Slashdot Mirror
CenturyLink Takes $3B In Subsidies For Building Out Rural Broadband
New submitter club77er writes with a link to a DSL Reports article outlining some hefty subsidies (about $3 billion, all told) that CenturyLink has signed up to receive, in exchange for expanding its coverage to areas considered underserved: According to the CenturyLink announcement, the telco will take $500 million a year for six years from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'s Connect America Fund (CAF). In exchange, it will expand broadband to approximately 1.2 million rural households and businesses in 33 states. While the FCC now defines broadband as 25 Mbps down, these subsidies require that the deployed services be able to provide speeds of at least 10 Mbps down.
In January we got Broadband! A whopping 5Mbps. It was amazing. We loved it.
Then the FCC took away our Broadband. They changed the definition to 25Mbps so now we have a paltry 5Mbps! Horrible.
Not.
If they take our money to build the line, they are acting as an agent of the state (so, yes we can say the government put in the line) and they must lease it out at reasonable rates.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Your region doesn't get math education subsidies, either, does it?
It's $34 a month per subscriber. Probably not too bad considering the amount of network infrastructure they'll need to build and maintain.
Century link will collect fed funds for shit service that is up to stated speeds.
Silence is a state of mime.
I'm mad because in ten years they still won't have delivered, will have spent the bulk of the money on executive bonuses and won't get punished. Keep the subsidies, make em pay it back with interest if they're so much as a smidge off
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Instead of giving Century Link 3 billion dollars to build the infrastructure and then have a monopoly where they can overcharge the customer, let's take that 3 billion and have the government build the infrastructure. Then we let any company who want so use it do so for a small fee. Then not only do we have infrastructure, but we also have competition and at least a small income from the lines, which is better for everyone.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
That works out to just over $2,000 per subscriber ($3B/1.2M subscribers)...
Wait, what? Since when is $2500 "just over $2000"? That's some rounding error.
That works out to just over $2,000 per subscriber ($3B/1.2M subscribers)...
I get $2,500 per subscriber. (dc agrees with me.)
I consider an extra 25% as a bit more than "just over".
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Bahahahahahahaha. You think they could run fiber for 2k per house??? You are talking existing properties here with existing roads, drainage, sewerage, water pipes, and electricity. Half of these wont be mapped correctly and you are expecting them to be able to trench in fiber and connect the houses for 2k per connection? You would struggle to get that sort of costing per house when you are building a subdivision and you amortise the earthworks cost across multiple services.
How much do you think it would cost just to cross a road with a cable? Assuming you can get away with a directional drill or a vac excavator and not have to cut the road way surface.
And lets not even could the cost of foot paths, driveways, gardens and everything else this will chew up.
Maybe just maybe you could sling the fiber from existing power poles to keep you costs down. But even then you wont get under 2k.
Sadly out of mod points... this deserves to be modded up.
It would be nice if we could force the telephone companies to deliver ADSL2+ service of 24 Mbps down to every location where POTS is installed. The telcos got rate increases, tax credits, and tax deductions to do just that, but they have failed to live up to the requirements to do so. The federal and state governments have failed to enforce the requirements.
I had to pay ComTel to run DSL to my house and pay for a CO. It was less than I had expected though they've since sold to Fairpoint but I actually get decent service.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You're right - it's 2.5k, which is at least the same order of magnitude (and still pretty absurd). I'm not sure what would have made him/her come up with 5k instead.
I don't care if they enjoy it or not, I am willing to pay the market price. But if they are subsidized I believe they should give me as a city dweller a discount on my food, seeing as my backyard is not suitable for farming, poor me.
The English have a saying "An old tax is no tax." The corollary is that on old subsidy is no subsidy. See the healthcare and education industries as examples of the outcome expected.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
I'm guessing it does!
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
I have fiber on the pole next to the house. Haven't meaured it, but going off a rough eye... 30 feet away from the house. When they were working on the line, I walked up to the Verizon lineman and asked him if it was fiber optic. He acknowledged it, then stated he wouldn't be able to tell me what it was for. GE has two facilities nearby, as well as Environmental One and SI's headquarters.
