Lewis Bergman wrote: >>> I rail against these types of projects not because they typically fail, >>> which they do, >> That's the second time you make that claim. Could you please back this up >>with some sources? >Do you mind enlightening us with all the tales of success and glory? Excellent deflection, again! That mean it's just something you made up then?
>> Could you also shine some light on those federal bailout programs you say >>are paying for all the failures? > RUS is federal and has taken the hit for a number of projects, not sure on > Fiber and I wasn't just referring > to fiber. Maybe you are but I wasn't being that narrow. I'm sure RUS has taken some hits on their projects. However, that's not the point. RUS loans are applied for in advance of starting a project, not after the fact. You wrote that there is a federal bailout program that "they ask for ... when they get in over their head." What federal grants or assistance are you referring to, since it can't be RUS? >>> Let the free market system take care of everything else. >> How about them that the free market does not serve? > Who cares? Really...who cares. That's not very neighborly of you. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it totally ignores second order effects. Moving isn't free, neither for the individual nor for society. Then there's the people that just can't move. Marginalizing people isn't very beneficial to society either, not even if you just count dollars and cents. A lot of things require or are made possible by broadband. I'd rather have my tax dollars fund RUS loans or the like than use them for unemployment benefits. So, would you rather spend your hard earned tax dollars of building new infrastructure so that the people that had to move can have needed services or would you permit broadbandless people to pay for their own damn internet, even if they have to bond for it locally? According to the FCC, 1.4 million have no broadband available, not even satellite. 16 million people have satellite with 4M/1M or less available. There are not insignificant numbers. > And to be really honest, it seems like a large part of the customer base in > the areas I evaluated were wholly > disinterested in fiber. I'm fine with excluding areas where there is no demand. I'm not fine with excluding areas where there is both demand and willingness to pay, but no private actor. Jared
