Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday April 22 2018, @07:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the pretty-much-like-everywhere-else-without-broadband-internet dept.

Here's an article:

On Thursday mornings, locals from Sharon Township, Michigan, can drive to the 100-year-old town hall and meet with their local government. The supervisor, planning chair, and zoning administrator all gather at a long wooden table, where they share a box of doughnuts and wait for the heat to kick on. On these days, the township clerk dutifully saws open envelopes containing tax payments from residents and—if it's anything like the frigid February Thursday when I visited—has to take a break to thaw her fingers, numb from the frozen mail.

The digital divide is perhaps more starkly illustrated here, in Washtenaw County, than anywhere else in the US. Sharon Township is just 30 minutes outside of Ann Arbor, and a little over an hour from Detroit, in the next county over. Its 1,700-odd residents are spitting-distance from some of the most technologically advanced areas of the state, including the University of Michigan. Yet when it comes to internet access, Sharon Township may as well be in the mountains of West Virginia.

On a map showing Michigan's internet access at the county level, the square representing Washtenaw looks like one of the best-served regions in the state. Fewer than 10 percent of residents don't have access to broadband internet. But the fact that the city centers are so well-served only makes it more difficult for communities like Sharon Township to get access. Telecom companies aren't expanding their land-based networks to reach these relatively small markets, and money for rural broadband get earmarked for areas farther away.

"It looks like we're covered," said Kathy Spiegel, the Sharon Township Planning Commission Chair. "When Peter [Psarouthakis, the township supervisor] first started going to meetings at the state level, they said Washtenaw County had full coverage and he just kept laughing."

[...] "The issue is very much like rural electrification," said Spiegel, referring to the federal subsidization of electric infrastructure in the 1930s that ensured all Americans had power. "Areas will die if they don't get internet. It's become essential, and if we want to keep a community here, you've got to have something."

Before the Rural Electrification Act was passed in 1936, many Americans were on the far side of a different technological divide. Though we take for granted the ubiquity of electricity now, for a long time many Americans were left behind by electric companies that didn't want to spend the money to power remote, rural, poor, and less-populated areas. Senator George Norris, who represented Nebraska from 1913 until 1943, later recalled in his autobiography that at the time rural Americans had become sharply "conscious of the great gap between their lives and the lives of those whom the accident of birth or choice placed in towns and cities."

It's difficult not to draw similarities between that "great gap" and the digital divide holding so much of America back today. Many solutions have been proposed, and successfully executed in specific areas, but a widespread, ambitious solution like the Rural Electrification Act is little more than a dream at this point.

Instead, as the internet continues to become more and more vital to daily life, the areas without access drift further away from the rest of the country.

"Our world is a little bit different than everybody else's," said Ruth Bland, the school technology coordinator in West Virginia. "We can't just sit in this county and let the rest of the world go by."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @03:42PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 22 2018, @03:42PM (#670374)

    If necessary, I would be willing to pay $100 for gigabit fiber. But, it's not available because some asswipe doesn't see the profit in it? He's a freaking MORON!

    Well, yeah, it sure looks that way. But reality is that the "asswipe" is looking at the $278,000 of cost to build the wire out to your home, and the $100/month of returning billing, and doing the obvious math:

    278,000/100 = 2,780 months just to pay back the capitol install costs

    2,780 / 12 = 231 years (rounded down)

    And deciding that yes, it is not at all profitable to wait 231 years just to recoup the cost of installing the wiring. Esp. when you look at it as 231 years for your house, and another 231 for your neighbor, and 174 years for the three folks a mile closer up the road, and adding it all up to a multi-billion dollar loss year over year for the next 150 years.

    And of course this math above assumes that your $100/month goes 100% towards paying back the install cost. Reality is that only a fraction of it goes to that cost, other fractions go to keeping the line working, or repairing it when the ice storm tears a chunk down (or the squirrels chew the wire open, or the back-hoe driver cuts the cable, etc.) or just to the electricity to run the equipment to transmit data back and forth over the line, etc.

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 22 2018, @03:58PM (1 child)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 22 2018, @03:58PM (#670379) Journal

    Except, I'm not THAT far out in the sticks. I did the math, some months ago, and posted it here on Soylent. If fiber were built out from New Boston, Texas, out past my house to the next two communities north of me, the fiber could pay for itself in less than a year.

    I made a presumption in that post that all homes would subscribe to fiber if it were available, and I never went back to correct that presumption. Let's say that only half the homes subscribed, then return on investment time would double. That is, in two years, or less, the constructions costs would be recovered. So - sorry, your 231 years isn't cutting it.

    There are several communities surrounding where I live. Having brought fiber to my town, it would become easier and cheaper to extend service to each of those communities. I suppose that some individuals at the end of the line might be as costly as you suggest, but I truly doubt that. It MIGHT take ten years for some of those furthest out to pay off. Then again - some of those individuals might be served more efficiently from different directions. Many people along the state line are actually closer to services in Oklahoma, than to anything in Arkansas.

    • (Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Monday April 23 2018, @10:38PM

      by Osamabobama (5842) on Monday April 23 2018, @10:38PM (#670913)

      That 231 year estimate used valid methodology, but different assumptions. Specifically, the total price of $278,000 is an assumption, $100 per month is another, and one singular subscriber is another. At least one of those is reasonable, and at least one is unreasonable.

      The trick is to get people to focus on the math and not on the assumptions.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.