7 ms·

The poverty rates and broadband service maps look like the other, except opposite.

by cbluth 8y ago

craftyguy 8y ago
I think it makes sense, since broadband internet is relatively expensive compared to other utilities that are more necessary. For example, if you have $50 a month to spend on either electricity or broadband internet, you're probably going to spend it on electricity (nevermind the fact that an inet connection is useless if you have no electricity). Did you expect it to be different?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mod 8y ago
  I agree it makes sense, but I think your example is ridiculous. In my (rural) area, DSL internet is the only decent option, and I pay about $72/month for it. It's acceptable, streams netflix okay, but I could never be competitive in a FPS. But people around here are more interested in more traditional activities. I think their rate of watching TV and engaging with their phones and other similar measures would be far, far less than the national average. I simply think internet is not a priority; they'd rather be outside. At least in my small bubble.
  - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    Is there any data to support that rural dwellers spend more time outside than dense urban dwellers? I’d expect the opposite, especially in cold weather.
    - reaperducer 8y ago
      It's a lot easier to go for a hike, paddle a canoe down a river, go fishing, hunting, climb a mountain, etc... in a rural area than in an urban one.
      - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
        I’ve lived in Boston and Manhattan before and it was super easy to do all those things apart from climbing a mountain (which is hard to do anywhere there’s not a mountain, regardless ofbeing rural or urban) or hunting. In fact, I would usually just walk or take a train to these activities, and likely could commute to do them faster than people not in a city. Hunting is probably the main exception, but I don’t think it's meaningful for the point of this thread. One of my primary hobbies in Boston was taking a bus to the Middlesex Fells nature reserve and hiking all day to find geocaches. Most people I knew also primarly engaged in outdoor, physically vigorous activities like kayaking/rowing, long distance jogging and bicycle riding.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      They're more likely to have outdoor jobs and tons more likely to spend any recreational time outdoors. City people drink their beer in a bar. Country people drink their beer standing around a pile of burning pallets.
      - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
        This just seems like an assertion. I suspect it is wrong.
        dsfyu404ed 8y ago
        Compare the nature of available forms of employment and recreation in urban areas to those in rural areas. The outdoor options for recreation are somewhat more sparse in urban areas. The indoor options for employment are much more sparse in rural areas. White collar jobs are overwhelmingly located in urban and suburban areas. You've got teachers and dentists and stuff like that in rural areas but those scale with population so they don't affect the proportional difference between urban/rural.
        mlthoughts2018 8y ago
        In rural areas, almost all jobs are indoor jobs. I mostly agree that rural areas have a higher proportion of outdoor jobs, but it’s still a super small fraction. > “The outdoor options for recreation are somewhat more sparse in urban areas.” Do you have evidence for that? My initial reaction is that it’s very likely false. And if it’s not false, the actual difference is not enough to be meaningful in terms of population statistics of how much indoor time / outdoor time people spend as dense urban dwellers vs rural dwellers. For example, in the northeast US, I exercise outdoors all year except when the weather literally prevents it. But then, it also prevents it in rural places too, likely more often given the city resources that can clear areas for running / biking that couldn’t be similarly cleared in rural areas. Having grown up in the rural Midwest, I can only say anecdotally that people in large east coast cities exercise much more, do outdoor activities year round much more, go to public beaches, have large city parks, and generally spend more time doing outdoor activities. Where I’m from in the Midwest, people exercise less, only use cars to go anywhere (even short distances), and the rural roads are such safety hazards that they can’t be reliably used for jogging or biking and people end up driving to fitness centers to do that stuff indoors.
  - walshemj 8y ago
    Really I pay $25 a month in the UK and that's for a high end one not the cheapo ISP's like plusnet. An your paying almost as much as my last employer did for ELM when we moved offices at short notice < a month. Shows the positive side of local loop unbundling.
- elliekelly 8y ago
  >I think it makes sense, since broadband internet is relatively expensive compared to other utilities that are more necessary. An internet connection isn't regulated as a utility. As far as the law is concerned, the internet is a luxury item so access/quality/cost is set by the market. Telephone companies (or I should say, company: Bell) operated in much the same way 100 years ago until state utility commissions started to regulate them as utilities and cap the price they could charge for local calls. Since the state had no jurisdiction over long-distance charges, those prices skyrocketed to make up the difference. In the 80's the DOJ finally wrapped up the antitrust case against "Ma Bell" that broke the company into several smaller phone service providers. With a lot of competing operators the prices were reasonable. More importantly, while telephone service was regulated as a utility the state utility commissions had largely required Bell to wire rural areas for service the same as they had wired cities.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    Just because one government chooses to not regulate it as a utility does not mean it is not a utility. It can be argued that internet access is more of a utility today than it was in the past, and is likely to become increasingly more crucial for folks to have. Many local, state, and national communications are over the internet, more and more jobs require it to some degree (and having internet helps find new jobs more than not having it). donald's 'official' communication mechanism is twitter, which requires internet access. > The term utilities can also refer to the set of services provided by these organizations consumed by the public: Coal, electricity, natural gas, water, sewage, telephone, and transportation. Broadband internet services (both fixed-line and mobile) are increasingly being included within the definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility
    - elliekelly 8y ago
      I wasn't arguing with you. To the contrary - I agree. In 2018 the internet is just as necessary as electricity. I was merely pointing out why it's the most expensive of the "utilities" you listed.

