|reply to The Limit |
said by The Limit:
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.
If you have a cheaper alternative that will heat a home through a harsh northeastern winter I'm all ears.
said by The Limit:
Broadband, as I've argued time and time and time and time again, is not finite.
The cost to deliver broadband is real and measurable. Rural areas take away economy of scale, thus increasing the capital expenditure necessary to achieve full coverage. So the question is, who should bear the cost of the initial capital expenditure? The ISP might be able to do it, but they'll want to charge rural customers more money to recoup their investment. Do you take issue with that?
Alternatively, we can fund it through tax dollars and/or a surcharge on existing customers. Personally, I don't really regard this as fair, and if it happens I'm going to be seriously peeved that we aren't doing the same to bring natural gas to rural areas. Once the infrastructure is in place it wouldn't cost any more to deliver gas to rural customers, you just need someone to foot the initial bill to install pipelines, compressor stations, etc.
said by The Limit:
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.
To be sure, it's becoming more and more essential to life in the 21st century. But it does not follow that we need to subsidize the installation of broadband services for those areas currently lacking them. In any case, the market seems well on it's way to solving this problem with wireless services, which are much cheaper to deploy in rural areas than landline services. WISPs and cellular data are the way to go in rural areas, not investing billions of dollars to string wires all over God's country.
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.
Mineral Wells, TX
|reply to Crookshanks |
..I believe your still better off with wirelines, goverment should step in and expand or give a initiative otherwise it wont happen period.
Its unacceptable that our country continues to drop in speed ratings (AND WE ARE THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH) China for criest sakes is rolling out fiber.. they at least will have a option for rural areas in china...
it can be done here (their needs to be a option for rural areas) DSL as its stands wont be.. Sat isnt ready but it getting their, either way it does affect our great country weather or not you want to see it the 21st century relies on data and internet connections, from paying bills online, shopping, music, entertainment, and so on
|reply to FFH5 | said by FFH5
Ever hear of a diesel generator? They provided electricity to farms for decades before Franklin Roosevelt rolled out his rural electrification pgm.
Are you seriously claiming a diesel generator is anywhere near as useful or powerful enough to run modern farming areas and homes with power? Who needs electricity when you have horses to pull equipment anyway!