Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Communications United States

Fast Internet Everywhere Could Add $160 Billion To US Economy (bloomberg.com) 83

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
The U.S. economy stands to gain $160 billion a year in extra output from a successful national high-speed internet plan that would boost labor productivity and allow more people to work from home, according to new research. From a report: The study, which is based on survey data, attempts to put precise numbers on one of the bigger unknowns in President Joe Biden's infrastructure plan: how much is universal broadband really worth?

"Moving to high-quality, fully reliable home internet service for all Americans would raise earnings-weighted labor productivity by an estimated 1.1% in the coming years," economists Jose Maria Barrero, Nicholas Bloom and Steven Davis wrote in a paper released July 27. "The implied output gains are $160 billion per year," equivalent to about 0.7% of gross domestic product. The study's authors describe an "abrupt, enormous" shift to remote work as a result of the pandemic, which they expect to settle with about 20% of the U.S. labor force persistently working from home. The share could be higher for so-called knowledge workers whose jobs are mostly done on computer networks anyway.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fast Internet Everywhere Could Add $160 Billion To US Economy More

Fast Internet Everywhere Could Add $160 Billion To US Economy

Comments Filter:

  • Amazing, Elon is doing that right now (Score:3)

    by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2021 @01:14PM (#61630755)
    Of course, someone needs to pay for it. But, at least the capability is coming.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by iggymanz ( 596061 )

      Elon is doing nothing of the sort, he's building a low speed high cost high latency system. The actual measured bandwidth is a disappointment. Earth based systems can be superior.

      • Impressive - you managed to make one correct statement in there.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bn-7bc ( 909819 )
        not that high latency, t lest not compared to geostationary orbit, and since each sat covers a far smaller area the bandwidth/area will probably not be that bad eater, this is not a competitor for isps in NYC, but it offers some hope to people outside metro areas, that currently probably has nothing better than the lowest tier ADSL. and maybe a bit less shit internet for ships

      • There are negligible economic benefits for everyone having gigabit internet. The economic benefits being discussed come from upgrading the people who are getting a couple megabits via traditional satellite with ultra-high latency and dealing with it going out every time it rains and hitting a data cap halfway through the month.

      • like always, a constant liar and a troll.
        For $99/month, I can hook up to Starlink and get 200Mbps. Right now, we pay > $160/month to get 200 Mbps from Xfinity and it is up and down constantly. Ping time? www.cnn.com was ~12 ms, while www.foxnews.com was 20 ms. What is typical ping time with starlink? There is no typical. It varies from 15 to 100 ms, but mostly depending on location. That has more to do with # of satellites servicing the area and will improve as more sats launched.

        And if ppl live in t

        • People weren't getting 200Mbs, more like 40 - 93 Mbps.

          "Liar and Troll" eh, bursting your marketing wank fed delusional bubble.

          Real world aint't rainbow shitting flying unicorns.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by pbasch ( 1974106 )
        Right. Starlink, bless its soul, is a satellite system, so very useful for remote areas or mobile applications. It might be cheaper and better than existing satellite systems -- I hope it is and, based on other Musk products, probably will be. At its fastest, it promises to be 100/20. I have the cheapest fiber link at 100/100, at about $50/mo. Not really cheap or really fast, sadly, especially compared with the speeds my European friends get.

      • It does not have to be great, just better then what is available now. In the US millions (like me) rely on satellite Internet. I just want my YouTube videos to run at 360p. I just want my stock trades to go through. If the sun is in the wrong spot or it gets too cloudy, like it does most afternoons in Florida, I lose my connection.

        Come on Elon, take my money.

      • I'm guessing you do not live in a rural area. I have, for the last 20 years. I also supported and used Viasat's technology and have communicated with rural users throughout the US.

        There is nothing anywhere close to Starlink in most rural areas. The closest thing to Starlink's performance is WISPs. WISPs have MANY issues. GPS sprinklers create huge problems and are very common in rural areas. WISPS are also commonly monopolies with other management and support issues. I have been using WISPS primarily for th

    • Re:Amazing, Elon is doing that right now (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2021 @02:49PM (#61631253)

      The problem is that they overcharge tremendously for this, while refusing to roll out the necessary infrastructure. The entire US system for high speed internet at home depends upon cable - but if you don't have cable or don't want to pay their ridiculous prices then you're screwed and are stuck with copper for DSL most of the time.

