> 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.
He's being paid by the government to bring Internet access to homes in the state that aren't currently wired for it.
This has already been tried. People used to subscribe to fire service, or ambulance service. It doesn't work, and is also bad for society.
If you want people to only use the things they directly pay for, and not pay for shared things through taxes, then only drive on your own driveway. Don't drive on any roads outside of your cul-de-sac. Don't get your Amazon order delivered on state and federally-funded highways. Don't fly out of any big airport in America. Don't fly on any commercial airline, since they have all received taxpayer bailouts in the past. Don't use a bank. Don't use money. Hire a security guard to protect your property, and another one to follow you around every day. Get your water from a well on your own property.
For an 88-day-old account to be this stunningly obtuse, I'm going with "troll," rather than "genuinely completely oblivious to how the world works."
That's interesting - FEMA says that 70% of the fire departments in the US are all-volunteer, and >90% have a volunteer component.
https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/registry/summary#g
I've lived in areas with volunteer fire departments that paid for their operations primarily with "fire dues" for most of my life. As far as I know, most volunteer departments operate like that.
I had no idea they didn't work. I wonder if anyone has told them?
Subscription fire departments were commercial entities, sometimes run by insurance companies, to which you paid a regular subscription fee. If you house was on fire, they'd extinguish the flames. If your neighbor's house was on fire, and they didn't subscribe, then they let it burn.
Citing a completely different thing does not refute what I wrote. It just illustrates that you don't fully understand the issue.