9 ms·

The inequality in access to service around the US is stark. I'm currently living in a suburb of a large city, and have some of the most awesome internet I've ev

The inequality in access to service around the US is stark. I'm currently living in a suburb of a large city, and have some of the most awesome internet I've ever had (I can finally host my minecraft server from home!). My parents living an hour away in a small town pay more for service that can't reliably stream video... but pay slightly more than I do. It's one of the thousands of small cuts that are killing rural areas.

luma 7y ago
I hear this argument framed so many ways, but to me it always comes down to the simple fact: if you put distance between yourself and the rest of civilization, don’t be surprised when you don’t reap the same benefits from that civilization.
- Miner49er 7y ago
  Someone has to do it. The people in "civilization" (as you put it) need food, minerals, etc. The people in rural areas are the one's supplying it. They're the farmers, ranchers, miners, etc.
  - vinay427 7y ago
    To be fair, they already get significant subsidies and various preferential tax arrangements to compensate for this, at least in the US and many other western countries.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  This is not how one should look at utilities to be delivered to all citizens. It's cheaper to run internet infra in the suburbs and rural areas due to lower per mile buildout costs (have you ever been in a vault under a major downtown core roadway pulling fiber during the day?), this is just a matter of having the fortitude to put good public policy to work (monetary policy, construction jobs). Clean water, sewer, electric, internet, and USPS logistics service are table stakes (in the US). It's silly to make this out to be "Live in the suburbs or rural areas? Mad Max for you!". Counterpoint: How's that cheap, high speed Gb FTTH internet working out for you in downtown NYC or SF? /s
- blackearl 7y ago
  But these days, not having decent internet is like not having water or electricity
  - space_fountain 7y ago
    It's interesting you bring up water because plenty of people live away from the center of cities and have to pay more for wells and septic systems. I do think the costs could be more even but this isn't a new trade-off
    - jascii 7y ago
      When I lived in rural areas well and septic has always been cheaper than municipal water/sewer.
      - space_fountain 7y ago
        Hum interesting. I wonder if your neglecting the cost of installing wells and septic systems. The running costs are doubtless lower until you have to replace something expensive. I haven't though directly seen the cost difference though. I just know growing up one the big things the neighborhood wanted was a connection to city water
        jascii 7y ago
        I suspect it varies a lot by region,here in NW Oregon we don't really need very deepwells and we used composting toilets so our septic system was really underutilized.
        rhino369 7y ago
        You are probably also ignoring the cost of getting your house connected to city plumbing. It's thousands of dollars.
      - jki275 7y ago
        Well and Septic are free, unless you include the maintenance and installation costs, which are substantial. 20k+ to drill a well in some places, electricity to run it, maintenance when the pump breaks, things like that. Septic has to be pumped sometimes, clogs sometimes, again probably 20k+ to install, etc.
- inerte 7y ago
  That's such an useless approach to any discussion. People live under a power structure (democratic government) and expect some things from it. We can all blame each other for the choices we make but choices have a glass ceiling and casting stones will break yours too. You don't accept bad air quality, traffic, crime, consumerism pressure, ads on every street corner, weak and shallow local communities, and proclame "well don't be surprised because you chose civilization". You expect and demand improvements like any other decent human being.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - ac29 7y ago
    The question is who should pay for it. There are plenty of areas of rural America where the houses may be quite far apart - it might legitimately costs tens of thousands of dollars per hookup to bring fiber. That money will effectively never be recovered - no one is going to pay $500/month for home internet. Keep in mind there are significant portions of the country that don't even have access to water or sewer utilities (wells and septic only) - its just not practical. Giving money to big telco's hasnt worked. I think the best way to cover rural areas is wireless, via local WISPs or local government run ISPs. It would be nice to see some of the low-band spectrum being reclaimed from TV stations (sub 1GHz) go towards these efforts, since higher bands wont be able to cover as much area.
    - hwillis 7y ago
      It worked for electricity.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - goosehonk 7y ago
        Ask California how that’s working.
    - 7y ago
- oceanplexian 7y ago
  If only that argument worked in the Bay Area, where your best option is Comcast Cable and the electric utility can’t keep the lights on, despite being one of the most populated metro areas in the country.
