5 ms·
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,
by 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 agoSomeone 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 agoTo 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 agoThis 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 agoBut these days, not having decent internet is like not having water or electricity
- space_fountain 7y agoIt'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 agoWhen I lived in rural areas well and septic has always been cheaper than municipal water/sewer.
- space_fountain 7y agoHum 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 agoI 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 agoYou are probably also ignoring the cost of getting your house connected to city plumbing. It's thousands of dollars.
- jki275 7y agoWell 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 agoThat'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 agoThe 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.
- oceanplexian 7y agoIf 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 agoA 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 agoThat 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 agoDoes this apply to third world countries?
- WhompingWindows 7y agoHow 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 agoYou 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?