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

71–80 of 96 posts

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#71

Post by lotsofpulp »

rayiner wrote: post #49
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 doesn't build water, sewer, or gas in many parts of the country! Where I live, less than an hour from DC and maybe 5 minutes from a Whole Foods, we don't have gas lines at all, we use propane and fuel oil. We got public water and sewer only in 2015, and each house is paying off a $30,000 assessment for that. Most of the areas around us are reliant on wells and septic systems. Ironically, we have had fi…

Then use roads as an example. The point is, internet is obviously a communal good that can’t be logistically provided by more than one entity, and the government is there for the benefit of the community.

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#73

Post by Klinky »

buttersbrian wrote: post #67
Klinky wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are jobs in the cities anymore? Jobs downtown in an expensive office building for information workers to basically do the same work they're doing at home right now seems like an artificial and outdated constraint. Why are we propping up concentrated urban cores with their congestion, pollution, expense/inflation?

If jobs were in vacuums, I'd agree. More importantly, lives are not in a vacuum and might have physical constraints. Perhaps I want to live in a city (congestion, pollution that comes with it) because the lifestyle and culture I prefer blossoms in a more urban area.

I think you could still develop that culture within town centers and density wouldn't necessarily go away completely, but ideally you could find most of what you need in your neighborhood, ideally by just walking.

A dense urban core that is too expensive to live in, and requires a long commute, is not healthy or within a lot of people's lifestyle goals.

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#74

Post by adrr »

briHass wrote: post #38
adrr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's not a lot of them and as a percentage of total jobs, it is declining every year. Projects should be determined by ROI and be forward looking. Focusing on urban areas where it we get bigger multiplier on our economy and is forwarding looking as that is where the jobs are being created. We have lots of people in rural areas with no jobs and we have urban areas which have labor shortages.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/emp...

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#75

Post by adrr »

Wohlf wrote: post #46
adrr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You could say the same thing about any government subsidy. Why subsidize the poor when the wealthy generate most of the tax revenue, why should single people subsidize children, etc.

There's poor people in cities as well. This is more like should be invest in fossil fuels vs green energy. Cities is where the job growth is at. Propping up rural would be like propping up the coal industry.

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#76

Post by blargmaster33 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #71
rayiner wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government doesn't build water, sewer, or gas in many parts of the country! Where I live, less than an hour from DC and maybe 5 minutes from a Whole Foods, we don't have gas lines at all, we use propane and fuel oil. We got public water and sewer only in 2015, and each house is paying off a $30,000 assessment for that. Most of the areas around us are reliant on wells and septic systems. Ironically, we have had fi…

Then use roads as an example. The point is, internet is obviously a communal good that can’t be logistically provided by more than one entity, and the government is there for the benefit of the community.

You need to open a history book

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#77

Post by gurumeditations »

dantheman wrote: post #57

It feels like people don't realize how broke the US is right now. We're going to be in a recession, we're going to have massive unemployment bills, we already spent a ridiculous amount of money this year... 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.

We can’t afford anything but trillions in borrowed money show up year after year anyways.

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#78

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

dantheman wrote: post #57

It feels like people don't realize how broke the US is right now. We're going to be in a recession, we're going to have massive unemployment bills, we already spent a ridiculous amount of money this year... 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.

Countries that print their own currency and issue debt in their own currency find it very hard to go broke.

Countries that own the major global currency needed for trade are even less likely to go broke.

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#79

Post by pizzazzaro »

thomaslord wrote: post #10
manigandham wrote: post #6

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?

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.

Screw it. I guess those cities have to build it for themselves. And if they buy it, its theirs to maintain and use. Your "free" market has failed.

I wonder where I can send a resumé for this...

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#80

Post by joecool1029 »

Klinky wrote: post #58
paxys wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sanders' proposals in general have no chance of actually passing in Congress, so I'll trust the Dems' one.

This plan probably won't amount to more than a corporate hand out. Much rather have Bernie's plan. 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…

> • 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.

Limit it to eminent domain on the poles for rural/suburban municipalities. Costly, but keeps the rent seekers off the physical medium. For populations over X density, use the money to drop fiber underground, again that the municipality owns.

Issue licenses to companies that want to play ball with the towns and cities, or give the people the option to have the town run it. Spectrum/poles/underground should be public resources. Fine and/or revoke licenses from companies that are running scams and failing to reach this commitment.

States have flexed before to compel companies to meet build-out requirements: https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/12/20691853/charter-spectrum...

Spectrum squatters are a real problem for smaller WISP's. DISH is likely the largest mid-band squatter on the market right now, having built a single test tower with their AWS-4 spectrum license. It was supposed to cover 70% of the population by March 2020 and they blew it off for 3 years or so and are requesting another 3. https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/licenseAdminSum.j...

Post reply on HN