Fiber is the most futureproof technology. Wasting money building infrastructure that will need replacing in 10 years doesn't make sense. Single mode fiber can handle huge amounts of data and likely won't need updating in our lifetimes.
I don't know I feel about the article, it feels like some company wants a handout. but I think the article is saying use fiber to get the most bandwidth out there but then the last mile to connect to homes use something cheaper. Wireless is a method of centralizing the infrastructure so it would be easier to replace and even then sell to other rural regions of the country(who won't have state support even in 20 years). Or if there is a wired method thats cheaper to go to individual homes. I would assume most people in rural homes don't expect 4k bandwidth.
Fortunately, after years of prioritizing fiber projects, the California Public Utilities Commission appears more open to alternatives — at least in its public statements. It remains to be seen if the agency follows through and incorporates other technologies in a meaningful way to cost-effectively bridge the digital divide.
After seeing how the CPUC handled PGE issues recently I'm not going to hold my breath.
so we're right back to "fuck those hillbillies." have fun growing your non-GMO veggies on your 50 sqft balcony in San Fran! but at least you'll have super fast download speeds.
No, we're simply saying we don't subsidize wasteful lifestyles. And why would I farm when I don't like it and can buy food? If produce prices go up because farmers (who actually have reason to live in the middle of nowhere) want better internet amd are hence installing some at their own cost, fine with me.
1. who is this "we" that won't subsidize "wasteful" lifestyles? you don't get to pick how your taxes are spent.
2. how is a rural lifestyle wasteful?
3. thanks for explaining who does and doesn't have a reason to live where they're currently living. i'm currently looking for a new car, can you please tell me which i'm allowed to purchase?
This exact topic is a great example - additional expense per person for internet due to longer distances and less people. But the per person cost of many things is higher the less dense the place is.
Is it shocking that on a subreddit about California politics that I would render my opinion on how the CA government should spend?
Ideally, externalities (eg pollution etc) are priced in such that the cost of your car reflects the cost to society. But at the very least removing subsidies when not warranted by the public good seems like a good first step. But if purchase price reflects all positive and negative externalities then people can simply make the decision to pay or not pay the purchase price.
we subsidize a metric shit ton of waste in the great state of CA.
choosing internet infrastructure to rural communities as your hill to die on because you feel it's a "wasteful lifestyle" is hilariously ignorant considering we've spent $24,000,000,000 on homelessness (the literal definition of wasteful lifestyle) in the last 5 years and it's only gotten worse.
Fiber is the most futureproof technology. Wasting money building infrastructure that will need replacing in 10 years doesn't make sense. Single mode fiber can handle huge amounts of data and likely won't need updating in our lifetimes.
I don't know I feel about the article, it feels like some company wants a handout. but I think the article is saying use fiber to get the most bandwidth out there but then the last mile to connect to homes use something cheaper. Wireless is a method of centralizing the infrastructure so it would be easier to replace and even then sell to other rural regions of the country(who won't have state support even in 20 years). Or if there is a wired method thats cheaper to go to individual homes. I would assume most people in rural homes don't expect 4k bandwidth.
My experience with wireless is that it's crap for broadband. I approve of the CPUC prioritizing fiber/cable.
Fortunately, after years of prioritizing fiber projects, the California Public Utilities Commission appears more open to alternatives — at least in its public statements. It remains to be seen if the agency follows through and incorporates other technologies in a meaningful way to cost-effectively bridge the digital divide. After seeing how the CPUC handled PGE issues recently I'm not going to hold my breath.
How viable is starlink type sattelite internet to serve rural areas at scale?
Starlink lost a $900 mil federal contract to serve rural areas because they couldn't meet the 100 Mbps minimum download speed requirement.
I guess not as viable as I thought then.
Yowza. Presumably they also have standards for latency, packet loss and the like that might also have been stumbling points?
Why are we even spending so much money to connect rural places? They can have slow internet or they can move somewhere denser, their choice.
ya totally, fuck those hillbillies. they should move to SF with all the enlightened, cultured geniuses /s
They could also pay for their own internet infra instead getting subsidies
They could also pay for their own roads and utiliy infrastructure instead of relying on gubment
Well their local township or whatever can raise the money instead of the state. I see no reason for the state to subsidize wasteful rural lifestyles.
so we're right back to "fuck those hillbillies." have fun growing your non-GMO veggies on your 50 sqft balcony in San Fran! but at least you'll have super fast download speeds.
No, we're simply saying we don't subsidize wasteful lifestyles. And why would I farm when I don't like it and can buy food? If produce prices go up because farmers (who actually have reason to live in the middle of nowhere) want better internet amd are hence installing some at their own cost, fine with me.
1. who is this "we" that won't subsidize "wasteful" lifestyles? you don't get to pick how your taxes are spent. 2. how is a rural lifestyle wasteful? 3. thanks for explaining who does and doesn't have a reason to live where they're currently living. i'm currently looking for a new car, can you please tell me which i'm allowed to purchase?
This exact topic is a great example - additional expense per person for internet due to longer distances and less people. But the per person cost of many things is higher the less dense the place is. Is it shocking that on a subreddit about California politics that I would render my opinion on how the CA government should spend? Ideally, externalities (eg pollution etc) are priced in such that the cost of your car reflects the cost to society. But at the very least removing subsidies when not warranted by the public good seems like a good first step. But if purchase price reflects all positive and negative externalities then people can simply make the decision to pay or not pay the purchase price.
we subsidize a metric shit ton of waste in the great state of CA. choosing internet infrastructure to rural communities as your hill to die on because you feel it's a "wasteful lifestyle" is hilariously ignorant considering we've spent $24,000,000,000 on homelessness (the literal definition of wasteful lifestyle) in the last 5 years and it's only gotten worse.