Verizon Again Confirms No Future FiOS Expansion >

reply to pnh102

Re: 9;

Funny you try to make the assumption that a nationwide fiber network will be similar to amtrak. Fiber itself is profitable (unlike amtrak), it's the obscene build costs that are the reason the private sector won't get involved. The government could subsidize the build out a nationwide fiber network to every home, and eventually not only make the money back, but profit from it too. See: Electricity/Electric companies.

reply to Skippy25

Nice talking point, now tell me our future is dependent on every residential property in the United States having access to gigabit+ internet speeds? Name me another country, particularly one with a significant rural population, that is spending tax dollars to build out a nationwide last mile fiber network.

C'Mon, I want to hear an explanation for why we need to spend billions of dollars to ensure that every house has a faster connection to the internet than most currently have to their home LAN. Do tell, what driver of economic prosperity will emerge when Grandma has a taxpayer funded gigabit+ internet connection?

reply to Skippy25

reply to Crookshanks
Australia.

reply to Crookshanks
I don't think anyone has said anything about REQUIRING gigabit speeds. A bit overkill there, but let's run with it anyway.

If broadband wasn't essential in this country, then why not do without? You mean that might be devastating to our economy? Oh, but isn't broadband just a luxury? Right...
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010)

reply to pnh102
My point was simple. You mention Amtrak, which is very niche and very unprofitable trying to compare it a fiber network as though a nationwide fiber network is doomed just like that niche market. Which, as I stated, is total BS.

reply to Crookshanks
Clearly I was speaking of a complete fiber network and I think your other talking points were taking care of in below comments so I wont address those.

reply to Skippy25
Yep

reply to pnh102
Amazing how you fail to mention that rail is not profitable in America because, unlike the rest of the world, the private companies own the actual rail here.

Whereas, rail is one of the most efficient and cheapest mode of transportation in every single country on the planet but America. That's over 95% of the world's population right there.

reply to biochemistry

reply to The Limit
Look, I tend to think that everyone should have access to broadband. I just don't see why those of us in rural areas should get subsides for it, nor do I think that decent broadband service requires fiber to the premises. On the last point at least, it seems we agree, so there's that.

As far as my first point, before you reply with an analogy to rural electrification or some such, rural areas still pay more money for the basic necessities of life. My wife and I have to pay to maintain a well and septic tank. We use propane to heat our home, on a BTU to BTU basis it's three times as expensive as natural gas! Fuel oil is an alternative, one that would "only" cost two and a half times as much as natural gas. Electric heating costs range from 2x to 5x the cost of natural gas, depending on where you live, so that's not really an affordable alternative for most people. Around here it would be about 4x the cost of natural gas, so there's that.

Where are my subsides for these basic necessities of life?

Invest in alternative energy sources? I mean, I live out in rural country, and we don't use propane. I don't understand why someone would want to use propane, as from personal experience, it's highly variable, unless that's your only option.

It varies from location to location. Based on your argument, electricity isn't a basic necessity, only a luxury. So why not do without? Do you see the hole in your logic? Broadband, as I've argued time and time and time and time again, is not finite. These basic utilities are based on nonrenewable sources of energy (I mean sure, nuclear, but there's always that pesky issue in dealing with waste).

I feel that there were people that thought this way about electricity. Now it's broadband, so hopefully in 20 years the thought process would be changed. I'm just saying, doing away with broadband entirely would bring our economy to a screeching halt. Broadband is becoming more of a necessity every day.
--
"We will evaluate these integrals rigorously if we can, and non-rigorously if we must".
---Victor Moll, invited talk, Tom Osler Fest (April 17, 2010)

I'm sure there were people like you that claimed the same thing when electricity was being rolled out. And yet you have electricity in your rural area dont you? So it was OK for that subsidy to be had for electricity but it is not OK for the "next big utility" of broadband?

Or do you think yourself and those like you should be running wind mills, damming up streams or running hamster wheel farms to satisfy your electrical needs?

OK and your point......?

Wait so what you are saying is that government brought electricity to them just like they should broadband.

Agreed!