4 ms·

Exactly. There are always willing lenders when the borrower has the sovereign power to tax so it can repay the debt. But apparently there are fewer willing inve

Exactly. There are always willing lenders when the borrower has the sovereign power to tax so it can repay the debt. But apparently there are fewer willing investors who are willing to sink money into something that apparently is of little use and that, therefore, puts their capital at substantial risk. What the FTTH proponents really want is a huge subsidy for an investment whose payoff is questionable, especially in an era when 4G LTE blankets the countryside and wireless operators are yet again selling "unlimited" data. Yeah, "unlimited" has limits...but wireless is improving, yet despite that, people want government to plow billions into laying wires to people's houses. Google tried it and it's apparently not profitable, so let's have government toss money into this sinkhole.

indolering 10y ago
Where's the subsidy? These projects are usually paid for through usage fees, not taxation. There is a lot of money that will only invest in Triple-A rated bonds. Local governments have the scale, return-on-investment horizon, and political willpower that private ventures lack. The funding is easier to secure at lower cost because the investment is less risky. It's not a risk-free venture, but (worst case scenario) everyone has to pay double the projected cost and we end up with the standard Comcast bill. I would prefer to send that money to my local government than to Comcast for perpetuity.