3 ms·
There are advantages in rural areas, such as lower housing costs. I don't think the government should try to equalize the cost of internet access across areas a
by Bostonian 4y ago
There are advantages in rural areas, such as lower housing costs. I don't think the government should try to equalize the cost of internet access across areas any more that it should try to equalize housing costs. Since internet access is a consumption good for entertainment as much as it is a productivity enhancer, it should not be subsidized.
- dopidopHN 4y agoSo, not a utility. It’s a refreshing take that I haven’t heard in years at this point. Do you know if wisely shared point of view ?
- PaulHoule 4y agoThe problem is that it is expensive but it is absent or slow. If you've got the money to spend, carriers won't take it. Frequently the cable company will quote you something ridiculous like $50,000 to do the install, but it is really a bluff to make you go away. If you do have the money they'll make up some excuses and you'll find service is not available at any price. Sure, the Democrats are way too comfortable with subsidizing things, but the problem is not that internet service is too expensive, it's that carriers have refused to upgrade DSL networks.