Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (48012)	12/9/2017 9:00:24 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By one_less Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362072

Sigh. You post all the usual liberal tripe. Spare me. So how much did it cost per unserved household to get them broadband access? A whopping $349,234, or many multiples of household income, and significantly more than the cost of a home itself. Sadly, it's actually worse than that. Take the Montana project. The area is not in any meaningful sense unserved or even underserved. As many as seven broadband providers, including wireless, operate in the area. Only 1.5% of all households in the region had no wireline access. And if you include 3G wireless, there were only seven households in the Montana region that could be considered without access. So the cost of extending access in the Montana case comes to about $7 million for each additional household served. Sigh, indeed. Now, tell me the value of the economic growth we'll see off these projects. THAT is the question. We got not growth because government spending does not create growth. It creates consumption. Consumption is a factor in GDP, but not the primary driver of growth. Business creates that. Not government.