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?
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.
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.
It's hilarious to see these "the US has a lot of people who don't get 10 megabit internet, when compared to other countries," while noticing that the countries they compare us to generally don't have a lot of wide open spaces to cover. There's a whole lot of countries that don't have (for example) places like Death Valley or the mountains of Colorado.
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
The US government has been paying for nothing for years.
Verizon Knows You're A Sucker: Takes Taxpayer Subsidies For Broadband, Doesn't Deliver, Lobbies To Drop Requirements
Shocker: Billions In Broadband Subsidies Wasted As Government Turns Blind Eye To Fraud
Wired to fail
Large telecoms have no interest in solving the problem. Old telephone rules and wire access prevent anyone else from doing it. All the government needs to do is knock down the antiquated rules and companies will come along and fill the gap. Cable companies started as small rural enterprises extending TV coverage to those to far from cities to receive it over the air. If you let new companies access wire right of ways, they will spring up again.
Stop it with your fucking lame "suck my balls" jokes, it's disgusting.
Please use "suck my dick" or "put my dick in your ass" jokes instead.
What does being rich have to do with it? For that matter, what does the particular country have to do with it? Everyone who doesn't die from deliberate or accidental killing, dies from illness.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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.
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
Yes they should, it is a reasonable alternative to the two extremes that American politics seem to push as the only options; let the free market take care of it, or a government led "socialist" build. This by the way seems to be the problem with all American politics, no ability to compromise and find common ground. For example the gun argument (ban all guns, or, machine guns should be allowed in primary schools, give kids concealed carry!), or abortion (no abortion for rape and incest, or, abortion for all, until they are 15!).
The free market does not work in areas that are either unprofitable or have no competition. Identifying these areas, improving the infrastructure, then leasing or selling it back to ISPs (preferably lease, with open access for multiple local ISPs to compete on) improves service blackspots, and can function at the county or state level rather than a nationwide buildout.
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.
DO NOT let the government get any more control on the internet, than they have now. The "slow" internet in the USA, is BECAUSE OF THE SPREAD OUT NATURE of the United States.
CenturyLink is full of shit right now. They are backpedaling very VERY hard. I always go and do screen caps like that from time to time to show the shit service they offer in my neighborhood. One day, the site shows gigabit internet, so I went and signed up (thinking it was a fluke), and sure enough, they went and signed me up and I've been on it over a year!! (I'll save the rant for how unstable it has been for another time), but since then, I've gone back to check what offerings they have for my house and neighbors, and they've reverted back to only 3mbps DSL. So despite the fact that fiber is ran to my house and is right next to all of my neighbors, they won't allow anyone new to connect to it anymore. I've talked with the service guys, and our optical splitter is a 64-port trunk with 24 active connections, and a second trunk running to the same box which is not activated yet. Despite this level of connectivity in my neighborhood, they'd rather have everyone sign up for the slowest and shittiest DSL service imaginable.
Hope you don't drive on all of those "government roads".
the govt still uses Windows because the agents at the IRS have to make excuses for the hold time they put you on because...they use slow computers which are connected to their slow Internet / Intranet.
The dinosaurs lacked high-speed access to the internet too, you insensitive clod . . . and now they're extinct! Coincidence? I think not.
Should the government start laying cable? No. Should the government be putting pressure on the telcos that promised to do it. Definitely. Should the government constrain the ISPs that are preventing local governments from doing it. Abso-freakining-lutely, The funny thing is that Gov Cuomo just made a fool of himself begging bushinesses to adopt a subway and pay for maintenance so that their employees can have a better commute. Encourage people to move to rural areas and telecommute would release some of the pressure and make adoption unnecessary.
If "government fix" means municipal fiber then definitely yes.
The case in favour of the tax payer providing adequate internet coverage is the same as that of providing education; the next generation should be adequately provided for to ensure they can be part of their society. The fact that the US is making a pig's ear of providing adequate schooling is a reminder that this is an optimistic ideal, but it's worth engaging with.
This country just takes and figures out new ways to charge and tax you to death.
If you need fast Internet access, don't move to Saguache.
Government regulation allows those permits to have effect in the first place. Without government regulation, any non-subscriber can use trespassing and destruction of property laws to prevent an ISP from pulling cable or fiber across his land to reach subscribers on the other side.
You're really poor (and assets no longer are counted in "poor", only income). Your answer is Medicaid.
