| So? A bunch of people refuse to go out of their way to find some reason to pay for a service that's "not relevant" to them. If they don't need Internet access, then they don't need it. BFD. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | But statistics like this fly in the face of those harping that we need to deploy infrastructure to every outhouse in the Union. |
|
 mgbaker
join:2000-05-14
Charlotte, NC | reply to GlennAllen
I totally agree. |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:But statistics like this fly in the face of those harping that we need to deploy infrastructure to every outhouse in the Union.
Apples and oranges. So someone in the city who has the OPTION to get internet and doesn't want it doesn't mean that 100% of those that live in more rules areas feel the same way. I know PLENTY of people that would gladly pay for internet if only someone would provide them access to it. |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Of course not, and that wasn't my point. Deploying infrastructure for access to the Internet is no different than anything else that costs large sums money in our society (universal health care?). If an opposing side of the debate to spend money can leverage statistics suggesting that 1/5 of the population don't want something, a stronger argument will be built to not expend limited resources. |
|
| But that's only worthy leverage if all of those 1 in 5 (and none, or few, of the 4 in 5) are in the geographical area where someone is considering a build-out (which is fairly unlikely)... of course, if the planners have an "all or nothing" attitude about deployment...  |
|
openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Nah, statistics are misused/abused all of the time. Facts aren't relevant in these discussions. |
|
|
|
