Sure, and I'll add to that.
People say that there is more affordable Internet for 200 gigabytes a month than paying $600. The problem is that it's not low-latency, high-speed Internet access. The problem with satellite technology is that there's a great deal of latency in the service. The problem with direct line-of-sight radio frequency Internet access is that it's not as reliable.
Really, if you want reliable high-speed Internet access, the technology that's best suited for a lot of these rural areas is cellular high-speed mobile Internet access, which is often marketed under branded products like Turbo Hub for Bell or Rocket Hub for Rogers. That is actually reliable high-speed Internet access with low latency. The problem is, as I mentioned before, that those plans are prohibitively expensive.
Most rural customers I know, if they can't get Internet access right now through those services, are more than willing to pay $500 to $1,000 for a one-time installation fee to put up a big aerial antenna with a Yagi antenna at the top to boost the signal through a coax cable down to the Turbo Hub or Rocket Hub provided by Bell or Rogers. They're more than willing to pay that one-time fee. The challenge is that nobody's willing to pay an ongoing fee of $600-plus a month just to get some basic 200 gigabytes of data.
The affordability is the issue, then. The vast majority of households are within range of a cell tower, and if the signal isn't strong enough, they would be more than willing to pay the one-time $500 charge to get somebody to install a booster antenna on their roof. The issue is that paying an ongoing cost of $600 or $700 a month for 200 gigabytes of data is out of reach for the vast majority of families.
We can roll out more cell towers and do all that kind of stuff, but if the pricing of these plans is at that level, nobody's going to be able to afford it.