3 ms·
That’s the same as it costs too much.
by Gigachad 3y ago
That’s the same as it costs too much.
- jnsaff2 3y agoNo it's not. The utility for the users is the same. The lobbying power trying to make that choice is completely different.
- quickthrower2 3y agoFor governments and infrastructure they don’t need to make a profit they can subsidise. That is somewhat the point of a government. Costs too much is still an objection but “no immediate profit” isn’t. Whether that is true for fibre, I don’t know it is a complex topic.
- ip26 3y agoSubsidize - with taxpayer dollars.
- quickthrower2 3y agoYes, but they get that back later on with all the productivity increases. Or to put it another way - think of how much the government could save in taxes if it built no infrastructure at all. You want electricity? Get a generator. You want roads? Pay a new toll every 1km as you go through various private lands.
- ip26 3y agoYou have to (attempt to) quantify those productivity increases. There are an unlimited number of nice things government could spend on, but limited budget. It happens that fiber passed muster. Other things don’t. (The productivity value of fiber can be estimated with a revenue model based on subscriber fees)