You are a private person and you choose to live deep in the country-side / on a desert / on an island / remote location / deep in the forest.
Who should pay for your road, your electricity, your water, your internet connection when you are the one mostly benefiting from it ?
Taxes have to be used primarily with the goal to maximize public interest, not the interests of single private persons.
Perhaps a Starlink connection would have been enough for them and perfectly fine if it's a single family.
Could there have been alternatives that maximize coverage ? For example, by supporting deployment of 5G antennas as public infrastructure (thus, benefiting the whole area).
This family doesn't necessarily need a single fiber cable to reach their house.
> Perhaps a Starlink connection would have been enough for them and perfectly fine if it's a single family.
Oh the irony... Starlink is also tapping (federal) government subsidies to provide internet service to rural areas. Tapping government subsidies is a very important part of Starlink's plan to become profitable.
I don't understand this comment. There are a lot of places in the country where a majority pays for the minority when it comes to infrastructure. Case in point NYC or Chicago, whose populations and tax bases make up a majority of the state, yet their taxes still go to maintaining the state infrastructure as a whole. The state, in order to function, needs some kind of continuity and predictability to plan for population dynamics and spread out taxes accordingly.
5G base stations have a range on the order of 1000 feet, and need to be connected to a high-speed backbone to function.
In rural areas, a 1000 foot radius doesn't get you very many people, and since you ran fiber all the way to that antenna, you might as well run fiber the rest of the way.
It's pretty widely accepted that the government will help people gain and maintain access to infrastructure, even (especially?) in rural areas. Ever heard of the Rural Electrification Administration[0]? The Tennessee Valley Authority[1]? Despite the fact that it is not considered a _necessary_ utility de jure, internet access is hugely important in our modern society and economy. These areas have post offices, electricity, trash service, etc., so why shouldn't they also have access to internet? Those other utilities cost money to install as well.
You should look up the area that Jared is building his fiber network. These homes are probably 10 minutes from the University of Michigan. It's not a remote country-side, it's just far enough out of reach of Comcast that they won't build out. I understand your point if someone decides to build their house on 20 acres of forest, but this is not that. That's why we need these programs.
Some people are farmers. Everyone benefits if there is Internet in remote places in order to help people stay and live where the farming is going to happen.
As a general principle it's fine. The issue is a combination of:
* Providing infrastructure and services for rural areas like this is inherently monumentally expensive.
* For most people, rural living is some kind of choice: most could likely move to a cheap suburb that could be served much more easily, but don't want to.
* Far from having more money to fund things like this, rural areas are actually much less economically productive per person, on average. Of course you need some people to farm, but in practice you have many more people than that.
Essentially, society is providing a heavy subsidy for a lifestyle choice for most people, with no compelling government interest there.
While I do think we should make a goal of hooking everyone up to decent internet, any sensible plan has to look at how we can do this efficiently. Absolutely bare minimum, we should be superceding local zoning laws and similar that often make it illegal for people to build more densely in these areas (small town city centers), such that people can individually choose to live in a more efficient way in the same general area if they want. Not talking about skyscrapers obviously, but traditional, walkable downtowns with townhomes or duplexes would be a great thing.
Some Americans may scoff at this, but you don't need large numbers of people to get walkable neighborhoods. I've been through Bavarian villages of a few hundred people that were more walkable than US cities 100x their size.
It's especially nonsensical that we'd heavily subsidize super low density living when that's basically always gonna be worse for the environment. It means you need much more land per person, obviously, so you gotta cut into nature more, plus higher energy requirements.
He's actually connecting hundreds of people that otherwise wouldn't have such access to fiber. The big ISPs took WAY more money [0] and delivered less.
The point of taxes is to provide collective goods, such as infrastructure, defense, education.
One of the first thing the US's founders did was create the postal service, which was to provide mail service to everyone, regardless of location; it literally costs the same to mail a letter across the street as to send it to some house in Whoknowswhere, Alaska. This provides a minimum communications infrastructure.
One of the best things that were done in the New Deal was the Rural Electrification Act, which ensured that electrical service was provided to everyone, providing a minimum availability of a critical energy source.
