Your question was answered a little over 200 years ago:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Aren't they required to conduct all government business on government systems?
Yes, if it is Government business. If is GOP/politcal party business, then no.
Didn't Hilary got a whole lot of crap (and lose an election) over this?
Yes, because she did Government communications over non-Governmental systems.
Not just rural... This last weekend, i was at a trade show in a NYC hotel where we had our own 4G based connection for streaming audio (the hotel only had WIFI available, and it was swamped/dead - 50 kbps if you were lucky). The little T-mobile hot spot we bought was terrible - we were lucky to get 1 bar, and maybe 100 kbps. Out came my Verizon Note 5, on went the hot spot, and we had 4 full bars and 2 Mbps available. Rock-solid. And this was at the Marriott Marquis right at Times Square - heart of Manhattan!
People complain about the cost of Verizon, but you know - at least it works. Yes, it's expensive compared to the others but when your options are expensive and works and cheap and doesn't work - I'll take the former thankyouverymuch...
Wrong, you disingenuous fool.
So your point is that coal does not beat solar as bad as his numbers show, but that coal still beats solar by a solid 50% in terms of realizable energy per dollar?
"Alternative energy is always better so we should shut down everything else right now"
No, subsidizing dirty sources of energy instead of investing in clean ones is idiotic and short sighted.
Investing in "dirty" sources of energy instead of subsidizing "clean" ones is idiotic and short sighted.
One man's subsidy is usually another man's investment. When you look at subsidies per kWh output, solar and wind exceed "dirty coal" by orders of magnitude. Solar receives 4.5 times the Federal subsidies as coal and we're getting 55 times more energy from coal tha solar, meaning we're spending over 200 times as much subisidizing solar as coal, per kWh.
There is no time like the present for postponing what you ought to be doing.