That’s what I understand as well.

Nothing my rugby coach wouldn’t have smiled about. :-)

Maybe the state promised the check-printing company a certain volume or something, lol … Who knows, it is very weird.

I don’t have a definite answer, but is the Bremen St. gate really the only way? I used to do rugby practice late at night in East Boston Memorial Park and would walk to the airport shuttles via a path/gate that’s clearly marked on Google Maps as part of my commute home on the Silver Line. I don’t know if/when the route I’m describing is locked.

That’s nuts.

It's hard to take you too seriously, because you told u/3720-To-One: "So you're in the place where you're growing up.... I was there too. There's a bigger picture you'll get eventually...." If you actually feel bad for people, quit posting word salad and start advocating for policies that might actually help them.

First off your username/handle is awesome, haha. More importantly, though, I think it's important that folks engage with your perspective. You're calling attention to practical issues like parking. Sometimes pro-growth folks don't give these concerns enough credence, but even when solutions to them are presented, they can exacerbate what is the bigger issue, which is the emotional connection to a place and how it's always been in their memories. Dismissing these perspectives as NIMBYism is unproductive; it just hardens old battle lines.

If we want to avoid Rust Belt-ish decline, we need to make room for new economic growth, recognizing the reality that knowledge-based industries are going to where the workers are, which is in metro Boston, and they need housing, and this means change. Wishing that they'd go elsewhere isn't going to change that; instead, this thought pattern is truly harming folks who are just trying to make it in today's economy.

It is also true that life is more than just economic growth. A sense of place is both important to everyone's lived experience and is part of what makes locations attractive in the first place. In many cases the folks who made places great aren't participating in the industries of the newcomers. Practical concerns of longtime residents shouldn't be glossed over, and even when they are solvable, the solutions often call for jarring changes that would be disruptive for anyone.

My point is obvious: These aren't black and white issues. Solutions are likely to be compromises that leave no one fully happy, with change occurring at a definite but measured pace. We should bicker this out like the Massholes we are with this perspective in mind. Pollyanna mode over.

I think your basic point is that companies should look beyond metro Boston. As someone who grew up in rural Central Mass. and who now lives inside Route 128, I would love to see a lab go into my hometown. The problem, however, is the needed labor isn’t out there in the sticks. Just like a trucking company can’t locate to somewhere far from interstates, knowledge-based industries can’t locate far from their workers. Biotech ain’t going there, trust me. The modern-day mill is a lab or an office tower. Mill towns were built back in the day for their workers, but somehow we don’t want to give today’s equivalent workers that same housing security. This might help to explain why your attempt to don the mantle of the older and wiser rings a bit hollow. I’m sorry if that sounds a bit rude, and it’s not my intention to insult, but that’s the reality today.

Or the Downtown Crossing 7-Eleven….

RIP 7-Eleven here if they ever decide to come.

Noted! You shared the main point, no need to belabor. :-)

Interesting. I was talking mostly about ratemaking but this also may have merit.

Haha, in general what’s the main part that’s incorrect?

OMFG. Eff Comcast, that’s obscene. I also don’t have municipal broadband and this is why I’m raising the question.

I think the problem is that broadband might be a natural monopoly, like electricity delivery, precisely because of the infrastructure you mention. https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=3267

No worries, and I think we basically agree. u/thedoormaan summarized the FCC issues and also suggested ISP regulation, but probably not exactly how we regulate electricity, for example. I totally agree with this approach. Electricity itself was an interesting example of decomposing the natural monopoly analysis to distinguish between those parts that truly naturally monopolistic (delivery) from those that aren’t (generation). I don’t think broadband can be similarly decomposed, but maybe one day?

This is why we can’t have nice things. :-/

What I and most other people are talking about is potential state (not municipal or federal) regulation (not ownership) of ISPs. The direction of that regulation takes depends I’d think on whether broadband constitutes a natural monopoly, as other utilities do. If it is in fact a natural monopoly, encouraging competition might be a fool’s errand. Innovation might indeed be an issue, but is there evidence it’s being stifled in already-regulated utility markets? These I’d think are the relevant questions.

This is an underrated comment!

I appreciate your willingness to be like the only one in this thread to state an opposing view. I’m actually kinda surprised no one’s raised stifling innovation as an objection. I don’t have your sources but it’s plausible that Internet costs have declined over the years. But that’s not really the core question, which instead is: Have they declined as fast as they should have? Yes, the subsidies are helpful, but no, I don’t think they’re a complete solution, and yes, of course there are bigger fish to fry (e.g., climate change). Thanks again.

Yes.

Based on what u/thedoormaan wrote below, it sounds like one party is trying to help, while another isn’t.

I’m guessing lack of public pressure?

I understand your opinion but am not really convinced. As one data point, my sister didn’t know how to play the game with her cable company, and as soon as she did, her bill went from like $95 to $45 for basic Internet. Mine’s like $75 for the same service from the same carrier in the next town over. These arbitrary fluctuations are nuts for a basic necessity. You said you don’t think swings of $30 are a big deal, but yeah, they are. You can quibble about speed/cost of living in the many international comparisons of Internet costs that show the US at best is average, but I think it’d be challenging to make the case that we’re leaders. I agree rural connectivity is costly and a continuing problem. Maybe 5G will help? Not an expert there but I’m open to repeating what we did to electrify rural America, and in any case I am talking about Massachusetts, a pretty dense state. If you think Internet costs aren’t a big issue for low-income neighbors, I would invite you to reconsider, because I know from family experience they can be. Hell, folks can struggle to buy food, let alone pay Internet bills. Obviously Internet speed has marched on, to great benefit, and will continue to do so, but for the use case of household Internet, speed needs are nowhere near what’s on offer now. Even the slowest plans can handle multiple highest-resolution Netflix streams, etc. Right now there’s a lot of deceptive marketing falsely claiming households will notice speeds above, say, 100/250 Mbps, meaning that faster Internet is mostly about overcharging folks for speed they don’t need.

All ears if you’d care to elaborate….