3 ms·

I'll never forget the story of Paul Bunyan telecom out in I believe it was Montana who used federal funds to build to cabins at a cost of like $10,000+ per cabi

I'll never forget the story of Paul Bunyan telecom out in I believe it was Montana who used federal funds to build to cabins at a cost of like $10,000+ per cabin to lay copper (back when that was a lot of money) under the right to service clauses of the FCC. It turns out that servicing 100% of the population isn't practical when people choose to live in very remote areas. I agree that it would be onerous for carriers to have to service 100% of the population with any kind of service, but I disagree with the current standard on non-copper services which amount to something like 80% of population within a given metro zone. It biases too hard towards city living, especially as we are seeing more and more people move away from cities. Rural broadband in America is extremely difficult in most parts of the country, way harder than it needs to be. And don't get me started on WISP vs hardwire, hardwire is the only real internet and don't let anyone fool you otherwise. Source: 10 years in the belly of the beast of telecom.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
83% of the population lives in urban areas and it’s only increasing (projected to hit 90% around 2050).
reaperducer 3y ago
It turns out that servicing 100% of the population isn't practical when people choose to live in very remote areas. Mostly correct. However, not everyone chooses to live in a remote area. The Navajo, referenced above, are among the people who were forced to settle in a particular area, at the point of a government gun. Moreover, if it wasn't for people living in remote areas, people in the cities wouldn't have food.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  > Moreover, if it wasn't for people living in remote areas, people in the cities wouldn't have food. We need to be careful with the words here. Not much in the way of food is produced by people who live in what I would term "remote" areas. Lots of food is produced by people who live in what I would term "rural" areas. We can and should and must provide improved communications services to rural areas - I think we have a moral imperative to do so. The remote areas, however, are a different story. If they happen to end up being serviced by e.g. Starlink then great, but I don't think we have the same moral imperative there.
- jandrewrogers 3y ago
  Most food is produced in rural areas with infrastructure, not remote areas. Farmers frequently live in town. Agricultural production costs are sensitive to logistics, so doing any kind of intensive agriculture in genuinely remote areas is expensive. You don't want to be too far from a rail spur if you are a farmer. The only agriculture on remote land at scale is cattle ranching, which has the advantage that cattle can move themselves.
iknowstuff 3y ago
> It biases too hard towards city living, especially as we are seeing more and more people move away from cities Urbanization is progressing. Suburbia are not sustainable and should not be encouraged. As you just noticed, it takes way more money to service their infrastructure, and they bring in far less tax revenue to pay for it than dense mixed use developments.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  I think some clarity in terminology may be required here. Those cabins in MT are not in anything that could ever be called "suburbia". Suburbia has its problems (many of them), but we're talking about a different class of living here: actual rural living, with neighbors a mile (or miles) away, no infrastructure other than dirt roads etc.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago

83% of the population lives in urban areas and it’s only increasing (projected to hit 90% around 2050).

reaperducer 3y ago

It turns out that servicing 100% of the population isn't practical when people choose to live in very remote areas. Mostly correct. However, not everyone chooses to live in a remote area. The Navajo, referenced above, are among the people who were forced to settle in a particular area, at the point of a government gun. Moreover, if it wasn't for people living in remote areas, people in the cities wouldn't have food.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
> Moreover, if it wasn't for people living in remote areas, people in the cities wouldn't have food. We need to be careful with the words here. Not much in the way of food is produced by people who live in what I would term "remote" areas. Lots of food is produced by people who live in what I would term "rural" areas. We can and should and must provide improved communications services to rural areas - I think we have a moral imperative to do so. The remote areas, however, are a different story. If they happen to end up being serviced by e.g. Starlink then great, but I don't think we have the same moral imperative there.
jandrewrogers 3y ago
Most food is produced in rural areas with infrastructure, not remote areas. Farmers frequently live in town. Agricultural production costs are sensitive to logistics, so doing any kind of intensive agriculture in genuinely remote areas is expensive. You don't want to be too far from a rail spur if you are a farmer. The only agriculture on remote land at scale is cattle ranching, which has the advantage that cattle can move themselves.

iknowstuff 3y ago

> It biases too hard towards city living, especially as we are seeing more and more people move away from cities Urbanization is progressing. Suburbia are not sustainable and should not be encouraged. As you just noticed, it takes way more money to service their infrastructure, and they bring in far less tax revenue to pay for it than dense mixed use developments.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
I think some clarity in terminology may be required here. Those cabins in MT are not in anything that could ever be called "suburbia". Suburbia has its problems (many of them), but we're talking about a different class of living here: actual rural living, with neighbors a mile (or miles) away, no infrastructure other than dirt roads etc.