  - ac29 7y ago
    A sizeable amount of the Bay Area has fiber available from ATT - I'm buying it resold via Sonic, since its the same price and you dont ever have to deal with ATT technical support.
- mrkurt 7y ago
  That sounds so much different if you phrase it as "if you're born in the wrong place, don't be surprised when you reap less benefits". Most people don't choose where they live.
- look_lookatme 7y ago
  Does this apply to third world countries?
- WhompingWindows 7y ago
  How about this framing: are non-coastal residents supposed to subsidize the costs of sea level rise and climate change damage for future coastal residents? It's shitty to hang people out to dry, but at the same time, people MUST move in the above example. Coastal residents can't do whatever they want and expect others to share the costs.
  - wil421 7y ago
    You can make a weird argument like that about pretty much anything. It doesn’t make it relevant. What about the sea life and baby turtles that will die due to raising coastal areas?
ajmurmann 7y ago
Distances in the US can be so much bigger than in other countries, leading to rural areas being much more rural than in pretty much any other developed country. This makes servicing some rural communities very expensive. Not only for ISPs but for pretty much any infrastructure. Living in a rural area is a decision, that's fine for people to make, but I'm not sure we all need to be subsidizing it. Yes, cities have become very expensive, but it would be much cheaper as a society to solve that problem by getting rid of NIMBY regulation and make it easier and cheaper to build denser than to keep maintaining small, remote settlements with very little economic value
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  Cities have some of the most expensive internet rates. The US has some of the most expensive internet in the entire world. Your distance argument only makes sense if you take away the billions given to ISPs to lay black fiber. Cities would be super cheap internet. That's not what happened. ISPs charge exorbitant fees for a service they barely keep up to date. Remote settlements are often what allows those cities to exist and who are you to tell people where and how they should live?
  - dantheman 7y ago
    People can and should live anywhere they want. We however should not subsidize it. This way the true cost of living there is apparent, and if the services/resources they provide are needed then the cost of those services/resources will need to go up so that they can afford to live there.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Survey after survey shows that the US beats most large European countries for internet speeds. So how does the meme that ISPs barely keep the service up to date survive?
    - adventured 7y ago
      There's always immense lag between when the anti-US propaganda online catches up with reality. For example, the US has a great beer market now. It took several years before US beer - as a broad concept - was removed from the official foreigner list of things to bash the US with (which still includes such fan favorite fallback items as American cheese and Hershey chocolate). That the US has had faster Internet access than most of Europe - including Germany and France - for the past decade, is a bash list counter that people intentionally pretend doesn't exist. It's very inconvenient reality and your typical American has no idea what the access speeds are across Europe, so they can't counter argue properly. The access cost issue is also - fairly - of course on the bash list, although people never adjust for the far higher US incomes when pointing it out, naturally. The US rolled out 4G much faster than Europe and it's going to roll out 5G much faster than Europe. That too is universally, intentionally ignored (despite the stream of articles you can google on the subject reporting how far behind Europe was in rolling out 4G and now again with 5G). That despite the fact that these items are matters of infrastructure and the US is supposed to be the worst on the planet when it comes to infrastructure (the US is spending more of its GDP on infrastructure than the EU).
redisman 7y ago
Unless you're lucky, even major cities have expensive and bad options. In Helsinki I paid $40 for a 500/500 line. In Seattle I pay $70 for 70/5 I believe and no better options available (I could pay a lot more for a bit more downstream). In whats supposed to be one of the top 2 tech cities in the country.
gremlinsinc 7y ago
I'm quite lucky. I live in southern Utah. I pay $65 for 1 Gig down, and I think 60 MB up. I was paying $95, but they moved to 1 plan only (dropped the 100MB plan), and re-branded, I'm not complaining! This is a rural area, maybe 50k people in the entire county.. I mean it's a city but a really small city.. (I'm from dayton/cincinnati area... so compared to t here, it's a very small city :D.

luma 7y ago

I hear this argument framed so many ways, but to me it always comes down to the simple fact: if you put distance between yourself and the rest of civilization, don’t be surprised when you don’t reap the same benefits from that civilization.

