5 ms·

Like it or not, certain parts of the US are too rural/poor to justify even monopolists expanding internet service there. This will incentivize them to build in

Like it or not, certain parts of the US are too rural/poor to justify even monopolists expanding internet service there. This will incentivize them to build in those areas.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Why doesn’t the government just build it? They do it with sewer lines, power lines, gas lines, water lines, but a little fiber is too much?
- pm90 6y ago
  The Government does not build those.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    I consider utility companies that have government oversight of pricing to be government.
- falcolas 6y ago
  Because the ISP corporations have sued the government (successfully) when it's attempted. And 'successfully' includes a completed lawsuit and/or dragging out the proceedings so long that it costs the taxpayers too much to continue.
- briandear 6y ago
  With few exceptions, the government doesn’t build or operate power lines in the US.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    As long as the government has a hand in the pricing and product delivered, I consider it to be government (for the purposes of comparing it to a rent seeking ISP that has no oversight). If ISPs were operated and regulated like a utility like gas, electric, water, then it’s not important who owns what. https://www.energy.gov/oe/information-center/educational-resources/electricity-101#who%20owns%20the%20electric%20system https://www.energy.gov/oe/information-center/educational-res... https://www.energy.gov/oe/information-center/educational-resources/electricity-101#p1 https://www.energy.gov/oe/information-center/educational-res...
- maineldc 6y ago
  Actually they often don't. In the US, we had the Rural Electrification Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act) that brought electricity into rural areas, but these places often still have wells, septic tanks, and gas tanks.
- rayiner 6y ago
  The government doesn't build water, sewer, or gas in many parts of the country! Where I live, less than an hour from DC and maybe 5 minutes from a Whole Foods, we don't have gas lines at all, we use propane and fuel oil. We got public water and sewer only in 2015, and each house is paying off a $30,000 assessment for that. Most of the areas around us are reliant on wells and septic systems. Ironically, we have had fiber since 2008 or so. As to electric--most of that was built back when labor was relatively very cheap and tons of people were unemployed. We couldn't build the national electric grid today, for the same reason we couldn't build the New York subway today.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Then use roads as an example. The point is, internet is obviously a communal good that can’t be logistically provided by more than one entity, and the government is there for the benefit of the community.
    - blargmaster33 6y ago
      You need to open a history book
- chooseaname 6y ago
  ISPs will sue saying the government should not compete with business.
adrr 6y ago
I don't get why we want to build stuff in rural areas. From a cost perspective, we have to subsidize the infrastructure including medical and utilities. From economic standpoint, the jobs are in the cities. Labor participation rates in cities is much higher than rural areas. Investing in housing cost reductions in urban areas seems like a better investment than wiring rural areas with high speed internet.
- briHass 6y ago
  "Jobs are in the cities" Yeah, except for agriculture, energy production, mining, large manufacturing, warehousing and other critical industries that city dwellers like to forget exist. All of these require people, and those people need to live somewhere near their place of work.
  - adrr 6y ago
    There's not a lot of them and as a percentage of total jobs, it is declining every year. Projects should be determined by ROI and be forward looking. Focusing on urban areas where it we get bigger multiplier on our economy and is forwarding looking as that is where the jobs are being created. We have lots of people in rural areas with no jobs and we have urban areas which have labor shortages. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/employment-education/rural-employment-and-unemployment/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/emp...
- Jarwain 6y ago
  Not all the jobs are in the cities. I'd imagine rural areas have a lot of large-scale farming that would be expensive to do in the city. Tons of people also grow up in rural areas; access to high speed internet would probably be useful for their development and maybe even innovation in these areas. Personally I see high speed internet as a way to integrate people who may not be geographically close to each other; this includes those living in rural areas.
- free_rms 6y ago
  Because they're people too, and it winds up being profitable for everyone. It took New Deal politicians dragging the electric companies kicking and screaming to get rural eras electrified, because the companies didn't think there'd be enough usage to justify the wiring. Turns out, once it's available, people use it, and it was profitable.
danShumway 6y ago
We already have incentivized them. They take the money, promise to build, and then just don't. They know that neither the FCC nor any of the state/local governments have any will right now to punish them for not following through on their commitments. At this point, it would be more efficient to just give the money to municipalities directly and just tell them to build their own infrastructure. Government incentives for commercial companies aren't always bad, but in this case I think they're really clearly not working, and we're just shoveling more money into that hole.
- ac29 6y ago
  I don't know why these sort of things don't work on a reimbursement basis. Instead of just handing over a huge chunk of money, why shouldn't telecoms be required to submit invoices for reimbursement on qualifying work? It would ensure taxpayers were only paying for work actually completed, not empty promises.
jandrese 6y ago
Aren't these the customers that SpaceX is targeting with Starlink? Ones that live so far apart that laying fiber is really expensive, but also don't have too many other people living in their satellite footprint?
chooseaname 6y ago
But they won't. We've already done that before.

