←back to thread

Man who built ISP instead of paying Comcast $50K expands to hundreds of homes

(arstechnica.com)
1135 points carride | 1 comments | 10 Aug 22 13:23 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
qwe----3 ◴[10 Aug 22 13:35 UTC] 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 ◴[10 Aug 22 13:36 UTC] No.32411670[source]▶
To say the least, it's more about siphoning public taxes
replies(4): >>32411904 #>>32412395 #>>32412528 #>>32412719 #
deelowe ◴[10 Aug 22 13:50 UTC] 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 ◴[10 Aug 22 13:58 UTC] 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 #
tyen_ ◴[10 Aug 22 14:10 UTC] No.32412247[source]▶
That's fair, maybe this family should be able to opt out of taxes that don't benefit them then, you know since they are so remote and everything.
replies(4): >>32412337 #>>32412386 #>>32412917 #>>32414532 #
Consultant32452 ◴[10 Aug 22 14:18 UTC] No.32412386[source]▶
Yes.
replies(1): >>32412703 #
InitialLastName ◴[10 Aug 22 14:36 UTC] No.32412703[source]▶
Further, they should be forcibly blocked from using any services they refused to pay taxes for. No highways, flood protection, low food prices, or access to the global trade network for you!
replies(1): >>32412956 #
PythagoRascal ◴[10 Aug 22 14:50 UTC] No.32412956{3}[source]▶
Except if they purchase a subscription to these benefits through one of the two companies (same parent company) that provide them. The subscriptions are of course competitively priced, since they only have the best interest of their customers at heart.
replies(1): >>32413435 #
1. Consultant32452 ◴[10 Aug 22 15:19 UTC] No.32413435{4}[source]▶
I find it's helpful to create a monopoly on purpose, and then give that monopoly for a service an additional monopoly on violence. Then, if someone doesn't want to use the monopoly, they can just send men with weapons of war to force them to fund the monopoly at gunpoint.