• AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Fiber should be deployed to rural addresses like yours (and should’ve been a long time ago). Instead, that money was funneled to the likes of Time Warner and Comcast who never even followed through on their part of the deal. Now, SpaceX is getting funneled the cash.

    I’m super thankful that WA State supports and gives assistance to counties building out public LUDs for fiber access, many paying attention to rural communities first. I escaped Comcast two years ago because of it.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Fiber should be deployed to rural addresses like yours

      I don’t disagree, it should be deployed to rural areas. It’s never going to happen though, it’s just not profitable.

      Sure, electrical infrastructure was deployed to the whole country, but it doesn’t need to be replaced and upgraded as frequently as Internet infrastructure does. Even if some rural areas do get fiber at some point, don’t expect the infrastructure to be upgraded regularly enough to stay comparable to denser areas.

      You’re never going to find a company willing to do that job. We could do it at the national level, but I have my doubts that the country is headed in that direction.

      • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 minutes ago

        That’s what the subsidies are for. Plus, fiber does not necessarily need to be upgraded after installation (especially rural, where there’s less customers in general). It’s not copper or coax, it doesn’t have the same limits, and can usually handle huge amounts of data (the limit primarily being the transceivers at both ends). The costs of upgrading would also likely be lower than the initial install, something that couldn’t be said about providers like Starlink. Fiber is about the most efficient, cost effective (especially in the long term), and future proof way to provide internet. Starlink is overall much more expensive to maintain.

        But yes, without the local, state, and/or federal governments supporting it, people in rural areas won’t have a choice.

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Time Warner and Comcast need to have all that grant money clawed back. They contracted with the taxpayers to deliver a service and they didn’t even make a good faith effort to start.

    • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      It can’t, and the taxes you would pay to support fiber to my home would be extreme.

      But fiber to a local wireless solution? Sure. But even that’s not possible for everyone, and they were expensive and unreliable until starlink started showing up. LEO internet has its benefits.

      • thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Except that US ISPs have already been provided upwards of $80b to roll out a fiber optic backbone for rural connections, and have instead largely pocketed the funds and sat on their hands.

        It has largely fallen to smaller communities to incorporate their own local ISPs and manage their own roll-outs, as such projects aren’t viewed as worthwhile for private companies.

        Honestly, if Australia could roll out a national fiber backbone (almost a decade ago!) across the same approximate landmass as the contiguous 48 states at less than 10% of the overall population; there is no valid reason that the wealthiest nation to have ever existed can’t also do so.

        Even if a Federal program (not under this administration, obviously) was to just run fibre parallel to the existing interstate highways, and leave the last (20) miles to local utilities - it would be cheaper, faster and more reliable than LEO - and without all the additional negatives that come with that!

      • AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        We can definitely afford it, especially with LUDs plus federal subsidies. That’s literally what they’re for.