellite (Hughesnet) See earlier post. Limits, high prices, latency, limited streaming.

3. LOS Microwave Fixed Wireless (see earlier post)--only choice for most of us--5 mB DL and .5 mB UL and traffic trims that down in evenings. Not a lot of streaming there or cloud backup
4. ??????????????????????????? Phone Company Fibernet (buried cable + copper cable to home)

5. Other DSL, T1, Wimax/

5. An option that beats all of the above 3 in terms of speed, unlimited data and price is WIRELESS FIBERNET or variations. It's a new technology and where do you think this might be available? I am going to investigate and try to find out where and how to get it in your county? How long to get it to, let's say 1000 customers vs 1000 customers of #4 above which would be the closest in terms of bandwidth, data limits and price.

Think of how long it would take to dig copper or Fibernet to 1000 customers vs wireless?