> over $30,000 for each of those homes to get served
This doesn't seem very efficient to me.
replies(13):
This doesn't seem very efficient to me.
One of the first thing the US's founders did was create the postal service, which was to provide mail service to everyone, regardless of location; it literally costs the same to mail a letter across the street as to send it to some house in Whoknowswhere, Alaska. This provides a minimum communications infrastructure.
One of the best things that were done in the New Deal was the Rural Electrification Act, which ensured that electrical service was provided to everyone, providing a minimum availability of a critical energy source.
Also essential was the initial telecommunications acts, which required providing telephone service at the same rates to all addresses. Again, providing this service universally ensures that the entire country has a baseline communications infrastructure.
This is why the telecomm companies have been aggressively stripping copper telephone wires from their system and replacing everything with fiber or coax — because the laws requiring universal service are tied to phone service and copper wires. This is why we wind up with companies like Comcast saying "F*$k-You - $50,000 for 500m of wire" to to everyone that isn't instantly profitable.
These universal service mandates are not to benefit each individual living on some remote farm or homestead, or just more remote suburbs/exurbs.
They are to benefit THE ENTIRE NATION. Everyone benefits from infrastructure, and benefits most when the infrastructure is more universal, when everyone can has power, can communicate and can transport goods.
You live in an advanced society with advanced infrastructure. When that infrastructure gets built out, perhaps notice that it is a good thing, instead of thinking of only your own petty concerns.
Or, go find someplace where there are no taxes and you get to do everything yourself (hey, if you want it done right, do it yourself, right?) - see what you can find and how well you can live with no roads, comms, power, security, etc. Report back.
Yes it's nicer to have optic fiber, but this is somewhat luxury if Starlink exists, and if the gov funds it already.
I'm sure some other people in the US need more these 30'000 USD than optic fiber to watch Netflix with a little less buffering.
Budget could be used somewhere else (to build roads, or to support medicine/health, education, animal welfare, etc).
So it's not about refusing to help rural / remote people, but rather about optimising allocation in order to support as much people as possible.
If multiple and more reliable than Starlink existed, maybe.
The point of universal access is just that - UNIVERSAL access.
We are already failing this massively with laws granting territorial monopolies to companies like Comcast AT&T, Verizon, etc., enabling them to give the worst possible service at globally awful prices. Granting another effective monopoly to Starlink is not the solution, UNLESS we are going to regulate all of this like a utility - actual regulated standards of service, by companies with a large in-state business nexus, cost-plus rates approved by regulatory body, etc.
Using Starlink seems fine, but Starlink has effectively zero skin in the game, no in-state nexux. If it is convenient for them to shut off or downgrade service to these houses for some reason, there is essentially zero recourse for these customers or the state to exercise any leverage to cause Starlink to resume service.
This is actually an excellent solution, with a local vendor with skin in the game, providing solid fiber infrastructure.
You really seem to entirely miss the point of UNIVERSAL SERVICE. Yes, the local post office makes a wild profit on delivering a $0.60 1-ounce first-class envelope to a PO box in the same post office, and loses an insane amount delivering the same letter to/from Wherethafakawe, Alaska by bush planes. I'm sure they could be more efficient scanning the letter and sending an email to/from Alaska, but that won't get grandma's fabric sample to her grandkid, or my high-performance sample to my customer. The point is that the same service level everywhere has it's own benefits, and those benefits are to the entire nation, not only to some.
With every general solution, you can point out individual point inefficiencies. What you are failing to notice is that if you optimize for every one of those point inefficiencies, you effectively de-scale the system.
You lose ALL the benefits of a consistent system, as well as losing most of the economies of scale. This is why companies repeatedly go on binges to reduce their supply chain vendor count - sure, some of those suppliers are lower cost at that point, but the overhead of managing many redundant suppliers outweighs the cost.
And you are looking at only one point of the costs, getting bent out of shape, and trowing out a generic "taxes bad" comment. Yes, it looks like a clueless anti-government political comment.
It might even be the case that in some circumstances, a Starlink solution could be best. But you have done none of the analysis to establish that claim, and other people, who are actually 'in the arena' have found a different solution is better. If you want to challenge them, do so with something better than "ugh, taxes and spending bad".