←back to thread

1135 points carride | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.419s | source
1. notatoad ◴[] No.32416199[source]
>"I have at least two homes where I have to build a half-mile to get to one house," Mauch said, noting that it will cost "over $30,000 for each of those homes to get served."

is this really a valuable use of taxpayer money? sending a wireless link over a half-mile isn't that difficult, surely there's a better way to spend $60k of public money than delivering internet service to two families. especially now that starlink exists.

i'm all in favour of scrappy upstart ISPs, but this just seems wasteful.

replies(2): >>32416545 #>>32418468 #
2. lsllc ◴[] No.32416545[source]
You can do that with 2 Ubiquiti Nanobeams 5AC gen2's for $130 each and get a ~650Mbps link (source, I've done this a number of times!).
3. a2tech ◴[] No.32418468[source]
Especially since he's burying the lede about the people he's servicing--its true 'in general' that the area is lower income, but most of the homes he's serving will be millionaires.
replies(2): >>32420708 #>>32446553 #
4. notatoad ◴[] No.32420708[source]
without knowing specifics, that's kinda what i assumed. i see the same thing near where i live - the "low income rural areas" that get infrastructure subsidies is cottage country or areas with a lot of retirees who've moved to the country.

the actual low income people living in rural areas have to move to a suburb or a trailer park if their region isn't serviced by a utility, they don't get assistance like this.

5. TheMiller ◴[] No.32446553[source]
Washtenaw is certainly an affluent county, but not that rich. I live in another part of the county and used to work in Mauch's part of it; it's by no means mostly millionaires. I think the simplicity of the project's goal -- every household served, no exceptions -- is one of the reasons that it got off the ground.