      The price needs to be in the $25-$50/month range for something greater than 25Mbps. Instead many people pay $40/mo for ADSL! Stop charging for internet as if it's a luxury product.

  • Considering how many jobs do NOT rely on the internet (essentially, all of those jobs where folks were furloughed during the pandemic), further increasing home internet speeds or reliability seems unlikely to cause 1.1% in labor productivity growth.

    Instead, it would seem more likely that increasing nationwide 4G wireless coverage might improve productivity more. Having wide-spread mobile internet seems like it would benefit everyone, rather that small bumps in home internet speeds.

    Also, there are decreasin

    • $160B is not even an extra $500 in output per capita per year in the US; roughly $1000 per member of the workforce, so it's not really that much. Heck TFS says it's only 0.7% GDP...

      The real questions are where that productivity is going to be realized (faster internet isn't going to solve housing or chip shortages, for example) and how the benefit of that productivity is distributed.

      • Yeah, $500 is about what my gasoline costs for driving back and forth to work for the year... would rather have the extra 25 minutes on each end of the work day "back" to being "my time".

      • Less commuting, fewer cars on the roads, less time spent commuting by people that actually have to commute.
        Cars needing less maintenance due to fewer miles driven.
        People eating less expensive food at home?
        Less money paid for office air conditioning?

        • Less commuting, fewer cars on the roads, less time spent commuting by people that actually have to commute.
          Cars needing less maintenance due to fewer miles driven.
          People eating less expensive food at home?
          Less money paid for office air conditioning?

          Alternatively:
          * Damaging the car and gas industries and all related jobs
          * Hurting the fast food and restaurant industry
          * More money paid to cool each home versus a building (I know my home is not energy efficient)

          • Not sure how this is flamebait. I have much more emotional-based comments that would be better suited for that mod.

            I can only assume you commented on that post so you had to find a story I commented on that you could still moderate :)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by I75BJC ( 4590021 )
        $500 per person? That's the cost?

        Who is going to pay for that?

        The Governments?
        Taxing the taxpayers again and again?

        The people, in my area, who want "high-speed" Internet access already have it.
        The others, in my area, are waiting for someone else to pay for it.

  • Sure the economy will be better, people will have more access to be able to prosper. But that is going to cost the Telco money in the short term. Sure they can make it up with more customers in the future. But that is not going to look good on the Quarterly Report, and that is what is important. And if they use a fraction of that money towards lobbying congress, all the better.

     

  • How, exactly? Color me skeptical.

    • If I could get fast internet to my place in rural America, we would definitely add to economic activity. My wife's arts and crafts side hustle could go way wider than just the local farmer's markets and I'd be able (and more willing) to do a lot more if it didn't require me to drive all the way to my office in town (34 miles away). I could conduct meetings online from home for example.

      I'm pretty sure the connection between people's connection to the internet and their level of economic activity is pretty

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by kackle ( 910159 )
        Couldn't her side hustle work even with mediocre speeds? And don't your "additions" simply add competition, basically removing profits from someone else? And doesn't your telecommuting just move money from your gasoline, road tolls and vehicle costs to somewhere else?

        I'm not trying to be jerk, I'm just suspicious of such a large dollar amount coming from those few who (smartly) chose a more rural location to live.

        • Couldn't her side hustle work even with mediocre speeds?

          Not if the side hustle involves providing online instruction via live video.

          And don't your "additions" simply add competition, basically removing profits from someone else?

          That's the idea. Giving everyone access to competing is how our economy is supposed to work. Competition is supposed to be one way productivity improves, if you believe in "free market capitalism".

          And doesn't your telecommuting just move money from your gasoline, road tolls and ve

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by kackle ( 910159 )

            You're assuming that having access to telecommuting means less overall travel, and that reducing emissions is a bad thing. Road tolls are supposed to be a way of supporting road maintenance. If I'm using the roads less, less maintenance is required. And reducing vehicle costs means I have more money to spend on other stuff. A competitive successful economy does not mean making sure the buggy whip industry survives when technology has moved on.

            I hear you, but I'm specifically talking about their dollar estimate; a $160 billion increase seems awfully high.

            • I hear you, but I'm specifically talking about their dollar estimate; a $160 billion increase seems awfully high.

