FCC shuts New York out of $20B broadband fund, and senators are angry

NY ineligible for new money because FCC previously gave to a state fund.

Read the whole story

 

[jezra]

SpaceX didn’t seek rural broadband subsidies even though Starlink qualified for them with an estimated latency below 35ms. With Starlink and several other space based solutions to rural access going live over the next few years these subsidies seem ridiculous. And that’s from someone who has been pushing for increased rural access since the lack of it made me into a phone phreak forever ago.

Starlink is untested, unproven, and commercially non-existent. That alone, at least in my eyes, would make Starlink unqualified for subsidies.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

More likely the Downvoters don't want to make this a city dweller vs rural people fight. Anybody who seriously says that people living in sparsely populated areas should be all on their own are being ridiculous.

The person saying city dwellers have been subsidizing rural people since the 20th century currently has a +7 so your theory can't be right.

I fail to see how that statement feeds "city dweller vs rural people" attitudes. If anything, it shows city dwellers support rural people. Read the quote again:

Our choice as a society is: (a) pay a ton of money to subsidize rural life or (b) let rural people eke out a third-world subsistence economy living while the cities are rich.

Since the early 20th century we have consistently chosen (a).

If city dwellers hated rural people, they would pick option (b).

 

[yoshipod]

I would love to see Elise Stefanik's reaction to this, given she represents a large portion of rural NY, and has suddenly transformed into another Trumper.

 

[msawzall]

As a rural resident of NY with no broadband access, let me be the first to flip a giant middle finger to Ajit and his crew.

How did you post here, dial-up?

From work. Don't be a snitch.

 

[OptimusP83]

$5,000 per address connected, smells like pork...

Doesn't sound that crazy to me.

Our choice as a society is: (a) pay a ton of money to subsidize rural life or (b) let rural people eke out a third-world subsistence economy living while the cities are rich.

Since the early 20th century we have consistently chosen (a).

What's funny with your statement is rural people would be capable of adapting to option (b) while people in cities would meltdown once they lost access to all of the resources they would lose from the rural population.

I live in Canada. It took a 76cm snowfall last week for residents in St. John's, Newfoundland to declare a State of Emergency. Residents in our largest city Toronto, Ontario freak out and beg for military help when they get 15cm snowfalls.

If by 15cm you mean about a meter then yes, Toronto are clearly a bunch of wimps for calling on the national defense to come help defend the nation against a threat.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/0 ... moval.html

Toronto was the laughingstock of Canada when that happened 20 years ago. I was referring to this more recent event though where the city completely shuts down over 15cm of snow. If 15cm is "intense", what's the classification for the 76cm of snow St. John's got? https://www.narcity.com/news/ca/on/toro ... now-photos

Very dense urban environments are MUCH less prepared to handle large amounts of snow, as a general rule. The sheer amount of roadways and people trying to get around makes it a legitimate danger to get around. When Seattle gets more than 3" of snow, the city basically closes down. Its not because Seattle drivers aren't prepared to drive in the snow (we generally aren't though), or because the city doesn't prepare (we try), the issue is that the infrastructure to deal with the snow just isn't there. We don't have plows because having and maintaining a fleet of plows just doesn't make sense for a large, topographically challenging city of ~4M (metro area, and given the other challenges this city faces I'm totally cool with being called a wuss by some Canadian because my city closes down with a mere dusting of snow, because it happens MAYBE once a year, often not at all.

Also, you're comparing a city of 200k to a city of 5M (again, metro populations). So yea, no shit, the response and reactions are going to be totally different...

Editing to add: And I also have an AWD car with Nokian (non-studded) snow tires for the winter months, so while the city may shut down I think its appropriate to be somewhat prepared and have a safe vehicle to get around with, in the case of a few inches of snow. Maybe people around here believe bald, 10 year old, all-season tires are "just fine" for snow, and they'd be wrong. Hence the reason highways are a clusterfuck when we get 6+ inches and people just abandon their cars and the mere whiff of a hill.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

I would love to see Elise Stefanik's reaction to this, given she represents a large portion of rural NY, and has suddenly transformed into another Trumper.

If she's a Trumper, then you already know her reaction. It is the Democrats' faults. She just has to invent the reason later on.

 

[Tom Brokaw]

What are we even reading here?

Don't get me wrong-- the broadband situation in the USA leaves much to be desired, but this article reads as though Schumer is complaining that NY doesn't get more subsidy money than they should: "But Schumer and Gillibrand say New York has only gotten its fair share of nationwide FCC programs, rather than something extra." If they have gotten their "fair share," of the program--what's the problem?!

If the state is 99-something% covered and has locally implemented subsidy plans that other states probably do not have, it makes sense that federal funds initially prioritize other states that are worse off or can be helped more efficiently. The article even states that NY is only missing out on the initial roll-out, not that they are totally being denied federal help.

I don't think I'll be shedding any tears over one of the wealthiest places on earth losing out on "extra" subsidy money... temporarily...

The Fine Article said

The FCC said it blocked New York and Alaska from Phase I of the program "because of previously established programs to fund rural broadband in these states."

