Starlink meets the definition of broadband, and is available to all of the US but the northernmost areas of Alaska. Since the population of that area is far less than 42 million, I’m calling bullshit.
You need some sort of device to access any internet service. Internet is not telepathically delivered.
Starlink has portable transceivers designed for RVs, and the service is available to latitudes below (and slightly above) 53° north. The receivers are not significantly different than cellular-based home internet modems.
Based on your comments, I don’t think you actually understand what Starlink is.
It is truly amazing how a little “money” makes all of these poverty-related problems disappear.
Oh, I forgot: your argument that 42 million Americans don’t have access to broadband does not imply that 42 million Americans lack access to the internet, Amazon, or other online retailers. Broadband != Internet. Broadband is defined as 25mbps download and 3mbps upload. Amazon is perfectly usable on a tiny fraction of that.
I’m not in the habit of defending @UnderpantsWeevil, but it’s pretty clear that their point is that UBI cannot replace public infrastructure investment. You’re not really arguing that it can and/or should, are you?
Dude told me to go out in the woods and buy electricity. That would be a relevant argument if people in the woods were poor. But the overwhelming majority of impoverished people live in urban environments, not the woods. Yeah, it’s hard to get grid power run out to East Bumfuck Nowhere, but nobody living in East Bumfuck Nowhere wants to be connected to the grid. They all moved out there to dig a bomb shelter and wait for the apocalypse.
There is no shortage of electricity or Internet access in poor urban areas. The reason poor people might not have electricity or Internet access isn’t because there is no Internet or electric infrastructure. The reason is because they can’t fucking afford it.
I agree, public investment in infrastructure is important, but it is entirely irrelevant to the issue of poverty. The only point I would make about UBI and infrastructure is that if a large group of people have need for a “something”, and they happen to have some money, someone is going to step in and try to exchange a “something” for their money.
The “public infrastructure” that most needs investment isn’t all the shit that the people want. The most vital piece of “public infrastructure” is the people themselves. Give them the money and get out of their way.
Currently, some 42 million Americans have no access to broadband, according to Broadband Now, a data technology company.
Well, that’s a lie.
Starlink meets the definition of broadband, and is available to all of the US but the northernmost areas of Alaska. Since the population of that area is far less than 42 million, I’m calling bullshit.
You still need a receive to access Starlink. Ideally, a large capacity receiver, so you can capitalize on economy of scale.
That means you need electricity, and ideally some kind of commercial grade router, and some amount of IT staff capable of configuring access.
The existence of satellites is not sufficient to provide global broadband on its face.
You need some sort of device to access any internet service. Internet is not telepathically delivered.
Starlink has portable transceivers designed for RVs, and the service is available to latitudes below (and slightly above) 53° north. The receivers are not significantly different than cellular-based home internet modems.
Based on your comments, I don’t think you actually understand what Starlink is.
It is truly amazing how a little “money” makes all of these poverty-related problems disappear.
Oh, I forgot: your argument that 42 million Americans don’t have access to broadband does not imply that 42 million Americans lack access to the internet, Amazon, or other online retailers. Broadband != Internet. Broadband is defined as 25mbps download and 3mbps upload. Amazon is perfectly usable on a tiny fraction of that.
I’m not in the habit of defending @UnderpantsWeevil, but it’s pretty clear that their point is that UBI cannot replace public infrastructure investment. You’re not really arguing that it can and/or should, are you?
Dude told me to go out in the woods and buy electricity. That would be a relevant argument if people in the woods were poor. But the overwhelming majority of impoverished people live in urban environments, not the woods. Yeah, it’s hard to get grid power run out to East Bumfuck Nowhere, but nobody living in East Bumfuck Nowhere wants to be connected to the grid. They all moved out there to dig a bomb shelter and wait for the apocalypse.
There is no shortage of electricity or Internet access in poor urban areas. The reason poor people might not have electricity or Internet access isn’t because there is no Internet or electric infrastructure. The reason is because they can’t fucking afford it.
I agree, public investment in infrastructure is important, but it is entirely irrelevant to the issue of poverty. The only point I would make about UBI and infrastructure is that if a large group of people have need for a “something”, and they happen to have some money, someone is going to step in and try to exchange a “something” for their money.
The “public infrastructure” that most needs investment isn’t all the shit that the people want. The most vital piece of “public infrastructure” is the people themselves. Give them the money and get out of their way.