Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Americans shoudln't subsidize internet service (Score 1) 353

by fche (#47936729) Attached to: FCC Chairman: Americans Shouldn't Subsidize Internet Service Under 10Mbps

"

Quantify, specify.

You like to eat don't you?"

Yes, but you're short on quantity & specificity on how it's to "society's benefit" to have (how many?) people live in rural areas.

Plus you will notice food is to some extent market-based, so people are paying for that "benefit" directly already. (Let's ignore stuff like food stamps or farmer subsidies, which don't exactly help quantify the benefits, only the costs.)

Comment: Re:Americans shoudln't subsidize internet service (Score 1) 353

by fche (#47936025) Attached to: FCC Chairman: Americans Shouldn't Subsidize Internet Service Under 10Mbps

"... Which will create a society of Haves vs Have Nots based on location. ..."

I suggest bearing a little more humbleness as to your predictions about areas' and peoples' economic judgements. If someone could precisely judge the degree of "cost exacerbation" or "enjoyment" of millions of people, that person would be a gajillionaire, not just a commenter. It is simply not for you to judge whether people in rural areas enjoy themselves as much as your urban peers, or should want to spend their money in ways you approve. You're not a dictator either (thank god).

And that's kind of the point. Where nature/reality/market dictates the different availability of certain services, let people who choose to live there absorb those consequences. Don't protect them from the consequences of their choices. They're adults, and will adapt.

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Working...