the market solving rural needs

[wardd]

AT&T, Verizon Reject FCC Funds To Close Digital Divide

But one expert said AT&T and Verizon likely declined the funds for another reason: They did not think it was enough. Phone companies have avoided delivering broadband to rural areas because their profit margins are higher in cities. It would likely take a much larger government subsidy to change their minds, said Benjamin Lennett, a policy director at the New America Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy institute.

"It underscores how flawed it is to rely on private companies to serve these rural areas where their margins are not going to be that high," Lennett said.AT&T and Verizon have shown declining interest in serving rural communities with wired Internet service.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...ref=technology

[purri]

It appears that trickle down doesn't.

[wardd]

It appears that trickle down doesn't.

not even with government money

[Ian McColgin]

This argument goes back to road and canal building in colonial times. Some folk believe that the whole society benefits from well developed and spread infrastructure and others want to cream the profits from the trunk lines. Look at air fares. More to the point of this thread, look at how once we broke the Bell system, developing all sorts of rural service became a cost burden put on the smaller population. Depends on your view of justice, and whether you think society should benefit all or just the most densly packed.

[wardd]

just wait till the post office is privatized

[hokiefan]

Kind of interesting that the only cell service that works in Mapleton, IL (population 250) is Verizon. AT&T comes the closest 2nd, dies as you get to the bend in Highway 24. One of life's little mysteries.

Cheers,

Bobby

[Waddie]

I think this topic deserves an honest debate. What services should government subsidize in rural areas and to what extent? What should they subsidize anywhere?

Around here the Interstate I70 is a toll road, paid for by the motorists who use it. Many bridges are toll bridges, and a couple of urban throughways are toll operated. All of our parks/lakes are financed by user fees. Should user fees replace subsidies on a larger scale?

Maybe rural residents should just accept the fact that certain services are just too costly and they won't be getting them. Maybe they should accept that they may have to pay more for certain things. A friend of mine says that everybody was perfectly happy with the gravel roads they'd had for years and other aspects of rural life, but as soon as the city people finish building their rural get-aways they start lobbying for all kinds of improvements including paved roads. Then up go the property taxes and some of the original residents can't afford it anymore.

What level of subsidized services should rural residents expect? When does it cease to be a rural area? Should user fees gradually replace tax dollars or borrowing ?

regards,
Waddie

[2MeterTroll]

well it wont be rural long we are well on our way to 8 billion souls. pretty soon we will have folks living in each others armpits. I guess farmers are less important than lawyers. folks providing food for the country dont deserve to get the benefits of society. Well I dont know about subsidizing every thing but i can bet the rural population is a better bet than the oil companies and banks.

I think this topic deserves an honest debate. What services should government subsidize in rural areas and to what extent? What should they subsidize anywhere?

Around here the Interstate I70 is a toll road, paid for by the motorists who use it. Many bridges are toll bridges, and a couple of urban throughways are toll operated. All of our parks/lakes are financed by user fees. Should user fees replace subsidies on a larger scale?

Maybe rural residents should just accept the fact that certain services are just too costly and they won't be getting them. Maybe they should accept that they may have to pay more for certain things. A friend of mine says that everybody was perfectly happy with the gravel roads they'd had for years and other aspects of rural life, but as soon as the city people finish building their rural get-aways they start lobbying for all kinds of improvements including paved roads. Then up go the property taxes and some of the original residents can't afford it anymore.

What level of subsidized services should rural residents expect? When does it cease to be a rural area? Should user fees gradually replace tax dollars or borrowing ?

regards,
Waddie

[leikec]

I think this topic deserves an honest debate. What services should government subsidize in rural areas and to what extent? What should they subsidize anywhere?

Around here the Interstate I70 is a toll road, paid for by the motorists who use it. Many bridges are toll bridges, and a couple of urban throughways are toll operated. All of our parks/lakes are financed by user fees. Should user fees replace subsidies on a larger scale?

Maybe rural residents should just accept the fact that certain services are just too costly and they won't be getting them. Maybe they should accept that they may have to pay more for certain things. A friend of mine says that everybody was perfectly happy with the gravel roads they'd had for years and other aspects of rural life, but as soon as the city people finish building their rural get-aways they start lobbying for all kinds of improvements including paved roads. Then up go the property taxes and some of the original residents can't afford it anymore.