The Fine Article said this literally two sentences before the one you quoted, so either:
A: you skimmed and missed the important part that answered the question you're asking
B: you read thoroughly and ignored the the important part that answered the question you're asking
C: you read thoroughly but don't care about the important part that answers the question you're asking

 

[WingMan]

That's funny because I switched back to dial-up after years of Xplornet throttling my satellite connection to slower speeds than dial-up because I was trying to download an iPhone update through iTunes that would always time out because of the latency. I used to subscribe to Linux magazines that provided update CDs because Xplornet torrents were blocked and I couldn't p2p with the Linux distros. Already mentioned the weather downtime. Dial-up was slow, however, at least it was a stable connection.

Just like I have had little to no issues with CentryLink in the areas I've lived, there are others who swear they are the worst. YMMV. I had no issues with HughesNet and lots of issues with Comcast. Enough issues that I will try other options before I go back to Comcast for anything. Luckliy, after a year without land line providers in my current house I can now choose between MidCo or CentryLink. I much prefer the speed/latency of land based connections because, as I explained earlier, I like to game and I VPN for work (VPN is hard for satellite due to its heavy use of compression so it really bogs the connection) and I now have 4 other people in my house who use the internet, stream movies and shows, download patches and programs, and various other services. The landline minimum in my area is not enough bandwidth for my household (12mb I believe) and satellite when I looked at the time was offering 15mb. We tried that lower tier and it just was terrible on DSL for that many people. I now have 150Mb which is more than I need but it is nice.

I wouldn't go back to satellite or cell for my household internet unless I had to. But it will be nice that there is a cheaper option (than legacy satellite or rural slow "high speed" land connections) should the need arise, no?

 

[WingMan]

SpaceX didn’t seek rural broadband subsidies even though Starlink qualified for them with an estimated latency below 35ms. With Starlink and several other space based solutions to rural access going live over the next few years these subsidies seem ridiculous. And that’s from someone who has been pushing for increased rural access since the lack of it made me into a phone phreak forever ago.

I'm excited for what StarLink proposes to do, but since it's not really available to the public yet I'm good with them not getting public subsidies to roll it out. If it was a current and functioning option for people to buy a package from then I would be fine giving a subsidy to them to roll out more satellites to add connectivity and bandwidth. With that said, no companies that have been not fulfilling their roll-out obligations/contracts from previously provided public money should get any either until they've fulfilled them properly.

 

[sejowa]

...
I live in Canada and we absolutely are a first world country currently going through an opioid crisis like the US. Considering the state of the EU right now dealing with Brexit, I'd say common sense isn't exactly Europe's crown jewel right now. It's cool Harry and Meghan are joining us over here though.

I don't know where the occasion for mirth comes from.

So does Canada let companies corrupt doctors and the legislative too? To my knowledge, the country that comes closest to US rates of opioid abuse is Iceland with roughly half the incidence. From slightly dated memory.

Again, no such thing as an opioid epidemic in Europe. Which I think is excellent and needs to be talked about.

 

[jimjam]

So 99% of new Yorkers one of the most densely populated states have fast Internet and they complain that they don't get their chunk of federal flesh of a program to support rural low density areas with slow Internet? For what? Painting all broadband routers in the state yellow?

I mean i get the feeling of unfairness and I guess it's natural but well if you don't have low broadband people perhaps you should not get money out of a federal program to support people with low broadband.

You do get that there are rural parts of New York right. It isn't just one mega city stretching from state border to state border.

I found that a lot of non-NYers are under the impression that New York=NYC=Manhattan.

 

[wvmikep]

Maybe there's something more to it...

But most likely, I'd say this is the kind of spite-driven sort of thing that was behind the new cap on State And Local Tax deductions that can be applied against federal taxes.

"These states didn't vote for me, so they gotta pay!"

Nevermind that these higher taxes:
1 - Give us better infrastructure (a good thing)
2 - Subsidize the low taxes of red states (seemingly a pretty lousy thing)

How do you figure #2? What was really happening was the higher federal taxes paid by red-staters due to their not having crazy state taxes to deduct was subsidizing blue-state taxes. IOW, the exact opposite of your claim.

#1 seems to be at least problematic since 3/5 of the top scoring states for infrastructure voted for Trump with 3/5 of the worst states having voted for Hillary. The original data (linked in the link) isn't put out in a way for me to check all 50 states easily. But feel free to check for yourself.

As for the article. Sounds like Chuck didn't read the fine print.

No.

What happens is that the red States that aren't taxing their citizens end up taking more from the fed than they pay, while blue states who are taxing their citizens take less. So not only are blue states paying for their own state taxes, they also end up paying for red state taxes via federal redistribution.

And the low tax states subsidize the high-tax states taxpayers by allowing the latter to deduct their state and local taxes. They vote themselves their higher taxes, but they don't feel the full burden of that because they offload that pain to the rest of the country that contributes to the federal coffers. It's not the poor that are taking a hit from the reduction in the SALT deduction, but rather those with enough means to buy $800,000 homes and pay more than $10K/year in taxes.

Are the Dems the supply-siders now?

