5 ms·

If you can’t understand that a public utility can’t be compared to market-based examples like gas stations or grocery stores, then we’re probably at a stalemate

If you can’t understand that a public utility can’t be compared to market-based examples like gas stations or grocery stores, then we’re probably at a stalemate. It doesn’t cost differently to provide water and sewage to poor neighborhoods, at least as far as the consumer is aware and in theory for how it’s supposed to work. On top of that there are ample heating/water/sewage subsidies for those neighborhoods, which further invalidates the internet market cost argument. That is assuming the internet is viewed as a public utility at this point. Which, for anyone using it since 2010 or so, is hard to argue with.

lupusreal 3y ago
> It doesn’t cost differently to provide water and sewage to poor neighborhoods It costs more to connect neighborhoods which are further away from the town core, or up/down hills (requiring pumping). These may in some circumstances correlate incidentally with poverty, causing a "disparate impact" which nobody set out to deliberately create. For instance, consider a trailer park that is several miles out of town because that's where land was cheap and where zoning permitted it; running water and sewage service there from the town will very likely be cost prohibitive. Instead, water will probably come from one or more private wells and sewage will be sent to a septic system dug specifically for that neighborhood. This will be done because it is more affordable than hooking up to the town's utilities.
- dogman144 3y ago
  You left out the other part of the quote > at least as far as the consumer is aware and in theory for how it’s supposed to work. Costs to deliver are one thing, what the consumer ends up paying if they are low income is another. Across the board, controlling for state-by-state variations, poor folks aren’t (supposed to) be paying premiums in cost or quality on their water/heating/sewage. Often, they are subsidized. This law proposes pulling the internet into that basket of approaches. Seems good to me.
- tzs 3y ago
  > It costs more to connect neighborhoods which are further away from the town core Isn't it usually the wealthier neighborhoods that are farther out?
  - lupusreal 3y ago
    There are more poor people than wealthy people living in town outskirts and rural areas.
gottorf 3y ago
> If you can’t understand that a public utility can’t be compared to market-based examples Well, you're presupposing that ISPs are public utilities. I've lived in exactly zero places where I had a choice of providers in power, water, or sewer (what I consider to be actual utilities), and I've lived in exactly zero places where I had no choice of "broadband"[0] providers. I understand that there exist places where this is not the case, but exceptions don't unmake the rule. I just looked up a random house in one of the poorest neighborhoods of LA (South Central), and found that it has access to both Spectrum coaxial service as well as gigabit symmetric fiber provided by AT&T. I promise you I didn't cherry-pick this example. [0]: Such as it may be.

lupusreal 3y ago

> It doesn’t cost differently to provide water and sewage to poor neighborhoods It costs more to connect neighborhoods which are further away from the town core, or up/down hills (requiring pumping). These may in some circumstances correlate incidentally with poverty, causing a "disparate impact" which nobody set out to deliberately create. For instance, consider a trailer park that is several miles out of town because that's where land was cheap and where zoning permitted it; running water and sewage service there from the town will very likely be cost prohibitive. Instead, water will probably come from one or more private wells and sewage will be sent to a septic system dug specifically for that neighborhood. This will be done because it is more affordable than hooking up to the town's utilities.

dogman144 3y ago
You left out the other part of the quote > at least as far as the consumer is aware and in theory for how it’s supposed to work. Costs to deliver are one thing, what the consumer ends up paying if they are low income is another. Across the board, controlling for state-by-state variations, poor folks aren’t (supposed to) be paying premiums in cost or quality on their water/heating/sewage. Often, they are subsidized. This law proposes pulling the internet into that basket of approaches. Seems good to me.
tzs 3y ago
> It costs more to connect neighborhoods which are further away from the town core Isn't it usually the wealthier neighborhoods that are farther out?
- lupusreal 3y ago
  There are more poor people than wealthy people living in town outskirts and rural areas.

gottorf 3y ago

> If you can’t understand that a public utility can’t be compared to market-based examples Well, you're presupposing that ISPs are public utilities. I've lived in exactly zero places where I had a choice of providers in power, water, or sewer (what I consider to be actual utilities), and I've lived in exactly zero places where I had no choice of "broadband"[0] providers. I understand that there exist places where this is not the case, but exceptions don't unmake the rule. I just looked up a random house in one of the poorest neighborhoods of LA (South Central), and found that it has access to both Spectrum coaxial service as well as gigabit symmetric fiber provided by AT&T. I promise you I didn't cherry-pick this example. [0]: Such as it may be.