VZ still won't gives us FiOS here. I'm not bitter, really I'm not.
From the research i've done the poor state of internet service in most of Washington has less to do with greedy ISPs and more to do with really stupid laws and regulations that hamper or flat out prevent ISPs from installing/upgrading/maintaining the infrastructure needed to provide halfway decent internet access.
I assure you some company would have agreed to do the build out with full fiber for much less.
Here someone might say "but century link has the franchise last mile contract in that area"... And to those people, I say the very notion of such franchises is why we have such shitty broadband in the first place. You give companies monopolies and shockingly they over charge and under serve. Anyone surprised by that is too ignorant to be involved in civic planning.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Wait, let me see if I got this right. So we in the shape of the Federal government are actually paying for a bunch of home schoolers and flat earthers to crap all over the Internet more conveniently?
Can't we save some money and just provide connectivity to Breitbart and Red State and keep these people out of other comment sections?
You're welcome. I would have preferred electricity. Funny thing is that most people around me are retired or granola types and don't want it. The few that did had hughes.net satellite and were happy with it. You usually don't move into the countryside to get away from it all, then want it back. Well, most do, but they just moved back.
It depends on how rural they're expected to go. It's not exactly cheap to upgrade infrastructure that's probably PTSN or at most ISDN, and service providers have not done so because it will literally cost them more to do the install than they can guarantee they'll make back out of it. There's still a lot of copper backbone out there, with the associated problems that old copper has with corrosion and other line degredation that can be worked around with voice (anyone remember pair gain?) but will play havoc on any sort of high-speed data.
I don't think that those that live in rural areas don't deserve to have Internet access, but everywhere we live we make trade-offs. I have to put up with high property costs (relatively speaking), pollution in several forms, traffic, restrictions on the kinds of things I'm allowed to do on my property and in the surrounding area, and being forced to interact with others. On the other hand I get inexpensive shopping, relatively short travel distances, numerous entertainment options, and access to infrastructure and utilities that require a certain minimum density to have.
Those that live in rural areas generally have more peace and quiet, less traffic, less pollution, fewer rules on property use and other activities, and lower property costs, but have longer drives, more expensive shopping, more expensive or nonexistent utilities or infrastructure, and less in the way of entertainment choices. Them's the breaks. That's also why we have taxes that pay for infrastructure in rural areas, like roads, power distribution (yes, the electrification of rural America was subsidized), telephone, mail, and depending on the area sanitation and water. Even with those subsidies there will still be a dearth of some services though.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
How is this worth posting to slashdot? Rural phone subsidies have been around forever. They recently got expanded to broadband.
They've been collecting it for decades. They've been giving it to the companies and not getting service to customers.
JUST NOW we have a company agreeing to take the money and use it to ACTUALLY ROLL OUT BROADBAND INTERNET to the rural areas.
That sure as hell is "news for nerds, stuff that matters".
Especially for me:
- A my Nevada place I get dialup that can't make it past 28k most days (and only works if I hotwire my DNS server selection: AT&T has had their routing tables fouled for over a year and won't route packets the dialup POP and the DNS servers specified by the dialup's DHCP server.) DirecTV/Hughes Net satellite has bad latency and a track record of throttling. The local phone company doesn't do DSL there - reselling HughesNet, see above. The local WISP doesn't point in my direction (and would want >$100/month for reasonable speed if they did). The only high-speed I've got there is via the Verizon LTE service (which is big $$$ for the gigs I'd need to work remotely for more than a weekend at a time - and SUPPOSEDLY doesn't have coverage there).
- If I could get decent internet (at a decent price) I could work from the ranch, sell off the California townhouse, and live for a year on less than it costs to live in CA for a month. (Or retire and live comfortably on my savings, investments, and Social Security - which would crap out in a few years on the Soviet Left Coast.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You don't understand, it is the people in the cities that are footing the bill for the rural subsidies.
Ken
They don't have to get the cost under $2K, that $2K/household is the SUBSIDY, it is designed to encourage the investment and speed up the return on investment for the cable company/ISP... Who will still charge every customer the same amount, with or without subsidy on their install.
