What about the hundreds of billions of dollars -- might be approaching a trillion since the 60s (+) -- that federal and state governments have contributed to telecommunications infrastructure?
(+): I can't quickly find a coherent dollar amount for any time period, but it is significantly large and a few quick estimates put some investment programs in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Those hundreds of billions numbers are total bullshit. They calculate it by counting all the telecoms profits over X percent and including tax deductions.
As far as I can tell, there is approaching zero dollars of actual transfers of cash.
The only thing I can even find that subsidizes them is faster depreciation allowances.
There is also the USF, but that is paid for by taxes on telecoms and is used to build rural networks.
So the USF enhances network effects, which is a great influencer of value.
Just how much more valuable is a social device/service/product that can access 100% of the population instead of just 80% or 90%?
Not all transfers of value are in cash form. I reside in a "condoland" that used to be a railway switching yard. The railway didn't pay for the land, they just sat on it for a century and sold it for $$$ to a developer. A riskfree windfall to a private company at my expense then and my expense now.
The infrastructure build allowances for telecoms are not any different.
For these reasons, I'm skeptical of anything that governments tender away except on a lease basis, whether it be land, spectrum, infrastructure corridors, etc.
That's some serious voodoo economics. If connecting rural consumers generated network benefits that outweighed the cost of connecting them, then telecoms would do it without any government programs. As it is, all USF does is shift money from certain telecom customers to other telecom customers, in a way that almost certainly generates a net deadweight loss.
> For these reasons, I'm skeptical of anything that governments tender away except on a lease basis, whether it be land, spectrum, infrastructure corridors, etc.
It's impossible to talk about all of the things local governments have done in one breath, but by and large, it's hard to argue that their efforts have been a net benefit for the telecom companies. Read a typical cable franchise agreement. There's no handouts of land or rights of way, just random money grabs for public services (public access TV, etc), and requirements to build out to unprofitable low-income or low-density areas.
(+): I can't quickly find a coherent dollar amount for any time period, but it is significantly large and a few quick estimates put some investment programs in the hundreds of billions of dollars.