5 ms·

It would be great if LEO could solve the rural broadband access problem, but why should taxpayer dollars be provided to companies that do not have a proven solu

It would be great if LEO could solve the rural broadband access problem, but why should taxpayer dollars be provided to companies that do not have a proven solution? Time after time various businesses such as Frontier have gamed the system without providing any value.

bawolff 6y ago
Seems like easy solution is make it a loan. If they make it work, they can keep the money for free, if not, they pay back with interest.
- laurowyn 6y ago
  And when they declare bankruptcy because they can't pay back the loan with interest? Payment upon delivery is how most business-to-business purchases work. You agree a cost, deliver the item, then get paid. Being paid before delivery gives no incentive to deliver what was requested.
  - noway421 6y ago
    payment before delivery is ubiquitous in SaaS
bsder 6y ago
Or we could, you know, take all that money, dig some trenches, and lay a whole lotta fibre. We can solve rural access. You have a "Rural Fibre Project" like you had the "Rural Electrification Project" and you get on with life. Ajit Pai and the telecoms simply don't want to because the telecoms would vaporize overnight everywhere that suddenly got fibre.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  There are people in rural areas with mile long driveways. Cost-per-mile makes a lot of rural places cost-prohibitive. Not just for fiber; lots of rural areas don’t have sewer or water coverage, either.
- toast0 6y ago
  Haven't we already paid for the rural broadband access project a bunch of times, both at a state and local level? If starlink does what it's supposed to, it should provide a pretty good experience that works best in rural areas precisely because of the sparseness of users that makes wiring each home expensive. Certainly, giving the money and hoping it works as advertised isn't a good idea --- for all providers. For nationwide providers, these should be allocated whatever way, then the provider should post a bond and get their money and the grant money upon completion. If they don't complete it on time, the grant money and the bond roll down to the projects that were approved but didn't get funded because of the spending cap. Posting a bond for a hyper local provider might be problematic, but hyper local providers probably have a better track record of delivery, so they could have more generous pay as you go grant terms.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    YES. ATT collected a half-trillion dollars in authorized overcharges to existing landlines, on the promise to build out rural fiber. They did do some build-out. (One such fiber bundle terminates a few yards from my house.) ATT did not promise to light it up, and haven't, in ten years. But they pocketed the money.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
FWIW, SpaceX has proven it can solve problems and make viable, honest business, and Elon's other company, Tesla, is known to repay government loans on time and with interest. So if anyone is to get a taxpayer-funded loan, SpaceX is one of the best bets.

bawolff 6y ago

Seems like easy solution is make it a loan. If they make it work, they can keep the money for free, if not, they pay back with interest.

laurowyn 6y ago
And when they declare bankruptcy because they can't pay back the loan with interest? Payment upon delivery is how most business-to-business purchases work. You agree a cost, deliver the item, then get paid. Being paid before delivery gives no incentive to deliver what was requested.
- noway421 6y ago
  payment before delivery is ubiquitous in SaaS

bsder 6y ago

Or we could, you know, take all that money, dig some trenches, and lay a whole lotta fibre. We can solve rural access. You have a "Rural Fibre Project" like you had the "Rural Electrification Project" and you get on with life. Ajit Pai and the telecoms simply don't want to because the telecoms would vaporize overnight everywhere that suddenly got fibre.

ceejayoz 6y ago
There are people in rural areas with mile long driveways. Cost-per-mile makes a lot of rural places cost-prohibitive. Not just for fiber; lots of rural areas don’t have sewer or water coverage, either.
toast0 6y ago
Haven't we already paid for the rural broadband access project a bunch of times, both at a state and local level? If starlink does what it's supposed to, it should provide a pretty good experience that works best in rural areas precisely because of the sparseness of users that makes wiring each home expensive. Certainly, giving the money and hoping it works as advertised isn't a good idea --- for all providers. For nationwide providers, these should be allocated whatever way, then the provider should post a bond and get their money and the grant money upon completion. If they don't complete it on time, the grant money and the bond roll down to the projects that were approved but didn't get funded because of the spending cap. Posting a bond for a hyper local provider might be problematic, but hyper local providers probably have a better track record of delivery, so they could have more generous pay as you go grant terms.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  YES. ATT collected a half-trillion dollars in authorized overcharges to existing landlines, on the promise to build out rural fiber. They did do some build-out. (One such fiber bundle terminates a few yards from my house.) ATT did not promise to light it up, and haven't, in ten years. But they pocketed the money.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

FWIW, SpaceX has proven it can solve problems and make viable, honest business, and Elon's other company, Tesla, is known to repay government loans on time and with interest. So if anyone is to get a taxpayer-funded loan, SpaceX is one of the best bets.