California has the highest income tax rate, and in a lot of areas, homes are quite expensive, but if you're living in one of those areas, your Federal Tax Rate should be pretty high regardless because income is generally also high. The average per household income in California is around 75,000, compared to 65,000 for the entire US. In this example, If the difference in state taxes between california and elsewhere is less than 10,000, then I don't follow how High tax states are being subsidized by low tax states, when it comes to who is paying more in federal income taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... _by_income

In many cases, the gap is far greater than $10,000.

 

[wvmikep]

Something, something... Blue States "takers", Red State "makers", so I've been told.

That is a rather funny saying considering that blue states, on average, generate more income and wealth than red states.

All this money being thrown at ISPs could have been used to provide nationwide broadband and telephone services and a boost to competition as a bonus. If we had started on this 10 years ago, it would be complete and paid for by now.

EDIT: I will also never understand why the poor vote for Republicans. I am starting to do a study on social safety for different states. I am looking at areas like: unemployment availability and caps. State funded paid temporary disability and family leave, utility payment assistance, and state medicaid programs.

While it is too early to draw any definite conclusions, what I am finding is that deep red states have the worst social safety net of all. This means that the working poor are treated like absolute trash by the folks they are voting for.

The best safety net is a paying job. That's what red staters want.

A job is not a safety net unless we are talking about guaranteed employment at a specific wage which can never be taken away from you no matter what from the day you turn 18 until the day you voluntarily retire.

Jobs which pay a living wage are important. So is a social safety net. It is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

My point (missed) was that those like the one I was responding to seem to see the solution to jobs disappearing in rural areas to be social services. The voters (and I) contend that the solution to jobs disappearing is to bring in new, replacement jobs.

 

[Parole]

Doesn't NY always get screwed when it comes to receiving federal funds? (i..e New York tax payers put more into the system than they get back).

NY has more high income earners and ultra wealthy people. Seems silly for the side that pushes for an ever more progressive federal tax system to the then complain about the obvious predictable outcome of a progressive tax system. If the federal gov says income should be taxed at X, your state tax shouldn't allow you to get out of paying your fair share of federal taxes. SALT deductions are bullshit, shifting the federal burden onto less wealthy states. That's a regressive tax system.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/253 ... opulation/
https://www.cnbc.com/2014/11/24/states- ... dents.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/states- ... ple-2013-9

Weird post - what does NYC itself being ahead of LA and Seattle have to do with entire states and what gets take out via federal taxes vs was the federal government sends back?

Weirder, you conflate taxes of individuals with what states contribute vs what they get back.

But I guess if you need to see hypocrisy, you will come up with whatever you need to, including piss poor links (one of three which doesn't even have anything to do with the subject, so not even starting off well with your links).


PS - Part of a state like NY sending in more funds than say Maine, is the larger population. That also means it probably going to need more federal funding in return, even if that state has higher state taxes. Why should some states be getting more per person without some clear and present need for such to happen, beyond slashing locals in order to get more federal money (kind of cheating)?

At any rate, such a thing happening is not "progressive taxation". Well maybe if you squint real hard after having your head smacked real hard, it might. If it is, than those in red states are going to have to come up with some good reasons why they tend to dislike the progressive system they apparently are benefitting from. (because that would, ya know, be hypocritical)

Did you only click the first link? It was the only one to discuss metro areas. Taken with the other 2, it is pretty clear that most of the ultra wealthy are living in the 5 Burroughs of NYC and its suburbs. Having grown up there, and traveled throughout the state, this is fairly obvious.

Are you under the impression that all NYers are paying federal income tax, and subsidizing other states? I can tell you, with over 40% of people not paying any federal tax, that isn't the case. With the top 20% of income earners paying the vast majority of federal income tax, combined with the amount of wealthy that live in NY, it is pretty obvious why the state is paying more in than it gets out. This is a predictable outcome of a progressive tax system with an uneven distribution of wealthy earners, yes.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of ... 2016-02-24

 

[AmanoJyaku]

I found that a lot of non-NYers are under the impression that New York=NYC=Manhattan.

Unfortutately, a lot of NYers are under the same impression. Makes for some interesting political discussions...

 

[Sandwichman]

As a rural resident of NY with no broadband access, let me be the first to flip a giant middle finger to Ajit and his crew.

So typical of New York and other certain States, You think taxpayers should fund you disproportionately to the rest of the country. How’s it fair that funding was set aside to help fund current projects if this sorts, but no other State other than Alaska got this special treatment in the first place? It’s just phase one to distribute funds fairly from other articles I’ve read. Doesn’t exclude your State from phase two. So Ajit in this case isn’t the villain which most of the time he is. But taxpayers shouldn’t unjustly fund projects period.

 

[msawzall]

As a rural resident of NY with no broadband access, let me be the first to flip a giant middle finger to Ajit and his crew.

So typical of New York and other certain States, You think taxpayers should fund you disproportionately to the rest of the country. How’s it fair that funding was set aside to help fund current projects if this sorts, but no other State other than Alaska got this special treatment in the first place? It’s just phase one to distribute funds fairly from other articles I’ve read. Doesn’t exclude your State from phase two. So Ajit in this case isn’t the villain which most of the time he is. But taxpayers shouldn’t unjustly fund projects period.

So asking the FCC to distribute funding to all 50 States is "special treatment"?