Also essential was the initial telecommunications acts, which required providing telephone service at the same rates to all addresses. Again, providing this service universally ensures that the entire country has a baseline communications infrastructure.
This is why the telecomm companies have been aggressively stripping copper telephone wires from their system and replacing everything with fiber or coax — because the laws requiring universal service are tied to phone service and copper wires. This is why we wind up with companies like Comcast saying "F*$k-You - $50,000 for 500m of wire" to to everyone that isn't instantly profitable.
These universal service mandates are not to benefit each individual living on some remote farm or homestead, or just more remote suburbs/exurbs.
They are to benefit THE ENTIRE NATION. Everyone benefits from infrastructure, and benefits most when the infrastructure is more universal, when everyone can has power, can communicate and can transport goods.
You live in an advanced society with advanced infrastructure. When that infrastructure gets built out, perhaps notice that it is a good thing, instead of thinking of only your own petty concerns.
Or, go find someplace where there are no taxes and you get to do everything yourself (hey, if you want it done right, do it yourself, right?) - see what you can find and how well you can live with no roads, comms, power, security, etc. Report back.
My parents currently have four options for Internet access. One is only on their phones with no tethering. The other is to dial in over a landline at 33.6k if they can find an ISP that still offers that. There's existing satellite, which is 512k down and like 25k up for hundreds a month. Or there's a wireless 256k plan that costs $2000 to install.
There's no ISDN, no DSL, no Starlink yet, no 5G fixed, no 4G fixed, no power-line Internet. They are not watching any Netflix, and things like Social Security and Medicare are increasingly accessed through poorly performing, bloated websites. They paid taxes more than five decades of full-time work. There's fiber within two miles of them, but nobody's used it to extend what's becoming a modern necessity to their house.
If they lived on the other side of the road, they'd have the area's rural electric cooperative. Then they could get at least 10 Mbps over the power lines. However, they're on a corporate power provider that has 4 to 12 hour outages 3 to 4 times a year besides not offering similar additional services.
With the right negotiations and a few hundred thousand dollars, their moderately densely populated unincorporated area could serve hundreds of homes with broadband. The cable and phone companies were given millions upon millions of subsidies every month for decades now for rural phone and Internet access, but have not served this area. It's time something else is done in these areas to give them the same access to the modern marketplace and to government services as everyone else.
On top of that, Starlink was just adjudged to NOT QUALIFY for this type of service. [1]
You cannot simply assume as you stated, that just because something looks like a viable solution, it is.
Again, the people that decided are doing the WORK of figuring out how to make the system work, in contrast to taking random potshots in an internet forum.
From the article:
>> The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has rejected Starlink's application to receive $885.51 million in broadband funding
>>The FCC said that both Starlink and LTD "failed to meet program requirements," submitted "risky proposals," and that their "applications failed to demonstrate that the providers could deliver the promised service."
If multiple and more reliable than Starlink existed, maybe.
The point of universal access is just that - UNIVERSAL access.
We are already failing this massively with laws granting territorial monopolies to companies like Comcast AT&T, Verizon, etc., enabling them to give the worst possible service at globally awful prices. Granting another effective monopoly to Starlink is not the solution, UNLESS we are going to regulate all of this like a utility - actual regulated standards of service, by companies with a large in-state business nexus, cost-plus rates approved by regulatory body, etc.
Using Starlink seems fine, but Starlink has effectively zero skin in the game, no in-state nexux. If it is convenient for them to shut off or downgrade service to these houses for some reason, there is essentially zero recourse for these customers or the state to exercise any leverage to cause Starlink to resume service.
This is actually an excellent solution, with a local vendor with skin in the game, providing solid fiber infrastructure.
You really seem to entirely miss the point of UNIVERSAL SERVICE. Yes, the local post office makes a wild profit on delivering a $0.60 1-ounce first-class envelope to a PO box in the same post office, and loses an insane amount delivering the same letter to/from Wherethafakawe, Alaska by bush planes. I'm sure they could be more efficient scanning the letter and sending an email to/from Alaska, but that won't get grandma's fabric sample to her grandkid, or my high-performance sample to my customer. The point is that the same service level everywhere has it's own benefits, and those benefits are to the entire nation, not only to some.
