Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
The infrastructure was already in place. That doesn't mean it couldn't or wouldn't be possible in a free society.
Contrary to popular belief government workers and corporation workers are just people in costumes with legal titles. Take off the costumes/strip their titles away and they still retain their abilities/skills/know-how.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
True, though I believe from what I’ve read they need someone to build the last mile of fiber networks.
|
You guys are looking at it the wrong way.
The whole point of bringing high-speed internet into these small towns is to promote economic-growth and increase property values. It isn't about "helping the people".
This wasn't a "people's initiative" in the real sense. It was carried-out by the chamber of commerce. Which has two missions, help local businesses, and attract people with money to move into the community.
A lot of people want to live in rural areas, but people with money want high-speed internet. And businesses increasingly-depend on internet connectivity. From small shops, to retail stores, to realtors, to hotels/hospitality/entertainment, everyone needs to be connected. And the faster, the better.
To understand this "investment", think of the Hoover Dam. Before the dam was being built, no one lived there. Why build a dam?
"If you build it, they will come".
The same principle applies for the infamous "Bridge to nowhere". Why did they want to build the bridge? The argument was that, once a bridge is built, it will make it easy to get from one side to the other, and people will begin building homes on the other side of the bridge. Because again, "if you build it, they will come".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge
Comcast is a little more cautious about making these kinds of investments. Partly because with Comcast, they only financially-benefit from the internet itself. Whereas the city gets revenue from all economic activity(sales tax, property tax, excise tax, etc).
But the worst part is, it sounds like the town plans to only offer internet at a single pricing-point. Which means everyone will pay the same amount. While I assume, Comcast would have offered many different pricing plans.
If you understand how business works, you'll realize that they make almost no profit off their entry-level offerings. The profits come mostly from the top-end, from luxuries. In fact, sometimes they offer "budget" products at a loss, as a kind of "advertisement" for their brand.
And what that means in practice, is that internet at a fixed-price for everyone, would actually work as a kind of "regressive-tax". Because not only can the poor not opt-in for slower speeds at reduced costs, but even if they choose to not pay the $79 a month for internet, they will still be forced to pay property taxes to pay for rich-people's internet.
The main argument in favor of these plans, is that they are looking-out for the future of their town. Basically, if they do the work themselves, more of the money will stay in the community. And it will keep fewer people(especially young people) from leaving, because there will be more opportunities, and a revitalization of local businesses.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
