3 ms·

In a large metro area with a strong tech company presence, we only recently got an available bump from our monopolistic overlords. Prior we were maxed with "mi

In a large metro area with a strong tech company presence, we only recently got an available bump from our monopolistic overlords. Prior we were maxed with "minimum speeds" of 25/5. With 4 people doing streaming and games, the service barely became useful. That's WITH an ISP that plays nice with Netflix peering setup. The government should be in the business of meeting the needs of the people that put government officials in office. Full stop. I mean are some towers that can be upgraded with 4G, 5G, etc going to break that bank compared to all the boon-doggles out there? It would be fair, IMO, to be concerned over the rollout becoming a boon-doggle. Is spending on ubiquitous access everywhere really a line in the sand for you? Focus on preventing charter schools from using taxes to peddle sky wizard philosophy or just outright fraud. SOMETHING that truly prevents a bad outcome. This just feels very arbitrary.

rayiner 9y ago
> The government should be in the business of meeting the needs of the people that put government officials in office. Full stop. If the government wants to have fiber in rural Pennsylvania, it should build it. If voters won't countenance raising taxes enough to pay for that, well that's your answer. What it shouldn't do is try to end-run around the market, e.g. by forcing some customers to subsidize other customers, or imposing industry-specific taxes, or trying to get companies to build infrastructure by fiat. That just robs Peter to pay Paul. Example: Verizon wanted to come into Baltimore to build fiber in competition with Comcast. Unlike D.C., Baltimore would not permit it to go neighborhood-by-neighborhood--the city demanded universal coverage. Baltimore doesn't have the money to build a network itself, and nobody else, including Google, would answer its pleas to build a fiber network on those terms. Baltimore is now stuck with a de facto Comcast monopoly. Meanwhile, almost everywhere else in Maryland has fiber. Who is served by that result? > Is spending on ubiquitous access everywhere really a line in the sand for you? The focus on ubiquitous infrastructure, rather than good infrastructure, is an anchor around the neck of America. E.g. it's why we have shitty train service everywhere, instead of decent train service along important routes.
- bnbn66788 9y ago
  > If the government wants to have fiber in rural Pennsylvania, it should build it. If voters won't countenance raising taxes enough to pay for that, well that's your answer. What it shouldn't do is try to end-run around the market, e.g. by forcing some customers to subsidize other customers, or imposing industry-specific taxes, or trying to get companies to build infrastructure by fiat. That just robs Peter to pay Paul. The nuance you miss by way of your hypothetical: representation is not evenly distributed. Paul could be in part of a district that doesn't have good access, but be screwed by Peter and those with access, should they be clustered in an area with good access and vote the tax increase down then. There literally are situations where internet is great on one block and shit on the other. I'm well versed in the muni/telco/cable wars. It's not quite as simple as your folksy, yet trite hypothetical. It's basically the same tale as many others in American history: FU GOT MINE. If you want to get into it from that perspective, Peter AND Paul's relatives were robbed years ago by the government at the request of the elite, often through violence. A bridge to nowhere is an obvious, pointless, boon doggle. Wifi towers where people live, no matter how remote is something else. Don't pedal naive nonsense.

rayiner 9y ago

> The government should be in the business of meeting the needs of the people that put government officials in office. Full stop. If the government wants to have fiber in rural Pennsylvania, it should build it. If voters won't countenance raising taxes enough to pay for that, well that's your answer. What it shouldn't do is try to end-run around the market, e.g. by forcing some customers to subsidize other customers, or imposing industry-specific taxes, or trying to get companies to build infrastructure by fiat. That just robs Peter to pay Paul. Example: Verizon wanted to come into Baltimore to build fiber in competition with Comcast. Unlike D.C., Baltimore would not permit it to go neighborhood-by-neighborhood--the city demanded universal coverage. Baltimore doesn't have the money to build a network itself, and nobody else, including Google, would answer its pleas to build a fiber network on those terms. Baltimore is now stuck with a de facto Comcast monopoly. Meanwhile, almost everywhere else in Maryland has fiber. Who is served by that result? > Is spending on ubiquitous access everywhere really a line in the sand for you? The focus on ubiquitous infrastructure, rather than good infrastructure, is an anchor around the neck of America. E.g. it's why we have shitty train service everywhere, instead of decent train service along important routes.

bnbn66788 9y ago
> If the government wants to have fiber in rural Pennsylvania, it should build it. If voters won't countenance raising taxes enough to pay for that, well that's your answer. What it shouldn't do is try to end-run around the market, e.g. by forcing some customers to subsidize other customers, or imposing industry-specific taxes, or trying to get companies to build infrastructure by fiat. That just robs Peter to pay Paul. The nuance you miss by way of your hypothetical: representation is not evenly distributed. Paul could be in part of a district that doesn't have good access, but be screwed by Peter and those with access, should they be clustered in an area with good access and vote the tax increase down then. There literally are situations where internet is great on one block and shit on the other. I'm well versed in the muni/telco/cable wars. It's not quite as simple as your folksy, yet trite hypothetical. It's basically the same tale as many others in American history: FU GOT MINE. If you want to get into it from that perspective, Peter AND Paul's relatives were robbed years ago by the government at the request of the elite, often through violence. A bridge to nowhere is an obvious, pointless, boon doggle. Wifi towers where people live, no matter how remote is something else. Don't pedal naive nonsense.