The poverty rates and broadband service maps look like the other, except opposite.

by cbluth 8y ago

The poverty rates and broadband service maps look like the other, except opposite.

I think it makes sense, since broadband internet is relatively expensive compared to other utilities that are more necessary. For example, if you have $50 a month to spend on either electricity or broadband internet, you're probably going to spend it on electricity (nevermind the fact that an inet connection is useless if you have no electricity). Did you expect it to be different?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mod 8y ago
I agree it makes sense, but I think your example is ridiculous. In my (rural) area, DSL internet is the only decent option, and I pay about $72/month for it. It's acceptable, streams netflix okay, but I could never be competitive in a FPS. But people around here are more interested in more traditional activities. I think their rate of watching TV and engaging with their phones and other similar measures would be far, far less than the national average. I simply think internet is not a priority; they'd rather be outside. At least in my small bubble.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  Is there any data to support that rural dwellers spend more time outside than dense urban dwellers? I’d expect the opposite, especially in cold weather.
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    It's a lot easier to go for a hike, paddle a canoe down a river, go fishing, hunting, climb a mountain, etc... in a rural area than in an urban one.
    - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
      I’ve lived in Boston and Manhattan before and it was super easy to do all those things apart from climbing a mountain (which is hard to do anywhere there’s not a mountain, regardless ofbeing rural or urban) or hunting. In fact, I would usually just walk or take a train to these activities, and likely could commute to do them faster than people not in a city. Hunting is probably the main exception, but I don’t think it's meaningful for the point of this thread. One of my primary hobbies in Boston was taking a bus to the Middlesex Fells nature reserve and hiking all day to find geocaches. Most people I knew also primarly engaged in outdoor, physically vigorous activities like kayaking/rowing, long distance jogging and bicycle riding.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    They're more likely to have outdoor jobs and tons more likely to spend any recreational time outdoors. City people drink their beer in a bar. Country people drink their beer standing around a pile of burning pallets.
    - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
      This just seems like an assertion. I suspect it is wrong.
      - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
        Compare the nature of available forms of employment and recreation in urban areas to those in rural areas. The outdoor options for recreation are somewhat more sparse in urban areas. The indoor options for employment are much more sparse in rural areas. White collar jobs are overwhelmingly located in urban and suburban areas. You've got teachers and dentists and stuff like that in rural areas but those scale with population so they don't affect the proportional difference between urban/rural.
        mlthoughts2018 8y ago
        In rural areas, almost all jobs are indoor jobs. I mostly agree that rural areas have a higher proportion of outdoor jobs, but it’s still a super small fraction. > “The outdoor options for recreation are somewhat more sparse in urban areas.” Do you have evidence for that? My initial reaction is that it’s very likely false. And if it’s not false, the actual difference is not enough to be meaningful in terms of population statistics of how much indoor time / outdoor time people spend as dense urban dwellers vs rural dwellers. For example, in the northeast US, I exercise outdoors all year except when the weather literally prevents it. But then, it also prevents it in rural places too, likely more often given the city resources that can clear areas for running / biking that couldn’t be similarly cleared in rural areas. Having grown up in the rural Midwest, I can only say anecdotally that people in large east coast cities exercise much more, do outdoor activities year round much more, go to public beaches, have large city parks, and generally spend more time doing outdoor activities. Where I’m from in the Midwest, people exercise less, only use cars to go anywhere (even short distances), and the rural roads are such safety hazards that they can’t be reliably used for jogging or biking and people end up driving to fitness centers to do that stuff indoors.
- walshemj 8y ago
  Really I pay $25 a month in the UK and that's for a high end one not the cheapo ISP's like plusnet. An your paying almost as much as my last employer did for ELM when we moved offices at short notice < a month. Shows the positive side of local loop unbundling.
elliekelly 8y ago
>I think it makes sense, since broadband internet is relatively expensive compared to other utilities that are more necessary. An internet connection isn't regulated as a utility. As far as the law is concerned, the internet is a luxury item so access/quality/cost is set by the market. Telephone companies (or I should say, company: Bell) operated in much the same way 100 years ago until state utility commissions started to regulate them as utilities and cap the price they could charge for local calls. Since the state had no jurisdiction over long-distance charges, those prices skyrocketed to make up the difference. In the 80's the DOJ finally wrapped up the antitrust case against "Ma Bell" that broke the company into several smaller phone service providers. With a lot of competing operators the prices were reasonable. More importantly, while telephone service was regulated as a utility the state utility commissions had largely required Bell to wire rural areas for service the same as they had wired cities.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  Just because one government chooses to not regulate it as a utility does not mean it is not a utility. It can be argued that internet access is more of a utility today than it was in the past, and is likely to become increasingly more crucial for folks to have. Many local, state, and national communications are over the internet, more and more jobs require it to some degree (and having internet helps find new jobs more than not having it). donald's 'official' communication mechanism is twitter, which requires internet access. > The term utilities can also refer to the set of services provided by these organizations consumed by the public: Coal, electricity, natural gas, water, sewage, telephone, and transportation. Broadband internet services (both fixed-line and mobile) are increasingly being included within the definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility
  - elliekelly 8y ago
    I wasn't arguing with you. To the contrary - I agree. In 2018 the internet is just as necessary as electricity. I was merely pointing out why it's the most expensive of the "utilities" you listed.