Some Red State/Blue State Indicia

zitothebrave said:
This isn't a boon doggle.

45K per household for stable internet connection vs. 350 dollars for limited shit internet. is nothing. Also California could easily cost this out to make profit if they hit enough places. While buying everyone a star link just makes them more money.

Let's theory craft this, California spends 6 billion building this infrustructure that eventually connects, and signs up 20% of it's households to this service, that's about 2.5 million customers. If they're charged 50 bucks a month on average for internet that generates 125 million a month or 1.5 billion a year.

Making internet a public utility isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm not saying it's th eright thing 100% of the time but we've seen this work in other places. Chatanooga for example has public utility fiber and it's a rousing success and makes enough money and provides up to 25 gigabits per second allowing power users and businesses to subsidize lower income folks.
Click to expand...
$45K per household charging $50 per month would be paid back in 75 years
 
Some states have been more successful at discouraging smoking than others. Overall, it has been an enormous public health success story. Anyone who values life and good health should find something worth celebrating in this outcome.

658855205_1306619091333640_2443478121053712622_n.jpg
 
sturg33 said:
Im happy to engage in good faith here. Are you? If so, would you agree with me that what is happening is not working? And if so, should be stopped?
Click to expand...
I do agree it's not working, I don't think trying to help the homeless needs to stop. I believe it could be retooled and refocused and treated as more of a rehabilitation and temporary aid than a permanent one. I think there is a concerted effort that can happen and we've seen cities deal with it but I would like to know your solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top