In rural America, many residents don't have high speed internet access, a problem Washington lawmakers and businesses are looking to solve, each in their own way. As we've mentioned in the past, a large push is coming from (of all places) the Department of Agriculture, with the Rural Utilities Service providing loans for the deployment of broadband Internet service to under-served communities with fewer than 20,000 residents.

In January of this year, Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman promised $1.4 billion in loans and loan guarantees to rural telecommunications providers. According to the Washington Post, the government is reviewing 29 applications to ensure their business cases are sound. The deadline for applications is July 31.

Rural broadband providers have an uphill battle. While they're happy to try and provide service in locations the incumbents are unwilling to go, distance issues and higher fees make it a tall order. As the Post article explores, Pure Internet Inc. in Virginia has 40 broadband customers and 1,000 on dial-up. Profit won't be coming any time soon, since, according to the business owner, it takes $600 to set up a single wireless customer, and 10 months for that connection to pay for itself.

To that end, the Rural Broadband Coalition was recently founded to help ISPs take advantage of the money available via the broadband program of the Rural Utility Service (RUS), a service of the US Department of Agriculture. Hidden within the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 is $20 million in federal funds allocated to finance broadband service in rural communities.

Bigger players, like SBC, have made promises to bring service to many of these under-served areas, but only if state regulators give them the keys to the kingdom and sign-on to the concept of no state level regulatory oversight. Many states, like Oklahoma, are agreeing; believing that perhaps unregulated and potentially monopolistic broadband is better than no broadband at all.

SBC competitors complained loudly over the passage of a bill they say gave SBC free reign in exchange for empty promises to rural customers. Others equated SBC's tactics to digital extortion, while some Oklahoma lawmakers warned other states considering the legislation that Oklahoma had essentially been swindled.

SBC doesn't see it that way, and claims their rollout of rural broadband in Oklahoma is on track, with 37 towns set to receive service for the first time, and another 25 towns set to see expansion of existing service.

So essentially, what happens if a rural community or rural ISP doesn't qualify for government assistance? What happens if their state lawmakers decide not to eliminate their powers of oversight, in turn pissing off the incumbent telcos that claim they so desperately want to help develop rural areas (for a price, nudge, nudge, wink wink)? They either go municipal, or they wait.