Without this money, rural customers would be forced to pay the actual cost of their service...
Ken
I don't believe you are. You don't pay the market price for food, gas for your car, electricity, the mortgage on your house, health care, education. I don't know what you think the "market price" for something is, but you're not paying it for anything important in your life except maybe if you have to hire a lawyer, and everybody who hires a lawyer thinks they're getting raped.
I'm not at all sure that if you saw the "market" price for things you'd be very happy about it.
There has never been a free market. Not once, ever, for anything. They don't exist in nature and can not exist in societies.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Thoughts and prayers.
You are welcome on my lawn.
They tried that, but people kept stealing the wires out of the trailer park and selling it to buy meth and ammo.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Firstly, effectively calling me a liar marks you as a cad.
Secondly, you assert that pretty much everything I consume is heavily subsidized. To the point where I am getting a heck of a deal, receiving goods and services that exceed in value and cost what I pay for them. As I am an average joe, most of the country must be getting the same benefit. My question is, where the hell is all the money coming from to pay the difference?
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Yes, cville. I have business class 50/10 actually get about 57/14
Silence is a state of mime.
Thieves! Qwest took in how many billions and didn't deliver. Same old game.
No, it won't - this money is to build out the physical plant so that unserved neighborhoods get broadband service.
Think poor neighborhoods in cities Centurylink already serves, not farm country.
Ken
There are techbro libertarians around here who are still pissed that the federal government built the interstate highway system so that moochers can drive their cars across the country. So don't be surprised about this being late Sunday night Slashdot front page fodder.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Looks like Quest^W Qwest^W CenturyLink is just going for Part Two of the original hit production: Broadband Subsidy Scam.
But don't worry if you're enjoying the show so far -- I have no doubt there will be a Part Three in 10 years or so.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Which were all put there at the request of the greedy ISPs. They wanted to make stupid regulations to prevent competition.
Learn to love Alaska
Other NBN countries manage.
Learn to love Alaska
I'm not calling you a liar (or at least not an "effective" one). I'm saying you don't have a clue as to what the "market price" of anything would be.
From all of us, of course. The part you don't seem to get is that without subsidies, there would be a lot of the stuff you want and need that would be completely out of your price range. How much would you be willing to pay for a medication that would save your life? Or your wife's life? Or your kid's? Would you mortgage the house? Of course you would. If your wife was dying of cancer and an operation or treatment would give her an additional few years, would you pay a million dollars? Five million? Well, we've just set the demand half of the equation.
Subsidies perform a function people don't want to talk about: they make a wide basket of necessities available to a lot of people. It evens things out a little bit. And that's good because living in a society where some people have a lot and most people have very little is not very pleasant, even if you are one of the "haves". I've been to such countries and they are not good places to live.
UNLESS the subsidies are distributed by a government corrupted by corporate power and wealth. Which they are in the US. In that case, they have the opposite effect, which is why we need to have strict campaign finance laws and overturn Citizens United.
You are welcome on my lawn.
And what's the monthly data limit?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I don't understand, please help me. We are receiving subsidies, while at the same time paying for subsidies? Who is paying for food, gas for your car, electricity, the mortgage on your house, health care, education? You say all of us are paying. So we are paying and receiving at the same time? Sorry, it doesn't make sense to me.
BTW, you said that you don't believe that I am willing to pay the market price, when I stated that I am. That is calling me a liar. You have no basis for saying that.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Centurytel is our ILEC, and I had to go with TimeWarner since CT speed was so poor. While I welcome the chance to have competition, I am not sure that we will get what the government is paying for.
Just 2 miles away, I had AT&T U-Verse, with over 45mbps coming down the pipe for our triple play. If CT was able to come close, I would drop TW in a heartbeat.
Yes. We all pay for the subsidies, but not everyone uses goods and services to the same extent. Think of it like health insurance. I've paid for health insurance all my adult life (more than 30 years) and have barely used it. So, I'm paying to subsidize people who need those services. It evens out the costs, so that someone who needs a heart transplant can get one and I'm partly paying for it even though I don't need a heart transplant.
