Very limited internet options

[Nords]

Re: Very limited internet options

Just for a quick comparison, if I paid the same amount in Sweden as I do for my RR here I would get a 60Mbps connection. Yes, that says 60. What do I get here.......4Mbps if I'm lucky.

I wonder how much we'd pay in the Swedish equivalent of local/state/federal taxes?

I'm happier to suffer here with slow Internet speed and more money in my pocket while capitalism fights out the best Darwinian solution.

I still remember hesitating to spend the money to upgrade from a 28.8 kbps modem to a 56K because I didn't "need" that much speed...

[amagab]

Re: Very limited internet options

I wonder how much we'd pay in the Swedish equivalent of local/state/federal taxes?

I'm happier to suffer here with slow Internet speed and more money in my pocket while capitalism fights out the best Darwinian solution.

I still remember hesitating to spend the money to upgrade from a 28.8 kbps modem to a 56K because I didn't "need" that much speed...

The state subsidized broadband infrastructure is definitely not what keeps the taxes so high in European countries but rather the universal health care and welfare programs. Utah has less taxes than Hawaii and they are starting to subsidize broadband rollouts. I'm pretty sure we can hire some auditors and find money wasted by the State and use it for a State-wide broadband program without raising taxes.....as mentioned earlier. Too bad I'm not an accountant.

By the way, no one in Hawaii seems to be questioning where Obama will get the money to fund his socialized projects!!!??? He might as well throw in subsidized broadband infrastructure.

[amagab]

Re: Very limited internet options

Let's do a comparison again.

In 2001, the State of Hawaii made a forecast that the new high-tech tax credit would cost around 1 billion dollars over the next 10 years. During the same time, Sweden has spent close to 900 million dollars on give all their citizens access to very high-speed broadband (now 60Mbps).

How successful has the Hawaiian high-tech tax credit been? I know that one company who got a lot of the credits has moved to the mainland. Is that success?

I think the money would have been better spent on the broadband infrastructure. After all, Sweden is 8 times bigger than Hawaii so even half of the tax credits would have been enough.

I guess this is an important issue to me.

[amagab]

Re: Very limited internet options

I still remember hesitating to spend the money to upgrade from a 28.8 kbps modem to a 56K because I didn't "need" that much speed...

What is one's definition of need? If I can spend half the time on the Internet and more time with my family by having a faster connection I would consider that a need. Imagine how much productivity would increase at businesses with a faster connection. The company that I work for has a 1.5Mbps connection at one office and a 10Mbps at the other office. Guess which office is more productive!?

[TuNnL]

Re: Very limited internet options

It would be like if the State pulled fiber to Molokai and then lease it to a local provider on that island. Doesn't that sound like a nice idea?

It's just like how the State of Hawaii will fund the rail on Leeward/Central Oahu. However, the broadband infrastructure benefits pretty much every citizen while the rail will mostly benefit Leeward Oahu. Even if you use the Swedish numbers, $400 million is not much compared to 3.7 billion planned for the rail.

Okay, stop right there. You are making an incredible leap here, amagab. First of all, Sweden is basically one land mass. If you were to apply your plans for infrastructure developments just to the main islands (O‘ahu, Hawai‘i, Maui and Kaua‘i) we’re talking way more than $400 million! Do you understand what is required in our unique island-chain environment? It means they have to send submarines down to the ocean floor to lay the fiber-optic cable. Significantly more expensive then simply stringing it on telephone poles or burying it on land.

[Konaguy]

Re: Very limited internet options

Okay, stop right there. You are making an incredible leap here, amagab. First of all, Sweden is basically one land mass. If you were to apply your plans for infrastructure developments just to the main islands (O‘ahu, Hawai‘i, Maui and Kaua‘i) we’re talking way more than $400 million! Do you understand what is required in our unique island-chain environment? It means they have to send submarines down to the ocean floor to lay the fiber-optic cable. Significantly more expensive then simply stringing it on telephone poles or burying it on land.

Sandwich Isles Communications is doing this for around 400 million. They are wiring 69 DHHL land tracts statewide and laying undersea fiber for around that latter figure.

In reality,the real cost would be laying all the fiber-optic lines on the land. As far as I recall SIC has spent around 100 million laying fiber-optic lines here on the Big Island over the years. The other islands are costing less since they are smaller land masses.

Lastly, one interesting tidbit about the fiber-optics going inter island. Hawaiian Telcom, has under sea fiber connecting Oahu, Kauai,Maui and the Big Island. Pacific LightNet has fiber connecting Kauai,Molokai, Lanai,Maui and the Big Island. Time Warner Telcom shares the latter fiber. But only services Oahu, Maui, Kauai, Big Island. Sandwich Isles is in the process building their own interisland fiber network which will connect Oahu, Kauai, Lanai, Molokai,Maui and the Big island.

Overall, there is SCCL fiber-optic line between Spencer Beach on the Big Island and Oahu, a shared fiber-optic network between Time Warner Telcom/Pacific LightNet and Hawaiian Telcom's fiber network serving the islands above.

[amagab]

Re: Very limited internet options

Yes, comparing Sweden and Hawaii is not the best option.....but the infrastructure would be way cheaper in Hawaii and in Sweden. Yes, Sweden is mostly one big landmass but it is a lot lot lot lot bigger than Hawaii and they do have archipelagos where they have pulled fiber and you don't need a submarine to do it.

