News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A quarter of Alabamians live in homes without internet ac... by uzzgx on Saturday December 28, 2019 @07:43AM (#21898586)
In first world countries, the government ("we") takes care of this by paying telcos to deploy access to remote (i.e., unprofitable) areas.
Re:A quarter of Alabamians live in homes without internet ac... by huffmsa on Saturday December 28, 2019 @07:50AM (#21898616)
Not sustainable. "Government money" (money taken from it's citizenry) eventually runs out.

Plus granting a firm a government monopoly on a region is always a bad idea that ultimately hinders the development and deployment of new solutions.

Cab medallions in NYC. Fixed price airline tickets. Exclusive right to trade spices west of the prime meridian.

Re:A quarter of Alabamians live in homes without internet ac... by formercoder on Saturday December 28, 2019 @08:00AM (#21898656)
Not always. Certain services, electricity for example, are “natural monopolies”. Once someone is in there, it makes no economic sense for others to compete, this is where government regulated monopolies are the optimal solution.
Re:A quarter of Alabamians live in homes without internet ac... by huffmsa on Saturday December 28, 2019 @08:09AM (#21898683)
Oh? How's PG&Es monopoly working for California? I'm of the opinion that much smaller grids with high volume solar would do a lot better of a job.

Sure the monopoly made sense when it was issued, but once tech catches up to the point of making it obsolete, the incumbent rarely goes down without a fight, delaying the deployment of new technologies, ultimately hurting consumers.

Re:A quarter of Alabamians live in homes without internet ac... by ldoughty on Saturday December 28, 2019 @09:15AM (#21898987)
For-profit government granted monopolies are a terrible idea. They should be government-run, or watched, and should not choose between providing a service to customers or money to shareholders.

I'm not in California, but sounds to me like PG&E maximized profits by reducing maintenance, then when they were really far behind and running into issues, they begged for more money from taxpayers because they could not afford to make up for years of maximizing shareholder and senior management profits... I.e. corporate welfare.. they made lots of profit knowing this would bite them in the rear end, and then want the government to bail them out. It's nearly always win-win when you're that large of a company to pull these shenanigans

Re:A quarter of Alabamians live in homes without internet ac... by thebooktocome on Saturday December 28, 2019 @08:29AM (#21898769)
PG&E's problems are due to a change in liability laws combined with decades of poor maintenance.

A non-profit government-run utility wouldn't have a profit incentive to skimp on equipment maintenance for decades. It would have other, more interesting problems.

Re:A quarter of Alabamians live in homes without internet ac... by huffmsa on Saturday December 28, 2019 @08:58AM (#21898914)
The US military skips on maintenance all the damn time.

They were running bootleg copies of Windows as recently as 2015 because they don't have the resources or incentives to upgrade.

Every office of the executive executive branch is in theory non/not-for-profit but they still manage to waste as much money if not more than a comparable private sector firm.

Federal light and power would not go well.

Re:A quarter of Alabamians live in homes without internet ac... by formercoder on Saturday December 28, 2019 @09:15AM (#21898988)
Suboptimal regulation is just that
Re:A quarter of Alabamians live in homes without internet ac... by dpau on Saturday December 28, 2019 @09:07AM (#21898959)
China disproves your theory. Over 90% have access to broadband fiber at affordable rates. Sure it's heavily censored and a tool for state propaganda. But the US looks like a third world country in comparison. I agree with the original post, we as Americans should do better.
Re:A quarter of Alabamians live in homes without internet ac... by huffmsa on Saturday December 28, 2019 @09:49AM (#21899154)
Cheap in terms of dollars.

But add in the totalitarianism, censorship, 60m+ dead in the last 50 years, and I don't think you'll find the price to be particularly cheap.

I'll take my slower but steadier progress.

Re:A quarter of Alabamians live in homes without internet ac... by dpau on Saturday December 28, 2019 @10:01AM (#21899205)
You're conflating issues. The question was whether or not government investment in internet infrastructure was possible or sustainable. China proves that it is, even over a huge country with a huge rural population. And they did it within the past decade! The US could do the same, presumably without killing millions of people. And I do mean cheap in terms of local standard of living. 1 year of high speed broadband fiber costs less than $100USD.
Re:A quarter of Alabamians live in homes without internet ac... by smileysteve on Saturday December 28, 2019 @09:30AM (#21899065)
> Plus granting a firm a government monopoly on a region is always a bad idea that ultimately hinders the development and deployment of new solutions.

I'd be surprised if these areas weren't already under at&t and charter monopoly.

Re:A quarter of Alabamians live in homes without internet ac... by jessaustin on Saturday December 28, 2019 @08:46AM (#21898851)
Not sustainable. "Government money"

The "lifeline" program [0] has existed since 1985. Granted, it's not perfect. It has often been used by ILECs to harass CLECs. Still, it seems to work. It has already been extended from landline POTS to mobile, mobile "broadband", and fixed "broadband". It may be worth investigating why more Alabamians aren't using this program.

[0] https://www.fcc.gov/general/lifeline-program-low-income-cons...

Re:A quarter of Alabamians live in homes without internet ac... by yowlingcat on Saturday December 28, 2019 @08:37AM (#21898807)
Nice touch on the last one. What do you think of a blend of the two? That is, government investments funding private companies?
Re:A quarter of Alabamians live in homes without internet ac... by huffmsa on Saturday December 28, 2019 @08:43AM (#21898839)
I like to flex my supposedly useless history degree from time to time. How else would I take shots at Julius II?

I don't think the government is particularly good at actively promoting things. Too easy to incorrectly optimize.

So to best promote investment in private firms, they should find something that currently disincentives it and stop doing that.

Re:A quarter of Alabamians live in homes without internet ac... by yowlingcat on Saturday December 28, 2019 @10:13AM (#21899259)
Are you sure about that? Even accounting for the historical contribution of the US DOD and public sector to the genesis of the Silicon Valley in the first place?
Re:A quarter of Alabamians live in homes without internet ac... by scarface74 on Saturday December 28, 2019 @08:23AM (#21898751)
How does money “run out”? Are we not collecting more of it every year?
Re:A quarter of Alabamians live in homes without internet ac... by uzzgx on Saturday December 28, 2019 @07:55AM (#21898637)
>Not sustainable. "Government money" (money taken from it's citizenry) eventually runs out.

Okay? That doesn't seem to be happening in Europe for example. Everything runs fine. There's internet access in rural areas. The world didn't collapse.

>Plus granting a firm a government monopoly on a region is always a bad idea that ultimately hinders the development and deployment of new solutions.

It's an auction. And others can choose to deploy afterwards.

>Cab medallions in NYC. Fixed price airline tickets. Exclusive right to trade spices west of the prime meridian.

Yes, the free market seems to work fine in this case. That's why these Alabamians have 1 Gbps fibre... oh no wait they have no access to the Internet at all. Dammit. Call Ayn Rand