With every general solution, you can point out individual point inefficiencies. What you are failing to notice is that if you optimize for every one of those point inefficiencies, you effectively de-scale the system.
You lose ALL the benefits of a consistent system, as well as losing most of the economies of scale. This is why companies repeatedly go on binges to reduce their supply chain vendor count - sure, some of those suppliers are lower cost at that point, but the overhead of managing many redundant suppliers outweighs the cost.
And you are looking at only one point of the costs, getting bent out of shape, and trowing out a generic "taxes bad" comment. Yes, it looks like a clueless anti-government political comment.
It might even be the case that in some circumstances, a Starlink solution could be best. But you have done none of the analysis to establish that claim, and other people, who are actually 'in the arena' have found a different solution is better. If you want to challenge them, do so with something better than "ugh, taxes and spending bad".
Snark aside, I spent years being angry about every government subsidy until I learned that some subsidies are pork barrel spending and some are just the normal allocations required by a functioning government to maintain the expected standard of living.
I don't understand this sentiment. Taxes are levied to then pay for things such as infrastructure which this qualifies as. How else should this work?
You are a private person and you choose to live deep in the country-side / on a desert / on an island / remote location / deep in the forest.
Who should pay for your road, your electricity, your water, your internet connection when you are the one mostly benefiting from it ?
Taxes have to be used primarily with the goal to maximize public interest, not the interests of single private persons.
Perhaps a Starlink connection would have been enough for them and perfectly fine if it's a single family.
Could there have been alternatives that maximize coverage ? For example, by supporting deployment of 5G antennas as public infrastructure (thus, benefiting the whole area).
This family doesn't necessarily need a single fiber cable to reach their house.
> Perhaps a Starlink connection would have been enough for them and perfectly fine if it's a single family.
Oh the irony... Starlink is also tapping (federal) government subsidies to provide internet service to rural areas. Tapping government subsidies is a very important part of Starlink's plan to become profitable.
Ref: "SpaceX's Starlink wins nearly $900 million in FCC subsidies to bring internet to rural areas" https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/07/spacex-starlink-wins-nearly-...
5 replies →
I don't understand this comment. There are a lot of places in the country where a majority pays for the minority when it comes to infrastructure. Case in point NYC or Chicago, whose populations and tax bases make up a majority of the state, yet their taxes still go to maintaining the state infrastructure as a whole. The state, in order to function, needs some kind of continuity and predictability to plan for population dynamics and spread out taxes accordingly.
1 reply →
5G base stations have a range on the order of 1000 feet, and need to be connected to a high-speed backbone to function.
In rural areas, a 1000 foot radius doesn't get you very many people, and since you ran fiber all the way to that antenna, you might as well run fiber the rest of the way.
That's fair, maybe this family should be able to opt out of taxes that don't benefit them then, you know since they are so remote and everything.
9 replies →
It's pretty widely accepted that the government will help people gain and maintain access to infrastructure, even (especially?) in rural areas. Ever heard of the Rural Electrification Administration[0]? The Tennessee Valley Authority[1]? Despite the fact that it is not considered a _necessary_ utility de jure, internet access is hugely important in our modern society and economy. These areas have post offices, electricity, trash service, etc., so why shouldn't they also have access to internet? Those other utilities cost money to install as well.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority
You should look up the area that Jared is building his fiber network. These homes are probably 10 minutes from the University of Michigan. It's not a remote country-side, it's just far enough out of reach of Comcast that they won't build out. I understand your point if someone decides to build their house on 20 acres of forest, but this is not that. That's why we need these programs.
Do you also think the [16th amendment][1] should be repealed? Because what you are arguing is basically the same as the opponents of that amendment.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni...
Some people are farmers. Everyone benefits if there is Internet in remote places in order to help people stay and live where the farming is going to happen.
