First, a subsidized rate below market is still cost. Maybe to those who do accounting the way the government does it is zero cost. If the rate you could get us 4% below the bond rate you just subsidized (or spent) 4%. I really don'tunderstand why that is difficult to comprehend.
I have seen the size of Comcast. And concatenation uses its own money not mine. AT&T evidently couldn't make money even with utopia paying for most of it. But Utopia lives on and AT&T is gone. So even though anecdotal it proves my point. In smaller towns you won't find AT&T nor Comcast fighting to get in there. It is smaller businesses with less resources than small government. On Sat, Oct 29, 2016, 4:20 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Lewis Bergman wrote: > > Government is rarely small at the level where it competes with an > enterprise, be it local or otherwise. > You are kidding me, right? > > Have you seen the size of Comcast? > > > My apologies. Railing against government as a solution instead of the > pariah it normally turns out it to be. > > Maybe not to those getting the great free or reduced stuff but > definitely to those paying for it. > I'd say there are the odd successes too. Some even mentioned in this > thread. Clear societal benefits no less, without any cost to the government. > > > > > Because I have run the numbers myself and performed the market research. > The average person in my community > > is unwilling to pay enough to recoup the investment in an acceptable > time-frame. That being the case, why is > > it someone else's responsibility to pay for what our community is > unwilling to pay? > It's not. > > I'm not advocating for freebies. All I'm saying is that if a community > is willing to pay for it, it should be allowed to have fiber. > > That being said, I'm not opposed to spending tax dollars on projects > where there is no direct financial return from the local population, but > from which society as a whole benefits from. Whether fiber networks fall > into this category is debatable. > > > Jared >
