51–60 of 96 posts
> 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 paid for nationwide broadband installation several times by now. How many more funds do we need to siphon to major corporations that still don’t build anything?
What happened to the money? Is it not contingent on delivery of the completed product? Or was it intentionally badly written in order just to funnel money/pork to big donors?
Can you provide some citations? I'm not finding anything with a quick search.
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.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I definitely think we shouldn't give another dime in tax credits to broadband providers - a signed contract with aggressive enforcement provisions would be in order, and if the current major ISPs don't want to build the infrastructure we should find someone else who will.
> current major ISPs don't want to build the infrastructure we should find someone else who will. There are no such people. Both Baltimore and Los Angeles put out bids asking for companies willing to build fiber networks on certain terms. Nobody volunteered. E.g. https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/9/16863352/free-internet-los-an... > Los Angeles officials planned to build up a network through a public-private partnership,…
Austere scholars of pork wrote a bill to pacify their corporate sponsors. The entire SpaceX's Starlink will cost a fraction of that. Now watch this $100B disappear without a trace, as usual.
As much as I would love to see it, Starlink will not come close to competing with the majority of incumbent ISP networks as it is currently designed. High-density urban areas (where most of the US population lives) cannot be well-served by Starlink due to bandwidth/RF limitations on their current satellites. They will however totally rout the incumbent satellite ISPs in rural/semi-rural areas. But yes, you might as w…
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.
Why are we propping up concentrated urban cores with their congestion, pollution, expense/inflation?
Tax revenue is going to be way down.
We can't afford these things; if the internet is too slow, you can either pay more for it or you can move somewhere where it is better.
I prefer Sanders’ proposal https://berniesanders.com/issues/high-speed-internet-all/
Sanders' proposals in general have no chance of actually passing in Congress, so I'll trust the Dems' one.
TLDR:
• Provide $150 billion through the Green New Deal in infrastructure grants and technical assistance for municipalities and/or states to build publicly owned and democratically controlled, co-operative, or open access broadband networks.
• Require that all internet service providers offer a Basic Internet Plan that provides quality broadband speeds at an affordable price.
• Break up internet service provider and cable monopolies, bar service providers from providing content, and unwind anticompetitive mergers.
• Ensure broadband infrastructure is resilient to the effects of climate change.
I prefer Sanders’ proposal https://berniesanders.com/issues/high-speed-internet-all/
Sanders' proposals in general have no chance of actually passing in Congress, so I'll trust the Dems' one.
Hint to Dems: GET CAUGHT TRYING.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I definitely think we shouldn't give another dime in tax credits to broadband providers - a signed contract with aggressive enforcement provisions would be in order, and if the current major ISPs don't want to build the infrastructure we should find someone else who will.
> current major ISPs don't want to build the infrastructure we should find someone else who will. There are no such people. Both Baltimore and Los Angeles put out bids asking for companies willing to build fiber networks on certain terms. Nobody volunteered. E.g. https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/9/16863352/free-internet-los-an... > Los Angeles officials planned to build up a network through a public-private partnership,…