What level of subsidized services should rural residents expect? When does it cease to be a rural area? Should user fees gradually replace tax dollars or borrowing ?

regards,
Waddie

You must live in Pennsylvania or eastern Kansas. There's talk about making I-70 a toll road in Missouri--I hope it doesn't happen.

Jeff C

[leikec]

You must live in Pennsylvania or eastern Kansas. There's talk about making I-70 a toll road in Missouri--I hope it doesn't happen.

Jeff C

I'd also add that I-44 in Oklahoma is a toll road--and a sorry mess it is, too. It's always under construction, there are potholes, there are no decent services so you end up getting off and hunting around for someplace decent to eat, and then you have to screw around at another toll booth to get back on, and oftentimes people run on other roads trying to avoid tolls--which might be a reason why there isn't enough money generated via tolls to properly maintain the road.

Can you tell I don't much care for Oklahoma?

Ernie--8 billion people?? In the USA? We've got a ways to go before that happens.

Jeff C

[Chip-skiff]

We live in a place with no cable service, so we bought a satellite dish and pay $50 a month for internet service, which is quite a bit slower than cable broadband. We're also in a blank spot for cell service.

Keeps the riff-raff out, I reckon.

[BrianW]

Oh Lawdy, please let Obama give cell service to the farmers.

[2MeterTroll]

you wait and see. they are heading this way like a slow trickle but when the rush hits you may think about the good ol days of migrant workers and a few illegals from canada and mexico.

I'd also add that I-44 in Oklahoma is a toll road--and a sorry mess it is, too. It's always under construction, there are potholes, there are no decent services so you end up getting off and hunting around for someplace decent to eat, and then you have to screw around at another toll booth to get back on, and oftentimes people run on other roads trying to avoid tolls--which might be a reason why there isn't enough money generated via tolls to properly maintain the road.

Can you tell I don't much care for Oklahoma?

Ernie--8 billion people?? In the USA? We've got a ways to go before that happens.

Jeff C

[David W Pratt]

And yet, prolly in all those rural communities, most of the families have wells and septic fields instead of town water and sewer

[Kaa]

The market is not a magical fairy that will provide everything you want at the price you're willing to pay.

Kaa

[Uncle Duke]

I think this topic deserves an honest debate. What services should government subsidize in rural areas and to what extent? What should they subsidize anywhere?

Around here the Interstate I70 is a toll road, paid for by the motorists who use it. Many bridges are toll bridges, and a couple of urban throughways are toll operated. All of our parks/lakes are financed by user fees. Should user fees replace subsidies on a larger scale?

To be picky, maintenance is paid for by the tolls. The road itself was paid for by taxpayer dollars.

[BrianW]

To be picky, maintenance is paid for by the tolls. The road itself was paid for by taxpayer dollars.

I'm not paying for I-70. No way, no sir!

Oh... you said "tolls". I thought you said "trolls".

Never mind...

[Peerie Maa]

Wasn't there a post recently discussing how big money blocked a rural community setting up their own internet service?

One thing hasn't changed, Thatchers government was wrong when they said "the market will provide", it will only provide if there is a big financial profit to be made by the corporate provider both then and now.

[Kaa]

One thing hasn't changed, Thatchers government was wrong when they said "the market will provide", it will only provide if there is a big profit to be made both then and now.

"Profit" (in a free market) is another way of saying that the benefits will be greater than the costs.

Otherwise you're just asking for a subsidy -- which someone else will pay.

Kaa

[Uncle Duke]

"Profit" (in a free market) is another way of saying that the benefits will be greater than the costs.
Otherwise you're just asking for a subsidy -- which someone else will pay.

Have the benefits of the (subsidized) Interstate Highway System exceeded the costs? If so, doesn't that make them "profitable"?

[Kaa]

Have the benefits of the (subsidized) Interstate Highway System exceeded the costs? If so, doesn't that make them "profitable"?

Yes to both, so? Infrastructure projects can be profitable or white elephants or just a plain waste of resources, it all depends on the specifics.

Kaa

[Chip-skiff]

And yet, prolly in all those rural communities, most of the families have wells and septic fields instead of town water and sewer

Right-o. We bear the costs of the water and septic service.

The electric service is from a member-owned co-op founded during the federally-subsidized Rural Electrification Administration, which was started in 1935 under Roosevelt as a New Deal program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Utilities_Service

The co-op now provides satellite internet service (for a minimum $50 per month.) There is a broadband cable about two miles from us, but the company didn't run a spur up our way. Not enough people. Some of our neighbors allow those who live close to log on to their wireless networks and share the cost of the connection.

