4 ms·

I mean, this is almost exactly the kind of massive public project that the government is there for.

notJim 8y ago
I agree with this, and I think the general slogan of "broadband for all" could be a winning one for a politician (though they have to actually deliver.) My parents live in a rural area and the fastest internet they can get can barely stream Netflix on a good day, and only as long as no one else is using it. Many people have it much worse. Access to high-quality broadband seems like an issue that could span the rural/urban divide.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  This isn't likely to span the divide, when you consider that urban folks probably won't like having to pay drastically higher taxes to cover not their cheap connection, but to cover the hundred thousand dollar project to trench fiber out to one dude's cabin fifty miles from civilization. And then to do that over and over for every isolated place in the country. There's a reason rural Internet sucks: It's expensive to build and unprofitable to operate. That's why ISPs don't want to build them out.
  - linuxftw 8y ago
    What about roads? What about electricity? Why should rural people have those when it adds extra tax burden to those in the city? What about the postal service?
    - dodobirdlord 8y ago
      In all seriousness, why should they? There are obvious diminishing returns and there's a point where the distances get large enough and the number of people gets small enough that it's unjustifiable. Opportunity costs exist, and it follows that advocating for money to be spent inefficiently is bad.
      - linuxftw 8y ago
        I never said they should. I actually don't believe there should be goverment owned roads or utilities (or subsidized utilities in general). Nobody actually cares about the rural poor. No transportation options, limited services in general. It's just laughable how people consider themselves so giving, unless those people live outside the city, then screw those people.
        dodobirdlord 8y ago
        I don't think there is a point to be made here. It's unreasonable to suggest that people should deliberately target their giving in an inefficient manner.
  - madengr 8y ago
    If there are already power and telephone poles, they can run fiber. I don’t understand why the whole, damn country could be wired for power, but they can’t run a dammed fiber cable.
  - bluGill 8y ago
    Note that the same thing was said about rural electric. Rural areas often got electric when the locals banded together and created a coop and surprise electric to rural areas is now common and not much more expensive than cities (the coop doesn't have a profit motive as the customers are also the owners)
- akhilcacharya 8y ago
  Democrats have been advocating for this as long as I can remember. The Trump campaign advocated for it in their 5G-nationalization scheme that the Trump White House for some reason wasn't aware of ([0] ?) and likely wouldn't work because of the nature of 5G penetration. The problem is "broadband for all" is it's an issue that doesn't register as much as the culture war. [0] https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/03/trump-administration-5g-1232622 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/03/trump-administrati...
robocat 8y ago
NZ has done this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-Fast_Broadband https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-Fast_Broadband Covering 87% of the population by the end of 2022. It is a public–private partnership of the government with four companies with total government investment of [USD 1 billion]. It was rolled out below budget. Then again, look at Australia trying to do the same thing, and failing (incumbent telco and govt), which might be more similar to what would happen in the US. Size, geography, and population of NZ is somewhat similar to Oregon, if that helps. As written by someone from Oregon: "When it comes to Oregon and New Zealand, there are similarities galore. Both have a largish city in the north corner. Both have around 4 million in population. And the square mileage of their land masses differ by only 5000 (98000 and 103,000, respectively). The scenery is spectacular. Micro-breweries are aplenty. And Kiwis “get” coffee. They really do. In other words, I feel at home here."

I agree with this, and I think the general slogan of "broadband for all" could be a winning one for a politician (though they have to actually deliver.) My parents live in a rural area and the fastest internet they can get can barely stream Netflix on a good day, and only as long as no one else is using it. Many people have it much worse. Access to high-quality broadband seems like an issue that could span the rural/urban divide.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
This isn't likely to span the divide, when you consider that urban folks probably won't like having to pay drastically higher taxes to cover not their cheap connection, but to cover the hundred thousand dollar project to trench fiber out to one dude's cabin fifty miles from civilization. And then to do that over and over for every isolated place in the country. There's a reason rural Internet sucks: It's expensive to build and unprofitable to operate. That's why ISPs don't want to build them out.
- linuxftw 8y ago
  What about roads? What about electricity? Why should rural people have those when it adds extra tax burden to those in the city? What about the postal service?
  - dodobirdlord 8y ago
    In all seriousness, why should they? There are obvious diminishing returns and there's a point where the distances get large enough and the number of people gets small enough that it's unjustifiable. Opportunity costs exist, and it follows that advocating for money to be spent inefficiently is bad.
    - linuxftw 8y ago
      I never said they should. I actually don't believe there should be goverment owned roads or utilities (or subsidized utilities in general). Nobody actually cares about the rural poor. No transportation options, limited services in general. It's just laughable how people consider themselves so giving, unless those people live outside the city, then screw those people.
      - dodobirdlord 8y ago
        I don't think there is a point to be made here. It's unreasonable to suggest that people should deliberately target their giving in an inefficient manner.
- madengr 8y ago
  If there are already power and telephone poles, they can run fiber. I don’t understand why the whole, damn country could be wired for power, but they can’t run a dammed fiber cable.
- bluGill 8y ago
  Note that the same thing was said about rural electric. Rural areas often got electric when the locals banded together and created a coop and surprise electric to rural areas is now common and not much more expensive than cities (the coop doesn't have a profit motive as the customers are also the owners)
akhilcacharya 8y ago
Democrats have been advocating for this as long as I can remember. The Trump campaign advocated for it in their 5G-nationalization scheme that the Trump White House for some reason wasn't aware of ([0] ?) and likely wouldn't work because of the nature of 5G penetration. The problem is "broadband for all" is it's an issue that doesn't register as much as the culture war. [0] https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/03/trump-administration-5g-1232622 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/03/trump-administrati...

robocat 8y ago

NZ has done this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-Fast_Broadband https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-Fast_Broadband Covering 87% of the population by the end of 2022. It is a public–private partnership of the government with four companies with total government investment of [USD 1 billion]. It was rolled out below budget. Then again, look at Australia trying to do the same thing, and failing (incumbent telco and govt), which might be more similar to what would happen in the US. Size, geography, and population of NZ is somewhat similar to Oregon, if that helps. As written by someone from Oregon: "When it comes to Oregon and New Zealand, there are similarities galore. Both have a largish city in the north corner. Both have around 4 million in population. And the square mileage of their land masses differ by only 5000 (98000 and 103,000, respectively). The scenery is spectacular. Micro-breweries are aplenty. And Kiwis “get” coffee. They really do. In other words, I feel at home here."