Interesting concept. The last time this happened it was called the Rural Electrification Act. (REA) It was brought about because companies like DP&L believed there would never be a significant "load" in the country but the farmers felt differently. This cable company will do the build out and then when it's over and profitable, sell it to Time Warner for twice as much as it's worth and you and I will have paid the bill. Comments on DDN site share this view almost 100%
While i don't disagree with you, Badge1, there really isn't a better way to get that infrastructure out to those areas that I'm aware of.
Currently, some people live in an area where cable is not an option, and neither is DSL. If they wanted one of those options, they would essentially have to foot the bill, after which TWC or Embarq or whoever would be able to sell service through.
Ultimately, it's using taxpayer money to build more technology infrastructure. The more areas that can utilize those technologies means more areas that can use it. It temporarily creates jobs and will end up delivering a service that holds some residents back.
Exactly how many jobs will be created (or "saved") for this $4.6M, and for what length of time?
Just as an example, if this employed 50 people for 2 years it would equal to $46,0000 per year, per job.
Just like most of the stimulus money spent, I suspect this expenditure will be cost us more than it gains us. The government doesn't have any of this money that is being spent. The debt continues to climb and inflation will increase in speed. You can't spend your way out of debt or into prosperity.
Interesting concept. The last time this happened it was called the Rural Electrification Act. (REA) It was brought about because companies like DP&L believed there would never be a significant "load" in the country but the farmers felt differently.
ReplyDeleteThis cable company will do the build out and then when it's over and profitable, sell it to Time Warner for twice as much as it's worth and you and I will have paid the bill. Comments on DDN site share this view almost 100%
While i don't disagree with you, Badge1, there really isn't a better way to get that infrastructure out to those areas that I'm aware of.
ReplyDeleteCurrently, some people live in an area where cable is not an option, and neither is DSL. If they wanted one of those options, they would essentially have to foot the bill, after which TWC or Embarq or whoever would be able to sell service through.
Ultimately, it's using taxpayer money to build more technology infrastructure. The more areas that can utilize those technologies means more areas that can use it. It temporarily creates jobs and will end up delivering a service that holds some residents back.
Exactly how many jobs will be created (or "saved") for this $4.6M, and for what length of time?
ReplyDeleteJust as an example, if this employed 50 people for 2 years it would equal to $46,0000 per year, per job.
Just like most of the stimulus money spent, I suspect this expenditure will be cost us more than it gains us. The government doesn't have any of this money that is being spent. The debt continues to climb and inflation will increase in speed. You can't spend your way out of debt or into prosperity.