Is "Lack of Wi-Fi" the Rural Home Broadband Problem?

All observers agree that rural broadband is difficult for any number of reasons, but mostly because the cost of access network infrastructure is high when population density is low or there are physical barriers to building networks affordably. 

So it might come as a surprise that “indoor Wi-Fi” is proposed as a solution for rural broadband. Ignore for the moment that such arguments, if accepted, benefit the Wi-Fi ecosystem. The argument is seemingly curious or nonsensical: “Indoor Wi-Fi” requires internet access already be present, and that means an access network to support the private indoor signal distribution.

Arguing “”indoor Wi-Fi is a solution for rural broadband” is nonsensical unless it is preceded or accompanied by adequate internet access service and facilities. How that access is provided is not important. But “internet access” must be available or no indoor Wi-Fi is going to provide any value at all. 

In a document calling for use of indoor Wi-Fi for rural broadband, it is not clear until far into the discussion that what is proposed is not actually “indoor Wi-Fi” at all, but rather “public Wi-Fi” where the network infrastructure of a public Wi-Fi network is built and maintained by a network operator of some sort.”

In other words, a “community network” is proposed as the solution, not “indoor Wi-Fi” as such. 

The proposed solution for “indoor Wi-Fi” is actually a “public Wi-Fi” network built by some service provider that actually provides the internet access function. In other words, the solution for rural broadband “using indoor Wi-Fi” is for an internet service provider to provide service to an area so “indoor Wi-Fi” can be used

The proposed solution is actually not “indoor Wi-Fi” at all, but rather “a community network in a rural area that is built by a municipality, or a non-profit.” 

I’m sorry. This is an arguably illogical line of reasoning. The key “rural broadband problem” is lack of internet access. It does not matter what sort of network we use for that purpose. “Indoor Wi-Fi” is therefore not a solution for rural broadband, rural broadband access is that solution. 

That requires an optical fiber “backhaul” to a termination point “in a village,” for example. Only at that point can the actual “indoor Wi-Fi network be created. From that fiber termination point other point-to-point wireless extensions might be built to serve other nearby communities. 

The key point is that it is community broadband that is the solution, not indoor Wi-Fi itself. That is a signal distribution mechanism once the community broadband network already exists. 

It is what we call a tautology: a statement that is “true” by virtue of its logical form. A tautology often is known as an “argument in a circle.” Note that the truth or falsity of a tautology is meaningless. The logical arrangement of arguments cannot be proved or disproved as they only refer to each other. 

Essentially, the argument is “A is A.” That is “true" in a logical sense whether “A” is itself true or false. Rural broadband equals community broadband equals indoor Wi-Fi is the explicit argument. We might similarly argue that rural broadband equals devices equals knowledge of how to use the internet equals ability to pay. 

It’s an application of mathematical or logical reasoning (without any necessary empirical proof):  A equals B. B equals C. Therefore A equals C. 

Why not just make the argument that community broadband is the key for rural broadband? Probably because the Wireless Broadband Association is, by definition, a trade group supporting use of Wi-Fi. 

But “Rural Wi-Fi Connectivity,” as the document is titled, is not the issue. “Rural internet connectivity” is the issue. Wi-Fi plays a role, just as it does in urban areas. But the core problem is not Wi-Fi. It is the cost of internet access facilities in rural areas.