6530 Starlink satellites in low earth orbit tell me that if there is such a location, it is not within the contiguous 48 states. If they have the money, there is an option for the Internet access. Giving them the money remains the solution.
As far as I know, connecting to the internet requires some kind of device or another. I don’t know if any Internet access point that operates on telepathy.
One thing that all of those accessing devices have in common is that “money” is required to initially obtain them, and/or to maintain connectivity to the serving provider.
One thing that all of those accessing devices have in common is that “money” is required to initially obtain them
Even more important than “money” tends to be “electricity”. Which is why public investment in cheaper and cleaner power sources is the baseline for any kind of urban development.
True, but largely irrelevant to the issue at hand: It turns out that “electricity” is yet another thing that a needy individual can acquire with “money”.
Ok. Yet another problem that can be solved when the individual has a little money.
Despite this, I reject the premise of your argument: the predominant reason an impoverished person wouldn’t have access to Internet isn’t due to a lack of infrastructure. It is due to an inability to pay for it. The predominant reason an impoverished person wouldn’t have access to electricity isn’t due to a lack of infrastructure. It is due to a lack of ability to pay for it.
Where are we that Amazon won’t deliver?
Anywhere without Internet, for starters.
6530 Starlink satellites in low earth orbit tell me that if there is such a location, it is not within the contiguous 48 states. If they have the money, there is an option for the Internet access. Giving them the money remains the solution.
Don’t satellites require receivers?
As far as I know, connecting to the internet requires some kind of device or another. I don’t know if any Internet access point that operates on telepathy.
One thing that all of those accessing devices have in common is that “money” is required to initially obtain them, and/or to maintain connectivity to the serving provider.
Even more important than “money” tends to be “electricity”. Which is why public investment in cheaper and cleaner power sources is the baseline for any kind of urban development.
True, but largely irrelevant to the issue at hand: It turns out that “electricity” is yet another thing that a needy individual can acquire with “money”.
Go out into the woods and buy some electricity.
Ok. Yet another problem that can be solved when the individual has a little money.
Despite this, I reject the premise of your argument: the predominant reason an impoverished person wouldn’t have access to Internet isn’t due to a lack of infrastructure. It is due to an inability to pay for it. The predominant reason an impoverished person wouldn’t have access to electricity isn’t due to a lack of infrastructure. It is due to a lack of ability to pay for it.