I love how people want to live in rural areas to save money but then the federal government makes up the difference for what would normally be expensive utilities.
Then those same people crap on those who live in cities.
It’s also cheaper to do a group of homes then it is to do 1 as the cost of bringing the workers, the machinery and the permits is spread across all clients. That’s why we hear a lot of cases where someone has a fiber cable passing close by but the cable company did not see enough profit to finish the last mile (or they asked at the time of building and not enough homes signed up at the time).
> In 1936, the REA was made permanent through the Rural Electrification Act. It was granted an initial budget of $50 million for the first two years, then $40 million a year for the following decade ($550 million in 1936 is approximately $10.3 billion today). Jul 12, 2021
snippet answer from Google search https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+muc...
I can't imagine how our government can justify subsidizing anything other than fiber to the home in the current year. As far as I know, there is very little ongoing maintenance cost and glass fiber is much cheaper than copper, no? Coax people are saying they can get symmetric gigabit up and down with docsis but I will believe it when I see it (low latency symmetric gigabit up and down, no data caps, reasonable pricing). Until then, we shouldn't give them any money.
I guess it costs more than you think to hire someone to dig a hole, put something in it, and then cover it back up again.
I paid a guy almost $2000 to fix a few feet of sewer line in my front yard. Very little work to do once the old line was dug up, the main costs were in pulling various permits, renting the equipment, hiring crew, etc. Now multiply that by a few miles and $30k starts to look like a bargain.
It's expensive in fuel and in the cost and maintenance of machinery designed to deliver the most energy. It's like paying for GPU compute time.
I almost pulled the trigger on a $30k quote from Centurylink to run fiber to my home but they proved incapable of backhauling anywhere near what i was looking for. I didn’t give a shit about its amortized cost.
He doesn't want to _lose_ money on it, but he's an engineer and has evaluated the risks and costs and found them acceptable. He's doing it because because the incumbent ISP won't, because it's a challenge, and because he wants to to serve his community. Or so I've been able to gather.
More importantly these are the people who are more likely to complain about government handouts and socialism.
I don't hate poor people, but subsidizing people in urban areas is just a better way to help them - the money goes a lot further.
I have had the opportunity of growing up in a poorer rural area, and have lived in a major city. I find this mindset pretty grotesque and extremely polarizing, to the degree that it actually undercuts public policy.
Now we have people like you, hating on anyone that doesn't want or can't afford to live as you think they should.
The rest of this post will probably be very confusing.
I understand the sentiment. However, real life is more complex than that. For example, this article in particular is talking about an area around Ann Arbor. I have a friend who lives in this area (in a rural house). He's a tech worker. His neighbor is a tech worker. His brother around the corner used to be a tech worker. I've been to the gun range near his house several times, and each time it is populated by a diverse (age, race, sex) group of people.
On the flip side, there are folks (without children) at the local school board meeting trying to have certain books removed. A council in the area recently got into trouble for misallocating covid funds as personal bonuses.
It's a constant battle, but painting everyone in a rural area with the same brush is a mistake.
They aren't saving money, though. Everything gets weird if you live in a rural area - or heck, a small town. Sometimes housing is cheaper, sure, and then you realize that while you don't have a water bill, you do now have to get your septic system pumped regularly, keep bottled water around because your well pump doesn't work when there is a power outage, and you have to drive everywhere. I imagine that Amazon has made it slightly cheaper because you can drive less. If you don't want to drive, good luck: You can't take your bike on the fastest route and the country roads are poorly maintained.
And I'm really happy the government makes up for the utilities. You might live in the country, but if you don't have electricity and internet service, your time is going to be more isolated and miserable. Folks living in the countryside shouldn't have to be without because of crushing costs, especially when we consider that a portion these folks are producing food for the rest of us.
Important distinction.
I haven't actually met a farmer that is opposed to farm subsidies, for example.
And I think there is a hint of ignorance when it does benefit them: The local ISP finally giving a rural location higher-speed internet probably did so because they received government money or have brushed up against government regulations that require them to upgrade in the countryside as well as urban areas - yet the government spending goes unnoticed.
I'll add that the US is a 2 party system in practice, so the reasons for voting conservative vary greatly and you can't really take voting a certain way as "against handouts" when it is easily other issues that prompts the vote.
If you want to reply that city people also take advantage of government programs remember they aren't going around angry all the time about government spending and welfare. It's the hypocrisy that brings out my sarcastic side.