5G internet is no replacement for wired internet. The latency is terrible for use cases like gaming.
2 replies →
As a general principle it's fine. The issue is a combination of:
* Providing infrastructure and services for rural areas like this is inherently monumentally expensive.
* For most people, rural living is some kind of choice: most could likely move to a cheap suburb that could be served much more easily, but don't want to.
* Far from having more money to fund things like this, rural areas are actually much less economically productive per person, on average. Of course you need some people to farm, but in practice you have many more people than that.
Essentially, society is providing a heavy subsidy for a lifestyle choice for most people, with no compelling government interest there.
While I do think we should make a goal of hooking everyone up to decent internet, any sensible plan has to look at how we can do this efficiently. Absolutely bare minimum, we should be superceding local zoning laws and similar that often make it illegal for people to build more densely in these areas (small town city centers), such that people can individually choose to live in a more efficient way in the same general area if they want. Not talking about skyscrapers obviously, but traditional, walkable downtowns with townhomes or duplexes would be a great thing.
Some Americans may scoff at this, but you don't need large numbers of people to get walkable neighborhoods. I've been through Bavarian villages of a few hundred people that were more walkable than US cities 100x their size.
It's especially nonsensical that we'd heavily subsidize super low density living when that's basically always gonna be worse for the environment. It means you need much more land per person, obviously, so you gotta cut into nature more, plus higher energy requirements.
He's actually connecting hundreds of people that otherwise wouldn't have such access to fiber. The big ISPs took WAY more money [0] and delivered less.
[0] https://newnetworks.com/bookofbrokenpromises.htm
The point of taxes is to provide collective goods, such as infrastructure, defense, education.
One of the first thing the US's founders did was create the postal service, which was to provide mail service to everyone, regardless of location; it literally costs the same to mail a letter across the street as to send it to some house in Whoknowswhere, Alaska. This provides a minimum communications infrastructure.
One of the best things that were done in the New Deal was the Rural Electrification Act, which ensured that electrical service was provided to everyone, providing a minimum availability of a critical energy source.
Also essential was the initial telecommunications acts, which required providing telephone service at the same rates to all addresses. Again, providing this service universally ensures that the entire country has a baseline communications infrastructure.
This is why the telecomm companies have been aggressively stripping copper telephone wires from their system and replacing everything with fiber or coax — because the laws requiring universal service are tied to phone service and copper wires. This is why we wind up with companies like Comcast saying "F*$k-You - $50,000 for 500m of wire" to to everyone that isn't instantly profitable.
These universal service mandates are not to benefit each individual living on some remote farm or homestead, or just more remote suburbs/exurbs.
They are to benefit THE ENTIRE NATION. Everyone benefits from infrastructure, and benefits most when the infrastructure is more universal, when everyone can has power, can communicate and can transport goods.
You live in an advanced society with advanced infrastructure. When that infrastructure gets built out, perhaps notice that it is a good thing, instead of thinking of only your own petty concerns.
Or, go find someplace where there are no taxes and you get to do everything yourself (hey, if you want it done right, do it yourself, right?) - see what you can find and how well you can live with no roads, comms, power, security, etc. Report back.
I'm saying to allocate budget to maximize as much as possible the public/global interest.
Yes it's nicer to have optic fiber, but this is somewhat luxury if Starlink exists, and if the gov funds it already.
I'm sure some other people in the US need more these 30'000 USD than optic fiber to watch Netflix with a little less buffering.
Budget could be used somewhere else (to build roads, or to support medicine/health, education, animal welfare, etc).
So it's not about refusing to help rural / remote people, but rather about optimising allocation in order to support as much people as possible.
My parents currently have four options for Internet access. One is only on their phones with no tethering. The other is to dial in over a landline at 33.6k if they can find an ISP that still offers that. There's existing satellite, which is 512k down and like 25k up for hundreds a month. Or there's a wireless 256k plan that costs $2000 to install.
