5 ms·

Public Broadband Internet Isn’t a Luxury – It’s a Necessity

39 points by arkadiyt 5y ago

walrus01 5y ago
Look at the public utility districts in Eastern Washington state, which both own and operate their own last mile and middle mile electrical grids, and also dark fiber networks on the same poles. In my opinion some of them are run better than others, but overall, it's a worthy effort and provides service via third party ISPs, to places that are grossly underserved by the local incumbent telephone or cable TV operator.
- esarbe 5y ago
  It's definitively good to have a choice and - if there's no commercial service - almost a necessity.
DarylZero 5y ago
"Necessity" is not the opposite of "luxury."
- blackoil 5y ago
  ESL. https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/luxury https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/luxury - m-w says so. and also sounds right to my little common sense.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    You don't know what a thesaurus is.
- wbsss4412 5y ago
  Ah yes, only “necessity” and “unnecessity” are valid antonyms.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    Not sure about that, but certainly it is wrong to call something a luxury when it is merely unnecessary. Having extras or redundancy/backup is unnecessary, not luxury.
ksec 5y ago
If we have Water, Electricity and I assume Phone line ( not sure if that is still the case ) as necessity, why cant we replace the requirement of Phone line to Fibre Optic Cables? At least mandate all new building to have FTTH. The whole GPON tech has 10G-PON to the recently ratified 50G-PON upgrade path.
- 0xy 5y ago
  A FTTH new build mandate is a tax on the poor. Building a home in a rich area in an inner city would cost $5-10k or less to install fibre. Building a home in a poor rural area could result in over $100k of fibre installation costs. Blanket policies like these often tend to beat down poor people.
  - ksec 5y ago
    Could the same argument not be used for Phone line or Cables? At least have an extra pipe for the the fibre to be pulled would be sufficient. Unless it is rural area, I dont see how it cost $10K to install Fibre in cities. Is this an US specific thing?
  - 5555624 5y ago
    How much new construction is aimed at the poor? Developers are greedy and targeting the poor limits their profit. Isn't what little new low income housing construction heavily subsidized? For low income housing, have the (local) government cover the FTTH costs.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    Mandated build-outs worked in the past for electrification and the telephone. Is there a reason why it wouldn't work now for optical fibre? Fibre lasts a long time, so its installation cost can be amortized over decade(s) like the previously mentioned cables were.
Proven 5y ago
0xy 5y ago
This article is garbage. >But it is unprofitable for major internet providers to build broadband infrastructure in rural and low-income communities Are they living in an alternate universe where Starlink was never launched? >state and federal governments need to step in to make high-speed internet truly universal Ah, yes, the same governments that brought you toxic lead pipe plagued water infrastructure that subsequently poisoned thousands of children and adults, affecting them permanently. >A broad coalition for universal broadband has the potential to cut across the petty partisan divides and culture war skirmishes that continue to frustrate real working-class politics in this country — especially in rural communities, where progressive politics desperately needs to make inroads. So their true goal is to push propaganda into select markets? Given the state of political censorship on the internet, it seems likely they want to force "fact checked" information onto the masses via corrupt political organizations like Politifact, AP Politics and the Washington Post. Let's take a look who publishes this, shall we? Oh yeah, it's Bhaskar "executing children is fine if it aligns with your political priorities" [1] Sunkar. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhaskar_Sunkara#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhaskar_Sunkara#Controversy
- esarbe 5y ago
  > >But it is unprofitable for major internet providers to build broadband infrastructure in rural and low-income communities >Are they living in an alternate universe where Starlink was never launched? In what world is Starlink suitable for low-income communities? Starlink is a rich persons' gadget for when they don't want to lose internet access when they are in their fancy remote cabin, not a low-cost rural broadband access. > Ah, yes, the same governments that brought you toxic lead pipe plagued water infrastructure that subsequently poisoned thousands of children and adults, affecting them permanently. Well, yes. The USA seems to be particularly unable to provide public services, but that seems to be problem with the political system and ideology in the USA, not with public services in general. Europe is pretty happy with its public services and you should definitively visit it once. > via corrupt political organizations like Politifact, AP Politics and the Washington Post. These are private commercial entities and not "political" actors. If you want to point out that money and its influence has corrupted the political system of the USA to the point of dysfunction, I totally agree with you. > Let's take a look who publishes this[...] You are mistaking the person for their argument. The person can be flawed, that doesn't necessarily mean the argument is not sound.
trembonator 5y ago

39 points by arkadiyt 5y ago

Look at the public utility districts in Eastern Washington state, which both own and operate their own last mile and middle mile electrical grids, and also dark fiber networks on the same poles. In my opinion some of them are run better than others, but overall, it's a worthy effort and provides service via third party ISPs, to places that are grossly underserved by the local incumbent telephone or cable TV operator.

esarbe 5y ago
It's definitively good to have a choice and - if there's no commercial service - almost a necessity.