Like it or not, certain parts of the US are too rural/poor to justify even monopolists expanding internet service there. This will incentivize them to build in those areas.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

Why doesn’t the government just build it? They do it with sewer lines, power lines, gas lines, water lines, but a little fiber is too much?

pm90 6y ago
The Government does not build those.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  I consider utility companies that have government oversight of pricing to be government.
falcolas 6y ago
Because the ISP corporations have sued the government (successfully) when it's attempted. And 'successfully' includes a completed lawsuit and/or dragging out the proceedings so long that it costs the taxpayers too much to continue.
briandear 6y ago
With few exceptions, the government doesn’t build or operate power lines in the US.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  As long as the government has a hand in the pricing and product delivered, I consider it to be government (for the purposes of comparing it to a rent seeking ISP that has no oversight). If ISPs were operated and regulated like a utility like gas, electric, water, then it’s not important who owns what. https://www.energy.gov/oe/information-center/educational-resources/electricity-101#who%20owns%20the%20electric%20system https://www.energy.gov/oe/information-center/educational-res... https://www.energy.gov/oe/information-center/educational-resources/electricity-101#p1 https://www.energy.gov/oe/information-center/educational-res...
maineldc 6y ago
Actually they often don't. In the US, we had the Rural Electrification Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act) that brought electricity into rural areas, but these places often still have wells, septic tanks, and gas tanks.
rayiner 6y ago
The government doesn't build water, sewer, or gas in many parts of the country! Where I live, less than an hour from DC and maybe 5 minutes from a Whole Foods, we don't have gas lines at all, we use propane and fuel oil. We got public water and sewer only in 2015, and each house is paying off a $30,000 assessment for that. Most of the areas around us are reliant on wells and septic systems. Ironically, we have had fiber since 2008 or so. As to electric--most of that was built back when labor was relatively very cheap and tons of people were unemployed. We couldn't build the national electric grid today, for the same reason we couldn't build the New York subway today.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Then use roads as an example. The point is, internet is obviously a communal good that can’t be logistically provided by more than one entity, and the government is there for the benefit of the community.
  - blargmaster33 6y ago
    You need to open a history book
chooseaname 6y ago
ISPs will sue saying the government should not compete with business.

adrr 6y ago

I don't get why we want to build stuff in rural areas. From a cost perspective, we have to subsidize the infrastructure including medical and utilities. From economic standpoint, the jobs are in the cities. Labor participation rates in cities is much higher than rural areas. Investing in housing cost reductions in urban areas seems like a better investment than wiring rural areas with high speed internet.

briHass 6y ago
"Jobs are in the cities" Yeah, except for agriculture, energy production, mining, large manufacturing, warehousing and other critical industries that city dwellers like to forget exist. All of these require people, and those people need to live somewhere near their place of work.
- adrr 6y ago
  There's not a lot of them and as a percentage of total jobs, it is declining every year. Projects should be determined by ROI and be forward looking. Focusing on urban areas where it we get bigger multiplier on our economy and is forwarding looking as that is where the jobs are being created. We have lots of people in rural areas with no jobs and we have urban areas which have labor shortages. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/employment-education/rural-employment-and-unemployment/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/emp...
Jarwain 6y ago
Not all the jobs are in the cities. I'd imagine rural areas have a lot of large-scale farming that would be expensive to do in the city. Tons of people also grow up in rural areas; access to high speed internet would probably be useful for their development and maybe even innovation in these areas. Personally I see high speed internet as a way to integrate people who may not be geographically close to each other; this includes those living in rural areas.
free_rms 6y ago
Because they're people too, and it winds up being profitable for everyone. It took New Deal politicians dragging the electric companies kicking and screaming to get rural eras electrified, because the companies didn't think there'd be enough usage to justify the wiring. Turns out, once it's available, people use it, and it was profitable.

danShumway 6y ago

We already have incentivized them. They take the money, promise to build, and then just don't. They know that neither the FCC nor any of the state/local governments have any will right now to punish them for not following through on their commitments. At this point, it would be more efficient to just give the money to municipalities directly and just tell them to build their own infrastructure. Government incentives for commercial companies aren't always bad, but in this case I think they're really clearly not working, and we're just shoveling more money into that hole.

ac29 6y ago
I don't know why these sort of things don't work on a reimbursement basis. Instead of just handing over a huge chunk of money, why shouldn't telecoms be required to submit invoices for reimbursement on qualifying work? It would ensure taxpayers were only paying for work actually completed, not empty promises.

jandrese 6y ago

Aren't these the customers that SpaceX is targeting with Starlink? Ones that live so far apart that laying fiber is really expensive, but also don't have too many other people living in their satellite footprint?

chooseaname 6y ago

But they won't. We've already done that before.