3 ms·

Not sure I sensed anything to be lashing out, so let's focus on the math: "$82 million would be invested to connect a further 16,000 homes and businesses to hi

Not sure I sensed anything to be lashing out, so let's focus on the math: "$82 million would be invested to connect a further 16,000 homes and businesses to high-speed internet across North Carolina. The Federal Communications Commission's Brendan Carr pointed out that by dint of simple arithmetic, the cost per location would come to $5,125." Let's keep it simple and say 5 people per house. That's ~$1,000 per person, which doesn't sound ridiculous. That said, it's only 16,000 people. So perhaps there's some political / media axe grinding going on here?

jevoten 3y ago
"Lash out" means the author dislikes the person, nothing more. If they felt neutral, they would write "criticizes", and if they were on Musk's side, they'd write "Musk debunks FCC's stated reasons for reneging on deal" and "The FCC wrote, without providing evidence, that..."
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Well, exactly. We keep getting second-rate journalism which by defintion doesn't qualify as journalism at all. But I didn't want to go there and immediately get off topic.
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
    The register is a tabloid
bediger4000 3y ago
The US subsidizes its rural population. There's an annual farm subsidy bill, for sure example. We're forever agonizing about the rural sides of urban/rural divides. The FCC is doing things in this vein. I don't think it's more complicated than that.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  True. But there's already a contract with Starlink. So why flex over relatively small $ and a small number of effected people?
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
    There's no contract
wmf 3y ago
$5,000 is probably fair for rural fiber but it raises the question of whether they really need fiber or not. Starlink was bidding significantly less money to provide slower but still acceptable broadband.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  Fibre is relatively futureproof; this would be a fairly long-term investment. In 20 years, the same fibre can likely serve the connectivity needs of 2045; it is far less clear that satellite can. In this country we messed around with various rural broadband schemes; one common solution was subsidised fixed microwave broadband. In the noughties when this was happening it was kind of "good enough", but it very much isn't now, and the rural broadband strategy has now largely shifted to fibre, rather than burning money on short-lived half-measures.
  - wmf 3y ago
    I just wish there was a coherent strategy. The FCC awarded RDOF bids at 25 and 100 Mbps... then retroactively unawarded them? Then the administration creates a different program that's fiber-only?
quantified 3y ago
5 people sounds like a lot. But it's not just individuals. There are schools, offices, factories, government agencies in the area, and their activities benefit from support. I find the idea of "slow is good for the rubes" to be distasteful. Some benchmarks of $/installed mile and $/access point would be useful. I realize these will be 2024 dollars but still. Musk may be unhappy, but this is generally why you don't want to go around biting lots of hands.
- inemesitaffia 3y ago
  This is a technical, not political matter. It's not beef

jevoten 3y ago

"Lash out" means the author dislikes the person, nothing more. If they felt neutral, they would write "criticizes", and if they were on Musk's side, they'd write "Musk debunks FCC's stated reasons for reneging on deal" and "The FCC wrote, without providing evidence, that..."

chiefalchemist 3y ago
Well, exactly. We keep getting second-rate journalism which by defintion doesn't qualify as journalism at all. But I didn't want to go there and immediately get off topic.
- inemesitaffia 3y ago
  The register is a tabloid

bediger4000 3y ago

The US subsidizes its rural population. There's an annual farm subsidy bill, for sure example. We're forever agonizing about the rural sides of urban/rural divides. The FCC is doing things in this vein. I don't think it's more complicated than that.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
True. But there's already a contract with Starlink. So why flex over relatively small $ and a small number of effected people?
- inemesitaffia 3y ago
  There's no contract

wmf 3y ago

$5,000 is probably fair for rural fiber but it raises the question of whether they really need fiber or not. Starlink was bidding significantly less money to provide slower but still acceptable broadband.

rsynnott 3y ago
Fibre is relatively futureproof; this would be a fairly long-term investment. In 20 years, the same fibre can likely serve the connectivity needs of 2045; it is far less clear that satellite can. In this country we messed around with various rural broadband schemes; one common solution was subsidised fixed microwave broadband. In the noughties when this was happening it was kind of "good enough", but it very much isn't now, and the rural broadband strategy has now largely shifted to fibre, rather than burning money on short-lived half-measures.
- wmf 3y ago
  I just wish there was a coherent strategy. The FCC awarded RDOF bids at 25 and 100 Mbps... then retroactively unawarded them? Then the administration creates a different program that's fiber-only?

quantified 3y ago

5 people sounds like a lot. But it's not just individuals. There are schools, offices, factories, government agencies in the area, and their activities benefit from support. I find the idea of "slow is good for the rubes" to be distasteful. Some benchmarks of $/installed mile and $/access point would be useful. I realize these will be 2024 dollars but still. Musk may be unhappy, but this is generally why you don't want to go around biting lots of hands.

inemesitaffia 3y ago
This is a technical, not political matter. It's not beef