There's no ISDN, no DSL, no Starlink yet, no 5G fixed, no 4G fixed, no power-line Internet. They are not watching any Netflix, and things like Social Security and Medicare are increasingly accessed through poorly performing, bloated websites. They paid taxes more than five decades of full-time work. There's fiber within two miles of them, but nobody's used it to extend what's becoming a modern necessity to their house.
If they lived on the other side of the road, they'd have the area's rural electric cooperative. Then they could get at least 10 Mbps over the power lines. However, they're on a corporate power provider that has 4 to 12 hour outages 3 to 4 times a year besides not offering similar additional services.
With the right negotiations and a few hundred thousand dollars, their moderately densely populated unincorporated area could serve hundreds of homes with broadband. The cable and phone companies were given millions upon millions of subsidies every month for decades now for rural phone and Internet access, but have not served this area. It's time something else is done in these areas to give them the same access to the modern marketplace and to government services as everyone else.
On top of that, Starlink was just adjudged to NOT QUALIFY for this type of service. [1]
You cannot simply assume as you stated, that just because something looks like a viable solution, it is.
Again, the people that decided are doing the WORK of figuring out how to make the system work, in contrast to taking random potshots in an internet forum.
From the article: >> The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has rejected Starlink's application to receive $885.51 million in broadband funding
>>The FCC said that both Starlink and LTD "failed to meet program requirements," submitted "risky proposals," and that their "applications failed to demonstrate that the providers could deliver the promised service."
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/08/fcc-rejects-star...
>>this is somewhat luxury if Starlink exists
If multiple and more reliable than Starlink existed, maybe.
The point of universal access is just that - UNIVERSAL access.
We are already failing this massively with laws granting territorial monopolies to companies like Comcast AT&T, Verizon, etc., enabling them to give the worst possible service at globally awful prices. Granting another effective monopoly to Starlink is not the solution, UNLESS we are going to regulate all of this like a utility - actual regulated standards of service, by companies with a large in-state business nexus, cost-plus rates approved by regulatory body, etc.
Using Starlink seems fine, but Starlink has effectively zero skin in the game, no in-state nexux. If it is convenient for them to shut off or downgrade service to these houses for some reason, there is essentially zero recourse for these customers or the state to exercise any leverage to cause Starlink to resume service.
This is actually an excellent solution, with a local vendor with skin in the game, providing solid fiber infrastructure.
You really seem to entirely miss the point of UNIVERSAL SERVICE. Yes, the local post office makes a wild profit on delivering a $0.60 1-ounce first-class envelope to a PO box in the same post office, and loses an insane amount delivering the same letter to/from Wherethafakawe, Alaska by bush planes. I'm sure they could be more efficient scanning the letter and sending an email to/from Alaska, but that won't get grandma's fabric sample to her grandkid, or my high-performance sample to my customer. The point is that the same service level everywhere has it's own benefits, and those benefits are to the entire nation, not only to some.
With every general solution, you can point out individual point inefficiencies. What you are failing to notice is that if you optimize for every one of those point inefficiencies, you effectively de-scale the system.
You lose ALL the benefits of a consistent system, as well as losing most of the economies of scale. This is why companies repeatedly go on binges to reduce their supply chain vendor count - sure, some of those suppliers are lower cost at that point, but the overhead of managing many redundant suppliers outweighs the cost.
And you are looking at only one point of the costs, getting bent out of shape, and trowing out a generic "taxes bad" comment. Yes, it looks like a clueless anti-government political comment.
It might even be the case that in some circumstances, a Starlink solution could be best. But you have done none of the analysis to establish that claim, and other people, who are actually 'in the arena' have found a different solution is better. If you want to challenge them, do so with something better than "ugh, taxes and spending bad".
The resources of this country are to be allocated for the benefit of its citizens.
In other words, it is our money, and we can spend it on decent internet for rural areas.
Lack of internet access is disenfranchising when numerous necessary government and school services has been moved online.
>The resources of this country are to be allocated for the benefit of its citizens.
Sounds like a great idea! When can we get started?
What do you think roads are?
Snark aside, I spent years being angry about every government subsidy until I learned that some subsidies are pork barrel spending and some are just the normal allocations required by a functioning government to maintain the expected standard of living.