The Rural Fibre Optic Deadline
In a village of 900 people in the Lot, the mayor has promised fibre optic broadband by June. A telecom company says the cost per household is too high and proposes a shared 4G antenna on the church tower instead. Residents are split: farmers need reliable connections for online declarations, teenagers want streaming and video calls, and a retired couple worries about health effects from the antenna. The school has 40 pupils and no reliable connection for its digital lessons. The council has 60,000 euros, not enough for fibre alone, and a regional grant covers 40% of whichever project is chosen.
1. Analyse the trade-offs between the two options and recommend a decision with justification.
Read the worked answer
Fibre: fastest and most durable, best for the school and for businesses, but the 60,000 euros plus 40% grant may still fall short, and the June deadline is unrealistic given civil works.
4G antenna: cheaper and faster to install, covers the school and teenagers' needs, but bandwidth is shared and may slow at peak times, and it does not address the retired couple's concerns, which must be answered with evidence rather than dismissed.
A defensible recommendation is a staged approach: install the antenna now to meet immediate needs (school, farmers' declarations), while committing to fibre within a stated multi-year plan and applying for further regional funding. This meets the June promise partially and honestly.
Model French justification: « L'antenne 4G est une solution provisoire et réaliste : elle permet à l'école et aux agriculteurs d'être connectés dès juin. En parallèle, la mairie doit s'engager sur un calendrier pour la fibre et répondre aux inquiétudes des habitants avec des informations fiables. »
The judgement tested is that a compromise with a clear timeline beats an all-or-nothing promise.
2. The retired couple raises health concerns about the antenna. Describe, in French, how the council should respond, and what language would be inappropriate.
Read the worked answer
The council should acknowledge the concern, provide verifiable information (public health guidance, measured emission levels relative to recognised limits), and offer a meeting - not simply assert that the worry is unfounded.
Appropriate French: « Nous comprenons vos inquiétudes. Voici les normes officielles et les mesures prévues. Nous proposons une réunion publique où un technicien répondra à vos questions. »
Inappropriate: « C'est absurde, il n'y a aucun risque » or « vous ne comprenez rien à la science ». Ridicule closes the conversation and hardens opposition.
The judgement tested is that public communication on technology and environment must combine factual reassurance with respect for legitimate anxiety, even where the scientific consensus is reassuring.