Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New US Broadband Projects Get $795 Million In Funding

Posted by Soulskill on from the take-that-finland dept.

snydeq writes "The Obama administration has announced nearly $795 million in grants and loans to 66 new broadband projects across the nation. The subsidies — to be doled out by the US NTIA and the US Rural Utilities Service — will bring broadband service to 685,000 businesses, 900 health-care facilities, and 2,400 schools, according to officials. The NTIA will award $404 million to 29 projects, and the grants will finance 6,000 miles of new fiber-optic lines. Most of the money will finance middle-mile broadband network projects. The RUS will award $390.9 million, with $163 million in loans and the rest in grants. Most of the RUS money is focused on last-mile broadband projects."

17 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. So how much of this will the telcos steal? by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How much of this will end up in the pockets of a telco exec and leave us with nothing to show for it?

    You know like every other time we have given these bastards a dime.

    1. Re:So how much of this will the telcos steal? by fnj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nearly all of it. That is the way the corruptocracy works.

    2. Re:So how much of this will the telcos steal? by boneclinkz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know like every other time we have given these bastards a dime.

      Seriously. I'm reminded of a pithy quote about the definition of "insanity."

    3. Re:So how much of this will the telcos steal? by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Informative

      I really wish people would stop spreading this myth.

      It's as bad as those who keep repeating the "Betamax lost because it wouldn't allow porn" myth (holds up copy of Playboy on betamax). If you actually read the 1996 Telecommunications Act the money was allocated for upgrades to fiber -or- upgrades of poor quality telephone lines to 56k -or- upgrades quality (which was considered damn fast compared to the 14k modems most people at the time were using). The 56k upgrade from analog-to-digital telephones is where most companies chose to spend the cash. If you think that was a mistake, well then blame the 1996 Congress who wrote a poor law.

      This act was somewhat similar to the "100,000 New Cops" that Clinton used to brag about. It sounds great until you read the actual bill, which allowed the money to be spent on cops -or- cop equivalents (computers, radios, et cetera). Most police departments used the money to buy new gadgets not actual cops.

      AS FOR NOW: I was wondering where the money would come from: "In the Recovery Act, Congress allocated $7.2 billion to the NTIA and RUS for broadband grants and loans." In other words this new project was passed over a year ago but its only getting spent during the next few months. I wonder why they waited so long to act?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:So how much of this will the telcos steal? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ,No they promised unlimited but meant 250GB/month.

      So add liars to the list.

    5. Re:So how much of this will the telcos steal? by s73v3r · · Score: 3, Funny

      And I even got free traffic shaping too!

    6. Re:So how much of this will the telcos steal? by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Taxes are how you pay for civilization. It is not stolen money. Grow up or move to Somalia.

    7. Re:So how much of this will the telcos steal? by Ash+Vince · · Score: 3, Informative

      How much of this will end up in the pockets of a telco exec and leave us with nothing to show for it?

      In the US? I have no idea, but in the UK Blair managed to get this to work with the deal he did with BT when he came to power in the 90's. He vastly inflated BT's share price by handing them a virtual monopoly for most of his reign but he did also vastly improve he quality of broadband connection available to people at a lower price who were not in the capital.

      Some vary rural areas still suffered but people like myself who lived in run own inner cities where ADSL would never normally have been offered cheaply found we were being offered a service that was comparable to that which was on offer in the capital. This was no mean feat being that at the time I lived in one of the most run down areas of Britain (Moss Side).

      I am not saying that his will turn out the same but these projects can if they are planned correctly and if the correct level of control is put in place to stop the sort of profiteering you describe. In the UK situation this was done by guaranteeing BT a virtual monopoly at the end of the subsidised period. They willingly were forced into selling space on their backbone to many other companies for a reasonable rate in return for being treated preferentially in the bidding for several nationwide contracts.

      This resulted in many small businesses setting up as BT resellers of ADSL products and being able to compete with BT on price even though they did not have a national backbone like BT. Now they are able to do the same by renting space in BT exchanges for servers and buying routing bandwidth from BT.

      Maybe this is only possible when big business and governments can actually work together as they realise it is in both their long term interests. Blair wanted every child to grow up with internet access and BT realised this would give them a shit load of extra customers down the line. Blair new it would help the UK service economy he was trying to build if we were all PC and internet savvy before we entered the job market, even if we were destined for no IT roles that still involved a small element of PC use like writing an email or using excel to figure out if we have any money left to spend.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
  2. Public funding, private profit? by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So... $800 million. Alright. How does that compare to profits major telecoms acquired since they got their first boost in the 90s?

    1. Re:Public funding, private profit? by gewalker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the plus side, it is expected to "create or save" about 5000 jobs (a mere $160.000) -- Hard to guess how many "bogus" saved jobs are in this accounting.