It is best seen in universal, single payer health care, where the actual price of services gets evened out the most.
I barely put 1500 miles a year on my car, but I pay for interstate roads and potholes getting fixed and bridges getting built like everyone else.
No, I'm not calling you a liar. I'm saying you don't know the market price, so you're unable to make the statement true. You're not trying to deceive anyone but yourself, so you're not a liar. Just lacking the facts to make your statement true.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The problem is the cost per item. This is more than just a subsidy, it's simply paying for getting the entire job done and if that were the case, why doesn't the government just contract that job out. These companies have gotten the same subsidies over and over again, even avoided taxes since the 90's for that exact promise.
There are a few facts:
- Even in rural areas, people tend to cluster together, you can easily get 100 houses/living spaces in a small area
- There is already fiber in lots of places with inhabitants due to regular phone lines or even DSL/ISDN (which even in rural areas no longer use switchboards or trunks, they are switched onto a packet line, generally fiber) and both lit and dark fiber strung in the past four decades. Even so, existing copper can in most cases easily maintain the speeds being requested.
- Most DSL/ISDN lines can be easily upgraded with software and minor hardware to comply with these requests.
- It is relatively cheap to tap a fiber from a pole even for a (very) long run. I once lived in such place, a 2.5 mile run from the nearest fiber on existing electric/phone poles would've cost me only $15k including installation, hardware and (I assume) profits for the installer and that was for a 1Gbps fiber.
- Single houses in the middle of nowhere will still not get anything because the company will not find them profitable
- These companies often only provide service 'to the pole' (not to the meter/modem/termination point as most people assume). Most/all utilities have this provision, even in a city, you might not notice unless you have to fix something (or if it's already buried) but when you do then you can go and climb the (live) pole yourself or hire someone to do it. The rest (a 20-200ft run depending on property layout) the customer still has to pay for during installation.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
You're willing to say that you're willing to pay market price, but you don't know what market price is, so at best it's a meaningless assertion.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Insurance is not the same as a subsidy, so medical expenses are out of this discussion. Let's take another example from your list. I pick a simple utility that everyone uses - electricity. You say it is subsidized. You say that we all are paying the subsidy.
Sorry, my brain asploded.
If you don't know the market price, how can you not believe me?
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Ah, maybe you don't realize that my education, training, career and experience mean that I know and understand the cost of many things, stripping out the externalities and input cost distortions, adding in profit and taxes. These are not mysterious and unfathomable.
The true, unfettered, market prices for most goods and services are significantly less than the current prices. Market distortions have raised prices, which distortions are compounded by "corrective" subsidies. Removing barriers to entry erected by the government will lower prices. See Uber, which is the gravest threat to subsidized public transit systems.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Texas ranks in or near the bottom 20% in the nation in education and access to health care, and its poverty level puts in 46th (out of 50), in between Arkansas and Alabama. It has the highest uninsured rate in the nation. It leads all other states in the number of executions of innocent people. Texas has the highest percentage of children who don't have any access to health care.
http://educationblog.dallasnew...
http://www.texasobserver.org/t...
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/0...
http://watchdogblog.dallasnews...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...
Among Texas' other poor rankings are 50th for the EPA's toxic exposure score, 47th for total toxic chemicals released into waterways, 46th for cancer-causing chemicals released, 45th for developmental toxins released, and 49th for reproductive toxins released. So, when you say "diverse ecosystems" I assume you mean there are some places you can live and get cancer and some places you just cannot live.
Texas ranks 50th (out of 50) for greenhouse emissions.
In summary, poverty, poorly educated people, sick kids and an environment disaster not to mention the climate that you mention putting Texas near the bottom of the comfort index rankings do not add up to Texas being a "nice place to live". The highly-touted "Texas Miracle" is a lie.
And here are some unretouched photos of people Texas has elected governor:
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sit...
http://www.highwaygirl.com/hwg...
And the current governor believes a U.S. military exercise in the region is really an all-out invasion by Obama and the US government to take over Texas. Or, he just says that to pander to his pig-ignorant electorate.
