6530 Starlink satellites in low earth orbit tell me that if there is such a location, it is not within the contiguous 48 states. If they have the money, there is an option for the Internet access. Giving them the money remains the solution.
6530 Starlink satellites in low earth orbit tell me that if there is such a location
Don't satellites require receivers?
As far as I know, connecting to the internet requires some kind of device or another. I don't know if any Internet access point that operates on telepathy.
One thing that all of those accessing devices have in common is that "money" is required to initially obtain them, and/or to maintain connectivity to the serving provider.
One thing that all of those accessing devices have in common is that “money” is required to initially obtain them
Even more important than "money" tends to be "electricity". Which is why public investment in cheaper and cleaner power sources is the baseline for any kind of urban development.
True, but largely irrelevant to the issue at hand: It turns out that "electricity" is yet another thing that a needy individual can acquire with "money".
“electricity” is yet another thing that a needy individual can acquire with “money”
Go out into the woods and buy some electricity.
Ok. Yet another problem that can be solved when the individual has a little money.
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.
the predominant reason an impoverished person wouldn’t have access to Internet isn’t due to a lack of infrastructure
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.
Starlink meets the definition of broadband
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 still need a receive to access Starlink.
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?
Anywhere without Internet, for starters.
6530 Starlink satellites in low earth orbit tell me that if there is such a location, it is not within the contiguous 48 states. If they have the money, there is an option for the Internet access. Giving them the money remains the solution.
Don't satellites require receivers?
As far as I know, connecting to the internet requires some kind of device or another. I don't know if any Internet access point that operates on telepathy.
One thing that all of those accessing devices have in common is that "money" is required to initially obtain them, and/or to maintain connectivity to the serving provider.
Even more important than "money" tends to be "electricity". Which is why public investment in cheaper and cleaner power sources is the baseline for any kind of urban development.
True, but largely irrelevant to the issue at hand: It turns out that "electricity" is yet another thing that a needy individual can acquire with "money".
Go out into the woods and buy some electricity.
Ok. Yet another problem that can be solved when the individual has a little money.
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?