A footnote: last fall, we installed a 4 kw solar power system, grid-tied, and have become in essence a subcontractor, supplying power to the local grid for 7-8 months each year.

[Peerie Maa]

"Profit" (in a free market) is another way of saying that the benefits will be greater than the costs.

Otherwise you're just asking for a subsidy -- which someone else will pay.

Kaa

Several of us are suggesting that in order to promote the general Welfare it is appropriate that the government uses the taxes that it empowered to raise to put in place utilities that allow commerce and society to thrive. Not all of these activities can generate a profit, and nor should they be expected to do so.

[2MeterTroll]

its a matter of national security.

[Kaa]

Several of us are suggesting that in order to promote the general Welfare it is appropriate that the government uses the taxes that it empowered to raise to put in place utilities that allow commerce and society to thrive. Not all of these activities can generate a profit, and nor should they be expected to do so.

That's all perfectly fine.

The problem is rather with specific people who live in the boonies (and you don't have proper boonies in the UK, the country's not big enough), want services supplied to them, but are unwilling to pay the cost and think other people should subsidize them. That's not "promoting general welfare", that's just transferring wealth from one group of people to another.

Kaa

[Peerie Maa]

As usual it seems that this neo commie pinko nation of mine has a differing view on this
The Rural Community Broadband Fund

although our upper house thinks that we should be doing even better.

An 80-page report entitled Broadband For All - An Alternative Vision released this morning by peers sitting on the communications panel - having heard from witnesses that included BT, TalkTalk and Virgin Media representatives - highlighted concerns about the Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK) process.

The committee's chair Lord Inglewood said:

Our communications network must be regarded as a strategic, national asset. The government’s strategy lacks just that – strategy. The complex issues involved were not thought through from first principle and it is far from clear that the government’s policy will deliver the broadband infrastructure that we need – for profound social and economic reasons – for the decades to come.

It is worthy of note that small businesses on remote UK islands are actually engaged in international trade through a decent internet connection, so it is an important facilitator for the national welfare.

[Kaa]

As usual it seems that this neo commie pinko nation of mine has a differing view on this..

LOL -- "having heard from witnesses that included BT, TalkTalk and Virgin Media representatives"-- well, OF COURSE the telcos love this, it's government money going into their pocket. An opportunity to charge the government at cost-plus basis -- usually only the military-industrial complex gets to do this, but any business would just love this.

It is worthy of note that small businesses on remote UK islands are actually engaged in international trade through a decent internet connection, so it is an important facilitator for the national welfare.

The issue isn't whether they "deserve" a 'net connection, the issue is who's going to pay for it.

Kaa

[Waddie]

The market is not a magical fairy that will provide everything you want at the price you're willing to pay.

Kaa

You're right........that's the government's job.....

regards,
Waddie

[Peerie Maa]

LOL -- "having heard from witnesses that included BT, TalkTalk and Virgin Media representatives"-- well, OF COURSE the telcos love this, it's government money going into their pocket. An opportunity to charge the government at cost-plus basis -- usually only the military-industrial complex gets to do this, but any business would just love this.



The issue isn't whether they "deserve" a 'net connection, the issue is who's going to pay for it.

Kaa

Think of it as an investment by UK Plc. The more small buisnesses the stronger the economy, the more people in employment, the more the money flows round and the more to share the tax burden. If remote islands like Fair isle and the Hebrides can tap into the worlds economy through the internet and bring even more revenue into UK Plc, it is a win win all round.

[ccmanuals]

The issue is Communications companies won't provide broad band service to rural areas because they say they can't make money. People in rural areas want and need broadband for many reasons.

None of this has anything to do with your made up scenario Kaa.

[ccmanuals]

How about if utilities are allowed to deny their services to rural areas?

[Kaa]

If remote islands like Fair isle and the Hebrides can tap into the worlds economy through the internet and bring even more revenue into UK Plc, it is a win win all round.

But the usual cost/benefit criterion still applies. Your scenario makes sense only if the benefits of bringing broadband access to remote locations are higher than the costs -- and it's not automatically so.

For an absurd example, consider someone who wants to grow orchids in the Orkneys as a business and thinks the the government should subsidize his heating bill because he's "tapping into the world's economy" and "bringing revenue into UK Plc". You'd call him daft, but if he asks not for heating oil but for the broadband connection, it suddenly makes econonic sense?