I'm sorry friend, but Texas is a shit-hole. My thoughts and prayers go out to everyone who lives there. In Jesus' name.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I don't need to know the exact number of stars in the universe to know for sure that you don't know the exact number of stars in the universe.
This is simple. "Market price" is unknowable outside of a "free market" and a free market has never existed in human history. How can you say you are willing to pay a price that you cannot possibly know?
You are welcome on my lawn.
You're not supposed to mess with 'em...
Holy CRAP!!! That's probably going to include me for a change! *does the snoopy dance* Come to butthead, internet speeds over 6mb/s.
Wait - why are they allowing them to offer at least 10 Mbps when Broadband is now 25? Why not... ya know... force them to at least offer ...uhh 25!!!?????
Secondly, you assert that pretty much everything I consume is heavily subsidized. To the point where I am getting a heck of a deal, receiving goods and services that exceed in value and cost what I pay for them. As I am an average joe, most of the country must be getting the same benefit. My question is, where the hell is all the money coming from to pay the difference?
He's right, you are getting a heck of a deal. As to the question of where the money is coming from: We're borrowing the money. Same as we have been for the past 20 years.
At some point, it will be time to pay the piper. The sooner we face the reality, the easier it will be. If we wait for the next financial crisis, it could be Greece all over again.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
gives rural states more voting power relative to population. Thus, this could be seen as pandering.
Table-ized A.I.
You usually don't move into the countryside to get away from it all, then want it back. Well, most do, but they just moved back.
That's what bothers me... you move out to the country, you can get a really nice, big house and large piece of property for a lot less than you'd pay in or near a city. If you want broadband, use some of the money you saved moving out to the middle of nowhere to get it.
It reminds me of a local private airport... people move into the area because real estate is cheap (for obvious reasons), then they band together to demand the airport shut down because there's too much noise.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Not "promote commerce," there is no such clause in the U.S. constitution. Period. They regulate commerce with foreign nations and regulate interstate commerce (to the extent that they can't impose things like tariffs or duty taxes, or prevent the migration of people from state to state). A broader reading allows the federal government to create entities like the FCC so that broadcasters in one state cannot use the same airwaves as nearby broadcasters in other states and, also, regulate things like TV signal formats, create a common currency, and do things like specify railway gauges and standards for roads (especially if they cross a state border).
So, actually most legislation like this is unconstitutional unless you're a ninny who thinks "promote the general welfare" means taking from one group of people so that another group of people can have broadband. You can argue about whether or not it's good or bad that people get subsidized broadband, but just because something can be considered "good" doesn't make it constitutional.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
He's right, you are getting a heck of a deal.
Examples: corn subsidies of $4-5B/year on crop values of $80B. Wheat subsidies of $2B on crop value of $15B.
Most of the direct, government payment programs ended around 2008. Interestingly, the 'farm price' of wheat went from about $3.50 before 2007 to $6.70 after 2009. Rich people's taxes no longer paying for poor people's bread.
Ultimately economics wins though and the nation ends up bankrupt. Consider your demand side equation. You have just established people will pay 'anything' for certain things. Alright what is the real cost of producing that drug? Why does that single pill need to command a price of $1500? Simply because the market will bear it? Subsidies just enable supplies of inelastic services and goods to get an economic rent.
Sure you'd mortgage your house to pay for those drugs, trouble is you only probably have $100-$200K in equity so that won't even by you a years worth. Guess what in inelastic or not the suppler will have to price it lower. Unless you subsidize it than the entire nation gets to be raped to take care of your personal problem.
Personally I think it would be better for society as a whole if we left people to play the hand they are dealt. Even when that means a life being cut short. Sure you bet in the situations you describe I would do what anyone would do and look for any way I could to buy time and wish things were different, probably wish somebody would help but it would be beyond me. At the societal level however we need to consider the larger question of allocation efficiency.
If government has to 'do something' then we should probably address situations like medical care, basic food stuffs (native vegetables and grains), from the supply side. Set price controls on those things. Has to be done carefully though you have to allow prices high enough that suppliers still want to go into production.