              There are approximately 19 million Americans who don't have access to broadband. Giving them (and their families, and future generations of their families) increased access to being competitive can have a multiplier effect that can ripple way beyond just improving the bottom line of those 19 million.

              Plus, let's be honest, The lifetime cost of the F-35 Lightning II program is over $1.6 TRILLION f

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by kackle ( 910159 )

                There are approximately 19 million Americans who don't have access to broadband. Giving them (and their families, and future generations of their families) increased access to being competitive can have a multiplier effect that can ripple way beyond just improving the bottom line of those 19 million.

                Money will just move from one expenditure to another, not be "created", no?

                The U.S. economy stands to gain $160 billion a year in extra output ...

                How, I ask; where is this "extra" coming from? Are they thinking the outliers are sitting on all of this unspent money?

                Plus, let's be honest, The lifetime cost of the F-35 Lightning II program is over $1.6 TRILLION for a plane that nobody wanted and improved nobody's life (except for military contractors and bribed congress people).

                I agree; but two wrongs don't make a right.

                I'm A-OK with one tenth of that going to making people's lives better, making for a more competitive and productive workforce and allowing my wife and I to stream BBC detective shows on Netflix.

                Of course you are; I'm paying for it! :-)

  • While faster would be nice, in my experience reliability is the biggest bottleneck. Being in the middle of an important e-meeting and having connections go dodgy is a big shot to productivity. Fix that first! Seeing the boss's pores in high def can be done later ... or never.

    • Being in the middle of an important e-meeting and having connections go dodgy is a big shot to productivity.

      Being in the middle of an "important" meeting and having connections go dodgy is the biggest boost to productivity.

      ftfy!

    • Because home internet is still considered mostly a luxury. It's an add-on to overpriced cable usually. Businesses pay a high premium price to get better service, whereas home users pay a lesser premium for bad service.

      • Yea but here's the thing. Even the federal government recognizes it is no longer merely a Luxury, even if they hesitate to complete the official transition of it into a Utility. The people who want it still considered a luxury are people who either have no say in the matter, or who had a say in the matter but are acting illegally due to a obvious conflict-of-interest.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      Of course a lot of people might not have as much effective bandwidth as you do. Bandwidth is like brushing your teeth: if you don't brush enough, even a little bit more has a big impact. But after you've brushed for two minutes more doesn't make any difference.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        It doesn't just get choppy, during some periods it often stops, times out, and disconnects.

  • The share could be higher for so-called knowledge workers whose jobs are mostly done on computer networks anyway.

    But IP is theft from society. There's no place for "knowledge workers".

  • Fix Stupid, first. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2021 @01:35PM (#61630889)

    "a successful national high-speed internet plan that would boost labor productivity and allow more people to work from home..."

    We have had plenty fast broadband internet going to plenty of homes, for decades now. And now we've had a global pandemic to validate remote work, can work.

    And yet Greed still insists and demands that we falsely and corruptly sustain a Corporate Real Estate Complex and force (otherwise remote) workers to commute to a building.

    We've been fighting this since before RDP was invented.

    Fix Stupid who works in management, first. Then you can convince me that "broadband everywhere", will actually enable what you're selling. Otherwise, you're full of shit, and we will watch broadband providers yet again insist they need billions to roll this out, only to pocket 90% of it and do fucking nothing.

    FUCK it gets old calling out the obvious.

    • Well, I'm glad you said it, because, while it matches my sentiments exactly, if I had said it they'd have just modded me down to -1 where nobody else would read it.

  • Can I just have somewhat of a reliable service? I talking to you MotherFucking Charter!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GoTeam ( 5042081 )
      Seriously, how hard is it for Charter to keep your internet online? I had u-verse issues a while back (5 years ago?) that were similar. We couldn't go more than a week without an outage. I'm sure they were in the middle of an infrastructure upgrade, but it sucked. I have a friend that said they'd be happy if their Charter internet would go out only once a week. You have my sympathy. Best of luck sir!

  • 10th admendment issue. - Not the Fed's problem. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dhickman ( 958529 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2021 @01:45PM (#61630947)
    If a state wants their rural areas to compete in the 21st century, then they can work with private enterprise to bring things out.

    I moved to rural Arkansas after spending 25 years living in major US cities in order to get decent internet.