This depends on whether your state's legislature has decided to expand Medicaid. Republican states have tended on the whole to opt out as part of the general GOP philosophy to provide fewer public services.
Your income is below 400% of FPL (i.e., about $100K for a family of four). Your answer is to get insurance on the exchanges and get a government subsidy to help with premiums.
Republicans in Congress are attempting to repeal exactly this.
For the record the concept of Free speech simply means the government cannot act to silence you.
Not even by exclusively licensing radio frequency spectrum to carriers who would silence you?
Satellite and cellular often don't count because 10 GB per month is still a slow sustained connection, even if it does happen to be burstable to 10 Mbps or more. It's too slow, for example, to support three PCs in a household automatically downloading a feature update for Windows 10 in the month of its release.
server-prohibition ISPs
To what extent is this actually enforced in the United States?
If I had modpoints! You are too reasonable for these murica-first/total-comunism slashtards. You describe a model that works pretty well where I live. 10mbit is the minimum available for everyone at a reasonable price (40-50 USD/mo).
(6) You think that someone else should provide your healthcare at no cost to you.
Your answer, in that case, is to take responsibly for your own life or accept the consequences of not bothering to do so.
When I moved here, I paid for a new CO and upgraded lines, so that I could get DSL. The phone company installed it without charging me for labor and a neighbor paid for an extra mile of new lines. This wired up all but one house, and they don't want Internet. It can be done.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
http://newnetworks.com/ShortSC...
http://newnetworks.com/bookofb...
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
I'm not rich and I've never died from an illness.
Sorry bud. You have been modded troll for actually saying what is probably the first thought for most non-Americans.
period, thank you.
And the density of where you live? Was it around 2 people per square mile> Did it already have regular utlities and power and COs located where everyone was within service distance of such infrastructure?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
FiveThirtyEight - where internet polls = scientific studies. Nope. The question itself is retarded. These problems are because of government.
Every week I get call from peopple that think you can run a household with 15 devices off of 50 meg internet. They all say wow I didn't know that everyone is streaming 4k videos on everything it would slow down. We beat out our only competitor in the area and the max I've seen is 15 meg down 512k up. It will take regulation and subsidies that only pass money to small operators to bring the average speed up in this country. It won't happen by giving it to Comcast or any of the other large ISP.
At one time, there was a proposal that postal service would ensure every citizen in the USA would receive permanent free-for-life email address at @usps.us or whatever domain would make sense.
Was a good idea.....free very basic level email (no frills)...the modern equivalent of the original postal service goal of ensuring a minimum ability for people to communicate within the country.
Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo should have been focusing on enhanced premium email services just like FedEx and UPS do for overnight, business level, and important packages.
I'm fine with that translating to internet service and/or healthcare too.
Let USPS provide a simple 1Mbps service per household sufficient for 2-5 people to browse the web, read email, and download files....perhaps 2-3 Mbps for houses with several students or the elderly/very poor. It wouldn't be fast, and probably would have qos rules that moderately throttled video and high traffic apps...but I'm fine with ensuring every house, no matter what, has access to a very minimum level of access.
On the other hand, I think government should ensure businesses can compete by not allowing monopolies to strangle new startups and new inventions, but otherwise...I'd like the government to have as little to do with the internet as possible. Certainly not censorship or defining hate speech or deciding winners and losers for premium services.
Similarly for health care.....let the government provide a very basic level of care...but with some usage pricing like we do for postal mail. Just getting annual checkups, the occasional labs and generic meds...cost should be close to zero. Need some not that expensive meds on a regular basis to stay alive....government shouldn't absorb the entire cost, but it should give a good discount so that 60% of population wouldn't be spending very much at all.
Now the remaining 40% of the population and the very sick or elderly...or those who want first class care....there should be lots of competition for their business, the government should ensure that no one is screwing everyone else over to raise prices or restrict supply/put others out of business and that the care meets a minimum level of professionalism/safety....but otherwise....the government should be out of it. It shouldn't be giving tax breaks for employer sponsored plans. Government employees shouldn't be treated any better than any other citizen, unless they are truly critical to the ongoing operation of the government. Everyone in the USA should be able to shop for the same plans regardless of which state they are in...perhaps states could add additional riders specific to their states which might increase costs, but competition needs to be vigourous and at a national level and the government shouldn't be that involved.
