4 ms·
Its not about being run for profit. Its why should anyone build a house in the middle of nowhere and expect the govt to spend whatever it takes to get connected
by zz865 5y ago
Its not about being run for profit. Its why should anyone build a house in the middle of nowhere and expect the govt to spend whatever it takes to get connected.
- Ensorceled 5y agoThis is how you destroy small farms.
- iso1210 5y agoSmall farms presumably already have an electrical connection.
- Ensorceled 5y agoTrue. This is a really a story of the "Fuck you, I got mine" generation. Power and phone was run for free pretty much everywhere. Now they want 80K for a line and a pole. This is the same story for internet access.
- iso1210 5y agoIn general I'd expect it to be far more cost effective to enact a massive project to wire every house, than wire a single house
- boringg 5y agoHave you seen the deficits the governments run? Should we foot the bill for connecting every rural home because people wanted to move out of the city - increasing the urban sprawl? Maybe if there 5-10 people at a time in batches they could do it at cost. . but custom jobs for every individual homeowner, come on be realistic instead of entitled.
- Dylan16807 5y agoSo that's true, but also we don't need new small farms.
- karteum 5y ago> Its why should anyone build a house in the middle of nowhere and expect the govt to spend whatever it takes to get connected. But the article says "he expected to pay a few thousand dollars, given that the nearest pole was across the street, about 45 metres away. He was shocked to find out it would cost $80,000". So it's not the case of a house in the middle of nowhere...
- taneq 5y agoJust playing devil's advocate here but maybe the whole line cost $400k and they could only charge the other 4 houses on the street $80k each. The fact that the line's already run doesn't mean it's already paid for.