And I'll take your bet on NY being included in Phase 2. At least while Pai controls the FCC.

 

[numerobis]

Are you intentionally trying to be obtuse

That's pretty obvious.

The article he posted indicated 15 cm storm total accumulation and gusts to 50-90 km/h. Easy to get white-out conditions with that.

On a rural highway you don't get 250 accidents from such conditions. But that's only because you don't get 250 cars going by.

 

[AmanoJyaku]

<sufficiently advanced stupidity>

So asking the FCC to distribute funding to all 50 States is "special treatment"?

And I'll take your bet on NY being included in Phase 2. At least while Pai controls the FCC.

"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

Amano C. Clarke

 

[VaughnP]

$5,000 per address connected, smells like pork...

Doesn't sound that crazy to me.

Our choice as a society is: (a) pay a ton of money to subsidize rural life or (b) let rural people eke out a third-world subsistence economy living while the cities are rich.

Since the early 20th century we have consistently chosen (a).

What's funny with your statement is rural people would be capable of adapting to option (b) while people in cities would meltdown once they lost access to all of the resources they would lose from the rural population.

I live in Canada. It took a 76cm snowfall last week for residents in St. John's, Newfoundland to declare a State of Emergency. Residents in our largest city Toronto, Ontario freak out and beg for military help when they get 15cm snowfalls.

I live in downtown Toronto.

You also have to remember Toronto would be like New York city alot more money is produced out of that city than all of St.John's so they have a vested interest to keep the city running as optimal as possible.

The city of Toronto being shut down is alot worse for the country than St.John's!

Only the snowflakes complain about 15cm's of snow the rest of us keep moving, no pun intended

 

[JBforum]

Something, something... Blue States "takers", Red State "makers", so I've been told.

Except the reality is--it's exactly the opposite of that. On average, blue states contribute more to the federal gov't than they receive in aid, and in red states, vice-versa.

It's a generalization, and there are exceptions, but it's mostly true.

Its actually very different in reality. If you include things that in theory benefit all of us as a nation and spread the cost per capita; the real truth is most likely.

New York / California / Texas / Illinois / New Jersey are makers ; everyone else is takers.

Florida and New Jersey would be too but Disaster relief spending was too high.

 

[James_G]

As if that $20B is going to be used for anything other than lining executive pockets...

 

[Jeff S]

$5,000 per address connected, smells like pork...

Doesn't sound that crazy to me.

Our choice as a society is: (a) pay a ton of money to subsidize rural life or (b) let rural people eke out a third-world subsistence economy living while the cities are rich.

Since the early 20th century we have consistently chosen (a).

We have also consistently chosen to use economic systems that seem to guarantee that only megacorps can continue to make any money doing agriculture. I mean, if rural family farms had remained a profession that paid in proportion to the importance of food, then rural areas might actually be able to pay their own way.

But instead, we first underpay most of the people in rural areas, then subsidize them. Makes total sense.

 

[VaughnP]

$5,000 per address connected, smells like pork...

Doesn't sound that crazy to me.

Our choice as a society is: (a) pay a ton of money to subsidize rural life or (b) let rural people eke out a third-world subsistence economy living while the cities are rich.

Since the early 20th century we have consistently chosen (a).

What's funny with your statement is rural people would be capable of adapting to option (b) while people in cities would meltdown once they lost access to all of the resources they would lose from the rural population.

I live in Canada. It took a 76cm snowfall last week for residents in St. John's, Newfoundland to declare a State of Emergency. Residents in our largest city Toronto, Ontario freak out and beg for military help when they get 15cm snowfalls.

The fallacy you present is that somehow rural people are "better" at adapting than anyone else, and project an obvious disdain for "city people".

Try a little critical thinking:

When you're talking a handful of people being inconvenienced a lot versus a ton of people being inconvenienced a little, services to help the ton of people all at once lag behind demand, while services to help the handful are much more readily available. Out in the sticks, it takes a LOT of snow to lock up things, because people out there understand what it takes to adapt to their environment and generally have the equipment needed to cope with most conditions - with the unusual ones being the emergencies.

The folks in the city do not individually possess such equipment, nor is it readily available in the same ratio as for those in rural environments. Moreover, it takes a lot less of a weather emergency to detrimentally impact all of the services city folks have compared to rural folks, again because the rural environment is generally set up to deal with that.

Moreover, the need to maintain communications (one might argue about the word "need", since it's more opportunity than actual need) in a city environment is much greater due to a considerably higher population density and a considerably greater variety of things "to do" than out there in the sticks.

Cow-tipping was invented by bored rural people. Cell phones only added the ability to post the video on YouTube once the bored rural people were back in range of a cell tower.

The point being, it's not about the PEOPLE or their tendencies. It's about the ENVIRONMENT in which people live. Each adapts to their environment just fine. Suggesting one would have more trouble than the other only displays a woeful lack of understanding of people in the first place.

This chrisakachuck guy seems to suffer from something I call "Small townitis" Where its this us vs them mentality. And will never get over the fact that people in the city will always have access to better services etc due to population density and company's not wanting to risk spending money for a smaller return than they would get in the city.