Note that I'm not saying extending the 'net access to far-away places it pointless -- maybe it is and maybe it isn't, it depends. But I'm wary of hand-waving arguments for "general welfare" and overall benefits when it's clear that there is a well-defined small group of people who'll be getting the benefit, while everyone else gets stuck with the bill for it.

Kaa

[2MeterTroll]

not according to some its an outlay with no repay. problem is out in the boonies tend to EMPLOY people. cant have that economic boost unless farmer brown is ready to pay 50.000 to bring the cable up the line 50 feet.

i dont figure most folks out in the boonies are worried about having to pay they just might have a problem with paying inflated prices that dont reflect the actual work done. but you know over charging is the right of telecom folks cause they are private enterprise. I will mention that instead of letting farmer brown use his ditchwitch to dig the trench the telecom folks have to bring an operator and a machine in to do the same job at an inflated price. its kinda funny in a painful sort of way.

[Kaa]

The issue is Communications companies won't provide broad band service to rural areas because they say they can't make money. People in rural areas want and need broadband for many reasons.

I want and need a pony. For many reasons. There should be a bill which guaranteed fair and equitable access to ponies all around.

Kaa

[Kaa]

... the telecom folks have to bring an operator and a machine in to do the same job at an inflated price. its kinda funny in a painful sort of way.

*cough*unions*cough*

Kaa

[Peerie Maa]

I want and need a pony. For many reasons. There should be a bill which guaranteed fair and equitable access to ponies all around.

Kaa

Here, you can have on of mine.

[ccmanuals]

I want and need a pony. For many reasons. There should be a bill which guaranteed fair and equitable access to ponies all around.

Kaa

So your OK with rural areas being denied access to electricity, water, etc. because it doesn't fit the profit needs and business plan of the utility company ???

[Kaa]

Here, you can have on of mine.

Awww... :-)

But no! I will not be bribed while there are poor and downtrodden ponyless folks around! We need to pass a law *guaranteeing* access to ponies regardless of race, religion, mental condition, or the size of the hole in the bank account, and we need penalties! Penalties for those who stand in the way of Ponies For Everyone! And a new Department of Ponies -- that should help with the jobs situation. And pony distribution centers -- one in each state, that will make the law go through the Senate like a greased pig...

Ladies and gentlemen, I have a plan for fixing the economy!

:-D

Kaa

[2MeterTroll]

Cough cough not really, our telecom is not a union shop. cough.
its not a union operator on the ditch witch its a company (for some contracted company) dude making 16.00 an hour. cant trust this hicks in the sticks to do the job what do they know about running equipment? We hav e bring in a professional from a hundred miles away to do the job right.

its blatant stupidity and greed. rural phone service has proven to be a value as has other services that have been extended to rural areas. folks out in the boonies are willing to pay for the services but they are not willing to pay for some city guy to come do the work that they can do in less time. heck most of the farmers wouldn't even charge to do it, its 20 min on the tractor out of 10 hours.
its really hard to extort money from folks that have enough skills to do most of the work themselves.

*cough*unions*cough*

Kaa

[wardd]

That's all perfectly fine.

The problem is rather with specific people who live in the boonies (and you don't have proper boonies in the UK, the country's not big enough), want services supplied to them, but are unwilling to pay the cost and think other people should subsidize them. That's not "promoting general welfare", that's just transferring wealth from one group of people to another.

Kaa

they get that, you get something else

[wardd]

LOL -- "having heard from witnesses that included BT, TalkTalk and Virgin Media representatives"-- well, OF COURSE the telcos love this, it's government money going into their pocket. An opportunity to charge the government at cost-plus basis -- usually only the military-industrial complex gets to do this, but any business would just love this.



The issue isn't whether they "deserve" a 'net connection, the issue is who's going to pay for it.

Kaa

didn't att refuse government money?

[wardd]

kaa is not burdened by thinking things through, gives him extra time for other things

[Kaa]

kaa is not burdened by thinking things through, gives him extra time for other things

Me simple. Thinking hard. Me no like hard.

Kaa

[wardd]

Me simple. Thinking hard. Me no like hard.

Kaa

many here believe that already

[Kaa]

many here believe that already

Me SMASH!

Kaa

[2MeterTroll]

watch out Kleenex man!

Me SMASH!

Kaa