Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

majoritywhip.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 96 posts

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#31

Post by adrr »

darwinwhy wrote: post #7
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #2

> providing a $50 monthly discount on plans for low-income consumers This only serves to support the inflated pricing of the monopolists.

Like it or not, certain parts of the US are too rural/poor to justify even monopolists expanding internet service there. This will incentivize them to build in those areas.

I don't get why we want to build stuff in rural areas. From a cost perspective, we have to subsidize the infrastructure including medical and utilities. From economic standpoint, the jobs are in the cities. Labor participation rates in cities is much higher than rural areas. Investing in housing cost reductions in urban areas seems like a better investment than wiring rural areas with high speed internet.

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#32

Post by opportune »

Love the repeal of muni network limitations. That is just straight corruption - I’ve never heard a coherent explanation for why states should be able to prevent that.

It would be absurd, absolutely absurd to give even more money to ISPs. $100b is so much money which could be better spent on transportation infrastructure rather than a handout to some of the worst corporate citizens in the US

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#33

Post by free_rms »

adrr wrote: post #31
darwinwhy wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like it or not, certain parts of the US are too rural/poor to justify even monopolists expanding internet service there. This will incentivize them to build in those areas.

I don't get why we want to build stuff in rural areas. From a cost perspective, we have to subsidize the infrastructure including medical and utilities. From economic standpoint, the jobs are in the cities. Labor participation rates in cities is much higher than rural areas. Investing in housing cost reductions in urban areas seems like a better investment than wiring rural areas with high speed internet.

Because they're people too, and it winds up being profitable for everyone.

It took New Deal politicians dragging the electric companies kicking and screaming to get rural eras electrified, because the companies didn't think there'd be enough usage to justify the wiring. Turns out, once it's available, people use it, and it was profitable.

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#34

Post by Jarwain »

adrr wrote: post #31
darwinwhy wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like it or not, certain parts of the US are too rural/poor to justify even monopolists expanding internet service there. This will incentivize them to build in those areas.

I don't get why we want to build stuff in rural areas. From a cost perspective, we have to subsidize the infrastructure including medical and utilities. From economic standpoint, the jobs are in the cities. Labor participation rates in cities is much higher than rural areas. Investing in housing cost reductions in urban areas seems like a better investment than wiring rural areas with high speed internet.

Not all the jobs are in the cities. I'd imagine rural areas have a lot of large-scale farming that would be expensive to do in the city.

Tons of people also grow up in rural areas; access to high speed internet would probably be useful for their development and maybe even innovation in these areas.

Personally I see high speed internet as a way to integrate people who may not be geographically close to each other; this includes those living in rural areas.

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#35

Post by danShumway »

darwinwhy wrote: post #7
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #2

> providing a $50 monthly discount on plans for low-income consumers This only serves to support the inflated pricing of the monopolists.

Like it or not, certain parts of the US are too rural/poor to justify even monopolists expanding internet service there. This will incentivize them to build in those areas.

We already have incentivized them. They take the money, promise to build, and then just don't. They know that neither the FCC nor any of the state/local governments have any will right now to punish them for not following through on their commitments.

At this point, it would be more efficient to just give the money to municipalities directly and just tell them to build their own infrastructure.

Government incentives for commercial companies aren't always bad, but in this case I think they're really clearly not working, and we're just shoveling more money into that hole.

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#36

Post by jandrese »

darwinwhy wrote: post #7
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #2

> providing a $50 monthly discount on plans for low-income consumers This only serves to support the inflated pricing of the monopolists.

Like it or not, certain parts of the US are too rural/poor to justify even monopolists expanding internet service there. This will incentivize them to build in those areas.

Aren't these the customers that SpaceX is targeting with Starlink? Ones that live so far apart that laying fiber is really expensive, but also don't have too many other people living in their satellite footprint?

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#37

Post by lotsofpulp »

pm90 wrote: post #17
lotsofpulp wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn’t the government just build it? They do it with sewer lines, power lines, gas lines, water lines, but a little fiber is too much?

The Government does not build those.

I consider utility companies that have government oversight of pricing to be government.

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#38

Post by briHass »

adrr wrote: post #31
darwinwhy wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like it or not, certain parts of the US are too rural/poor to justify even monopolists expanding internet service there. This will incentivize them to build in those areas.

I don't get why we want to build stuff in rural areas. From a cost perspective, we have to subsidize the infrastructure including medical and utilities. From economic standpoint, the jobs are in the cities. Labor participation rates in cities is much higher than rural areas. Investing in housing cost reductions in urban areas seems like a better investment than wiring rural areas with high speed internet.

"Jobs are in the cities"

Yeah, except for agriculture, energy production, mining, large manufacturing, warehousing and other critical industries that city dwellers like to forget exist. All of these require people, and those people need to live somewhere near their place of work.

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#40

Post by lotsofpulp »

briandear wrote: post #19
lotsofpulp wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why doesn’t the government just build it? They do it with sewer lines, power lines, gas lines, water lines, but a little fiber is too much?

With few exceptions, the government doesn’t build or operate power lines in the US.

As long as the government has a hand in the pricing and product delivered, I consider it to be government (for the purposes of comparing it to a rent seeking ISP that has no oversight). If ISPs were operated and regulated like a utility like gas, electric, water, then it’s not important who owns what.

https://www.energy.gov/oe/information-center/educational-res...

https://www.energy.gov/oe/information-center/educational-res...

Post reply on HN