7 ms·

> I'm proud of my state for pushing expansion of rural broadband where federal efforts have failed. Not me. I live in a small apartment that I pay tens of thou

> I'm proud of my state for pushing expansion of rural broadband where federal efforts have failed. Not me. I live in a small apartment that I pay tens of thousands of dollars a year for. In Franklin County people can get a lot more space for a lot less money. Why should I subsidize their broadband rather than them subsidizing my living space? Life is all about tradeoffs. Wanting to get all the benefits of your choices and have other people pay to ameliorate the downsides is understandable but unreasonable. If we are going to subsidize broadband at all, we should do it statewide and means test it.

lovich 8y ago
Communication is integral to society. Haveing a different class of communication technology that is not accessible by a large portion of the population pushes the haves and have nots apart
- icebraining 8y ago
  Communication is integral to society. And housing isn't‽
  - vkou 8y ago
    Housing is too. Land reform (Or, to sound less scary, property taxes and capital gains) is a subject that seriously needs to be revisited.
- mmirate 8y ago
  As long as you "have" rather than "have not", what else matters?
ghaff 8y ago
Long ago we decided as a country there were significant collective benefits to near-universal electrification and phone service. Internet is a bit more complicated for various reasons such as wireless options but there’s at least an argument for government rural broadband initiatives.
- madengr 8y ago
  It’s not more complicated; it’s simpler. If heavy gauge electrical wiring was run, and copper twisted pair was run, then fiber can also be run.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Of course it's more complicated. The relative cost of doing those things is much higher today (it's labor intensive and labor is a lot more expensive today), and the alternatives (wireless) are much cheaper than running wire.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
      Which is why I laugh when the FiOS salesman tries to offer me a (temporary) "deal" for $50 when I get exemplary cable internet for $30 with no bullshit rate hikes. Nope, your modem gets to sit idle in the closet until some new sucker comes along.
    - madengr 8y ago
      The wireless alternatives suck. Even mmWave will suck due to line of sight requirements and weather restrictions. Fiber is the only viable media for Gbps symmetric bandwidth.
- Eridrus 8y ago
  > there were significant collective benefits to near-universal electrification and phone service If we keep having to subsidise these areas because it is uneconomical to build infrastructure there, and most new technologies require infrastructure development, does it really make sense for people to keep living there? The Rural Electrification Act was also a work program in the middle of the Great Depression, so there were some pretty good reasons to do it back then besides just altruism. Though I honestly think we don't actually even need real subsidies here, supporting municipal broadband providers and One Touch Make Ready regulation (which NY could have passed as a State without the FCC) would probably do more good than holding Spectrum's feet to the fire.
chrismartin 8y ago
This isn't a subsidy. It's an effort to redirect some of Charter's ~$10B yearly profit[0] toward public benefit, in exchange for allowing further consolidation of local monopolies (which would otherwise amplify potential for abuse of market power). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_Communications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_Communications
- cryptonector 8y ago
  That's a tax (passed on to consumers) and a subsidy by another name though. GP's point is they don't want to pay it. Please debate the finer points of whether or not to have such a policy, but don't say that it's not a subsidy when it clearly is.
  - ethbro 8y ago
    By this logic, any company subject to government regulation is taxing its customers. An observation that doesn't particularly enrich the conversation, unless the point you're making is that we should do away with all government regulation of private companies?
    - rayiner 8y ago
      Except that some regulations are more like subsidies than other regulations. Coverage mandates are, in economic terms, almost always a cross subsidy. The regulated company builds uneconomic infrastructure to comply with the mandate, and pays for it by raising prices on everyone else. Regulation is appropriate where there is some market failure or externality you're trying to address. E.g. regulating pollution is economically efficient, because it prevents companies from being able to externalize their costs onto the public. It's not appropriate to use regulation to simply achieve an end result you hope to achieve just because you're unhappy with the market equilibrium. If the end goal really is important, than rather than distort the market for everyone else the government should simply provide the desired service or pay for it directly.
      - 8y ago
mcny 8y ago
> If we are going to subsidize broadband at all, we should do it statewide and means test it. This makes me sad. We need less means testing, not more. I fully support a more progressive tax scheme but we should eliminate means testing from government services.

lovich 8y ago

Communication is integral to society. Haveing a different class of communication technology that is not accessible by a large portion of the population pushes the haves and have nots apart

icebraining 8y ago
Communication is integral to society. And housing isn't‽
- vkou 8y ago
  Housing is too. Land reform (Or, to sound less scary, property taxes and capital gains) is a subject that seriously needs to be revisited.
mmirate 8y ago
As long as you "have" rather than "have not", what else matters?

ghaff 8y ago

Long ago we decided as a country there were significant collective benefits to near-universal electrification and phone service. Internet is a bit more complicated for various reasons such as wireless options but there’s at least an argument for government rural broadband initiatives.

madengr 8y ago
It’s not more complicated; it’s simpler. If heavy gauge electrical wiring was run, and copper twisted pair was run, then fiber can also be run.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Of course it's more complicated. The relative cost of doing those things is much higher today (it's labor intensive and labor is a lot more expensive today), and the alternatives (wireless) are much cheaper than running wire.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
    Which is why I laugh when the FiOS salesman tries to offer me a (temporary) "deal" for $50 when I get exemplary cable internet for $30 with no bullshit rate hikes. Nope, your modem gets to sit idle in the closet until some new sucker comes along.
  - madengr 8y ago
    The wireless alternatives suck. Even mmWave will suck due to line of sight requirements and weather restrictions. Fiber is the only viable media for Gbps symmetric bandwidth.
Eridrus 8y ago
> there were significant collective benefits to near-universal electrification and phone service If we keep having to subsidise these areas because it is uneconomical to build infrastructure there, and most new technologies require infrastructure development, does it really make sense for people to keep living there? The Rural Electrification Act was also a work program in the middle of the Great Depression, so there were some pretty good reasons to do it back then besides just altruism. Though I honestly think we don't actually even need real subsidies here, supporting municipal broadband providers and One Touch Make Ready regulation (which NY could have passed as a State without the FCC) would probably do more good than holding Spectrum's feet to the fire.

chrismartin 8y ago

This isn't a subsidy. It's an effort to redirect some of Charter's ~$10B yearly profit[0] toward public benefit, in exchange for allowing further consolidation of local monopolies (which would otherwise amplify potential for abuse of market power). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_Communications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_Communications

cryptonector 8y ago
That's a tax (passed on to consumers) and a subsidy by another name though. GP's point is they don't want to pay it. Please debate the finer points of whether or not to have such a policy, but don't say that it's not a subsidy when it clearly is.
- ethbro 8y ago
  By this logic, any company subject to government regulation is taxing its customers. An observation that doesn't particularly enrich the conversation, unless the point you're making is that we should do away with all government regulation of private companies?
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Except that some regulations are more like subsidies than other regulations. Coverage mandates are, in economic terms, almost always a cross subsidy. The regulated company builds uneconomic infrastructure to comply with the mandate, and pays for it by raising prices on everyone else. Regulation is appropriate where there is some market failure or externality you're trying to address. E.g. regulating pollution is economically efficient, because it prevents companies from being able to externalize their costs onto the public. It's not appropriate to use regulation to simply achieve an end result you hope to achieve just because you're unhappy with the market equilibrium. If the end goal really is important, than rather than distort the market for everyone else the government should simply provide the desired service or pay for it directly.
    - 8y ago

mcny 8y ago

> If we are going to subsidize broadband at all, we should do it statewide and means test it. This makes me sad. We need less means testing, not more. I fully support a more progressive tax scheme but we should eliminate means testing from government services.