Despite this, I reject the premise of your argument: the predominant reason an impoverished person wouldn’t have access to Internet isn’t due to a lack of infrastructure. It is due to an inability to pay for it. The predominant reason an impoverished person wouldn’t have access to electricity isn’t due to a lack of infrastructure. It is due to a lack of ability to pay for it.
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?
Ok..
Despite this, I reject the premise of your argument: the predominant reason an impoverished person wouldn’t have access to Internet isn’t due to a lack of infrastructure. It is due to an inability to pay for it. The predominant reason an impoverished person wouldn’t have access to electricity isn’t due to a lack of infrastructure. It is due to a lack of ability to pay for it.
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?