Re:“Dig once” bill could bring fiber Internet to much of the US
by Retric on Thursday March 23, 2017 @02:28PM
(#13942625)
We are talking about less than 1/1,000th of our current GDP so no, it's not a question of having a larger GDP. GDP is simply not the problem, it's local monopolies that keep getting funded to fix a problem have no incentive to actually fix the problem.
Remember, we rolled out copper wire to every home with a far smaller GDP, doing the same for fiber is relatively speaking a smaller investment.
Re:“Dig once” bill could bring fiber Internet to much of the US
by rayiner on Thursday March 23, 2017 @02:39PM
(#13942752)
I'm asking about the economic benefits to GDP of rolling out broadband to the places that don't yet have it, considering that they can get satellite.
Re:“Dig once” bill could bring fiber Internet to much of the US
by Retric on Thursday March 23, 2017 @03:42PM
(#13943452)
There are a lot of things you can't do on satellite internet right now. VOIP is the most obvious example.
Re:“Dig once” bill could bring fiber Internet to much of the US
by comex on Thursday March 23, 2017 @07:24PM
(#13945274)
SpaceX's planned satellite network could fix that eventually… if it's ever actually constructed.
Re:“Dig once” bill could bring fiber Internet to much of the US
by greglindahl on Thursday March 23, 2017 @07:49PM
(#13945416)
OneWeb is in the lead, they actually have funding and launch contracts.
Re:“Dig once” bill could bring fiber Internet to much of the US
by jdshaf on Thursday March 23, 2017 @10:52PM
(#13946228)
I agree that OneWeb is in the lead, but playing devils advocate: SpaceX has funding (Fidelity/Google) and rockets...
Re:“Dig once” bill could bring fiber Internet to much of the US
by gnopgnip on Thursday March 23, 2017 @11:36PM
(#13946390)
Hughesnet and Exede satellite internet both offer a voip service.
Re:“Dig once” bill could bring fiber Internet to much of the US
by wongarsu on Thursday March 23, 2017 @07:17PM
(#13945228)
Every home is probably overkill. But every home that is also connected to a road, electricity, water and sewage should also have decent internet. Laying fiber for 50/10 everywhere is expensive, but so is building roads everywhere.
Because the country is huge, and building adequate backhaul to sparsely populated areas is very expensive.
> This is a drain on our economy every second we aren't working towards this actually rather easy to achieve goal.
I find this sort of argument to beg the question. How much would it really increase overall GDP to get at least 25/3 (the current FCC standard) to the 10% of the country that lacks it? Especially considering that everyone can get satellite broadband, which covers the core things people need internet for: job applications, access to online educational resources, electronic payment processing, etc.