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? >I guess you ask for facts and toy are not deflecting? Nice. I find it amusing that you cannot answer a simple request to substantiate your claim. No matter. I'll indulge you, let's see if you can muster a reply this time.
Here an example of a successful municipal fiber network: Chattanooga's EPB Fiber. Your turn. > Maybe you have difficulty understanding basic economics. Nah, the problem is more that the rest of the world doesn't subscribe to your alternative theories on economics. A loan default is not a bailout. A bailout is an act of giving financial assistance to a failing business or economy to save it from collapse. If you default on a loan the lender takes your collateral and goes after you for the rest, you do *not* get more money and keep on trucking. A bailout is where you socialize a loss. When a loan defaults it's a credit risk that actulizes. Let me repeat that: a loan default is not a bailout. Those are two totally different things. >> Moving isn't free, neither for the individual nor for society. Then there's >>the people that just can't move. > Do you have facts to back that up? Are you kidding me? You need me to convince you that it costs money to rent a u-haul truck? As a major you should know without asking anybody that any civil infrastructure only has a certain carrying capacity and if that is exceeded, you have to build more. With real money. > And if you just can't move and you can't get Internet you obviously don't > need it. Are you really, really unable to think of even one case where a person cannot move, cannot get decent internet access, cannot find a job locally, but could hold down a remote job over the Internet? >> Marginalizing people isn't very beneficial to society either, not even if >>you just count dollars and cents. > Can you quote Any factual basis for your opinion? This might come as a surprise to you, but unemployment actually costs money. > You are implying that the lack of Internet prevents unemployment in areas > that previously had none of insufficient speed? That double negative probably didn't work out as you intended. But to answer the question you most likely had, yes, lack of Internet access most definitely prevents being employed at a remote job. >> 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. > I think those are very insignificant. They might seem insignificant to you, as you are not affected. I'm pretty sure it does not seem insignificant to the actual persons themselves. Would you voluntarily give up your internet access? More than a million people is also not insignificant to society. > You seem to be assuming that those people both want and need more. Some do, some don't. What's the harm in working to give it to those that want it, need it and will pay for it? > And it is doubtful they will suddenly make $250k a year just because their > access improves. They don't need to and you are being silly for even setting the bar that high. Why wouldn't a lesser amount be enough? What if they didn't make a cent more, but they could save money? > World peace. :) Peace out, man. Jared
