Absolutely, yes. Nazis don't deserve taxpayer funds.
Much of the inefficiency you detailed from your description of the high speed rail issue is nimbyism.
It's not irrational to oppose Nazis. You're just thinking way too narrowly.See? Democrats and their supporters are guided to irrational decisions and government waste by delusional beliefs.
Thank you for presenting a case study for my argument, Deuce.
It's not irrational to oppose Nazis. You're just thinking way too narrowly.
Whatever you say buddyBelieving they are Nazis is the delusion.
Do you live in the country??? I did for decades. Fact is there are many small internet servers out there ready to expand their services mostly by piggy backing off cell towers. There are a score of satellite servers ready to expand. I had both small business internet and satellite TV service. Problem with satellite service is it doesn't operate when you really need it- severe weather conditions.
I'd much rather see several companies competing for rural contracts than one Manic clown controlling it all...
**** them nobody gave me money for my internet.
I'd never live with freeloader hillbillies.
A few thoughts:
1) It wouldn't be for "20 people", it would be for a household.
2) 220 mbps is PLEANTY of bandwidth for 20 people. You don't need 2 gbps, up or down.
3) the Rural Broadband project only requires 20 mbps down and 3 up.
View attachment 67562745
4) Nobody, and I mean nobody is running fiber to rural homes. You'd have to be high to think you can run 30 miles of fiber to serve a few homes and make a profit.... see: The Rural Broadband requirements above.
Seriously, your fiber example is hilarious.
2 gbps down is enough bandwidth to stream 40 movies in 4K concurrently... or 120 movies at 2K...
You HONESTLY thought that these customers are getting fiber?!
Starlink can beat the Rural Broadband contract requirements by a factor of 9 today, and that fiber will get run to rural homes some time around the heat death of the universe.
*-as long as it doesn't rain, snow, or get real cloudy.
And nobody gave me money for an Obama phone so **** them as well.
They should be but they are too ****in stupid to beI'm sure they're crushed.
*-as long as it doesn't rain, snow, or get real cloudy.
Starlink?
Yep.
Absolutely no terrestrial construction necessary and no environmental impact to speak of and nearly 100% of rural homes already would be covered with a simple appliance install. It was a no-brainer decision, so of course Democrats ****ed it up.
I'd never live with freeloader hillbillies.
Starlink is utter trash. A 5G receiver will beat it just about every time, for less. And it should be the role of government to provide the infrastructure for rural internet, not a nepo baby with a history of Vaporware.
That is patently false, both numerically and logistically.
First off NOBODY is going to build out a 5G tower to serve a handful of customers.
That's why most remote rural homes are lucky to have cell service at all, let alone 4G. You ever see those stories about people lost in the woods having to find the highest hill to stand on in order to maybe get signal? That's rural America.
If they did they would have to contend with the infrastructure necessary to get the signal to the homes, many of whom don't have a direct line of geographically unobstructed sight, meaning it would need to be in close.
Then you have to deal with the consumption limits of 5G networks... granted, that might not be true when you have a whole cell tower serving 10 people, but the monthly cost of those 10 people to pay for th4e maintenance of that cell tower would be astronomical.
You'd still need to build infrastructure up to at least the minimum range, which is 10 miles, and then they would be getting, at best, 100 mbps which is less than half that of Starlink.
I used to think the future was 5G for rural America, but the promises of cheap and easy cableless networking has proven a bit over hyped. The highest speeds band of 5G is rather short range and requires almost line-of-sight for those speeds. It's a great solution for high density urban and suburban areas, but not rural. The reality is that 5G provider know it costs too much and is a logistical nightmare, which is why they aren't doing it.
They cost about a million dollars or less. China builds them for ~$40,000.
The maintanence cost of a cell tower is about ~$11,000 bi-annually.
For 5G? The average speed in rural areas is 185-350 Mbps.
It's far more cost effective than sending space junk vaporware into orbit.
What I took away from the Ezra conversation: Dems (under a progressive model) want to make government work; Republicans want to destroy it completely. Lets meet in the middle. Ironically, this is the status quo and not a new vision for the future. Ezra isn't that bright, he's just a standard neoliberal.
Because i paid for my own delivery of broadband.the money for this broadband project was to pay the internet providers to build the infrastructure necessary to bring high speed broadband to rural homes, and somehow that doesn't piss you off because... reasons?
People forget Elon voted for Biden in 2020. The stupid like this is what brought him to MAGA.Contrary to popular belief, the Treasury is not just a slush fund for Elon Musk's personal benefit.
Not at all, I had great service from 'small-time' internet providers. Not a single one here is less than 25Mbps.Yeah I've tried those 'small' internet companies piggy backing off cell towers. Good luck getting 3Mbps and that's with a direct line of sight.
And Starlink is a different animal than Direct TV or Hughes. When you have 7,000 sattelites you're not losing service except in maybe exceptionally bad storms and only for very short periods.
Basically you just hate Starlink because of your political bias. To 99% of rural folk, it's nothing but a blessing and the only reasonable option.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?