14 ms·
> Cities aren't in any way preventing improvements elsewhere. Opportunity cost. Why spend your installation technician's time in an unprofitable rural region w
by inetknght 6y ago
> Cities aren't in any way preventing improvements elsewhere.
Opportunity cost. Why spend your installation technician's time in an unprofitable rural region when you can better-spend their time in a profitable city?
- hylaride 6y agoWell, these rural areas keep electing "free market" republicans, so...
- kodah 6y agoPersonally, your argument seems dubious but I'll answer you in earnest. If your argument were true this map would look much different: https://www.fcc.gov/health/maps https://www.fcc.gov/health/maps Local politicians all work just about the same way when it comes to approving an internet provider. Attracting them generally has to do with business incentives, which means if the State and/or Federal government do nothing then you'll get what you have today.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- thebean11 6y agoOpportunity cost is only an argument when doing one thing prevents you from doing the other. What's the limited resource here that would prevent a cable company from hiring more technicians and laying more cable? Put another way, how does banning improvements in New York suddenly make improvements in Montana more profitable?
- inetknght 6y agoSure but what are you going to do with those technicians after they've installed the hardware in a sparse region? It takes a lot of man-hours to do the install, especially for long distances that are rural homes, but not so many man-hours to maintain
- blaser-waffle 6y agoPlus you have the ability to serve more people, at a lower cost. I can get 100 urban users up for 1/4 of the price to get 20 users in a rural sub-division. This isn't just capitalism, it's basic utilitarianism.