    Nearest town of 100 people to me is about 5 miles of dirt roads, and the nearest walmart town is 10 miles of dirt and five miles of pavement away.


    Why? Because several years ago Arkansas decided to funnel the USF ( universal service fund) and other grants away from telcos and opened it up to companies who can demonstrate that they can deliver a min of 1gig fiber to the rural areas.

    The Co-op electric companies jumped on this and created ISPs. Right now they are ahead of schedule and something like 99% of rural arkansas that is served by Co-OPs will have 1 gig fiber avalible by 2025.


    The hilarious thing is that the cities can not keep up and now have sub par internet than to the homes/farms in the rural areas.
    • The Constitution is explicit that Congress has authority over communications infrastructure.

      To establish post offices and post roads;

      The Internet is simply the modern equivalent.

  • See, this is why I want an "Eisenhower Interstate Project" for the nations broadband (it doesnt have to cost QUITE as much as the real interstate project). I think it would make a drastic improvement to the nations overall economy.

  • Went to school with tons of people from tiny towns (I'm talking anywhere from a few hundred to a couple thousand residents) who would love to live back home. Nationwide broadband would revitalize rural America.

    • I've been saying the same thing for a while. Between broadband and Amazon Prime availability, I no longer have much of a need to stay in the city.

  • Hell No (Score:1, Troll)

    by Jodka ( 520060 )

    So who detected that grotesque non sequitur in the summary? Broadband expansion stimulates economic growth, therefore we should have more government bureaucracy to grow the internet.

    Here is a deal: After the U.S. government fixes all its existing massive screwups it has created then it is allowed to roll out a national high-speed internet plan. How about first, stop destroying natural habitat with mandated ethanol fuel blending. Stop artificially inflating consumer dairy prices by stockpiling 1.4 billion

    • Rural Electrification and safe water happened because of government involvement almost 100 yrs ago. I didn't see any telcos or internet companies doing this on their own, wouldn't it be nice if they did? I mean, at least the government is doing more than the private sector is, for encouraging commerce, raising living standards, establishing a functioning society, etc etc etc.

  • This message sponsored by... (Score:3)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Wednesday July 28, 2021 @02:18PM (#61631107) Journal

    ...Onlyfans, Brazzers, YouPorn, and, let's be honest, Google.

  • No, not by rolling out high speed internet to even more people. We should roll it out to fewer.

    I'm sure some people will benefit from high speed internet. I'm not sure who those people are and how much they need their service improved. I'm not sure whether they need more bandwidth or lower latency. I'm equally sure there are a lot of people who not benefit one iota by having a faster network than they already have. If we only had a mechanism to sort the two groups out. Oh wait, we do, it's the open market.

    • exactly, the us military should be paid for by those that use it..

    • Right maybe we should take back the hundreds of billions of $$$ that have been given to the telcos since they broke up Ma Bell. And then let the market decide what kind of third world shithole we're gonna be. Because letting the market decide is the best way to organize anything.

  • Will it? Really? Given the 90% Bullsh*t Rule of the internet, I'm thinking it will be more like 16 billion.

  • Further draining cities of high earning citizens that can work remote would greatly benefit the country. When you realize the world functions just fine without $10K a year in property taxes you see what a scam our municipalities have become. Stop feeding the beast.

  • How come they never mentioned how much will be saved like the savings on roads etc because of less travel and working from home ?

  • Considering how many 100s of billions of dollars have been handed over to private companies since the 1990s to improve internet speeds and accessibility, it would be nice if we taxpayers, who have been footing the bill, would see some results.

    That it's taken over three decades shouldn't surprise anyone considering how slow private industry is to show results when they're getting free money to do something.

  • then those rural low tax areas , should fund it
  • This is just the estimated "overage costs" customers will pay when they start using the "unlimited" plan they've been paying for since 2000.
  • Within metro area, we really should have the local community put in their own broadband as a utility, but then have cable, telco, etc compete on providing services.
  • For any group getting this $, they should be required to move to PURE IPv6. IOW, no IPv4. We need the nation to switch over.

  • Maybe. Maybe not. Hmm, probably not.

  • Does it include ZERO tax Amazon pays :)

Slashdot Top Deals

Someday somebody has got to decide whether the typewriter is the machine, or the person who operates it.

Close