The other reality is there just may be no market for certain kids of medical research. Consider the ALS hubbub recently. Does subsidizing research for something like that make any sense at all? Its a very rare condition. We could probably save or improve more lives investing in improving treatment for more common perhaps even already treatable conditions.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Okay consider gasoline. What do think all the effort to achieve peace in the middle east and all the money lent or dolled out in foreign aide to evil regimes so they can militarize with our war machines is for?
It might be a little indirect but all the jet fighters and military equipment gets paid for quite often out of our treasury. One of the reasons for that is stabilize the region, so we can keep access to oil, cheap or not. If we just left things go (as I think we actually should over all) we would probably see 70s style price shocks in oil and gas with some frequency. You income taxes subsidize the price you pay at the pump even if its a long lossy process.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Not sure where you are getting your data. http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/...
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
$3 billion dollars can buy enough 48 strand fiber to encircle the world 25 times. If congress would just open the market up, the problem would quickly take care of itself. But no, instead they grant monopolistic jurisdictions and give away huge amounts of tax payer's money, lining the pockets of fat cats, with palsy results in return.
That's what bothers me... you move out to the country, you can get a really nice, big house and large piece of property for a lot less than you'd pay in or near a city. If you want broadband, use some of the money you saved moving out to the middle of nowhere to get it.
Your tiny little view of the world from the pinprick through your blinders is pathetic and shortsighted. We had a program to extend POTS to rural customers because of the benefits to society. The benefits of extending the internet are even greater, but because you can't see any farther than the end of your nose, you're more concerned about your paltry share of this bit of cash than about far more egregious uses of your taxes... like bombing brown people for profit.
Of all the expenditures you could complain about, rural internet is about the dumbest.
Now, if you want to complain that this money is probably just going right down a toilet, or that nobody should receive subsidies for installing some slow-ass third-world internet connections, I'm right there with you. But having lived in both the city and country, I don't see why you would even be worried about whether we spend some money to bring modern communications to all citizens, unless you're in favor of it.
We in the country have to subsidize your roads in the city, since we drive more miles and pay more gas taxes, but the damage is really done by heavy trucks. Why don't you complain about that? Insist that you city dwellers pay your fair share of road taxes? Naturally, you're only concerned when you think you might be overpaying, not when you're underpaying. You don't care about fairness, you only care about yourself.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Really, so then I guess you're pissed at Verizon for getting all those subsidies and renigging on their agreement to wire all of New Jersey...
No you are a liar if you think you are paying market price and an idiot of you don't think this is necessary since the telecoms won't rollout their fiber networks to rural areas because them claim it costs them money but will work to block any expansion by either municipality broadband or another competitor. So fuck off.
The barriers to lower broadband prices are erected by Verizon, AT&T and Comcast. You might want to check out their lawsuits to stop broadband expansion. You might also want to pay attention to their quarterly earnings statements that explain their plans or lack thereof for broadband expansion.
Do some research before posting.
Somebody esplain to me why the FCC doesn't mandate symmetric broadband speeds. I'd rather have that then gigabit.
My rural area does not have subdivisions, though there are some local concentrations of population. It happens that I have a Centurylink switch right next door, and for a few years they were my provider. Because of my living next to the switch, I got 10MHz, the fastest that DSL is capable of, but two to five miles away, the speed drops into the acoustic modem range. Beyond that, no Centurylink at all, even though everyone has its phone company wiring.
Now that a cable provider has come to town, the Centurylink customer base has flocked over to its clean 80MHz service. You have to be on the cable run, but this still a much larger number of customers than can get Centurylink at all.
Who the fuck would want to? Anyhow, all we're doing is talking about them. If they're too stupid to see the difference, well, that seems to go with that territory, don' it?
That is all.
I've paid into this fund for over 70 line-years. Not sure what the rates were over that time (or how the inflation rate and other cost-of-money factors affected the value that was collected). If it had been at the current rate the dollar count would be maybe a quarter of one subscriber's subsidy. But the dollar has inflated by a factor of about ten over that period, so I expect I've paid in substantially more value than the average amount they'll be spending on one home's subsidy.