Miner49er 7y ago
Someone has to do it. The people in "civilization" (as you put it) need food, minerals, etc. The people in rural areas are the one's supplying it. They're the farmers, ranchers, miners, etc.
- vinay427 7y ago
  To be fair, they already get significant subsidies and various preferential tax arrangements to compensate for this, at least in the US and many other western countries.
toomuchtodo 7y ago
This is not how one should look at utilities to be delivered to all citizens. It's cheaper to run internet infra in the suburbs and rural areas due to lower per mile buildout costs (have you ever been in a vault under a major downtown core roadway pulling fiber during the day?), this is just a matter of having the fortitude to put good public policy to work (monetary policy, construction jobs). Clean water, sewer, electric, internet, and USPS logistics service are table stakes (in the US). It's silly to make this out to be "Live in the suburbs or rural areas? Mad Max for you!". Counterpoint: How's that cheap, high speed Gb FTTH internet working out for you in downtown NYC or SF? /s
blackearl 7y ago
But these days, not having decent internet is like not having water or electricity
- space_fountain 7y ago
  It's interesting you bring up water because plenty of people live away from the center of cities and have to pay more for wells and septic systems. I do think the costs could be more even but this isn't a new trade-off
  - jascii 7y ago
    When I lived in rural areas well and septic has always been cheaper than municipal water/sewer.
    - space_fountain 7y ago
      Hum interesting. I wonder if your neglecting the cost of installing wells and septic systems. The running costs are doubtless lower until you have to replace something expensive. I haven't though directly seen the cost difference though. I just know growing up one the big things the neighborhood wanted was a connection to city water
      - jascii 7y ago
        I suspect it varies a lot by region,here in NW Oregon we don't really need very deepwells and we used composting toilets so our septic system was really underutilized.
      - rhino369 7y ago
        You are probably also ignoring the cost of getting your house connected to city plumbing. It's thousands of dollars.
    - jki275 7y ago
      Well and Septic are free, unless you include the maintenance and installation costs, which are substantial. 20k+ to drill a well in some places, electricity to run it, maintenance when the pump breaks, things like that. Septic has to be pumped sometimes, clogs sometimes, again probably 20k+ to install, etc.
inerte 7y ago
That's such an useless approach to any discussion. People live under a power structure (democratic government) and expect some things from it. We can all blame each other for the choices we make but choices have a glass ceiling and casting stones will break yours too. You don't accept bad air quality, traffic, crime, consumerism pressure, ads on every street corner, weak and shallow local communities, and proclame "well don't be surprised because you chose civilization". You expect and demand improvements like any other decent human being.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ac29 7y ago
  The question is who should pay for it. There are plenty of areas of rural America where the houses may be quite far apart - it might legitimately costs tens of thousands of dollars per hookup to bring fiber. That money will effectively never be recovered - no one is going to pay $500/month for home internet. Keep in mind there are significant portions of the country that don't even have access to water or sewer utilities (wells and septic only) - its just not practical. Giving money to big telco's hasnt worked. I think the best way to cover rural areas is wireless, via local WISPs or local government run ISPs. It would be nice to see some of the low-band spectrum being reclaimed from TV stations (sub 1GHz) go towards these efforts, since higher bands wont be able to cover as much area.
  - hwillis 7y ago
    It worked for electricity.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - goosehonk 7y ago
      Ask California how that’s working.
  - 7y ago
oceanplexian 7y ago
If only that argument worked in the Bay Area, where your best option is Comcast Cable and the electric utility can’t keep the lights on, despite being one of the most populated metro areas in the country.
- ac29 7y ago
  A sizeable amount of the Bay Area has fiber available from ATT - I'm buying it resold via Sonic, since its the same price and you dont ever have to deal with ATT technical support.
mrkurt 7y ago
That sounds so much different if you phrase it as "if you're born in the wrong place, don't be surprised when you reap less benefits". Most people don't choose where they live.
look_lookatme 7y ago
Does this apply to third world countries?
WhompingWindows 7y ago
How about this framing: are non-coastal residents supposed to subsidize the costs of sea level rise and climate change damage for future coastal residents? It's shitty to hang people out to dry, but at the same time, people MUST move in the above example. Coastal residents can't do whatever they want and expect others to share the costs.
- wil421 7y ago
  You can make a weird argument like that about pretty much anything. It doesn’t make it relevant. What about the sea life and baby turtles that will die due to raising coastal areas?