      On the minus side, it is guaranteed to take (theft when not done by the government) the entire income of about 16,000 workers in order to support pay for this.

      When are we going to break this cycle of stupidity. And yes, this is probably better than a lot of government spending.


      There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.
      Frederic Bastiat - What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen

  3. Any penalties for failure to meet goals? by kcbnac · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is there any penalty for the telcos (such that they have to pay this money back, with penalties) if they fail to meet the goals this time around?

    Last time we gave them money we didn't get what we paid for, and they just shrugged their shoulders.

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... and I'm tempted to steal a quote from someone else.

    "It's Tuesday, get a rope!"

  4. Re:New Deal 2K10 by timeOday · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yeah right. The tens of thousands of people who would otherwise have starved beg to differ. And we're still living off much of the infrastructure they built.

  5. Re:STOP SPENDING by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Simple law
    No cable(wire, fiber) plant owner may operate an ISP nor video nor phone service provider or vice versa. All cable plant owners must provide access on a non-discriminatory basis.

  6. Worked for me by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not a fan of monopolies or anything, however if not for monopolies on "public utilities", then you'd have to have multiple runs of cable (impractical and physically destructive)

    Actually it's not that destructive when you are talking last-mile solutions.

    As an example, I used to live in a small community that had Comcast cable. We had a small provider come in, Wide Open West, that had fiber to the curb - the last few hundred feet was coax, delivered side by side with the traditional cable and then at my house one cable attachment replaced the other.

    The benefit? I got a 100Mb/s internet feed - that was up and down, about 10x faster than Comcast internet and a 20-30x faster uplink. And it was ten years ago...

    The practical reality is that you're not going to have a handful of providers running cable or wires to your house, because if there's more than three people competing for service it doesn't make as much economic sense to have a fourth come in since there's already competition lowering prices. And if any of them fold other companies can come along and make use of the infrastructure. It doesn't mean your neighborhood will look like pre-switch NYC with cables clouding the sky...

    If you're wondering what happened to WOW, they got bought out and that was the end of THOSE shenanigans, offering cheap fast internet was simply not allowable.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  7. Re:New Deal 2K10 by gewalker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The real trick is trying to figure out any policy difference between Hoover & FDR. An honest look at history (including several of FDR's advisor) admit the new deal was largely a continuation of the policies started by Hoover. FDR himself said that he would have voted for Hoover had he not gotten the nomination.

  8. Cue the facts! by copponex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Honestly, assertions are my favorite. It makes arguments so easy to win.

    Yes and when WW2 was over (1945), the Depression snapped right back and people were jobless again.

    No, unemployment rates stayed low and and GDP did not drop. So the real question is, are you purposefully ignorant or just being a troll?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.png
    http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230

    Also there's nothing productive about a war, which is basically equivalent to building a bunch of products and then blowing them up. A war is *destructive* not productive. It wastes resources and money and labor hours. It's the Glazier Paradox - smashing windows just to make work. It would be wiser not to smash the windows in the first place.

    War is enormously profitable for the winning country, especially when you get to control precious resources as a result. The Glazier Paradox does not apply - we were smashing millions of dollars of weapons into things we didn't repair with our own money. WWII involved a lot of nation building, and our workers provided the manufacturing for most of the planet since Europe and Japan were in pieces. (Not that I agree this is the way to come out of the recession, but it is important to remember history amid your vague rhetoric involving paradoxes.)

    Similarly throwing a bunch of money at fiber installs, without considering whether the market will use them, or whether they will just sit unused (dark fiber) is about the same as building a bunch of bridges that lead to nowhere (don't connect to roads). That too is a waste.

    Mass transit and communications infrastructure are investments in the future. Even if it there's a bit of waste here and there, it beats giving it to the financial industry, who do nothing useful for the economy at large.

    This is the purpose of government. Keep the economic machine running by ignoring the rules when they stop working. Keep income equality high so there's meritocracy instead of aristocracy. Enforce policies to make sure that the economy is well educated and capable of performing complex functions to yield good results for investment.

    The relative power of federal, state, and local governments is something that can be argued, but the larger point still remains.

  9. Intellectual prostitution must pay pretty well... by copponex · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nicely cherry picked data. I like how you conveniently left out that the top 10% have seen their income rise from $172,000 in 1980 to $339,000 in 2005 - that's a nice doubling of their income. The top 1% did even better - from $517,000 in 1980 to $1,558,000 in 2005. That seems like pretty good economic progress.

    And how did the middle class do? From $51,000 to $58,000. Lower Class? $34,000 to $37,000. Lowest Class? $15,700 to $15,900.

    So we know why the top 10% are paying all the taxes: they make all the money. And they pay lower tax rates! From 37% for the Top 1% to 31%, the top 5% from 31.8% to 28.9%.

    http://www.econdataus.com/efftax05.html