←back to thread

1135 points carride | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.014s | 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 #
1. failrate ◴[] No.32412719[source]
The resources of this country are to be allocated for the benefit of its citizens.

In other words, it is our money, and we can spend it on decent internet for rural areas.

Lack of internet access is disenfranchising when numerous necessary government and school services has been moved online.

replies(1): >>32412949 #
2. Bloating ◴[] No.32412949[source]
>The resources of this country are to be allocated for the benefit of its citizens.

Sounds like a great idea! When can we get started?

replies(1): >>32413191 #
3. failrate ◴[] No.32413191[source]
What do you think roads are?

Snark aside, I spent years being angry about every government subsidy until I learned that some subsidies are pork barrel spending and some are just the normal allocations required by a functioning government to maintain the expected standard of living.