As mentioned by Konaguy, the inter-island fiber is already in place so and so is fiber in Honolulu. So all needed is to pull fiber out to cover every corner of each island. I know this is slowly being done and available but not being utilized to its fullest because there is no competition. Time Warner and Hawaiian Tel is happy with the current situation.

[Nords]

Re: Very limited internet options

In 2001, the State of Hawaii made a forecast that the new high-tech tax credit would cost around 1 billion dollars over the next 10 years. During the same time, Sweden has spent close to 900 million dollars on give all their citizens access to very high-speed broadband (now 60Mbps).

Amagab, let me clarify that I'm only asking how much we'd pay in taxes for broadband. There's no need to drag socialized medicine or welfare into the discussion, although it makes a great strawman.

So if the population of Sweden is roughly nine million, the country has spent $100 per capita. The average family could hypothetically be taxed $300-$500 for access to 60 mbps broadband. I don't think that'd be very politically popular.

How successful has the Hawaiian high-tech tax credit been? I know that one company who got a lot of the credits has moved to the mainland. Is that success?
I guess this is an important issue to me.

I'm a member of a local angel-investor group that spends quite a bit of time on the high-tech tax credit.

First, the credit is not intended to subsidize only broadband. It includes a number of "high tech" industries in sectors like computer hardware, computer simulations, solar power, and medical equipment/treatments. It includes a number of not-so-high-tech companies. It supports a plan to use deep-ocean water to provide air conditioning to downtown buildings. It even includes Ocean Network (a digital cable channel) and movies.

Second, the credit has spawned angel- and VC-investment activity far out of proportion to Hawaii's population and industry compared to the rest of the U.S. The group has one of the nation's largest memberships and Hawaii's unique tax credits were the subject of much discussion at a national angel-investor meeting. It's quite possible that a few other states will adopt Hawaii's initiative. It's impressive to see the number of local entrepreneurs (& Mainland transplants) who are able to tap into capital that otherwise would go to Silicon Valley or Asia: http://www.hawaiiangels.org/portfolio.php?pg=portfolio

What is one's definition of need? If I can spend half the time on the Internet and more time with my family by having a faster connection I would consider that a need. Imagine how much productivity would increase at businesses with a faster connection. The company that I work for has a 1.5Mbps connection at one office and a 10Mbps at the other office. Guess which office is more productive!?

I agree that broadband enhances productivity up to some level of diminishing returns. My point is that your office, or any Hawaii family, should be able to choose what speed is adequate for them without being required to subsidize everyone else's choice. I'm not particularly happy at having my tax revenue spent to subsidize this particular benefit that may have no value to me, and that may be quite a bit more expensive for a government to implement than for an industry. I wouldn't be more "productive" with 10 mpbs at home, let alone 60 mbps, and I don't care to pay for it either via taxes or Hawaiian Telcom or Oceanic Cable.

I guess the issue is whether broadband access is treated as a service that people can choose to have, or as a public utility that they're required to pay for the access to in a municipality. I'm sure a lot of homeowners in the early 20th century thought that electricity, central water supply, and central sewage treatment were totally unecessary. Today a few people still have their own off-grid electrical systems, wells, and septic fields. I'm no Luddite but in general, I'd rather have a choice over whether or not I have to pay for utilities with my tax dollars.

[amagab]

Re: Very limited internet options

So if the population of Sweden is roughly nine million, the country has spent $100 per capita. The average family could hypothetically be taxed $300-$500 for access to 60 mbps broadband. I don't think that'd be very politically popular.

I know there are so many variables to consider but let's say your estimation was correct. If you compare the market prices between Sweden and Hawaii the average family would save that tax amount in about 2 years due to the low cost of broadband. If you consider the cost of cable TV and phone it would be saved even faster.

[amagab]

Re: Very limited internet options

I agree that broadband enhances productivity up to some level of diminishing returns. My point is that your office, or any Hawaii family, should be able to choose what speed is adequate for them without being required to subsidize everyone else's choice. I'm not particularly happy at having my tax revenue spent to subsidize this particular benefit that may have no value to me, and that may be quite a bit more expensive for a government to implement than for an industry. I wouldn't be more "productive" with 10 mpbs at home, let alone 60 mbps, and I don't care to pay for it either via taxes or Hawaiian Telcom or Oceanic Cable.

I guess the issue is whether broadband access is treated as a service that people can choose to have, or as a public utility that they're required to pay for the access to in a municipality. I'm sure a lot of homeowners in the early 20th century thought that electricity, central water supply, and central sewage treatment were totally unecessary. Today a few people still have their own off-grid electrical systems, wells, and septic fields. I'm no Luddite but in general, I'd rather have a choice over whether or not I have to pay for utilities with my tax dollars.

Good points! I don't think it will be long until Internet access will be considered a required utility.

Thanks for telling me about your experience with the tech tax credit.

[amagab]

Re: Very limited internet options

There are a lot of things we get taxed for that we probably would have opted out of if we had a choice. The government taxes based on what it sees is needed to pay for public services. I believe a fast and solid broadband infrastructure is needed now and definitely in the future and would not mind be taxed for it.