Subsidize internet providers? (loan, wholesale, credit, sell)

[Sand&Salt]

I learned so much reading the replies to "Privatization" so it led me to this subject.


Do you think internet providers should be subsidized so that non-profitable rural areas can be served?


Example: our previous rural community has only one internet provider. They ran out of bandwidth and so nobody new can get service. There is no incentive for them to invest in additional infrastructure for this tiny community. Yes, there is satellite but it is way inferior (on a side note, nobody would even come out to install it).


It would seem that internet access is on a parallel with electricity access these days.
And that would remind us of back in 1935 and the Rural Electrification act:


Electrification History 2 - Rural Electrification - Greatest Engineering Achievements of the Twentieth Century

[cdelena]

Seems like it may be best left as a local issue. The county may or may not find a way to pave all roads and maybe this is a similar issue. I think I would rather see it considered at a local or state level rather than a national basis.

[StealthRabbit]

I vote national, as small rural areas will never have the clout / finances to give us rural dwellers access to HS internet, BUT we are a pretty big chunk of USA economy. All we are talking is a gov guaranteed loan to co-ops (as they did in 1930's). Money is CHEAP, and plenty of people need to be put to work, building and USING a new rural HS IT infrastructure. Failure rates on REA co-ops were minimal <1%, yet ALL had infrastructure / capital assets to refi, so very minimal chance for default / loses.

Thus, I had mentioned yrs ago, that the UK followed similar to USA REA of the 1930's, and have run Fiber to rural UK (Much smaller than Rural USA and Canada). BUT.... in UK, NZ, much of Australia, most of Asia and western Europe I can balance my checkbook and use my VPN from a farm house. Something I CAN'T do in USA (need to drive to town tonight to transfer CAD files to Asia suppliers and to do some video conferencing) Glad I get 50 MPG on free fuel, as I have to drive a LOT to find an internet connection in USA.

The technology exists, and innovation / commerce would be greatly raised if ALL of USA was like most of the world for connectivity. FREE / Business / job creation credits for EXPANDING online commerce and adding jobs / $$ to the economy MIGHT bring the USA back to par with 3rd world countries.

We (rural USA) is really at an IT crisis. Dial-up is getting REAL old. In the winter, mice chew up the phone lines between farm an town, so if it is raining (200 days straight in PNW) you just may get NOTHING in the line of connectivity in rural USA.

If you are URBAN... DO NOT take your HS internet access lightly. Millions of very hard working, job creating, manufacturers, producers, multi million dollar operations have NO HS internet available in USA. They have NEVER had the business advantages of HS internet, and they have never had streaming video, Youtube, VPNs.

Satellite does not cut it with VPN / uploads / file transfers. Some of us live in ares of USA that dis-allow satellite dishes and cell towers.

[509]

I live in a rural county with a population of 75,000.

Fifteen years ago, the county decided to lay fiber throughout the county. So far, it has cost 120 million dollars. ALL of it paid with county dollars. No matching Federal dollars. They did get one Federal grant, but decided to turn back the money since the grant was actually more expensive than just paying for it with local monies.

Washington state no only did NOT help but actively tried to stop the county from laying the fiber system. It seems that the Democrats in western Washington are OWNED by the telecommunication companies.

Due to the interference by the Democrats the county cannot retail, but only wholesale internet service to its residents. That makes it much, more difficult to break even on the capital costs.

We have interstate roads, airports, phone service even electricity provided with Federal monies. I think that yes, the Federal government could lay fiber as a infrastructure project.

The Obama Administration had some fiber initiatives. But they appointed the former Governor of Washington state Gary Locke as the responsible official. HE is the person that led the charge to kill our county system at the turn of the century!!

No wonder the project failed!! The issue really how do we do it....when "we have the best government money can buy".

1Gbps fiber service is great. It allows all sorts of possibilities for business, health care, etc. etc. It would be a boom to our rural areas. I would NEVER live in a community without fiber access.

The question is how to make it happen.

[StealthRabbit]

Originally Posted by 509

I live in a rural county with a population of 75,000.