Competition and fair rules and keeping the size of gov small is the only solution for healthcare that will keep costs down over the long term while ensuring politicians don't become the masters who lives or dies based on which minimum benefits are law or who contributed what to whose re-election campaign.
neither did every non-rich person that died from an illness.
I asked because I was recently discussing Discord bot hosting with someone who didn't believe me that home server bans were being enforced anywhere. Where can I find instances of "Enough to matter"?
And the density of where you live? Was it around 2 people per square mile> Did it already have regular utlities and power and COs located where everyone was within service distance of such infrastructure?
Since you're making claims that the population density you assert is not inherently relevant(no matter how much you dogmatically try to repeat that same false argument, it will always be a strawman), since you're admitting I could even already have had utilities(what a wonder, we've had them for over a century now!), clearly you know it can be done. You know it isn't particularly difficult, and you even know your reliance on misleading statistics was nothing more than a pathetic attempt at deceit.
Due to that awareness, then your argument is fraudulent, as you well know by now.
Sad. Very sad that you have to lie so much.
But you shouldn't think we're stupid. You may get away with your scams for a while, but eventually we realize you are a con artist and run you out of town on a rail. See, we know that the population density of the US is irrelevant, it's the population distribution that matters, and it turns out that...the two numbers have no real congruence. The population is actually quite concentrated in a relatively few areas.
In fact, over half of the US's population lives in only 146 counties, and even the population inside them is not evenly distributed. Kern County is a particular example. About 8,000 square miles in area. Population? Around 900,000. If we went by a blind application of density like you prefer to assert, that'd be around 100sq/mi. But more than HALF the population lives within less than 250 square miles. In fact, the CDP of Oildale in Kern County has a population density of over 5,000sq/mi.
A little investigation sure tells a different story, doesn't it? Now try to do the same for Saguache, County, Colorado. Here's a hint: A lot of the county is actually designated wilderness preserve. Find out how much, if you dare.
Or do you think we need to provide internet service to the trees?
Seriously, we already tried federal funding of broadband expansion. All it did was fill the pockets of telecoms; the problem still exists. Why would you expect another attempt to do particularly better? Because Trump's people will do it right?
If you're going to do anything, don't even consider the supply side at all. Set up a program on the demand side where sufficiently-rural addresses can apply for subsidies toward Internet access. That'll make fundraising for the OneWeb and SpaceX constellations easier while letting the individuals get on with HughesNet and Exede right now.
If you don't want well water, live near the water infrastructure. If you don't like septic systems, live near the sewer infrastructure. If you want to be out in nature, away from noise and neighbors and somehow enjoy driving 30 minutes to buy anything ever and living dangerously far away from police and fire services then do that. But guess what, the government isn't going to spend $50 million bringing fiber, sewer, and water to your neighborhood of 4 people. You do not pay $50 mil in taxes. If you want internet, move to where it is.
Stop spamming. It's ironic your ad-blocking software can't block your spam adverts, but your competitors' can. You're doing their work for them!
The internet is vital to e-Commerce that accounts for a significant chunk of our economic activity. It should be a public utility in the economic interest of every citizen of this entire country.
We'll make great pets
That explains why so many people immigrate here to die.
Just another day in Paradise
My mother who is living on only Social Security ($12k/yr before they make deductions!) has had numerous trips to the ER, several falls, two stent operations, etc. So, basically you're full of shit.
Just another day in Paradise
the govt still uses Windows because the agents at the IRS have to make excuses for the hold time they put you on because...they use slow computers which are connected to their slow Internet / Intranet.
They don't have to make any excuses to anyone. Nobody holds them accountable because they're the government. It's like that in nearly every government run office I've been to, and I've been to plenty here in the DC area, along with working in/around the military for the last 40 years. It's simple, bureaucratic sloth.
Just another day in Paradise
It's rather unfortunate that no-Americans would believe this because it's simply not factual. I have first hand experience with it in my own family.
Just another day in Paradise
When I moved here, I paid for a new CO and upgraded lines, so that I could get DSL.
You paid for a new central office? Most of us don't want to pay multiple millions of dollars for a building full of telco switches and batteries so that we can have internet access. Perhaps you are misusing terminology?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The government might as well do it because private industry isn't going to as long as they can milk the existing infrastructure.