Also with in any country including USA, there are state's and provinces that pay more taxes and generate more revenue than other parts of the country. Its just the way things are.

 

[mozbo]

I'm sure this has nothing to do with NYC forcing ISPs to actually compete. Right, Ajit? No connection there at all?

 

[chrisakachuck]

$5,000 per address connected, smells like pork...

Doesn't sound that crazy to me.

Our choice as a society is: (a) pay a ton of money to subsidize rural life or (b) let rural people eke out a third-world subsistence economy living while the cities are rich.

Since the early 20th century we have consistently chosen (a).

What's funny with your statement is rural people would be capable of adapting to option (b) while people in cities would meltdown once they lost access to all of the resources they would lose from the rural population.

I live in Canada. It took a 76cm snowfall last week for residents in St. John's, Newfoundland to declare a State of Emergency. Residents in our largest city Toronto, Ontario freak out and beg for military help when they get 15cm snowfalls.

The fallacy you present is that somehow rural people are "better" at adapting than anyone else, and project an obvious disdain for "city people".

Try a little critical thinking:

When you're talking a handful of people being inconvenienced a lot versus a ton of people being inconvenienced a little, services to help the ton of people all at once lag behind demand, while services to help the handful are much more readily available. Out in the sticks, it takes a LOT of snow to lock up things, because people out there understand what it takes to adapt to their environment and generally have the equipment needed to cope with most conditions - with the unusual ones being the emergencies.

The folks in the city do not individually possess such equipment, nor is it readily available in the same ratio as for those in rural environments. Moreover, it takes a lot less of a weather emergency to detrimentally impact all of the services city folks have compared to rural folks, again because the rural environment is generally set up to deal with that.

Moreover, the need to maintain communications (one might argue about the word "need", since it's more opportunity than actual need) in a city environment is much greater due to a considerably higher population density and a considerably greater variety of things "to do" than out there in the sticks.

Cow-tipping was invented by bored rural people. Cell phones only added the ability to post the video on YouTube once the bored rural people were back in range of a cell tower.

The point being, it's not about the PEOPLE or their tendencies. It's about the ENVIRONMENT in which people live. Each adapts to their environment just fine. Suggesting one would have more trouble than the other only displays a woeful lack of understanding of people in the first place.

The awesome thing is I was born in Toronto and know the city and rural life quite well. Those 250 accidents in the GTA from 15cm of snow article I linked were because the dummies living in the city think they're fine driving on summer/all-season tires instead of popping into one of the readily available places to put snow tires on their vehicles. Funny how rural people seem to realize that when winter comes they need to travel further distances to properly equip their vehicles for the season.

Are you intentionally trying to be obtuse or are you that unaware of the environments of living in either way you say you did. My guess is any time you spent in a city living was little and every day you wished you could be back in the country again.

Those "dummies" you speak of may have issues in switching tires like you say they should do. Maybe they cannot afford to, maybe they think that the once in a while snow storm is not justification for the expense. You're superior rural mentality does not seem to grasp that living long term in a city requires different skill sets to survive.

I read the original article about calling in the Army and it is sad that what was missed was the mayor doing this out of concern that special services, like emergency vehicles, could not respond quickly and the elderly or sick may be negatively impacted. Most large cities also tend to work on a "just in time" delivery system, given the very large size of the population so keeping lanes clear for delivery trucks and other essential services is critical to ensure goods and services continue to flow.

Down here in the south, it does not even take 15 cm to shut down a major city. I present Atlanta for your ridicule if you want. However, before you called them dummies as well realize that snow or freezing conditions are very rare in the winter. People do not have "snow tires" or chains yet they still may need to get to somewhere or, what tends to happen, businesses wait too long to send people home from work. Oh, and the rural folk don't have them either so I guess we're all just hicks to you smart folk up in the great white north.

Before you go making fun of or ridiculing people you don't know or the place where they live, maybe take a look around and see that a rural area can be just as looked down upon by those that live a different life. Kind of like remove the log from your own eye,before commenting on the one it others.

Did you really try and equate people in Atlanta and Toronto dealing with snow?
You really think people in Toronto deal with "the once in a while snow storm is not justification for the expense" for proper winter tires? Ontario has the highest car insurance rates in Canada. The insurance deductibles from an accident cost more than a set of snow tires. This Ontarian had his drivers ed instructor taking him out in parking lots after a snowstorm so I could get a feel for how winter driving is. Those 250 accidents are a result of city dummies not being prepared like I said.

 

[WaveRunner]

$5,000 per address connected, smells like pork...

Doesn't sound that crazy to me.

Our choice as a society is: (a) pay a ton of money to subsidize rural life or (b) let rural people eke out a third-world subsistence economy living while the cities are rich.

Since the early 20th century we have consistently chosen (a).

What's funny with your statement is rural people would be capable of adapting to option (b) while people in cities would meltdown once they lost access to all of the resources they would lose from the rural population.

I live in Canada. It took a 76cm snowfall last week for residents in St. John's, Newfoundland to declare a State of Emergency. Residents in our largest city Toronto, Ontario freak out and beg for military help when they get 15cm snowfalls.

I live in downtown Toronto.