ajmurmann 7y ago

Distances in the US can be so much bigger than in other countries, leading to rural areas being much more rural than in pretty much any other developed country. This makes servicing some rural communities very expensive. Not only for ISPs but for pretty much any infrastructure. Living in a rural area is a decision, that's fine for people to make, but I'm not sure we all need to be subsidizing it. Yes, cities have become very expensive, but it would be much cheaper as a society to solve that problem by getting rid of NIMBY regulation and make it easier and cheaper to build denser than to keep maintaining small, remote settlements with very little economic value

cannonedhamster 7y ago
Cities have some of the most expensive internet rates. The US has some of the most expensive internet in the entire world. Your distance argument only makes sense if you take away the billions given to ISPs to lay black fiber. Cities would be super cheap internet. That's not what happened. ISPs charge exorbitant fees for a service they barely keep up to date. Remote settlements are often what allows those cities to exist and who are you to tell people where and how they should live?
- dantheman 7y ago
  People can and should live anywhere they want. We however should not subsidize it. This way the true cost of living there is apparent, and if the services/resources they provide are needed then the cost of those services/resources will need to go up so that they can afford to live there.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Survey after survey shows that the US beats most large European countries for internet speeds. So how does the meme that ISPs barely keep the service up to date survive?
  - adventured 7y ago
    There's always immense lag between when the anti-US propaganda online catches up with reality. For example, the US has a great beer market now. It took several years before US beer - as a broad concept - was removed from the official foreigner list of things to bash the US with (which still includes such fan favorite fallback items as American cheese and Hershey chocolate). That the US has had faster Internet access than most of Europe - including Germany and France - for the past decade, is a bash list counter that people intentionally pretend doesn't exist. It's very inconvenient reality and your typical American has no idea what the access speeds are across Europe, so they can't counter argue properly. The access cost issue is also - fairly - of course on the bash list, although people never adjust for the far higher US incomes when pointing it out, naturally. The US rolled out 4G much faster than Europe and it's going to roll out 5G much faster than Europe. That too is universally, intentionally ignored (despite the stream of articles you can google on the subject reporting how far behind Europe was in rolling out 4G and now again with 5G). That despite the fact that these items are matters of infrastructure and the US is supposed to be the worst on the planet when it comes to infrastructure (the US is spending more of its GDP on infrastructure than the EU).

redisman 7y ago

Unless you're lucky, even major cities have expensive and bad options. In Helsinki I paid $40 for a 500/500 line. In Seattle I pay $70 for 70/5 I believe and no better options available (I could pay a lot more for a bit more downstream). In whats supposed to be one of the top 2 tech cities in the country.

gremlinsinc 7y ago

I'm quite lucky. I live in southern Utah. I pay $65 for 1 Gig down, and I think 60 MB up. I was paying $95, but they moved to 1 plan only (dropped the 100MB plan), and re-branded, I'm not complaining! This is a rural area, maybe 50k people in the entire county.. I mean it's a city but a really small city.. (I'm from dayton/cincinnati area... so compared to t here, it's a very small city :D.