So far most of the money the government has given them to expand infrastructure has been gobbled up by contract loopholes rather than laying cables.
In a country where you die from illness if you're not rich, Internet should not be your priority.
Canada then huh? Because that does happen here. Happens in the UK too, and in many other countries with socialized medicine because healthcare is rationed and in some cases it's rationed so badly that ambulances are turned away from hospitals because the ER shutdown due to funding shortages. If you want to see the wait times for Ontario, you can click here then search by various areas. Seeing half a year for cancer treatment to start, or 200 days for a double bypass isn't uncommon for example.
Let's be realistic. Obamacare is a complete fucking disaster, and if on a scale of 1-whatthefuck it's somewhere around ohfuckweredoomed. Most states by next year will have zero providers, healthcare plans have gone up over 100%. Friends of mine took the penalty because they can't afford the plans that were their other option. You know the $900/mo with $8k deductibles for a family of 4. Going to be interesting here in Canada too, because it appears that the failure of Obamacare and increase in health costs has driven more Americans over the border to get healthcare here at the cost of taxpayers. This was an "issue" in 1993, it's a serious problem now. Depending on who's numbers you want to look at, it's anywhere between 1/8th to 1/3 of the cost of the entire medical budget in each province.
But here's how you fix "slow internet access." You require the last mile to be nationalized. All ISP's pay into the pot for maintenance, and people can pick whatever provider they want to hook up. While we don't have nationalization of the last mile here in Canada for that, leasing the last mile is a requirement here. Many other countries have this as a requirement as well. I can get Teksavvy in Ontario, and I can get it in Alberta. But if it was like how the US is now, or how it was ~10 years ago in Canada. I'd be stuck with Bell, Rogers, or Bell and Rogers.
Om, nomnomnom...
(6) You think that someone else should provide your healthcare at no cost to you.
6 is great. It's called national health care (example, the UK's NHS) and it's not exactly at no cost when you consider national insurance/tax, plus think of all that money that could go toward actual health care for those that need it rather than get gobbled up by insurance companies and padding bottom lines. Of course if you think that those without money are worthless then you can go a fuck yourself.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I guess that shows the government should get out of this, huh?
If you mean should the gov't subsidize companies to provide you with faster internet service......then in that case no, not only no, but go fuck a running Weed Wacker no.
"I'm a bit of a dickhead" conveys the same information in fewer words.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
It's enforced in several ways.
First, they use various technical means to make it difficult, but not impossible, to host a server. Such as setting up a firewall that blocks inbound connections (AT&T & Charter do this. Time Warner does in some areas but not all). That firewall has holes as needed for a few protocols (the classic example being FTP's data channel). If you know about those holes, you can use those holes to host a server on a non-standard port because they are using relatively dumb firewalls.
Second, broadband for US home users is almost always vastly asymmetric. For example, mine is advertised as 50Mbit download, 1Mbit upload....and they frequently don't get that 1Mbit. That limits just how much of a server you can host.
Third, the ISPs will cut you off and/or charge you for business service when they catch you. That business service charge is usually back-dated to the earliest they can figure out you were hosting the server. Since business is 2x-10x more expensive for the same bandwidth, that's a really hefty bill that comes out-of-the-blue. And even though they could technically catch you far earlier, they seem to let it go for a while so that they can rack up that hefty bill.
The free market does not work in areas that are either unprofitable or have no competition. Identifying these areas, improving the infrastructure, then leasing or selling it back to ISPs (preferably lease, with open access for multiple local ISPs to compete on) improves service blackspots, and can function at the county or state level rather than a nationwide buildout.
Why lease it back?
The people who are most satisfied with their ISP are the residents of Chattanooga, TN. Their ISP is the government, because the city created a municipal broadband network. It's so popular and successful that ISPs lobbied the TN legislature to ban the creation of any new municipal broadband networks, since the private entities could not compete.
Private entities like Charter, AT&T, etc. have demonstrated they offer worse, less reliable service with lower customer satisfaction and higher prices. Thus there's little reason to give the infrastructure to the same private companies that are doing an awful job. Just keep it as local as possible (ex. city or county run) so that the people running it can be more easily held accountable.
