3 ms·

I don't think it's a matter of telcos or not, but about how the problem, as is, makes discrimination a natural result one has to actively fight against, in ways

I don't think it's a matter of telcos or not, but about how the problem, as is, makes discrimination a natural result one has to actively fight against, in ways that are often economically detrimental to everyone. The shape of American cities and towns makes all infrastructure very expensive: more miles of fiber per customer than basically anywhere else. More cell towers per phone too, if you are looking at 5G. This spread is also massively segregated economically and racially. I look at,say, any demographic map of St. Louis, and no matter whether we look at economic indicators, education, labor participation, wealth, race... you see the very same lines. So when a company just expands first where there will be more subscribers per mile of infrastructure built, they different racial outcomes are guaranteed. Given that deploying everywhere at once is physically impossible, every move to put someone ahead of the queue puts a different subdivision further back on the queue. Since fiber deployments will go on for decades, we might even see situations where a place becomes more desirable, and therefore makes different people try to buy it, just by giving it fiber 20 years later than it would have received it if we went just by subscribers per mile of infra. Municipal broadband might choose different winners, but with the same total build capacity, there is always winners... and I bet rich voters that would really use the broadband would get really mad if they are near the end of the 20+ years timeline, instead of year 3. Everyone wants a more equitable distribution of resources when it's not them losing massively The low density suburb is what makes this malaise so bad. Americans do not want to tackle this though, because its costs are so well hidden, and often distributed to other people. The richer your neighbors, the more likely you get more attention for purely political reasons anyway. See how many rich and progressive neighborhoods, suddenly turn to NIMBY land when they think they have topay high costs. The problem forces people to choose, and, as usual, those with less political clout will be last, just because everyone else pushes to be further ahead than the average, and someone has to be in the back. If the deployment was cheaper, and therefore faster, this would be far less of a problem, but the easiest time to fix it was 90 years ago.

gumby 3y ago
Well we discriminate (as in pick and choose, not in the sense of redlining) as to where we want the cost to lie. Typically core reticulated infrastructure is socialized: roads down to city level are typically funded at a high level (fed/state/county etc), mail delivery pricing is not destination-dependent et al. This makes sense as there are two parties and both benefit if the infrastructure is there. The local details (actual roads in the towns) are then a local matter. Conversely some decisions are not socialized: if you live remotely your insurance rate reflects your distance from a fire station or even hydrant, or your proximity to forest fires etc; an urban dweller is likely to pay less as the expected loss is lower. Anyway, telecom seems like an important universal service, as a human right; for the same reason roads are; and because it's in everybody's interest if people who want to vote have an opportunity to learn, both about "the issues" and be educated in other ways.

gumby 3y ago

Well we discriminate (as in pick and choose, not in the sense of redlining) as to where we want the cost to lie. Typically core reticulated infrastructure is socialized: roads down to city level are typically funded at a high level (fed/state/county etc), mail delivery pricing is not destination-dependent et al. This makes sense as there are two parties and both benefit if the infrastructure is there. The local details (actual roads in the towns) are then a local matter. Conversely some decisions are not socialized: if you live remotely your insurance rate reflects your distance from a fire station or even hydrant, or your proximity to forest fires etc; an urban dweller is likely to pay less as the expected loss is lower. Anyway, telecom seems like an important universal service, as a human right; for the same reason roads are; and because it's in everybody's interest if people who want to vote have an opportunity to learn, both about "the issues" and be educated in other ways.