I've heard that 5G will be especially beneficial to rural areas, where it will have the bandwidth, speed, and coverage capability to replace broadband, DSL, and satellite. Can someone with industry knowledge confirm whether this is true?
All of those towers cost money to install and maintain, which adds to your expense, so for low enough population densities, it's not economical. For small towns it can be economical, but it depends on the geography. If it's very hilly or there are lots of tall trees you will have a hard time getting line of sight to potential customers.
It’s really a tough situation in the rural areas. To run last mile cable costs thousands of dollars per house with houses quarter to half mile apart. and at $50-100/mo, it doesnt make sense to serve those customers.
With next gent Wifi/5G that's actually a great distance.
The big problem for rural deployment is that the backhaul was/is too expensive, but with wireless advances a mesh is the optimal (cheap and simple) way to go.
And, before you go thinking I'm just the radical conservative, recognize that this cuts both ways. I'm also of the opinion that we shouldn't be subsidizing people's high-carbon lifestyles by making roads free, for example.
"Who cares if the govt wastes more money because they already waste money?"
It's a nice thought, but where in the budget do you propose we find several tens of billions of dollars?
Additionally, wireless telcos have already gotten used to not providing real internet access to their customers. Instead they provide a proxied, nat'd, no-ports, almost web only service.