Hey, you're starting to think! Now - how far apart are those big areas of population? Now compare that to Sweden (since it seems to be a favorite to compare against). Also consider CO locations relative to that density. Then sit back and realize - you're an idiot.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Over the past 20 or so years, access to the Internet has morphed from being a plaything for the technically gifted, into a must-have as readily available as electricity, water or gas. It's somethingredients that Spectrum, Comcast or Verizon doesn't want to hear, but the time has come to consider Internet access as a utility.
No, it's a CO - I'm pretty sure. It's a fairly small(ish) gray box. I believe the requirement is that one must be within 13 miles of it, or something? It wasn't nearly that expensive. The whole bill was just over 30k. I'd just sold and both had the money and really wanted broadband, so I paid for it. I am going out tomorrow. I can get you a picture, if you want? I'm pretty sure it's a CO. It's not one of the brick building things - it's a gray box on a concrete pad. It's not that large, maybe a bit larger than a house-sized AC unit? Maybe? I haven't had any reason to pay attention to it. It's not like I'd know how to fix it and I'm pretty sure they don't want me playing with it.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
My dad told me once that government can fuck up a train wreck and over the years his adage has come to true on many many occasions. In this regard, the question is a false premise. The real question should be, how can the government get out of the way to speed up internet speeds? At least on the federal level.
It looks like this, pretty much (not identical, but about right):
Link.
You may be right and I may have the terminology incorrect. I have to be within so many feet of that thing. Well, the big thing. There's another smaller box nearby but I didn't pay for that. It was there when I moved in.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Imprison who? Everyone that took a check from the company? CEO down to the call center agents and shareholders?
Even if we accept your premise that all libertarians are dickheads, you'd have to be a moron to claim all dickheads are libertarians.
One counter example is disproof. I submit slashdot user Maritz as a non libertarian dickhead.
I've run rings around you logically...
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I believe the acronym you're looking for is DSLAM. Someone who works in the industry will be along soon to correct us both.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
That does sound familiar. It's right up the road, I guess I can go bust it open. I'm pretty sure I'd be the least likely suspect. I'm also sure there's no cops.
Whatever it is, I had to buy one. It was cheaper than what an ISDN was quoted as. Point to point radio wasn't an option - though it is now. Satellite wasn't a better option. So, I did that. The neighbor who paid for an extra mile of new line paid less than $1000, as I recall. This was ten years ago, so I imagine it's even cheaper?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
We can defund the rural electrification initiative to pay for it. They haven't done anything in decades and still suck down almost a billion$/year.
That program should be a cautionary tale, not an argument for doing it again.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
$1000 for a one mile run is very cheap. Decades ago, I considered some property in the Sierra. At the time power line install costs were 10k$/pole. Killed the deal.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The poles already existed and it was in addition to what was already being done. The company was Fairpoint. The area, outside Rangeley, Maine. The year, 2008 - so more like 9 years ago. It was when my house was being built. That was '08. I retired in '07,
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I keep hearing The Government is us so I'm not sure who you expect to fix anything when you say The Government. For one thing, even if you consider "The Government" (or "The State") as being separate from normal human beings, it is still run by and consists of human beings to function. Judges, police officers, legislators, executive administrative assistants to the vice chair of the majority sub-committee on hiring more executive assistants... all human.
When you say "fix" stuff... can you describe a precise process on how this is supposed to be done? I've always gotten hand-wavy answers like "voting" and "democracy". None of which actually physically implement anything you've ever asked for. Not roads. Not health care. Not internet access. It was human beings that did all those things as instructed by other human beings who were given "authority" to use force, if necessary, to enact these projects. In today's world it's almost exclusively bid to private contractors. The same people you could just go straight up to and ask to do it. For some reason putting another layer in the middle is better for everyone even though middle-men are evil in insurance and other "life-essential" areas.
How about this... you want stuff? You propose a business plan. Get local investment from the community to pay for a contractor to put in fiber. Negotiate the working rate with neighbors and future service users. Work with internet service providers to provide inter-connect access and use your community as leverage to get suitable rates and access speeds. Set up and maintain a locally-funded community POP with co-locateable racks and other services.
I mean, this is what all the human beings working for The Government will do (inefficiently). I don't understand why you can't cut out the middle man. Oh wait... I forgot... It's ILLEGAL to do any of that.
Well... good luck.
I'm told Sweden. "I've never heard of anyone here being blocked for running game servers or private storage servers on their home network."
Don't even need CO's, any more than we need massive offices filled with telephone operators.
And you just lost all credibility right there.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!