Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The cost of <not> having 100 pc coverage would be an externality borne by the state.

How so? The cost would be primarily borne by people who choose to live in the sparsely populated areas. Often because they want to get away from others so it's not even really a cost.

When it comes to just mere connectivity (for emergency communication and the like), satellite coverage is more than enough and cheaper to provide in unpopulated regions. Plus, Motorola already sunk a ton of money (in Iridium). Now you want to do it again?

Also, a perspective where the government owns the network(?), and maximizes its value is pretty bizarre to begin with. Maybe it would make sense under some sort of hereditary monarchy. Otherwise, all the incentives are completely out of whack. The government will just go with whatever is beneficial to the backers of the coalition currently in power, like the fed and fcc already seem to be doing.



The telco and internet backbone are considered public-emergency infrastructure. The government would need to build a PSA system with 100 percent coverage, if they were unable to camandeer one already built. That opportunity cost is huge, and why as part of the operational licesnses of cable/telcos, there is language to provide for emergency services.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: