←back to thread

1135 points carride | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
qwe----3 ◴[] No.32411651[source]
> over $30,000 for each of those homes to get served

This doesn't seem very efficient to me.

replies(13): >>32411670 #>>32411682 #>>32411693 #>>32411775 #>>32411831 #>>32411955 #>>32412075 #>>32412123 #>>32412258 #>>32413016 #>>32413760 #>>32414638 #>>32420670 #
rvnx ◴[] No.32411670[source]
To say the least, it's more about siphoning public taxes
replies(4): >>32411904 #>>32412395 #>>32412528 #>>32412719 #
deelowe ◴[] No.32411904[source]
I don't understand this sentiment. Taxes are levied to then pay for things such as infrastructure which this qualifies as. How else should this work?
replies(2): >>32412026 #>>32420580 #
rvnx ◴[] No.32412026[source]
You are a private person and you choose to live deep in the country-side / on a desert / on an island / remote location / deep in the forest.

Who should pay for your road, your electricity, your water, your internet connection when you are the one mostly benefiting from it ?

Taxes have to be used primarily with the goal to maximize public interest, not the interests of single private persons.

Perhaps a Starlink connection would have been enough for them and perfectly fine if it's a single family.

Could there have been alternatives that maximize coverage ? For example, by supporting deployment of 5G antennas as public infrastructure (thus, benefiting the whole area).

This family doesn't necessarily need a single fiber cable to reach their house.

replies(10): >>32412247 #>>32412308 #>>32412356 #>>32412361 #>>32412380 #>>32412635 #>>32412674 #>>32413594 #>>32414351 #>>32414566 #
1. romellem ◴[] No.32412635{4}[source]
Do you also think the [16th amendment][1] should be repealed? Because what you are arguing is basically the same as the opponents of that amendment.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni...