If you want to live in a stupid little farm like it’s 1899, then do it. And stop complaining that the internet is slow or nonexistent, the cellular phones are weak signalled, the roads aren’t plowed, mail doesn’t get delivered, your well runs dry and your shit box fills up in the yard. You chose to do this. Live with your consequences and F off.
That’s the biggest shittiest excuse Americans throw out. If things are bad, you can move. My ancestors have moved with nothing but the clothes on their backs multiple times over the last few hundred years. Any refugee truly fleeing violence or generational inexcapable poverty, will move. They will not stop to consider bringing their PS5 with them. They may take some photos, jewellery, and ancestral mementos. Then go.
The “I’m poor so I can’t do anything” mentality is for lazy idiots. You absolutely can move. No it won’t be as easy as eating cheetos in your underpants in the trailer park. But you can. You just choose not to.
Do you know what doesn’t need Wi-Fi? A fucking book. How about we stop giving kids laptops and have them read books and write on paper. What a fucking concept. As a former teacher laptops, don’t do shit for kids.
You know what else a book doesn’t do? Provide information on multiple topics to several persons simultaneously with the capacity for realtime updates as corrections and new information becomes available. I have ye-olde set of encyclopedias from a few decades ago in my house, wanna bet how much of the information is current in them?
I dont think the basic maths and reading and science skills need to be updated constantly pretty sure a six grader doesn’t need a fucking laptop to learn basic skills. Also, putting the burden of content creation on teachers is not a great solution.
The article by the way is also about poor rural families who don’t have Internet connection. So yeah, a computer with no Wi-Fi doesn’t do that much good now does it?
Do you know what doesn’t need Wi-Fi and a battery to be recharged or power? a fucking book
It’s possible to get a basic laptop for less than the price of many single collage textbooks. Providing some base level connectivity has been a long time goal of several programs, and with satellite or cell connectivity it’s possible to cover large areas at a base level for minimal costs. Books are nice, but shouldn’t be relied on as the solitary source of information these days.
It is unreasonable for us to subsidize building internet out to bumfuck Alaska - land there is so cheap because you’re so far from a service center. With the exceptions of reservations (which is the only place a lot of natives can afford to live) we should stop trying to subsidize these remote areas.
If there’s an economic reason for a community to exist then it can afford to bring in internet themselves.
The thing is, you are already subsidizing it. The US government has already paid for them to have access, ISPs just took the money and never did the job.
If you bought and paid for a car, and you never actually received it, I imagine you would not be happy if someone told you “cars are unsustainable anyway”, and “if you had an economic reason to own a car, you should build your own”.
The majority of people in the USA live in these “rural” areas. Full on subdivisions get built with no Internet sometimes out in the rural parts of the USA. The ISPs that have monopolized internet access, don’t care about running new access because it cuts into their profits. It’s easier to just raise the prices on the existing lines, and keep pocketing the free subsidized money they get from the gov.
Fuck whoever is letting people build subdivisions in the middle of nowhere and fuck people who buy a house in the middle of nowhere with an expectation to have full access to services like you’re in a city.
Lastly, fuck ISP monopolies, let’s solve that problem first and break comcast et all up and roll back laws that block municipal internet services.
But one thing you said “running new access because it cuts into their profits” that’s sort of my point. These rural lines won’t pay for themselves, the only way they’ll be built is if a rich individual commissions it privately or if other people subsidize it. Satellite internet is the right solution for really rural areas. It isn’t worth it to build 30 miles of infrastructure for five homes - it isn’t even worth it for us to pave those roads. Rural communities are “cheap” because everyone else subsidizes them.
As an IT technician, all I am thinking is “well, just use a cable instead”.
Unfortunately I can’t see the article, it won’t load for me, but based on the comments, it seems to US ISPs that are needlessly messing up.
Here in Sweden I have read stories about how farmers have set up their own ISPs for their communities, or failing that hired an ISP to provide a connection while they dug and pulled fiber to their own home. Do you know if this has happened in the US?
What if the farmer did the work themselves, here it is quite common to have some earthwork equipment if you are a farmer, so that should reduce the cost a bit
It’s not an issue where they have a drop at the end of your property and you just need to trench it to your home. They don’t have service anywhere close to you. A farmer wouldn’t be able to navigate the permits to dig up a bunch of land owned by people and local government or strong wires across.
Wouldn’t be the first time some folks out in the wild spaces found ways to make it happen though. A bit more a trick when you have considerations like maximum distance runs for cables and such, but not impossible.
Not missing just saying it wouldn’t be the first time people in the wilds took things into their own hands to fix a problem.
Also though, ‘somebody’ has to take the extra lengths and costs, a company, tax pool, individuals, etc. Unless they’re hiding some crazy mutated spiders that spin Ethernet cables out their rear someone has to put up the time and cash for the infrastructure.
The IT tech joke is that it’s not “Wi-Fi access”, it’s “internet access”. Wi-Fi is a tool to link devices together wirelessly on short distances, the internet is for long distances. It’s annoying to see that the press conflates the two.
You still need a cable connection (or sg like Starlink) to your house and router to have internet access through your Wi-Fi at home.
This is what happens when idiots write articles with 0 understanding of what they’re writing about…all while having literally humans entire knowledge base at the same machine they’re publishing their documents on.
If those greedy ISP’s hadn’t just pocketed all of that federal broadband funding that’s been handed out over the past couple decades, a lot more people would have access to high speed internet by now.
I know you’re joking, but it would still be better to have a bit less funding and much stricter enforcement than our current already-small funding + nonexistent enforcement.
Like all of those pandemic restaurant business funds that got sucked up by massive restaurant chains and hardly anyone else.
Add comment