Slashdot Mirror
Trump Pushes To Expand High-Speed Internet In Rural America (reuters.com)
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday to make it easier for the private sector to locate broadband infrastructure on federal land and buildings, part of a push to expand high-speed internet in rural America. Reuters reports: "We need to get rural America more connected. We need it for our tractors, we need it for our schools, we need it for our home-based businesses," a White House official told reporters ahead of Trump's speech at the annual convention of the American Farm Bureau Federation. "We're not moving mountains but we're certainly getting started," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to preview Trump's actions. The White House described the moves as an incremental step to help spur private development while the administration figures out what it can do to help with funding, something that could become part of Trump's plan to invest in infrastructure. "We know that funding is really the key thing to actually changing rural broadband," a second White House official said. Reuters cites a 2016 report from the Federal Communications Commission, noting that 39 percent of rural Americans lack access to high-speed internet service.
Didn't the FCC just change the definition of broadband to 10 mbps down 1 mbps up? I don't think I understand what's happening in this administration.
But this is just gonna be a gimme to the fine people at Comcast and AT&T.
And everyone else who already does or wants to do broadband.
You know that "easier" doesn't mean "free", it means "it can happen". As in, previously forbidden access to federal buildings or sites can now be granted."
Whelp.. the Trump trainwreck just keeps on a rollin'!
The recent tax bill also tilts toward red states in that state and local taxes cannot be deducted as much as before from the total taxed.
The only reason you can say it "tilts" is because the state and local taxes are tilted by state color, too. Fascinating correlation there, yes?
At least he didn't threaten rape victims. Or got them fired and then sent the IRS after them the same day, claiming that they had surprisingly nice cars for unemployed people.
(^ Yes, Clinton did all that)
lucm, indeed.
The key part is this: "We know that funding is really the key thing to actually changing rural broadband," a second White House official said.
In other words, more Federal government spending. Those guys really like to spend taxpayers money.
Please clarify with specifics. What O economic policies tilted blue?
I can't give you specifics of things that don't happen.
lucm, indeed.
A traitor is still worse. Also pointing at Hillary doesn't make Trump less of a traitor. Sorry.
Yes, and the states with low taxes have to be subsidized by the ones with higher taxes for exactly that reason, because they don't tax their own residents enough to cover their costs. I believe it's called 'redistribution of wealth'.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Obama didn't do this, Bush didn't do it, Clinton didn't do it.
Obama -- Obamacare (a gold mine for insurance companies)
Bush -- war in Iraq (a gold mine for defense contractors)
Clinton -- repeal of Glass-Steagall act (a gold mine for wall street)
Get real dude
lucm, indeed.
A) Broadband companies have received well over a billion taxpayer dollars in both direct and indirect subsidies since the Clinton administration. How can providing them with more taxpayer money possibly do any good?
B) With the massive tax cut just implemented, these companies should be rolling in dough and not need taxpayer help.
C) Why is it when we hear about subsidies for wind or solar we're told those companies should either stand on their own or die on the vine, yet for established, multi-billion dollar companies no amount of taxpayer funds is ever enough?
what the living fuck is wrong with you people? i LOVE the idea of people living outside of big cities. more small communities would be GREAT. im a democrat. we dont need the tax revenue from living in the city, we need happy, productive citizens living where they want to. stop name calling, you motherfucker. stop it!
Hows that wireline paper insulated monopoly network been under the years of NN rules?
With rule changes some of the better funded states, cities, towns might just have a chance to build a network, community broadband if they so want.
No more NN rules to keep giving the protected monopoly court wins to block any new networks.
Some parts of the USA might just get better networks. Gated communities can find a new, better quality ISP.
Resorts, hotels, small business that employ local people might just attract more business and offer better internet to their guests with NN rule changes as they can expand their own new networks.
Some areas will stay the same due to local politics, tax rates, funding, taxes been spent on welfare. Not much can be done in such areas and they will stay on their paper insulated wireline.
Other sates, cities will see the new freedoms that have and invite in innovative and new telco, ISP products and services. Now they have they freedom to build their networks without federal NN monopoly rules blocking new network investment and growth.
The better, smarter, more imaginative, more industrious parts of the USA have just got the ability to plan new networks. They with do great with the new network building freedoms. Cities, states, towns, communities, business and the private sector with the ability, skills and people to build networks can now invest and grow without federal rules blocking them.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Yeah - that was awesome!
(Remember when you said it was OK to do that?)
Executive orders in the face of a Congress & Senate that outright refuse to even talk about the issues you want heard is one thing. Writing more than all other presidents in the last 50 years because you really wish you were a dictator and not bothering to even ask the legislature who is your own party and holds majorities in both Congress and the Senate is quite another.
Also, taking something you hated when the other guy did it and going completely wild with it when you're in power, is not winning. It's just being a ginormous hypocrite.
Blue states are already bigger net-contributors to the federal coffers before the tax "reform." This makes it more lopsided.
Threatening to sue and killing the cat of a rape victim to shut her up are two different things. One of them is Trump, the other one is Clinton.
lucm, indeed.
It does, but an ageing population (especially problematic is the wave of baby boomers, called that for a reason) puts a lot of extra strain on all European countries. It's a struggle to find solutions that work and considering that the conservative approach in the UK has been "You're not getting more money, deal with it", the story you mentioned is the result:
- http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
- http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
See also:
- https://www.ineteconomics.org/...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You assume Trump is not going to pretend he is doing more than he is?
If anything, any (not yet decided on) funding will be funneled to monopolistic underdelivering price-gouging 'friendly' ISPs whilst loudly proclaiming having connected rural America to broadband.
Blue states were getting their own subsidization, via federal deductions on state and local taxes, letting blue states raise their taxes (and therefore revenue) and offsetting the difference to the federal government. Now, as for entitlements that go predominantly to red states: why do you think red states vote that way? They're sick of that shit. Cut off the spigot.
Amusingly, Wikipedia has a list of executive orders per year. Trump's 12-month executive order total equals Obama's last 15 months in office. Not 50 years. And Carter (37 years ago) was the last President to issue executive orders at a higher rate than Trump. If you're going to badmouth him, at least get your facts right.
I suspect Trump's rate is high just because this was his first year, and many of his executive orders were rolling back or modifying Obama's executive orders. Nothing hypocritical about that. As much as Democrats would've loved it if Trump had kept all of Obama's executive orders in force, we all knew that simply wasn't realistic. The next 3 years will tell if he's a hypocrite about executive orders.
No, he said no thanks to an infrastructure project that would primarily benefit rich liberal commuters, and cost the state an enormous fortune. You fucking brainwashed idiot.