You made a few good points there, Tom, but there are a whole lot of "maybe"s in there, too, and that makes it seem like we're arguing religion rather than cold hard fact. You have a powerful faith in the power of free markets to solve any problem...somehow, through unspecified means. The "Invisible Hand" is more than a little bit a theological concept. I think I'm the one being more hard-headed by observing that there have been times, and there are cases, where free markets don't work as advertized, and I gave some examples in the area of communications.

I hope you understand that I'm generally sympathetic to free market philosophy across most areas of economic activity. But I recognize exceptions, things that are crucial to the functioning of an advanced technological civilization and that promote general prosperity. I don't agree with the Libertarian notion that all roads should be private toll roads, for example; among other things it conflicts with our right to move about freely; and because land and direct routes between places are finite, Libertarian toll roads would create a network of monopolies that would strangle the economy and society in general.

Energy, clean air and water, safe food, and communications are essential to the functioning of civilization, and we have a stake in seeing that those elements of our lives are well-managed and regulated within reason to protect our common interests. I no more want a monopolist/capitalist to hold a gun to my head than you want the government to hold a gun to your head. Is a government monopoly any less a monopoly than one in the hands of an individual?

I'll take a more reasonable version of your bet: In five years time, will people in rural areas have a range of communications options roughly equivalent to those enjoyed by people in the cities, and at roughly equivalent cost? That "equivalent cost" part may sound like a setup, but it's implicit in your assertion that free market forces will automatically solve the problem, because the problem isn't solved unless you address the cost issue along with the technology. Looking at technology alone is too easy; a technology can't really be considered successfull unless it also is economically successful.