You also have to remember Toronto would be like New York city alot more money is produced out of that city than all of St.John's so they have a vested interest to keep the city running as optimal as possible.

The city of Toronto being shut down is alot worse for the country than St.John's!

Only the snowflakes complain about 15cm's of snow the rest of us keep moving, no pun intended

I've been in one of these situations and clearly we've effectively shutdown the city by the time we call in the reserves. We pay these people right? Someone has to make sure the storm drainage remains clear while regular employees actually try and clean the streets.

 

[Jeff S]

Something, something... Blue States "takers", Red State "makers", so I've been told.

Except the reality is--it's exactly the opposite of that. On average, blue states contribute more to the federal gov't than they receive in aid, and in red states, vice-versa.

It's a generalization, and there are exceptions, but it's mostly true.

Its actually very different in reality. If you include things that in theory benefit all of us as a nation and spread the cost per capita; the real truth is most likely.

New York / California / Texas / Illinois / New Jersey are makers ; everyone else is takers.

Florida and New Jersey would be too but Disaster relief spending was too high.

Part of the problem with this makers-verse-takers rhetoric, is that it doesn't consider this: It's not just about who has the most factories and other businesses.

When it comes to federal taxes paid, one significant impact is where the richest people in the country live (and hence, pay taxes from). NY, TX, CA, CT, MA, IL, and NJ top the places those people live.

But, do those people make all their money from those states? No, they have businesses which generate revenue from all over the country. So, they earn profits everywhere, but get taxed primarily in their home states, making it look like those states are responsible for all the money.

 

[JerkfaceMcGee]

About 98.4 percent of New York state's 19.8 million residents live in areas with access to home broadband

Take statements like these with a liberal sprinkling of salt. Such broadband access studies are notoriously unreliable. Ars recently reported about how bad it is.

Obviously since the vast majority of NY'ers live in NYC, LI and Nearby Counties. If they were to run the audit say anything north of dutchess county the numbers would be much more jarring.

 

[chrisakachuck]

$5,000 per address connected, smells like pork...

Doesn't sound that crazy to me.

Our choice as a society is: (a) pay a ton of money to subsidize rural life or (b) let rural people eke out a third-world subsistence economy living while the cities are rich.

Since the early 20th century we have consistently chosen (a).

What's funny with your statement is rural people would be capable of adapting to option (b) while people in cities would meltdown once they lost access to all of the resources they would lose from the rural population.

I live in Canada. It took a 76cm snowfall last week for residents in St. John's, Newfoundland to declare a State of Emergency. Residents in our largest city Toronto, Ontario freak out and beg for military help when they get 15cm snowfalls.

I live in downtown Toronto.

You also have to remember Toronto would be like New York city alot more money is produced out of that city than all of St.John's so they have a vested interest to keep the city running as optimal as possible.

The city of Toronto being shut down is alot worse for the country than St.John's!

Only the snowflakes complain about 15cm's of snow the rest of us keep moving, no pun intended

That "keep moving" attitude is precisely why a little snowfall KO's the city and you get 250 accidents when other cities in the country might not see any after 15cm of snow. Brings me back to the days when I was a teenager working at Tim Hortons in Ontario. I loved the franchisee forcing me to drive into work during a snowstorm only to send me home after a couple hours because there were no customers. Visit, say, PEI during one of their snowstorms and you will see even Timmies closes down.

 

[chrisakachuck]

$5,000 per address connected, smells like pork...

Doesn't sound that crazy to me.

Our choice as a society is: (a) pay a ton of money to subsidize rural life or (b) let rural people eke out a third-world subsistence economy living while the cities are rich.

Since the early 20th century we have consistently chosen (a).

What's funny with your statement is rural people would be capable of adapting to option (b) while people in cities would meltdown once they lost access to all of the resources they would lose from the rural population.

I live in Canada. It took a 76cm snowfall last week for residents in St. John's, Newfoundland to declare a State of Emergency. Residents in our largest city Toronto, Ontario freak out and beg for military help when they get 15cm snowfalls.

I live in downtown Toronto.

You also have to remember Toronto would be like New York city alot more money is produced out of that city than all of St.John's so they have a vested interest to keep the city running as optimal as possible.

The city of Toronto being shut down is alot worse for the country than St.John's!

Only the snowflakes complain about 15cm's of snow the rest of us keep moving, no pun intended

I've been in one of these situations and clearly we've effectively shutdown the city by the time we call in the reserves. We pay these people right? Someone has to make sure the storm drainage remains clear while regular employees actually try and clean the streets.

I was living in Charlottetown, PEI in 2015 when we set our snowfall record of 550cm throughout the winter. We had storms hammering us with 50-60cm of snow and managed to get through it without a state of emergency or military aid. That's when this Ontarian learned people in other provinces are way better prepared for winter than what I was used to. https://www.cbc.ca/pei/interactives/sno ... -2015.html

 

[pi.squared]

$5,000 per address connected, smells like pork...

Doesn't sound that crazy to me.

Our choice as a society is: (a) pay a ton of money to subsidize rural life or (b) let rural people eke out a third-world subsistence economy living while the cities are rich.

Since the early 20th century we have consistently chosen (a).

