4 ms·

We already subsidize Big Cable, and they have a wonderful history of taking the money and running (with damn near zero repercussions). Kansas City seems to hav

by fein 14y ago

We already subsidize Big Cable, and they have a wonderful history of taking the money and running (with damn near zero repercussions). Kansas City seems to have tried something different, and Google is actually holding up their end of the bargain. If this is the alternative to Time Warner flushing money down the toilet, then I really don't see how this can possibly be an issue. I would happily contribute state/ city taxes to a subsidy for solid 1GBit u/d connection.

simonsarris 14y ago
Well not only Big Cable, but roads and cheap clean water and electricity lines, after all, are already subsidized and are not controversial. At least, not controversial today :) I don't see anything wrong with subsidizing what could become a de facto public good[1]. And I imagine citizens in Kansas City will get a more positive return for the fiber they subsidize than many of the (sometimes massively inefficient/dead-end) country or sparse suburban roads they are subsidizing. I wonder what the attitudes were like 100 years ago. Would something like this be considered bold and praiseworthy? Or would most people complain about the cost? From my quick glance at the Hoover damn Wikipedia page for instance the only controversial part was the naming, though I'm sure there are more nuanced histories of that project. [1] I suppose we shouldn't kid ourselves too much though, and frame the public good not as rich internet, but as rich internet access
- goatforce5 14y ago
  The Australian government is currently spending $27.5bn to put fibre to the premises of 93% of Australian homes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network ...and the other more remote premises will be covered by wireless and satellite services.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    The same kind of thing is happening right now in Singapore: http://www.ida.gov.sg/infrastructure/20060919190208.aspx http://www.ida.gov.sg/infrastructure/20060919190208.aspx It really is the tried-and-true model.
- luser001 14y ago
  IMHO, you and the parent are probably both missing the point of the submitted article. The points being that (1) contrary to what people are saying, this is not a triumph of the "free markets", and (2) more importantly, fiber in general may be unviable without govt. subsidies. I thought that was newsworthy. YMMV.
- fein 14y ago
  > and frame the public good not as rich internet, but as rich internet access Which is exactly why the $300 one timer almost seems to good to be true. I would almost be willing to actually participate in my local city council if it meant we could leverage the "free" package to enough neighborhoods for free wifi coverage. I really really want everyone to have uninhibited internet access, and I feel that free access to information should be amended into the bill of rights. Google seems to be the first company to actually be able to provide a solution for this, big brother worries aside.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  But how long until the campaign ad stating "Councilman Smith voted to subsidize porn coming into your house and corrupting your children!!!!!"? Or the MPAA asks how the city can be subsidizing piracy. Then they'll need to implement a few filters. You know, since the government is paying for it and all.

by fein 14y ago

simonsarris 14y ago

Well not only Big Cable, but roads and cheap clean water and electricity lines, after all, are already subsidized and are not controversial. At least, not controversial today :) I don't see anything wrong with subsidizing what could become a de facto public good[1]. And I imagine citizens in Kansas City will get a more positive return for the fiber they subsidize than many of the (sometimes massively inefficient/dead-end) country or sparse suburban roads they are subsidizing. I wonder what the attitudes were like 100 years ago. Would something like this be considered bold and praiseworthy? Or would most people complain about the cost? From my quick glance at the Hoover damn Wikipedia page for instance the only controversial part was the naming, though I'm sure there are more nuanced histories of that project. [1] I suppose we shouldn't kid ourselves too much though, and frame the public good not as rich internet, but as rich internet access

goatforce5 14y ago
The Australian government is currently spending $27.5bn to put fibre to the premises of 93% of Australian homes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network ...and the other more remote premises will be covered by wireless and satellite services.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  The same kind of thing is happening right now in Singapore: http://www.ida.gov.sg/infrastructure/20060919190208.aspx http://www.ida.gov.sg/infrastructure/20060919190208.aspx It really is the tried-and-true model.
luser001 14y ago
IMHO, you and the parent are probably both missing the point of the submitted article. The points being that (1) contrary to what people are saying, this is not a triumph of the "free markets", and (2) more importantly, fiber in general may be unviable without govt. subsidies. I thought that was newsworthy. YMMV.
fein 14y ago
> and frame the public good not as rich internet, but as rich internet access Which is exactly why the $300 one timer almost seems to good to be true. I would almost be willing to actually participate in my local city council if it meant we could leverage the "free" package to enough neighborhoods for free wifi coverage. I really really want everyone to have uninhibited internet access, and I feel that free access to information should be amended into the bill of rights. Google seems to be the first company to actually be able to provide a solution for this, big brother worries aside.
waterlesscloud 14y ago
But how long until the campaign ad stating "Councilman Smith voted to subsidize porn coming into your house and corrupting your children!!!!!"? Or the MPAA asks how the city can be subsidizing piracy. Then they'll need to implement a few filters. You know, since the government is paying for it and all.