3 ms·
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
by 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 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.
- hwillis 7y agoIt worked for electricity.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- goosehonk 7y agoAsk California how that’s working.
- dillonmckay 7y agoSome areas do not allow wireless.