What's funny with your statement is rural people would be capable of adapting to option (b) while people in cities would meltdown once they lost access to all of the resources they would lose from the rural population.

I live in Canada. It took a 76cm snowfall last week for residents in St. John's, Newfoundland to declare a State of Emergency. Residents in our largest city Toronto, Ontario freak out and beg for military help when they get 15cm snowfalls.

If by 15cm you mean about a meter then yes, Toronto are clearly a bunch of wimps for calling on the national defense to come help defend the nation against a threat.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/0 ... moval.html

Toronto was the laughingstock of Canada when that happened 20 years ago. I was referring to this more recent event though where the city completely shuts down over 15cm of snow. If 15cm is "intense", what's the classification for the 76cm of snow St. John's got? https://www.narcity.com/news/ca/on/toro ... now-photos

Very dense urban environments are MUCH less prepared to handle large amounts of snow, as a general rule. The sheer amount of roadways and people trying to get around makes it a legitimate danger to get around. When Seattle gets more than 3" of snow, the city basically closes down. Its not because Seattle drivers aren't prepared to drive in the snow (we generally aren't though), or because the city doesn't prepare (we try), the issue is that the infrastructure to deal with the snow just isn't there. We don't have plows because having and maintaining a fleet of plows just doesn't make sense for a large, topographically challenging city of ~4M (metro area, and given the other challenges this city faces I'm totally cool with being called a wuss by some Canadian because my city closes down with a mere dusting of snow, because it happens MAYBE once a year, often not at all.

Also, you're comparing a city of 200k to a city of 5M (again, metro populations). So yea, no shit, the response and reactions are going to be totally different...

Editing to add: And I also have an AWD car with Nokian (non-studded) snow tires for the winter months, so while the city may shut down I think its appropriate to be somewhat prepared and have a safe vehicle to get around with, in the case of a few inches of snow. Maybe people around here believe bald, 10 year old, all-season tires are "just fine" for snow, and they'd be wrong. Hence the reason highways are a clusterfuck when we get 6+ inches and people just abandon their cars and the mere whiff of a hill.

Pay attention to the Snoqualmie Pass reports. Despite chains being mandatory, accidents are common enough, that the Interstate is closed in at least one direction, every time snow touches the road.

 

[VaughnP]

$5,000 per address connected, smells like pork...

Doesn't sound that crazy to me.

Our choice as a society is: (a) pay a ton of money to subsidize rural life or (b) let rural people eke out a third-world subsistence economy living while the cities are rich.

Since the early 20th century we have consistently chosen (a).

What's funny with your statement is rural people would be capable of adapting to option (b) while people in cities would meltdown once they lost access to all of the resources they would lose from the rural population.

I live in Canada. It took a 76cm snowfall last week for residents in St. John's, Newfoundland to declare a State of Emergency. Residents in our largest city Toronto, Ontario freak out and beg for military help when they get 15cm snowfalls.

I live in downtown Toronto.

You also have to remember Toronto would be like New York city alot more money is produced out of that city than all of St.John's so they have a vested interest to keep the city running as optimal as possible.

The city of Toronto being shut down is alot worse for the country than St.John's!

Only the snowflakes complain about 15cm's of snow the rest of us keep moving, no pun intended

That "keep moving" attitude is precisely why a little snowfall KO's the city and you get 250 accidents when other cities in the country might not see any after 15cm of snow. Brings me back to the days when I was a teenager working at Tim Hortons in Ontario. I loved the franchisee forcing me to drive into work during a snowstorm only to send me home after a couple hours because there were no customers. Visit, say, PEI during one of their snowstorms and you will see even Timmies closes down.

When it snows there are terrible drivers everywhere doesn't really matter what province you are in. And PEI is similar to Quebec in terms of amount of snow fall per winter, both provinces see alot more snow than southern ontario. So I would expect those drivers to be use to more heavy snow fall on their roads.

In general these days I see alot of people that just shouldn't be driving regardless of the weather, they are handing out licenses like candy.

 

[chrisakachuck]

Are you intentionally trying to be obtuse

That's pretty obvious.

The article he posted indicated 15 cm storm total accumulation and gusts to 50-90 km/h. Easy to get white-out conditions with that.

On a rural highway you don't get 250 accidents from such conditions. But that's only because you don't get 250 cars going by.

Correct. That's because rural people listen to the warnings telling them to get off the roads and they don't bother driving down to Tim Hortons on their crappy tires that they didn't switch over so they can get a coffee.

 

[chrisakachuck]

$5,000 per address connected, smells like pork...

Doesn't sound that crazy to me.

Our choice as a society is: (a) pay a ton of money to subsidize rural life or (b) let rural people eke out a third-world subsistence economy living while the cities are rich.

Since the early 20th century we have consistently chosen (a).

What's funny with your statement is rural people would be capable of adapting to option (b) while people in cities would meltdown once they lost access to all of the resources they would lose from the rural population.

I live in Canada. It took a 76cm snowfall last week for residents in St. John's, Newfoundland to declare a State of Emergency. Residents in our largest city Toronto, Ontario freak out and beg for military help when they get 15cm snowfalls.

I live in downtown Toronto.

