how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
KUppianoKarl Uppiano
join:2003-02-02
Ferndale, WA | reply to Sircolby45
Re: Average U.S. Broadband Speed: 1.9Mbps said by Sircolby45:said by KUppiano:Whether you like dial-up or satellite or not, rural internetification costs lots of money. In the city, you can run a few miles of FIOS or even get DSL to run down existing copper pairs, and get hundreds of customers. In the sticks, you run several miles of FIOS (forget DSL) and you get maybe four or five customers. No provider in their right mind would invest in such a thing. It is very unlikely that they would break even. It was the same with rural electrification and telephone service. It will happen eventually, but it will take longer. Yes, but most people don't think it should ever happen. My same argument above would have applied to electricity and telephone if they wouldn't have made a bill making it mandatory. We would not have any people to raise our food if they didn't force the electric and telephone companies to provide for us, because everyone would have moved to the city. Electricity and telephone is not required to get by, but who in their right mind would go without it. Internet is becoming the same way. Wages and prices are nature's communication channel telling people the true value of goods and services. Currently, it is simply too expensive to wire the countryside with these high-tech amenities.
Many people would live in the country because they prefer the lifestyle. Without high-speed internet. Or phones. Or even electricity for that matter. Face it, we humans spent the vast bulk of our time on this planet without those things, and we flourished quite handily, thank you very much.
Even if farmers started moving to the city, it wouldn't happen overnight. The gradual reduction of the food supply would cause a gradual increase in farm prices, and we would reach a new equilibrium. Maybe farmers would make enough money that they could afford to bring high-speed internet to the country for the true cost of doing it, instead of the government forcing the city folk to pay for it whether anyone really wanted it enough to pay for it of their own free will. | |
Reviews:
 ·WildBlue
| said by KUppiano:said by Sircolby45:said by KUppiano:Whether you like dial-up or satellite or not, rural internetification costs lots of money. In the city, you can run a few miles of FIOS or even get DSL to run down existing copper pairs, and get hundreds of customers. In the sticks, you run several miles of FIOS (forget DSL) and you get maybe four or five customers. No provider in their right mind would invest in such a thing. It is very unlikely that they would break even. It was the same with rural electrification and telephone service. It will happen eventually, but it will take longer. Yes, but most people don't think it should ever happen. My same argument above would have applied to electricity and telephone if they wouldn't have made a bill making it mandatory. We would not have any people to raise our food if they didn't force the electric and telephone companies to provide for us, because everyone would have moved to the city. Electricity and telephone is not required to get by, but who in their right mind would go without it. Internet is becoming the same way. Wages and prices are nature's communication channel telling people the true value of goods and services. Currently, it is simply too expensive to wire the countryside with these high-tech amenities. Many people would live in the country because they prefer the lifestyle. Without high-speed internet. Or phones. Or even electricity for that matter. Face it, we humans spent the vast bulk of our time on this planet without those things, and we flourished quite handily, thank you very much. Even if farmers started moving to the city, it wouldn't happen overnight. The gradual reduction of the food supply would cause a gradual increase in farm prices, and we would reach a new equilibrium. Maybe farmers would make enough money that they could afford to bring high-speed internet to the country for the true cost of doing it, instead of the government forcing the city folk to pay for it whether anyone really wanted it enough to pay for it of their own free will. So you would rather let food prices rise than pay a small tax on your internet bill? To each his own I guess.
--
Wildblue Pro Pack / Beam 40 / Laredo NOC / Windows MCE SP2 | |
KUppianoKarl Uppiano
join:2003-02-02
Ferndale, WA | said by Sircolby45:So you would rather let food prices rise than pay a small tax on your internet bill? To each his own I guess. Don't be ridiculous. It's the same thing -- except with the free market you keep government coercion out of it, and people make their own choices. | |
|
