The Cost Of Broadband In Every Rural Home 381
dave562 writes "In an analysis of the effectiveness of the the 2009 stimulus program (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 or ARRA), one of the programs that was investigated was the project to bring broadband access to rural America. Some real interesting numbers popped out. Quoting the article: 'Eisenach and Caves looked at three areas that received stimulus funds, in the form of loans and direct grants, to expand broadband access in Southwestern Montana, Northwestern Kansas, and Northeastern Minnesota. The median household income in these areas is between $40,100 and $50,900. The median home prices are between $94,400 and $189,000.' So how much did it cost per unserved household to get them broadband access? A whopping $349,234, or many multiples of household income, and significantly more than the cost of a home itself.'"
Warning, not exactly objective research here (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind that this study was conducted by Jeffrey Eisenach (former head of Newt Gingrich's political action committee and longtime conservative activist) and Kevin Caves of Navigant Economics (a bunch of professional "experts" who spend most of their time testifying in favor of various pro-big oil, pro-energy concerns). The article that cites it is by Nick Schulz, of the conservative think-tank American Enterprise Institute.
And it also includes some data that I'm highly skeptical of, to say the least--like asserting that all but 1.5% of users in Montana had wired broadband access and all but 7 households in the whole state had access to 3G broadband prior to this funding. Those numbers are better than my own state, and we're not nearly as rural or mountainous as Montana.
Re:Think even harder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Think harder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the telecoms don't get to stick their snouts in the pork barrel by thinking.
Re:Warning, not exactly objective research here (Score:5, Insightful)
Question from a lazy person: does anyone have any idea what was said about the TVA back in the day. Getting rural broadband to me seems to have a lot in common with rural electrification... including all the people saying that it isn't a necessity, people who crying about "market forces" and all that.
I know everyone seems to have their biases, but it seems like every study that has come out over the last 2 years is two biased to consider no matter what "side" it supports.
Re:Warning, not exactly objective research here (Score:4, Insightful)
This is clearly a study that is not worth much without the raw data open and accessible for everyone.
Maybe a single household near a mountaintop would cost several million dollar to connect but quite a few others could be done for a thousand. So before someone can make any political conclusions it is definitely worth to look at the actual data behind this.
Of course it does not increase trust, that the website (Social science research network [ssrn.com]) is currently down.
Re:Warning, not exactly objective research here (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the problem is there in your last sentence: "every study that has come out"
Where "come out" means reported on by various popular media, with varying degrees of selectivity and 'spin'.
There's actually quite a lot of good research going on in the world. You just don't have it thrust in front of you unless it can be twisted or abused to support someone's political or financial agenda.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Broadband is infrastructure, so stop complaining (Score:3, Insightful)
It's infrastructure (Score:5, Insightful)
So, how did the roads get built? How is the mail delivered? How is power transmitted? How about Plain Old Telephone Service? There used to be some bonafide investment in infrastructure in the US, so where did all that go?
Granted, I understand that water and sewer isn't too common in rural areas, but it's not like it's a backpacking adventure through the rainforest we're talking about.
Re:I think we're overthinking this (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you think they got those phone lines out there? It wasn't the invisible hand.
There were probably people saying "Can't those things be done through the mail?" when they got wired up for phone service.
Re:Unnecessarily expensive (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, because Europe is entirely government-free.
Re:Warning, not exactly objective research here (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care if the numbers are real or not. It costs between $1,000,000-$9,000,000 per lane mile of highway out to those rural homes. If we're talking 2-4 homes/mile, the road costs many more times than the cost of the homes too. And $350K to give them broadband is pretty cheap by comparison. Broadband deployment should be viewed as a similar infrastructure to homes, power lines, etc.
Re:Fake numbers (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all they're dirt poor and not going to pay for broadband or own a computer. The critical part is the ratio of income to house price. Somewhere around 1:2 is OK but not ideal, 1:4 means extreme poverty, like 99% of your legally declared income must be going toward the house and you never eat anything but ramen, at least until the inevitable foreclosure and bankruptcy. Even commissioned cheerleaders for the home sales/building industry don't have the guts to ask for more than a ratio of 1:3.
Umm. That's wrong. 1:2 is great, 1:4 is still good. It is certainly not extreme poverty. I don't know if you realize this, but those in extreme poverty generally don't own homes at all.
A good explanation of ratios based on interest rate [benengebreth.org]
I own a home and my income:home price ratio is 1:3.2 I comfortably pay for expanded cable and a 20/3 fiber-to-the-home internet connection, and I live in a rural community. Most of the community has access to 3 broadband choices -including fiber from an independent/non-big-telco - which are not payed for through subsidy or tax credits.
I'm not sure where you are from, but $40-50k / year is certainly a livable, comfortable, not-anywhere-near poverty condition for most of the country.
Re:Warning, not exactly objective research here (Score:5, Insightful)
Shhhhhhhhh! This is part of the Republican 2012 election plan - the old story of painting Democrats as wasteful of tax dollars
The problem is, they're exactly right: Democrats ARE wasteful of tax dollars. Just look at all these stupid stimulus programs that amount to handing giant piles of cash to giant corporations, thinking they're going to do something useful with it, and then being "surprised" when instead they just take the cash and keep it.
But the other problem is that the Republicans are ALSO wasteful of tax dollars. Did Federal spending go down during Bush's term? No way. The Republicans want to get us involved in as many wars as possible, so that their buddies in the defense industry can make more profit. Strangely enough, Obama is also a big fan of giant defense spending.
What's the solution? Well, I think it should be fairly obvious the answer isn't electing more Democrats or more Republicans, but apparently this concept is beyond the ability of the voting public to grasp.
Re:Warning, not exactly objective research here (Score:4, Insightful)
You have the right to bear arms, the civil rights, why can't you have "the right to broadband access" too?
You misunderstand the definition of "right." In the US Constitution it means a person has the choice to do something free from government interference. You *may* own a gun, if you so desire. You may say, or write, whatever you wish without restriction. You may associate with whomever you choose. Nowhere in there does it say that the method to exercise that right will be provided, only that it is allowed without interference. I am free to publish a newspaper but I have to pay for it. A "right" to something that requires delivery of a service or product places everybody but the receiver in a position of slavery. If a person has a "right" to medical care, some doctor or medical profession MUST provide that service. If a person has a "right" to broadband, some company must string wire, another must provision access to their networking hardware and yet another must provide electricity to run it all.
Re:Warning, not exactly objective research here (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep in mind, ISDN (and partial ISDN) is available almost everywhere.. and according to the Feds, 128Kb/s is broadband..
Re:What was the trillion dollar stimulus spent on? (Score:5, Insightful)
The auto manufacturers and airlines and banks that were bailed out NEEDED TO DIE.
They were diseased things that really should not have been allowed to live any longer under anything resembling a true free market economy.
Actually rebuilding some of our crumbling infastructure would have been a great idea. Too bad not much of that actually happened.
Re:Warning, not exactly objective research here (Score:2, Insightful)
Keep in mind that this study was conducted by people I don't like, therefore I'm going to poison the well and try to convince everyone not to pay attention to it, rather than spend any time refuting its findings.
FTFY.
Then live in the city??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously. People think they can have it all these days.
Why should you get to live in the country, pay super low taxes, and have someone else in the city pay super high taxes to subsidize YOUR high speed?
Move to the country and pay for your own broadband hookup. Or live with satellite access. Or stay in the city. But don't ask for my tax dollars to pick up the bill for your personal choice to live in an inefficient location.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)