DarylZero 5y ago

"Necessity" is not the opposite of "luxury."

blackoil 5y ago
ESL. https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/luxury https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/luxury - m-w says so. and also sounds right to my little common sense.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  You don't know what a thesaurus is.
wbsss4412 5y ago
Ah yes, only “necessity” and “unnecessity” are valid antonyms.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  Not sure about that, but certainly it is wrong to call something a luxury when it is merely unnecessary. Having extras or redundancy/backup is unnecessary, not luxury.

ksec 5y ago

If we have Water, Electricity and I assume Phone line ( not sure if that is still the case ) as necessity, why cant we replace the requirement of Phone line to Fibre Optic Cables? At least mandate all new building to have FTTH. The whole GPON tech has 10G-PON to the recently ratified 50G-PON upgrade path.

0xy 5y ago
A FTTH new build mandate is a tax on the poor. Building a home in a rich area in an inner city would cost $5-10k or less to install fibre. Building a home in a poor rural area could result in over $100k of fibre installation costs. Blanket policies like these often tend to beat down poor people.
- ksec 5y ago
  Could the same argument not be used for Phone line or Cables? At least have an extra pipe for the the fibre to be pulled would be sufficient. Unless it is rural area, I dont see how it cost $10K to install Fibre in cities. Is this an US specific thing?
- 5555624 5y ago
  How much new construction is aimed at the poor? Developers are greedy and targeting the poor limits their profit. Isn't what little new low income housing construction heavily subsidized? For low income housing, have the (local) government cover the FTTH costs.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  Mandated build-outs worked in the past for electrification and the telephone. Is there a reason why it wouldn't work now for optical fibre? Fibre lasts a long time, so its installation cost can be amortized over decade(s) like the previously mentioned cables were.

Proven 5y ago

0xy 5y ago

This article is garbage. >But it is unprofitable for major internet providers to build broadband infrastructure in rural and low-income communities Are they living in an alternate universe where Starlink was never launched? >state and federal governments need to step in to make high-speed internet truly universal Ah, yes, the same governments that brought you toxic lead pipe plagued water infrastructure that subsequently poisoned thousands of children and adults, affecting them permanently. >A broad coalition for universal broadband has the potential to cut across the petty partisan divides and culture war skirmishes that continue to frustrate real working-class politics in this country — especially in rural communities, where progressive politics desperately needs to make inroads. So their true goal is to push propaganda into select markets? Given the state of political censorship on the internet, it seems likely they want to force "fact checked" information onto the masses via corrupt political organizations like Politifact, AP Politics and the Washington Post. Let's take a look who publishes this, shall we? Oh yeah, it's Bhaskar "executing children is fine if it aligns with your political priorities" [1] Sunkar. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhaskar_Sunkara#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhaskar_Sunkara#Controversy

esarbe 5y ago
> >But it is unprofitable for major internet providers to build broadband infrastructure in rural and low-income communities >Are they living in an alternate universe where Starlink was never launched? In what world is Starlink suitable for low-income communities? Starlink is a rich persons' gadget for when they don't want to lose internet access when they are in their fancy remote cabin, not a low-cost rural broadband access. > Ah, yes, the same governments that brought you toxic lead pipe plagued water infrastructure that subsequently poisoned thousands of children and adults, affecting them permanently. Well, yes. The USA seems to be particularly unable to provide public services, but that seems to be problem with the political system and ideology in the USA, not with public services in general. Europe is pretty happy with its public services and you should definitively visit it once. > via corrupt political organizations like Politifact, AP Politics and the Washington Post. These are private commercial entities and not "political" actors. If you want to point out that money and its influence has corrupted the political system of the USA to the point of dysfunction, I totally agree with you. > Let's take a look who publishes this[...] You are mistaking the person for their argument. The person can be flawed, that doesn't necessarily mean the argument is not sound.

trembonator 5y ago