I think that's the other side of the issue, but I think what the author is trying to get at is the fact there's an entire underclass of poor, uneducated individuals that are unable to use the Internet for the most basic tasks (govt services comes to mind). It's not a rosy picture when you think about the elderly among that population where the majority of services in the rural areas are very poor (I've had some experience with this while living in Norton, Kansas for a year). Having access to the Internet could make it easier to get the services they need.
In a larger context I see this as a problem of laying out infrastructure in general. Namely, the lion's share of the infrastructure dollars are put into the most economically wealthy areas. That's okay up to a point that the other parts of the country (rural) are also citizens of the nation and their part of the infrastructure (Internet included) is something out of the 1950s or worse. It's not so much about building an equivalent infrastructure (overbuilt and expensive) for the rural parts of America, but creating infrastructure that is compatible and scalable to the needs of those regions. In my opinion, leaving them with dial up or satellite Internet isn't an option.
To clarify, I do think that people should have access to the Internet if they want it, but there is a tendency on places like Hacker News to assume that once everyone is connected, we will solve societal problems (as opposed to individual ones, like elder citizens that need help), and it's entirely possible that it could introduce even more concerns. For example, studies have shown that the average viewer of Fox News is less truthfully informed than people who don't consume any news. Enabling information access also allows the propagation of knowingly wrong information, regardless of the source or intention.
If people want Internet access, they should have it, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into believing it will solve our greater problems, or that society will crumble without providing access to these last miles.
I'm not so much concerned about the media-side of the Internet access problem but rather that government services at the State level are becoming harder to find offline. Back in the 90s when I had to register a car, most grocery stores and any government buildings (libraries included) had the forms needed to expedite the process. Today, I'm sure those forms are there but in most cases they expect users to own a PC or at least access to one that has a printer. And some services are now being processed solely by web access which makes this problem even worse when you think of services for the elderly or disabled in this situation.
Part of the solution is building the infrastructure up to the same base standard everywhere. And the other part is trying to rebuild the previous physical distribution of the services (harder still since many Tea Party Republicans have taken over in rural governments which oppose welfare at any cost). So, it's not about making sure everyone is connected. It's making sure everyone has access to those services and goods we all consume.
And trust me, towns like Norton in Kansas aren't the exception but rather the norm in terms of how poorly serviced they are by their county and state governments.
I won't speak on the matter of private industries servicing the rural communities because I think that problem is far harder to solve because of local values and tastes (money exists out there, but not the demand).
Thank you for mentioning the case of previously ubiquitous government forms. I am too young to remember them and did not factor them into my analysis. Point well-made and taken.
In a larger context I see this as a problem of laying out infrastructure in general. Namely, the lion's share of the infrastructure dollars are put into the most economically wealthy areas. That's okay up to a point that the other parts of the country (rural) are also citizens of the nation and their part of the infrastructure (Internet included) is something out of the 1950s or worse. It's not so much about building an equivalent infrastructure (overbuilt and expensive) for the rural parts of America, but creating infrastructure that is compatible and scalable to the needs of those regions. In my opinion, leaving them with dial up or satellite Internet isn't an option.