It will be interesting to see some of that money actually spent for the stated purpose. But given that this is a government operation I expect the usual level of SNAFU.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This actively began with the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
http://transition.fcc.gov/Repo...
Where's the rest of the billions of tax dollars?
The problem is the cost per item. This is more than just a subsidy, it's simply paying for getting the entire job done and if that were the case, why doesn't the government just contract that job out.
No matter what the Federal government does, someone will be dissatisfied with the result...
May as well go with a company that at least has a chance of knowing what they're doing. Century Link is by no means my favorite, but they're not Comcast either.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Your tiny little view of the world from the pinprick through your blinders is pathetic and shortsighted. We had a program to extend POTS to rural customers because of the benefits to society. The benefits of extending the internet are even greater, but because you can't see any farther than the end of your nose, you're more concerned about your paltry share of this bit of cash than about far more egregious uses of your taxes... like bombing brown people for profit.
Why? Why is it "even greater?" You really think getting people living in the middle of nowhere is one of the best places the government can spend our money? I don't.
Now, if you want to complain that this money is probably just going right down a toilet, or that nobody should receive subsidies for installing some slow-ass third-world internet connections, I'm right there with you. But having lived in both the city and country, I don't see why you would even be worried about whether we spend some money to bring modern communications to all citizens, unless you're in favor of it.
Because despite the views of the slashdot demographic, not having high speed internet is not the end of the world.
We in the country have to subsidize your roads in the city, since we drive more miles and pay more gas taxes, but the damage is really done by heavy trucks. Why don't you complain about that? Insist that you city dwellers pay your fair share of road taxes? Naturally, you're only concerned when you think you might be overpaying, not when you're underpaying. You don't care about fairness, you only care about yourself.
Not true - I think transportation infrastructure should be paid for ONLY through gasoline taxes, which means those big trucks doing the most damage are paying the most for the use of the roads. Electic and hybrids have changed that dynamic, so I'm really not sure how to include them, but I've been saying the same about gasoline taxes for 30 years. And make no mistake - I probably drive a lot more than you (I'm at 200k with my 10 year old car, the average is supposedly around 12k/year, not 20k). Again, your CHOICE to live in the country is YOUR choice.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I live on a sheep farm. You wear anything with wool in it? Ever eat a gyro?
Well guess what, I'm paying for your chosen lifestyle. You're welcome.
Right now I have a 1.2 mbps connection, but we're in the process of building our new larger farm, where I can't even get that. My choices are literally dialup or satellite. Satellite would work acceptably for the farm's needs. As long as we can communicate with the vets and buyers, which means piping high res images and videos around, and keeping our marketing going, we can get by.
But in addition to the farm, I supervise software developers, which means working remote, off hours, and overnight support calls. And VPNs and Satellites work together like water and oil.
So yeah, this is kind of a big deal to a lot of us country folks. Just because some rich asshole wants a McMansion out in the country doesn't mean everyone who lives off the beaten path is a douche or bumpkin.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Why? Why is it "even greater?" You really think getting people living in the middle of nowhere is one of the best places the government can spend our money? I don't.
Do you really want there to only be one lifestyle available in the country? Don't you want there to be infrastructure available in remote regions of the nation so that you can enjoy it if you should have to go there? By the way, I'm literally walking distance from actual civilization, there's just artificial monopoly boundaries in the way of someone other than AT&T bringing fiber into my county, and thus some competition. It's a short hop.
Because despite the views of the slashdot demographic, not having high speed internet is not the end of the world.
It's part of modern society... in developed nations, anyhow.
I think transportation infrastructure should be paid for ONLY through gasoline taxes, which means those big trucks doing the most damage are paying the most for the use of the roads.
If you think that would make the trucks pay for their fair share of the damage, thinking is precisely what you aren't doing. They only consume five to ten times as much fuel as cars, but they do far more than five to ten times as much of the road damage. Basing all road maintenance on gas taxes would place the most unfair burden squarely on the people who damage the roads the least — motorcyclists. That would be followed up in unfairness by people who drive lightweight cars without low rolling resistance tires, who also do basically no road damage whatsoever in the course of normal road use.
