Jon Stewart is educated by Ezra Klein on Government Regulation (1 Viewer)

[Operative13]

Administrations only last at least 4 years. Any implementation that even gets close to 4 years before getting done is a waste of time, money, and effort. The Bureaucracy has to be simplified.

 

[jmotivator]

Absolutely, yes. Nazis don't deserve taxpayer funds.

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.

 

[cpwill]

Much of the inefficiency you detailed from your description of the high speed rail issue is nimbyism.

MUCH of the inefficiency and failure to implement high speed rail is the result of deliberately-difficult-to-pass environmental regulation.

 

[Deuce]

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.

 

[jmotivator]

It's not irrational to oppose Nazis. You're just thinking way too narrowly.

Believing they are Nazis is the delusion.

 

[Deuce]

Believing they are Nazis is the delusion.

Whatever you say buddy

 

[dobieg]

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...

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.

 

[dobieg]

**** them nobody gave me money for my internet.

And nobody gave me money for an Obama phone so **** them as well.

 

[dobieg]

I'd never live with freeloader hillbillies.

I'm sure they're crushed.

 

[dobieg]

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.

The stupidity of some of these posts are exactly what we expected.


Of course liberals spouting off about things they have zero knowledge or first hand experience with is typical.

 

[dobieg]

*-as long as it doesn't rain, snow, or get real cloudy.

Proving you have zero experience or knowledge about this subject.

Congrats!

 

[noonereal]

And nobody gave me money for an Obama phone so **** them as well.

You were not prohibited from getting one.
This is very different

Sorry you are unable to understand.

 

[noonereal]

I'm sure they're crushed.

They should be but they are too ****in stupid to be

 

[jmotivator]

*-as long as it doesn't rain, snow, or get real cloudy.

Starling doesn't require clear skies.

And while we are on that subject, imagine a good ice or wind storm takes out a telephone pole that was run through the woods to your home... how long do you suppose before your service is retored.

Remote rural homes tend to have their own generators and and a broom to clear debris off of the antenna....

All you need to do is look to the devastation from Hurricane Helene to see the folly in your argument. They had Starling up and serving survivors almost immediately, long before the power grid was restored.

 

[Dans La Lune]

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.

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.

 

[jmotivator]

I'd never live with freeloader hillbillies.

Don't be goofy. My example was to show how much more direct the benefits would be with satellite broadband.

In reality, 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?

Somehow the far cheaper and direct solution for rural America doesn't require $42 billion in infrastructure and wouldn't even need a a government subsidy. 6 rural homes could share a Starlink and get better speeds than this Urban Broadband boondoggle was promising, and they could do it for ~$20 a month.

The real reason they snubbed Starlink (Democrats still liked Elon in 2021) was because Starlink invalidated the need for the federal program all together.

 

[jmotivator]

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.

 

[Dans La Lune]

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.

They cost about a million dollars or less. China builds them for ~$40,000.

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.

The maintanence cost of a cell tower is about ~$11,000 bi-annually.

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.

For 5G? The average speed in rural areas is 185-350 Mbps.

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.

It's far more cost effective than sending space junk vaporware into orbit.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Starlink vs 5G​

Starlink and 5G are both cutting-edge technologies designed to provide high-speed internet, but they serve different purposes and have distinct advantages and limitations.

Speed and Latency​

• Starlink: Offers download speeds ranging from 50 to 250 Mbps, with latency typically in the 20-40 ms range. However, these speeds can vary based on network congestion and satellite positioning.
• 5G: Can deliver average download speeds between 50 Mbps and 2 Gbps, with latency as low as single-digit milliseconds. This makes 5G more suitable for real-time applications like online gaming and autonomous vehicles.

Coverage and Accessibility​

• Starlink: Provides broadband connectivity in remote and rural areas where traditional infrastructure is lacking. It requires a clear view of the sky to function effectively.
• 5G: Offers better overall coverage, especially in densely populated and urban regions. 5G networks are being deployed globally, but achieving comprehensive coverage in vast rural areas may take time.

Network Capacity and Congestion​

• Starlink: As its subscriber base grows, Starlink may face saturation and congestion challenges that could negatively impact throughput and performance.
• 5G: Has a much higher network capacity, up to 1,000 times more than 4G, and can optimize traffic through advanced technologies like 5G network slicing.

Cost and Equipment​

• Starlink: Service ranges from $120 to $250 monthly, with upfront equipment costs ranging from $349 to $1,499.12
• 5G: T-Mobile Home Internet, a leading 5G home internet provider, offers more competitive prices, making it a better option for many users.

 

[Dans La Lune]

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.

 

[jmotivator]

They cost about a million dollars or less. China builds them for ~$40,000.

China builds 5G towers in Urban areas, not rural areas.

If we hake the $1 million cost to serve, say, 50 homes in a 10 mile radius, that is an initial outlay of $20,000 per user, and that is in the optimal conditions where all of those customers can get signal from that one tower.

Conversely, if they can see the sky they have Starlink.

The maintanence cost of a cell tower is about ~$11,000 bi-annually.

Not in remote locations. And the cost of maintaining a 5G tower is closer to $50k annually, which only makes fiscal sense when that tower is serving 50,000 users not 50.

Starlink Constellation cost effective because the same satellite constellation that servers those remote homes can server millions of other customers nationally.

To give you a snapshot of efficiency: Starlink servers the whole world currently with 7,000 Starlink satellites, while the US alone has 350,000 cell towers and currently doesn't serve many rural areas.

I drive about 20 miles to work through rural Northern VA, about the most advanced rural area in the country, and there is a 5 to 6 mile stretch there where I get no cell service.

For 5G? The average speed in rural areas is 185-350 Mbps.

Nope. That is the speed you can get in "rural" areas that butt up against suburban areas. In an unobstructed 10 mile broadcast you get 100mbps. Most of these rural areas won't have 10 miles of unobstructed geography. The only way a signal travels 10 miles in those areas is up.

You are thinking about this program as serving people just outside the suburban sprawl, but that's not the case.

It's far more cost effective than sending space junk vaporware into orbit.

You don't understand either technology and it shows.

 

[jmotivator]

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.

What you failed to realize is that the fixes Ezra Klein is talking about will require eliminating government jobs...

Republicans are just up front about it.

 

[noonereal]

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?

Because i paid for my own delivery of broadband.

Why on earth should i also pay for theirs

 

[Eriech]

Contrary to popular belief, the Treasury is not just a slush fund for Elon Musk's personal benefit.

People forget Elon voted for Biden in 2020. The stupid like this is what brought him to MAGA.

Treasury was a slush fund by design. Unless Stewart was acting he is apparently starting to see that.

 

[notquiteright]

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.

Not at all, I had great service from 'small-time' internet providers. Not a single one here is less than 25Mbps.
Direct TV has the same service here, but the important part is needing the service when what some call 'exceptionally bad storms' we Okies call 'Spring'....
If Elon wants in on the already crowded field, fine. What I see is him trying to overwhelm the competition by getting his butt buddy, the Orange Convict, to rig the game....