Interventions Phase 2: Intervenor 634

Document Name: 2015-134.227049.2525898.Interventions Phase 2(1$4z%01!).html

I live in a rural area and have low speed internet and I agree it has replaced the priority for a land line/long distance. I have noticed many different companies offering fiber services in our closest town but my residence is remote in the sense that I will never see it installed where I live. Since we are not online gaming, gambling videoing or looking at tons of pictures, we are good. If internet is deemed basic and necessary to all, no matter where you chose to live, then the accountability should be with the resident/town. I compare it to my hydro bill, my mileage fee is 3 times higher per month than my usage fee and climbing but the difference is I can't have high speed without it and I cannot go anywhere else for my electricity. If I am in a remote location, I most likely paid extra for my hydro to be brought in and it didn't involve government intervention. Telco products are provided everywhere by many companies and no one is willingly loyal to any particular company. Recouping isolated investments should be fair and profitable to whoever is required to provide the services. It is amazing to me how many people who live in an area where they could have high speed and they don't, yet they still are getting along in the digital world. So how do they do that? To extend high speed to all who want and can afford it, follow the same process used today by residents or towns etc to get their other utilities put into their local infrastructure or residence. I do not think it should be added to MY taxes or on to MY phone/internet bill because yet again my rates will rise to cover the capital cost etc. So not fair. Your filing mentions you want to hear from remote people only, but please carefully think through this. Internet is not do or die.