Slashdot Mirror
Trump's FCC Chairman Pick Ajit Pai Vows To Close Broadband 'Digital Divide' (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: On his first full day as Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Republican Ajit Pai yesterday spoke to FCC staff and said one of his top priorities will be bringing broadband to all Americans. "One of the most significant things that I've seen during my time here is that there is a digital divide in this country -- between those who can use cutting-edge communications services and those who do not," Pai said (transcript). "I believe one of our core priorities going forward should be to close that divide -- to do what's necessary to help the private sector build networks, send signals, and distribute information to American consumers, regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or anything else. We must work to bring the benefits of the digital age to all Americans." Pai promised to "hear all points of view -- to approach every issue with a literal open door and a figurative open mind," as the FCC "confronts this and many other challenges." Pai didn't offer any specific initiatives for closing the digital divide yesterday, but in September 2016 he outlined a "digital empowerment agenda." The plan included "remov[ing] regulatory barriers to broadband deployment," changes to pole attachment rules, and "dig once" policies that install broadband conduit when roads are dug up during any road and highway construction project. He also proposed setting aside 10 percent of spectrum auction proceeds for deployment of mobile broadband in rural areas. Pai suggested requiring mobile carriers to build out service to 95 percent of the population in areas where they have spectrum licenses; he noted that some licenses only required service for 66 percent or 75 percent of residents, a problem in sparsely populated rural areas. At the same time, he proposed extending initial spectrum license terms from 10 years to 15 years to give the carriers more time to complete the construction. Pai also proposed creating "gigabit opportunity zones" in areas where average household income is below 75 percent of the national median. In these areas, state and local lawmakers would have to "adopt streamlined, broadband deployment-friendly policies," and there would be tax incentives and tax credits for companies building high-speed networks.
So, it will be available in more areas, at greater costs and in more limited uses.
First, I reject the assumption it will cost a lot more.
Secondly, so what if it does cost more? Is it still not better to have the AVAILABILITY of real high speed internet be much more widespread? My mother lives in a rural area, and on average from her DSL line she was getting 128kb/s. No I am not joking. Do you know how much of the modern internet is really usable at those speeds? Not much, and Netflix was a pretty low quality affair.
Recently T-Mobile expanded cell service enough in the area that I was able to get her a wireless hotspot. Now she has about 8MB/s down, and everything is useable... she has more of a cap than before but then again she probably couldn't have downloaded even a GB in the course of a month before had she tried.
Making something available is a huge boon. Even if it is expensive that simply means you can subsidize the payments for those that could not afford it otherwise - either the government or private groups. But there's no reason to believe once something is available and widely used that prices will not come down.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I love it. It's keeping my sister alive (literally). Without it, due to her condition there's no way she could buy insurance other than work provided insurance, especially given that her medication that keeps her alive costs $5K/month, most of that being the medication (a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_globulin">gamma globulin). With her work insurance her co-pay for her medicine would be $500/month (she makes $11/hour as a teacher). Thanks to the ACA she was able to get a plan that covers her medication. I have a number of friends who also rely on it who would otherwise be without insurance which they need. While far from perfect, in most cases it's an improvement over what we had before. I had a friend who relied on it once he got cancer and could no longer work due to it. It kept him alive for a couple of years he otherwise wouldn't have had with his family. He eventually died from the cancer, but it didn't leave his family totally bankrupt from it either.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
...and there would be tax incentives and tax credits for companies building high-speed networks.
Translation: "Let's give billions more taxpayer dollars to the worthless telecoms/cable companies."
That was my initial reaction, too. This will probably turn into federal subsidies for telecom companies without any kind of requirement that the telecom companies actually do what the subsidies were supposed to pay for.
Right. Especially since he was originally an Obama appointee--which you'd expect would have gotten him fired, not promoted.
I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious. --Albert Einstein