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?
So, those people who decided to live way the heck out in the middle of nowhere to get away from civilization need electricity? Why?
So, those people who decided to live way the heck out in the middle of nowhere to get away from civilization need telephones? Why?
while noticing that the countries they compare us to generally don't have a lot of wide open spaces to cover.
Then why not compare the other countries to sections of the US where the population distribution looks similar?
Overlay South Korea on any chunk of the US that has a similar population, why doesn't that area have the speeds SK does? If you toss Germany on top of the Midwest you have similar mix of rural and urban areas, why don't those areas have broadband options that Germany does?
Do not only fine them, also cut their tax breaks and everything else that's money-related.
#DeleteFacebook
So, those people who decided to live way the heck out in the middle of nowhere to get away from civilization need internet access? Why? It would probably be cheaper to find the ones who actually want high-speed internet and give them money to move.
I'll bite. I'm a senior software engineer working out of Research Triangle Park - North Carolina. I live about 40 miles from RTP in a "rural" community. Its a neighborhood with multiple large acre lots (5 - 25 acres each). Its about the same time to commute every day as those who live in nearby suburbs (540 towards Falls of Neuse / Apex / etc.) - big difference - I don't have to deal with traffic. All of us CHOSE to live out here to enjoy the lifestyle it offers. Bit more travel time to run to the grocery store, enjoy theater performances at Durham Performing Arts Center, etc. - but this is the lifestyle we wanted.
For years we did not have high speed broadband internet access. A major telco ran fiber down the side of a highway - 2 miles from entrance to my neighborhood - for government services. They _REFUSED_ to run it to the entrance to my neighborhood claiming costs were too high. For years, because of this, the broadband internet access maps claimed we had access to high-speed internet when in fact we didn't - it was erroneous data.
Fast-forward to 2015 - a small telco decided to host a town hall with residents from the area I live in. They indicated they need 1 signup per 1000 ft. to justify the costs of running fiber. We had a county commissioner in a nearby neighborhood also willing to help cut through red tape so the small telco could service the nearby neighborhoods. Yeah, signups were immediate and 1 year later we had fiber internet run to the neighborhoods.
This isn't an issue of cost - like the telcos claim - its one of regulation. Streamline the regulation please. Wonder why Google Fiber isn't across the nation yet - see regulations. Any funding you give the major telcos will go to help fix the regulation - OR - into the pockets of their shareholders, not the members which they serve. I still consider myself extraordinarily fortunate I had a county commissioner in an adjacent neighborhood. Absent that - likely would not have high-speed internet today.
Makes construction and deployment of utiities rather difficult!
No, it doesn't. My city-owned electric utility built a fiber network in a few years, at an affordable cost, and everyone in the service area can have high-speed internet at an affordable price. Wasn't hard at all.
Unfortunately, too many state Legislators are preventing city governments from doing that same thing across the land. They don't give the local community a choice,but impose it from afar.
See, your problem, LynnwoodRooster, is that you think we're all stupid, and have no ability to recognize the difference between serving the people and doing something mindless like evenly distributing service over every square inch of the country.
But we aren't. Not all of us will fall for your foolish attempts at deception. Instead, we are capable of realizing that there are improvements to be made, and they can readily be accomplished. Broadband internet access could readily be provided for everyone who wants it, and the cost would be easy to afford.
Of course, you've heard this before, because your moronic argument has been torn down, but you keep repeating it, since as a fraud and a liar, you can't behave with integrity.
Sad.
I have a much, much better idea instead of allowing them to bribe the government with a fine that's going to be the equivelant of a slap on the wrist.
We charge the executive staff with embezzelment and put them in jail for 20 or 30 years.
That way, they can never do it again.
Actually, the AC is correct, though for the wrong reasons. The headline is asking the question of whether the government should fix slow internet access. Betteridge's Law of Headlines is that the answer is 'no' to any headline that's a question. Therefore, the correct answer is no, that the government should not fix slow internet access. The AC's reasoning is wrong, but his conclusion is correct that the government shouldn't be fixing slow internet speeds. Betteridge's Law is the correct reason for this. Hope that helps.
Correct. The answer should be: No...and completely de-regulate it. My local ISP charges ~$100/mo for 5/1 service even though they have fiber to every single house in the area. They are a monopoly.
What would it take me to solve it? I'd have to apply for all kinds of permits to trench fiber to my office, then more money to put up a few towers, and even more money still to get permits for power and generators. Then I'd need even more money to register with the FCC and a lot of equipment which is required to enable eavesdropping and recording information about customers....all before I can turn on the gigabit wireless equipment I *already* have in order to start providing internet access for my immediate neighbors. Then there's expansion...more permits.
The government needs to fuck off.