Comment by csense | Hacker News Reader

Comment by csense | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"There is absolutely no reason that any local government in the US worth its weight in salt couldn't start a fiber to the home initiative where they take a tax hike for a few years to pay off laying fiber to everyone in the district."

We. Can. Not. Afford. It.

In case you haven't been paying attention:

Unemployment is high, so new taxes are tougher to sell than usual, and income tax revenue is declining.

Home values have just taken a big hit, so property tax revenue is declining.

The housing market is having a difficult time clearing in many areas; i.e. prices are still too high and there's a surplus of homes, which sit abandoned. This stretches local services (fires, copper theft, copper theft of e.g. gas lines which causes fires, homeless, drug activity, etc.).

Expensive pensions, healthcare, etc. cause costs for government employees to keep going up.

In short, state and local governments are overextended and are feeling a need to cut services, not expand them. The federal government is too, to some extent, but they can essentially print money.

Of course, these are generalizations; they obviously won't apply to every locality.

We. Can. Afford. It.

Laying fiber would create jobs all over the country, not only by employing companies to lay the fiber, but by creating work for the companies that manufacture the fiber. More people working means more tax revenue and it means they have money to spend elsewhere, which in turn creates additional jobs in local regions - once again increasing tax revenues.

What the US cannot afford is to continue to cut federal, state, and local jobs when there is already not enough demand in the private sector to provide anything close to full employment.

In my "Can't. Afford. It," comment [1] I wasn't referring to the trickle-down effects, job stimulus, or long-term return on investment. Those are certainly worthy issues to discuss, but in comment [1] I was limiting myself to saying that, regardless of the merits of the proposal, it might be difficult for many localities to come up with the financial resources to implement it.

> What the US cannot afford is to continue to cut federal, state, and local jobs when there is already not enough demand in the private sector to provide anything close to full employment.

Whether creating jobs should be a goal of government, or merely a side effect of implementing policies, depends on your politics. (It's as much a question of "big-government" vs. "small-government" as "left" vs. "right".)

[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4294310

> it might be difficult for many localities to come up with the financial resources to implement it.

Which is why they should issue voted-upon bonds, instead of tax incentives to the corps.

One of Google's stated requirements for the fiber project was the ability to impact business. They specifically wanted a location where there was an industrial market without access to reliable high-speed Internet access.

Fiber is a benefit to businesses. When my city installed a fiber line with the assistance of a large regional credit union headquartered here, we also saw a couple data centers and co-location facilities move in. The lines paid for themselves in a more than reasonable time frame.

In reality, the big thing holding back municipal Internet access or the installation of high speed lines is not the lack of money in the government (the government doesn't need to pay a dime). It's that the government is willingly allowing the existing local telco to maintain their monopoly with bans on the installation of new cable. Make it cheap and easy to drop new lines in and the market will expand to fill the desire.

Studies have shown that fiber to a house results in a net increase of about $10K in the house's value. Since typical property taxes are about 1% of the value, any local government that does this is looking at about $100/year extra income per house, ad infinitum.

You can use bonds to pay for fiber, because fiber is infrastructure (like water, electricity, roads).

Here's how I would like to see it: the City provides fiber infrastructure, and charges a base fee for it. This gets your traffic to some termination point(s). If you want access to the Internet, you pay a third party to carry your traffic to/from the Internet past those termination points. It'd be an open market, so carriers would try to undercut each other.

I doubt studies really show any such thing. They probably showed that when fiber is rare in a residential area, it may add $10K to a house value. When it becomes common, it won't.

Not necessarily. Laying fiber might be end up being revenue positive without a tax increase -- depending on the time frame and its effect on stimulating the economy.

The assumption behind any infrastructure being laid is that it will be a net positive gain. You wouldn't consider it otherwise. If everywhere in the US with a population density over around 50 persons per square mile got end to end fiber via local taxes (and to argue the supers problem, if a region can't afford it, they don't have to do it - many localities in the US are prospering just fine, while some are destitute. Its a case by case situation) the benefits to society would be massive.

Same thing with maglev trains along the east and west seaboards. They cost a ton, but in 50 years they would usher in new eras of mobility and an order of magnitude less cost to transport goods extremely quickly.

Some might debate whether what you say is true but it doesn't really matter because it would be political suicide, I think, in the near future to try to push this agenda anywhere outside of the Valley.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com