Why so expensive, America?

[kentonio]

You think I'm done?

I'm genuinely confused, if the feds are having to subsidize it, and people like yourself would have to pay personally if they wanted coverage extended to where they live, how are the city dwellers paying for the rural folk?

[The Mad Monk]

Of course, other countries provide more subsidies to provide for rural access.

[Felch]

Is that $400 before or after you factor in healthcare?

My health insurance is less than 70 a month, so I'm still coming out ahead.

[kentonio]

What are you guys talking about federal subsidies for? The claim was that broadband providers charged urban dwellers more to compensate for rural customers costing them more, how does the federal government paying for it help your case in any way?

[kentonio]

My health insurance is less than 70 a month, so I'm still coming out ahead.

Does that cover you for every possible medical treatment you could potentially need?

[The Mad Monk]

I'm genuinely confused, if the feds are having to subsidize it, and people like yourself would have to pay personally if they wanted coverage extended to where they live, how are the city dwellers paying for the rural folk?

They are required to supply rural in return for the subsidies, but the subsidy alone doesn't cover it. Per the first article, rural providers that received the subsidy also received access to lucrative suburbs to help cover costs; that is to say, other companies were practically shut out. The suburbs paid more than they would have to, and the rural homes paid much less.

[Sava]

They are required to supply rural in return for the subsidies, but the subsidy alone doesn't cover it. Per the first article, rural providers that received the subsidy also received access to lucrative suburbs to help cover costs; that is to say, other companies were shut out. The suburbs paid more than they would have to, and the rural homes paid much less.

Again, nothing in the article says that translates into higher costs for urban customers.

The article itself states the consequence is less service for rural customers, not higher costs for urban customers.

Try again.

[Felch]

I'm genuinely confused, if the feds are having to subsidize it, and people like yourself would have to pay personally if they wanted coverage extended to where they live, how are the city dwellers paying for the rural folk?

If the broadband was only being sold to city folk, then the prices could be lower. If prices were too high, than a competitor would undercut the gouger and steal market share. As it is, broadband suppliers are regulated and nudged towards providing affordable service to rural customers. If they charged each market a realistic price, then rural customers would pay far more and urban customers would pay far less. That would lead to a digital divide, and the FCC is empowered to prevent that.

Imagine if land taxes were flat. In that case rural land owners would be subsidizing the urban owners even though they receive the same services, and even though the urban land is more valuable and economically productive. This is like the opposite of that.

[Sava]

Do I always have to do your ****ing research? Next time, educate your own damn self, or shut up and let the grown ups talk.

Subsidies are from the government to the companies. They lower costs.

Try to keep up.

[Sava]

If the broadband was only being sold to city folk, then the prices could be lower. If prices were too high, than a competitor would undercut the gouger and steal market share. As it is, broadband suppliers are regulated and nudged towards providing affordable service to rural customers. If they charged each market a realistic price, then rural customers would pay far more and urban customers would pay far less. That would lead to a digital divide, and the FCC is empowered to prevent that.

Imagine if land taxes were flat. In that case rural land owners would be subsidizing the urban owners even though they receive the same services, and even though the urban land is more valuable and economically productive. This is like the opposite of that.

This is your opinion. It is not supported by any evidence.

[Felch]

Does that cover you for every possible medical treatment you could potentially need?

If my head were sliced off, my insurance wouldn't cough up money for a reattachment. Since I could potentially need my head reattached, I guess the insurance doesn't cover me for every possible medical treatment I could potentially need.

[Felch]

Subsidies are from the government to the companies. They lower costs.

Try to keep up.

Read your bills. Look at the taxes and fees. What do those pay for?

[Sava]

Read your bills. Look at the taxes and fees. What do those pay for?

Oh... so now the taxes customers pay are responsible and not the population density?

Those taxes are also the same regardless of where you live in the state... so it wouldn't be more expensive in a city because of taxes.

Try again.

[Felch]

Oh... so now the taxes customers pay are responsible and not the population density?

Those taxes are also the same regardless of where you live in the state... so it wouldn't be more expensive in a city because of taxes.

Try again.

Everybody pays basically the same, right?

It costs money to lay wire, right?

It costs more to hook up individual households in a rural area than in a city (because laying wire costs money), right?

Unless rural customers pay more, they are being subsidized by city customers. This isn't opinion, this is reality. If your opinion diverges from reality, then you're nuts.

[Felch]

Cities are not subsidizing by paying more than rural. They're subsidizing by paying the same.