Slashdot Mirror
Idaho Gets Serious About Broadband
prostoalex writes "In an effort to boost the economy state of Idaho legislated tax credit for companies, who were investing in broadband Internet infrastructure. According to the latest news, the plan worked quite well, and about 150 thousand people can soon take advantage of tax-sponsored buildout. Speaking of wiring rural areas with cheap Internet access, there was an article in NY Times ($free_registration_quote), where Bill Gates admitted that in many cases building Internet in the rural area just speeded up the exodus of farmers, who were able to find a job somewhere else."
This sounds a bit like how the South Korean fiber lines that were built for use during the World Cup ended up being the infrastructure that let them install broadband access to a significant percentage of homes.
Admittedly, South Korea is a different sort of place than Idaho, but comparing it to a state is probably much better than comparing it to the whole US.
The problem is that no one really wants to pay for infrastructure unless they can see the "step n. Profit!" at the end of it. It is like roads and railways, infrastructure that allows companies to do business, but which is shared by others. I think this is a form of the 'free rider' problem, but I'm not an economist. Generally, the government gets to pay to keep the infrastructure going, and gets the money for it from taxes.
Short answer: good infrastructure allows many other activities, but individual entities are not always willing to make the investment.
fair.org counterpunch.com truthout.com indymedia.org salon.com
eff.org guerrilla.net debian.org gentoo.org
now all the farmers can get online, read slashdot (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/ 08/1241250&mode=nested&tid=134), and learn how to farm
What, working for ADM?
It's not like you go apply for jobs at small farms. It's pretty much all family owned, or megacorp these days, not much inbetween, except for specialties like wineries, etc, which are closer to family owned, but may employ a good number of people at least seasonally.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
I know that not having broadband here in my small hometown in New Hampshire (about 700 people) is what is making me want to move out of the area once I graduate from my university next year.
If I had broadband, would I stay in the area? Yes I would, because it could allow me to run my own business without shelling out insane $$$ for a T1. But judging by the fact that my town doesn't even have cable (of course the next town over has it) it'll take another 10-15 years to get broadband, unless a national rollout plan similar to what was done with the telephone happens.
So a rabid dog has the right to bite people?
An angry man has the right to rape people?
Hurting or not, he's blaming Gates for technology. Showing how that makes no sense, maybe he'll accept advancing technology as a truth of the world, which it is, and that you might as well be mad that 1+1=2.
Good thinking, Coward.
"I thought digital technology would eventually reverse urbanization, and so far that hasn't happened," Mr. Gates said
Hightech and IT companies tend to stick together in certain areas for a reason. If you want a job in these industries, you better move away from the countryside since mentioned industries won't move to a small town in the countryside were they can't find enough skilled workers. I guess Bill thought that we all should be teleworkers, but most IT jobs require personal interaction, so you're still dependent on being close to the clients.
There are other reasons on why people wants to leave the countryside. It's not all about jobs, but the lifestyle you want. There are for instance more choices (eg. entertainment, restaurants) in urban areas. Thinking that the people leave because they've got the ability to search jobs is to make this issue a little bit too simple. This trend of urbanization is nothing new... and it will continue, with or without wired towns in the countryside.
Here in Indianapolis 64k ISDN is MUCH more expensive than DSL or cable. ISDN may be good enough for some but if you have access to DSL or cable then why would you want ISDN?
...appears later in the article
Performance is important in a rural area, he said, especially as the potential and need for telemedicine and distance education applications increases.
I used to work for a company that builds and installs distance education networks in rural areas. With the infrastructure they're referring to in the article, much of the cost of such networks is already taken care of. Why is distance education so important in rural Idaho? Because local schools with small numbers of students can't afford the staff required to teach the state mandated curriculum, much less elective courses such as language or (gasp) high school computer science. Without the ability to share teaching staff across distance education networks, many of the local schools would have to close and the kids would be bused long distances on a daily basis.
So, yeah, it's nice that farmers get to surf the web. But the real benefit is elsewhere.
How can we afford to ever sleep
So sound again
--ebtg
I disagree with the brain drain aspect. Most of these farmers may be leaving because they are finding a better income level and a better way of life. I don't see this as a bad thing. It's more opportunities, which is what this nation is all supposed to be about.
If farmers choose to stay, all the more power to them. I went from rural/suburbia to city to city back to rural/suburbia. It was my choice. Now, I do have broadband, but I also have less choices to tech jobs (there are none around here). However, I've found other jobs that earn an income, and if there are less competitors (farmers are an astute group of folks that supplement their income besides farming), fine by me.
And don't worry--that farm they left, there is someone probably farming it. If not, and someone bought it for the increasing suburbia, it was going to go anyways since present day subsidies plus farming gives crap for an annual income compared to a land payoff.
I don't see how broadband would boost the economy, except for creating (likely not too many) jobs in the broadband sector.
Many non-tech businesses require broadband Internet access. For example, a retailer of outdoor apparel might want to set up a modest e-commerce site. A patent attorney might need to do online patent searches. I know someone that moved from Missouri because he runs a small business and could not get broadband. He is now in Northern, VA.
Broadband is like electricity and running water for most businesses today. It's not a luxury. It's a basic utility that they need in order to function.
Really? Thats funny. Humans did it for hundreds of thousands of years, but suddenly "you just can't do that anymore". Perhaps, what you meant to say was, you can't run a small family farm and make a fortune today. Well, that makes a bit more sense. But then, farming was never about making fortunes and doing big business. It was about growing what you needed, selling what you didn't to the local community, and living.
You weren't born on a farm. You were born in an agricultural factory. The kind that destroyed the opportunity for regular families to farm a plot of land and make a living on their own.