I'll reply only because I'm bored. On Mon, Oct 31, 2016, 5:15 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
> Lewis Bergman wrote: > >>> I rail against these types of projects not because they typically > fail, which they do, > >> That's the second time you make that claim. Could you please back this > up with some sources? > >Do you mind enlightening us with all the tales of success and glory? > Excellent deflection, again! That mean it's just something you made up > then? > I guess you ask for facts and toy are not deflecting? Nice. > > >> Could you also shine some light on those federal bailout programs you > say are paying for all the failures? > > RUS is federal and has taken the hit for a number of projects, not sure > on Fiber and I wasn't just referring > > to fiber. Maybe you are but I wasn't being that narrow. > I'm sure RUS has taken some hits on their projects. > > However, that's not the point. RUS loans are applied for in advance of > starting a project, not after the fact. > You wrote that there is a federal bailout program that "they ask for ... > when they get in over their head." > What federal grants or assistance are you referring to, since it can't > be RUS? > Maybe you have difficulty understanding basic economics. If I loam you money in advance of doing something and you don't pay me I still lose money. If that lender is the government then the government last money. Since the government is funded by tax dollars you just got a tax funded bailout. You didn't pay me back a debt do you ate made while while I am not. Your refusal to comprehend fundamental concepts is tiring. Mauve that's is your strategy. > >>> Let the free market system take care of everything else. > >> How about them that the free market does not serve? > > Who cares? Really...who cares. > That's not very neighborly of you. > Maybe not but I really don't care. I actually think making my neighbor pay fits own way is better for my neighbor than paying it for him. > You are of course entitled to your opinion, but it totally ignores > second order effects. > Moving isn't free, neither for the individual nor for society. Then > there's the people that just can't move. > Do you have facts to back that up? And if you just can't move and you can't get Internet you obviously don't need it. > > Marginalizing people isn't very beneficial to society either, not even > if you just count dollars and cents. Can you quote Any factual basis for your opinion? > A lot of things require or are made possible by broadband. I'd rather have > my tax dollars fund RUS loans or the like than use them for unemployment > benefits. > I would like to see you quote sources for the innuendo you purpose as fact. You are implying that the lack of Internet prevents unemployment in areas that previously had none of insufficient speed? I Persian know several it managers that run large corporate networks with thousands of employees. They both only have 20 mbs by choice due to the boost in productivity to locking down all but business traffic. He stated that almost 3% of broadband requirements before the lock down was business related. So while high speed Internet does assist in some ways it is neither an employment booster or productivity enhancer generally speaking. Want facts, search the studies as there are many of broadband Internet and its effect on productivity in the workplace. So, would you rather spend your hard earned tax dollars of building new > infrastructure so that the people that had to move can have needed services > or would you permit broadbandless people to pay for their own damn > internet, even if they have to bond for it locally? > I have said before if a local group wants to buy into some bs go for it. If that gets rolled into some bailout if someplace like Detroit where the Feds step in then I would not be in favor of that. I am not saying Detroit had broadband loans it was an example of a municipal bail out. According to the FCC, 1.4 million have no broadband available, not even > satellite. 16 million people have satellite with 4M/1M or less available. > There are not insignificant numbers. > I think those are very insignificant. That is less than 1/2 percent. You seem to be assuming that those people both want and need more. Maybe you can't live with 25mbs but they likely can. And it is doubtful they will suddenly make $250k a year just because their access improves. > And to be really honest, it seems like a large part of the customer base > in the areas I evaluated were wholly > > disinterested in fiber. > I'm fine with excluding areas where there is no demand. I'm not fine > with excluding areas where there is both demand and willingness to pay, but > no private actor. > On that we can agree. Wow. World peace. The only point of contention is that no private solution would exist. But that seems close enough to me. > > Jared >