You also have to remember Toronto would be like New York city alot more money is produced out of that city than all of St.John's so they have a vested interest to keep the city running as optimal as possible.

The city of Toronto being shut down is alot worse for the country than St.John's!

Only the snowflakes complain about 15cm's of snow the rest of us keep moving, no pun intended

That "keep moving" attitude is precisely why a little snowfall KO's the city and you get 250 accidents when other cities in the country might not see any after 15cm of snow. Brings me back to the days when I was a teenager working at Tim Hortons in Ontario. I loved the franchisee forcing me to drive into work during a snowstorm only to send me home after a couple hours because there were no customers. Visit, say, PEI during one of their snowstorms and you will see even Timmies closes down.

When it snows there are terrible drivers everywhere doesn't really matter what province you are in. And PEI is similar to Quebec in terms of amount of snow fall per winter, both provinces see alot more snow than southern ontario. So I would expect those drivers to be use to more heavy snow fall on their roads.

In general these days I see alot of people that just shouldn't be driving regardless of the weather, they are handing out licenses like candy.

In PEI, you do one written test and one driving test and then you can get fully-licensed. In Ontario, you do one written test and two driving tests (which include driving the 401). Every dude in Ontario is also probably doing driver's ed because that discount from doing it is basically the only way a young male driver in Ontario can afford the car insurance. That candy is a lot easier to get in PEI than it is in Southern Ontario yet the people in Southern Ontario just aren't as prepared for winter driving.

 

[Hopefully Smarter]

Then New York should start withholding their payments to the federal income tax fund. Then all the southern rural pieces of trash can guidance with aPi.

When he's out of his term find him and pai him in the face.

 

[C.M. Allen]

SpaceX didn’t seek rural broadband subsidies even though Starlink qualified for them with an estimated latency below 35ms. With Starlink and several other space based solutions to rural access going live over the next few years these subsidies seem ridiculous. And that’s from someone who has been pushing for increased rural access since the lack of it made me into a phone phreak forever ago.

Starlink is untested, unproven, and commercially non-existent. That alone, at least in my eyes, would make Starlink unqualified for subsidies.

It is tested and proven. It isn't commercially available because it takes time to build out the infrastructure to meet the minimum level of service. But it IS tested. And it IS proven. The service is already up, running, and working.

 

[C.M. Allen]

SpaceX didn’t seek rural broadband subsidies even though Starlink qualified for them with an estimated latency below 35ms. With Starlink and several other space based solutions to rural access going live over the next few years these subsidies seem ridiculous. And that’s from someone who has been pushing for increased rural access since the lack of it made me into a phone phreak forever ago.

I'm excited for what StarLink proposes to do, but since it's not really available to the public yet I'm good with them not getting public subsidies to roll it out. If it was a current and functioning option for people to buy a package from then I would be fine giving a subsidy to them to roll out more satellites to add connectivity and bandwidth. With that said, no companies that have been not fulfilling their roll-out obligations/contracts from previously provided public money should get any either until they've fulfilled them properly.

The whole point of public subsidies is to help these services expand and meet public demand. Highspeed internet access isn't available to many rural communities either. How is that any different? Why do these non-existent services get a pass and Starlink doesn't? How do you justify that hypocrisy?

 

[WaveRunner]

$5,000 per address connected, smells like pork...

Doesn't sound that crazy to me.

Our choice as a society is: (a) pay a ton of money to subsidize rural life or (b) let rural people eke out a third-world subsistence economy living while the cities are rich.

Since the early 20th century we have consistently chosen (a).

What's funny with your statement is rural people would be capable of adapting to option (b) while people in cities would meltdown once they lost access to all of the resources they would lose from the rural population.

I live in Canada. It took a 76cm snowfall last week for residents in St. John's, Newfoundland to declare a State of Emergency. Residents in our largest city Toronto, Ontario freak out and beg for military help when they get 15cm snowfalls.

I live in downtown Toronto.

You also have to remember Toronto would be like New York city alot more money is produced out of that city than all of St.John's so they have a vested interest to keep the city running as optimal as possible.

The city of Toronto being shut down is alot worse for the country than St.John's!

Only the snowflakes complain about 15cm's of snow the rest of us keep moving, no pun intended

I've been in one of these situations and clearly we've effectively shutdown the city by the time we call in the reserves. We pay these people right? Someone has to make sure the storm drainage remains clear while regular employees actually try and clean the streets.

I was living in Charlottetown, PEI in 2015 when we set our snowfall record of 550cm throughout the winter. We had storms hammering us with 50-60cm of snow and managed to get through it without a state of emergency or military aid. That's when this Ontarian learned people in other provinces are way better prepared for winter than what I was used to. https://www.cbc.ca/pei/interactives/sno ... -2015.html

Again..this is what Toronto has always done. It's part of our preparedness. You just clued into it just recently

And honestly reserves with shovels in hand hardly counts as "military aid". It's not like they are bombing the snow.

 

[LongTimeLurker629]

All of these grants should be going into funding open-access municipal fiber systems.

Infrastructure should always be either publicly owned, or highly regulated so any competitor can use or buy it over and society avoids both double spending on wasteful competing infrastructure, and local monopolies.