Fifteen years ago, the county decided to lay fiber throughout the county. So far, it has cost 120 million dollars. ALL of it paid with county dollars. No matching Federal dollars. ... I would NEVER live in a community without fiber access.

The question is how to make it happen.

with generational farms and businesses, many do not have the option to 'move'.

Counties acting alone:

1) will not have the dollars (509 is in a pretty wealthy county, especially considering the midwest and rural areas, our county (in same state) has 11,000 of which 65% are BELOW poverty)
2) Counties will not have the 'bandwidth / expertise to decide on proper plan / system, and it will be a MESS (expensive mess)
3) Counties cannot each INVENT the internet (only Al Gore can do that, single handed!)
4) Slimey ISP / data companies are wolves in waiting for their rural lunch (FEAST) they show up often, and in PACKS when internet or LED lighting appears on agenda
5) County elected officials are the LAST folks to build a sustainable high tech WORKING network (poof, the elected officials make their 'lifetime / lifeline / revenue contacts and they are GONE from elected positions and on into the REAL money!)
6) Counties have bigger fish to fry (huge increase in rural murders / serious crime)
7) 3,143 counties and county-equivalents in the United States. could be a logistics problem. (though many urban counties already have SOME type of service, MOST counties could use an upgrade to enable, rather than discourage commerce.

[Wartrace]

I live in a rural area with no cable/fiber/DSL available. I do not support the idea that taxpayers should be forced to pay my internet costs.

I have an expensive 40gb per month plan with Sprint and a second backup through AT&T. If I wanted to I have the option of satellite internet. Sure it would be nice if there was fiber running down my road but there are only 3 houses in a four mile stretch from the "main road" and even the main road only has a house every 1/2 mile until you get closer to wartrace tn. It doesn't make sense to run fiber for 8 miles to get 20 customers.

Recently the local electric co-op has been talking about running fiber on its poles between its offices. Since Tennessee has a law prohibiting electric co-ops from offering internet services even if the area isn't served by an internet provider they can't sell it to me. They are proposing to lease the capacity to an internet provider that could run the fiber to houses and let them sell internet.

I still doubt it will ever get to my house but there is hope for some people. I think the law is a really good example of lobbyists paying off lawmakers in our statehouse.

[Pub-911]

Back in 2009, ARRA (the "stimulus bill") allocated $7.2 billion to expanding broadband and wireless internet access. By 2011, different people had control of the purse strings. Some of the consequences that elections have end up being unfavorable blowback.

[MLSFan]

petition facebook to bring their free internet project to the US instead of africa

[Hemlock140]

Originally Posted by cdelena

Seems like it may be best left as a local issue. The county may or may not find a way to pave all roads and maybe this is a similar issue. I think I would rather see it considered at a local or state level rather than a national basis.

I agree, it's a local issue. Residents can agree (or not) to pay for the expansion of the required infrastructure if it's that important to them. They have chosen where to live, and it's not the responsibility of those living in more populated areas to help them get faster service. There are many posts here on the city forums asking about internet service, just do the research before moving to a place, to make sure it has everything (including fast internet) that you need to live there happily.

[509]

I disagree it is not a local issue.

The reason we have had fiber for 15 years is the Federal government required the county to run fiber to all its electrical generating and support facilities.

At that point, it made sense to run the county fiber into schools, hospitals, fire and police stations and other public services. It was a short step to then routing it to county residents.

The Federal government is laying fiber all over this country. They run to military bases and government offices. It just makes sense to tie it all together. The current situation is like allowing the states to build the interstate highway system. BTW in Washington state the Legislature almost voted to stop I-90 at Moses Lake. Yeah, that works well.

I think the Federal government needs to build a fiber network linking schools, government offices, hospitals, etc. etc.

Then the local counties can decide if they would like to expand the network from there.

You know there are "remote" operating robots that with a fiber connection could be used for emergency care in rural areas. Not to mention engineering, forestry and other professional applications.

The internet is NOT about Netflix!