There was a big push to wire up rural areas in the early 2000s. It didn’t happen everywhere, but it happened in quite a few places that can serve as data points. Here in Maryland there is quite a bit of municipal fiber covering the areas Verizon FiOS doesn’t. Some of it has been in place since the early 2000s. Are those communities with fiber doing better than those without it, economically? They’re not doing any better than their neighbors without fiber. The limiting factor isn’t the availability of bandwidth, it’s the lack of desire to hire anyone from these places for remote work. This is not a “build it and they will come” situation. Many places built it. Nobody came.
People have these unfounded romantic notions about fiber and economic development. Here in Maryland, more than 60% of households have access to fiber. Has it revolutionized the economy? Not at all. Annapolis is a small city (pop. 40,000) that has had fiber more than a decade and almost all the tech jobs here are connected to the Navy (and we’re already here). What do people do with fiber here? Netflix. Fiber is not a catalyst for job creation and economic growth. It’s a means for content consumption. That makes it an awful investment of public dollars.
There's plenty of small business incentives out there. The problem is that the whole "fiber-fueled small rural business" concept is pure romantic fantasy. That's not viable in a modern economy. The future is about massive scale: Amazon replacing regional retailers, etc.
The crux of the problem is that people only talk about jobs, and other people/corporations creating those jobs. Everyone can agree we need more jobs and better jobs. The real issue is that people aren't finding ways to start their own business, make themselves a job. Politicians use the word "jobs" like saying it makes them appear. And too many people think that is how is should work. Those people miss out. Make a good business for yourself and people will throw money at you.
2. Raise enough money until the business becomes profitable and self sustaining
People in the tech industry are so use to being able to get money from VCs once they get to step 1 and aren’t concerned with step 2 because they are just trying to survive long enough to have an “exit strategy”.
i think it’s perfectly fine to invest public money on things that improve everyone’s lives. for me and and many others fiber provides a much higher quality of living even if it doesn’t bring extra growth economically.
Maryland is a pretty rich state, spoiled by military and government connections. It is a poor choice to use as a baseline for the entire nation when plenty of rural areas are still barely scaping by economically and in terms of access to the Internet. Raising the baseline ability of our communications networks is anything but a terrible economic investment, the fact that you cite Netflix shows your focus is only on the short term. I challenge you to look beyond your short sightedness, once people have had their fill with the benefits to media consumption afforded by higher bandwidth connections, and into the future where such connections will be necessary as our infrastructure and information expand in the decades to come
People have these unfounded romantic notions about fiber and economic development. Here in Maryland, more than 60% of households have access to fiber. Has it revolutionized the economy? Not at all. Annapolis is a small city (pop. 40,000) that has had fiber more than a decade and almost all the tech jobs here are connected to the Navy (and we’re already here). What do people do with fiber here? Netflix. Fiber is not a catalyst for job creation and economic growth. It’s a means for content consumption. That makes it an awful investment of public dollars.