And make no mistake - I probably drive a lot more than you (I'm at 200k with my 10 year old car, the average is supposedly around 12k/year, not 20k).
Unless it's a serious land yacht with cookie-cutter tires, you'd be getting absolutely robbed if all the road maintenance came from fuel taxes.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I pay for my sweaters and gyros. Please explain how you paid for them?
Just because you have decided that you somehow pay for me, does not mean that I am now obliged to pay for your internet. You mind your business and I'll mind mine. I shall not refer to you as a douche or bumpkin. I shall refer to you as a whiner and grifter if you seek charity so impolitely.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
I used to do a lot of work down there, as did my father.
I bought him a shirt from T-shirt hell with the "Don't mess with Texas" logo on it. Below, it read: "It's not nice to pick on retards."
He loves wearing that shirt when he's doing deliveries down there.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
You pay cash for your sweaters and gyros. Farmers pay in blood and sweat.
You pay in taxes, taxes which are used to subsidize farms because when you buy a sweater or gyro, you're not paying a fair market value. Because farming is inconsistent, a bad year, or a good year of the wrong crop will get a farmer foreclosed. At the end of the day, most farmers scrap by until someone bigger makes them a retirement option.
It's also a case of opportune costs. If you chose not to subsidize rural broadband, you will in effect subsidize other industries. If I can't remote into the office, I drive in, which means that you will be subsidizing the fuel industry through higher demand. If I can't send emails of videos and high res images it means subsidizing the printing industry. And so on.
All it does is shift costs from one industry to another, typically from more efficient to less, meaning less efficient GDP and slower economic growth.
Is it really so hard for you to cough up a couple of pennies a year to promote economic growth and to increase the likelihood that country kids can have access to the same educational opportunities that your kids have access to?
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
How about the opposite... what the hell are those dimwit democrats thinking giving taxpayer money to all those subsidized housing dwelling lazy-ass SOBs who are unwilling to take all those "jobs Americans don't want so we have to allow illegal immigrants to swarm the borders." They want food so bad they can take that job they don't want or starve.
Most of those out on the edges where this infrastructure is going are out there so they can grow the food you keep stuffing yourself with. Are you so damn stupid that you think food magically plants and harvests itself?
Typical liberal drive. For the hundreds of thousands of us who live in places like Wyoming, and the millions who live in rural areas all over the country, some of us are neither flat earthers, nor home schoolers, nor folks who 'crap all over the internet.' Some of us want to get away from elitist hypocrites like yourselves.
Why? Why is it "even greater?" You really think getting people living in the middle of nowhere is one of the best places the government can spend our money? I don't.
Do you really want there to only be one lifestyle available in the country? Don't you want there to be infrastructure available in remote regions of the nation so that you can enjoy it if you should have to go there?
Actually, no, not really - people like me go out to the country to get away from it, not continue to be burdened by it. But the question is why is it a greater priority than other things? It's probably a great priority to you.
Unless it's a serious land yacht with cookie-cutter tires, you'd be getting absolutely robbed if all the road maintenance came from fuel taxes.
It's not - and that's part of the point (I'm not just being "greedy"). If you want to change the idea (especially with the advent of electric vehicles), it should be a factor of vehicle weight times miles. Of course, that doesn't count payload or how many miles a trailer might have been pulled - that's why I kept it as gas tax, because (before electrics) it was the easiest means to cover the cost. If you want to get down to the nitty gritty, you get overbearing government rules, a whole novel about how the tax structure works just for vehicles.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Actually, no, not really - people like me go out to the country to get away from it, not continue to be burdened by it.
I'm so glad that you fat cats from the city can come out and exploit my country side to "get away from it".
How about rather than screwing those of us who live in the country, you just turn off your phone, disconnect the cable, and take some personal responsibility for your own choices, rather than foisting them onto those of us who live here.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
And don't think we aren't grateful for that.
You are welcome on my lawn.
With an attitude like this, there wouldn't even be electricity in rural America.
Just a few links to help you understand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://touchstoneenergy.com/
http://www.nreca.coop/
http://www.nrtc.coop/
Kriston