I never said that there weren't good reasons to live in remote areas. I said that making the CHOICE to live there is not without personal responsibility for your own well being, including communications with the outside world. SRG is a good example - he was offered a job in rural Alaska and he considered everything that entailed - remoteness, weather, high costs for everything, and inconveniences - and he decided that was all acceptable. It is a free country and you can CHOOSE to live anywhere, but those choices come with consequences.
Sure, you can choose to live anywhere. But anywhere you live is dependent on Federal money. Be it for infrastructure, or outlays of tax dollars when disaster strikes. And those 'consequences' often cost people 3000 miles away a lot of money. Nationwide, insurance rates have skyrocketed thanks to California wildfires and Florida hurricanes. The tax burden to cover those disasters also affects the rest of the nation.
Their choices, to live in those areas, become our consequences. But that's how it works in an integrated, Federal society.
My thought there is that IF federal money is being spent, why are we spending it on outdated technology when something far better is available. Starlink is already available there, with speeds all over Alaska at 150 kbs, so all that is needed is the receivers and to set up a few community hot spots. Is it more expensive right now? Probably - but it actually works for everybody everywhere, something a chain of low power local repeaters just can't do. FYI - Starlink costs $120 per month for unlimited data at 150 kbs everywhere in Alaska and the equipment is currently free. Is that unreasonable in the Alaska wilderness? I pay almost that much for regular internet in a suburban area now.
High-speed internet. Available almost anywhere on Earth.
www.starlink.com
"Is it more expensive right now? Probably." That's the key phrase in this discussion. You would prefer that the government spend more money than it takes to continue to subsidize an already existing, working, local community radio station. You want the government to spend more money. I don't. I want them to spend less money, money that was already allocated, on a proven infrastructure that already exists.
When the costs for the satellite stuff comes down a lot more, then look into the alternatives. And even at that, stations like KSKO are local in nature, manned by local people, with a direct link to the local community. And many of those local people may not have the $150 to spend on Starlink.
Big difference in natural disasters and rioting in our cities and choosing to live off grid and expecting someone else to help pay for it. Yes, radio is cheaper to fund, but it doesn't reach everybody and it has to be on and being listened to to be effective. Could the government fund satellite internet hotspots in those areas? Yes, but the issue there is the government itself. The previous administration allocated $42 billion for rural broadband service four years ago and no one has been hooked up as of right now. Starlink was deployed in battle damaged Ukraine in a matter of days, so it can be done if the government can get out of the way.
There's not a big difference at all. You choose to live in a big city, statistically you are going to be dealing with more crime, and potential for riots. Everybody knows that. And that means the cities want Federal money, be it for extra policing, or to help them rebuild after the businesses burn or become vandalized. Some big cities want more Federal money for welfare programs, because the costs of living in the big cities aggravates poverty, and -- of course -- poverty can aggravate the violent crime problem. Of course, everyone who lives in a big city knows already, ahead of time, that these living conditions exist. But they move there, anyway.
Maybe they should all take your advice and vote with their feet, and move out of the big cities to nowheresville, where, ironically, the cost of living is cheaper, but where there are no jobs, and in many of those rural areas, a lot of poverty.
You have mentioned several times about people deciding to live somewhere with full knowledge of the negatives. That is true. I don't think there is any doubt about that.
When millions choose to live in Florida, and other weather beaten regions of the Sunbelt, the rest of us have to pay for the hurricane and other damage to their houses and businesses -- every year. When millions choose to live in 'Tornado Alley', the rest of us pay for the damage. Nobody holds a gun to someone's head and says "Move to Florida, and the Gulf Coast where the hurricanes hit". They don't force people to move to areas where tornadoes strike every year, sometimes many times during a year. The people move to those areas and live there voluntarily. And then when the hurricanes slam into the coastline each year, like clockwork, or the tornadoes strike every year, like clockwork, and cause millions and millions of dollars worth of damage, they all want the rest of us to pay for it.
That probably costs the government more each year than funding KSKO and a handful of other radio stations in rural Alaska, and a few other rural states.
