Slashdot Mirror
Should The Government Fix Slow Internet Access? (fivethirtyeight.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a story from Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight site about "the worst internet in America":
FiveThirtyEight analyzed every county's broadband usage using data from researchers at the University of Iowa and Arizona State University and found that Saguache, Colorado was at the bottom. Only 5.6 percent of adults were estimated to have broadband... It has some of the worst internet in the country. That's in part because of the mountains and the isolation they bring... Its population of 6,300 is spread across 3,169 square miles 7,800 feet above sea level, but on land that is mostly flat, so you can almost see the full scope of two mountain ranges as you drive the county's highway...
But Saguache isn't alone in lacking broadband. According to the Federal Communications Commission, 39 percent of rural Americans -- 23 million people -- don't have access. In Pew surveys, those who live in rural areas were about twice as likely not to use the internet as urban or suburban Americans.
In Saguache County download speeds of 12 Mbps (with an upload speed of 2 Mbps) cost $90 a month, and the article points out that when it comes to providing broadband, "small companies and cooperatives are going it more or less alone, without much help yet from the federal government." But that raises an inevitable question. Should the federal government be subsidizing rural internet access?
But Saguache isn't alone in lacking broadband. According to the Federal Communications Commission, 39 percent of rural Americans -- 23 million people -- don't have access. In Pew surveys, those who live in rural areas were about twice as likely not to use the internet as urban or suburban Americans.
In Saguache County download speeds of 12 Mbps (with an upload speed of 2 Mbps) cost $90 a month, and the article points out that when it comes to providing broadband, "small companies and cooperatives are going it more or less alone, without much help yet from the federal government." But that raises an inevitable question. Should the federal government be subsidizing rural internet access?
In a country where you die from illness if you're not rich, Internet should not be your priority.
Before Clinton converted it in to a "laptops for schools" program, the Universal Service Fund was used to fund telephone lines in rural America where the cost was too high. It worked: telephones became ubiquitous. The Universal Service Fund should be restored to its original purpose with the simple tweak: fund the initial builds for broadband Internet access in rural America.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
They should fine the shit out of the telcos who took billions in subsidies to provide broadband to the nation and then reneged on their end of the deal.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
On one hand, they want the government to force their favorite solutions to every problem they can imagine (real or otherwise) down everyone's throats whether the solution actually works or not, or fits individual preferences or not (human differences are to be confined to skin color and what you do with your genitalia; everything else must be plus-plus same). On the other hand, they want everyone (with the exception of people running small, organic farms) to lived in highly-planned (by them), densely-populated urban areas.
If somebody wants to live out in the sticks, that's their business. Living out in the sticks generally means lower land prices, but most other things are more expensive because you're further away. Let people figure out their own trade-offs.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
I'm sure you'll take equal comfort in that notion should they decide to stop shipping food to you in whatever city it is that you infest, right? I mean, you decided to live way the heck out in the middle of a city to enjoy the fruits of civilization but now want food? Why? See how that works? That said, the government funding something is the worst way to go. They should encourage the existing electric providers (who already have infrastructure in those areas) to add internet access via BPL/PLC. The technology exists, much of the infrastructure is already there...give them lowered tax rates or whatever. However, at base, the government shouldn't have an interest in providing internet access to citizens. It's not a fundamental need (despite what city folk think would happen to their lives if they were without net access for more than an hour). The government can serve a community purpose but needs to encourage the private sector to step up and do it.
In a country where you die from illness if you're not rich, Internet should not be your priority.
Incorrect. Internet as a critical means of Free Speech is how you communicate the inefficiencies and corruptions of your society to the rest of it. Having a hearable voice to speak truth to power, and reveal injustice, is much more important than focusing on optimizing your healthcare within the existing inefficient/corrupt system.
Free Speech is the beginning of fixing the bigger problems. The Internet should be about Free Speech.
Not the FEDERAL government, certainly. States can enact policies supported by their individual populations however.
People aren't MANDATED to live in rural areas.
If they do, one of the 'sacrifices' they have to make is shitty internet service.
I'm reminded of the bullshit limousine liberals who moved out to western Montana for the low prices, splendid vistas, lack of congestion, and privacy...and then bitched the first winter because the power occasionally went out and nobody came to clear the snow from their 2 mile driveways.
Life's a series of tradeoffs. It's not the federal government's role to build safety nets for people.
-Styopa
I live in a suburban metro-Atlanta city. I have a 1.5Mbs DOWN AT&T shit connection for $49 per month. My only choice is the Comca$t Crooks who do not offer internet only service in my area - I have to buy a "package". I do not want over priced shit cable TV service.
Why am I stuck with shit choices from shit companies?
Because the telecom industry bribed my Republican controlled Georgia state legislature to allow them to gouge us because CAPITALISM!
But that's America - for the corporation and by the corporation. We are not a free country.
And if you think it's a "progressive" thing - whatever the fuck that is - you have been in some bubble that is misinforming you.
It's not a fundamental need (despite what city folk think would happen to their lives if they were without net access for more than an hour).
I disagree. The internet should be considered a basic need.
It enables communication and participation in civil and political discourse, and facilitates the spread of ideas. And in a society where some have it and some don't the have-nots are missing out on a principle means of participating in government.
It is also fast becoming the principle means of consuming government services, and accessing government documents. Making inquiries, filing documents, etc.
Further, it facilitates economic development, by providing an avenue for commerce -- from connecting people with jobs, to being able to source goods and services.
Finally, it betters social welfare though the availability of information -- from being able to use it to figure out if that spider that just bit you was a brown recluse or a wolf spider. From being able to read up on troubleshooting your furnace, or a tear down guide for your laptop, to how to grow tomatoes, or gut a fish, research a solar installation. etc...
Government should absolutely be treating internet access like a public utility, and striving to make it available to everyone.
As noted in the article, the problem isn't "have internet," but "have cheap and fast internet." Having a handful of people, spread across a large area, does a lot to make cost-effectiveness an issue.
People way out in the boonies often DON'T have grid electricity - they either use generators or do without, because running a single power line out to a single house twenty miles from anyone is not cost effective. Solar power is also an option. Organizations like the World Bank say that 100% of Americans have electricity, but they really mean "almost 100%."
Even if those people DO want internet, they can get it, often through satellite services. Basically, the only thing preventing someone out in the middle of nowhere from having reasonably good internet is wanting it - or wanting to pay for it.
Many people don't. Really. Yes, even in cities.
A lot of people in remote areas have phone internet, by the way - and those broadband surveys usually don't count that, even though good cell phone connections have pretty fast speeds (I get 50 megabits on my phone in most big cities).