Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Trump Pushes To Expand High-Speed Internet In Rural America (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the headed-in-the-right-direction dept.

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.

9 of 317 comments (clear)

  1. He knows rural by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    He is very familiar with rural people and their needs. He grew up in the small town of Manhattan. Upper West Side. He is one of US!

    1. Re:He knows rural by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Funny

      They could live as far away as Russia and still fully participate.

    2. Re:He knows rural by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Democrats quake with the knowledge that people will be able to live away from the big cities, draining their tax revenue, while still fully participating in the information workforce.

      I suspect most people come to populated areas for career reasons, not necessarily because they prefer crowds and density.

      It seems outsourcing and technology have shifted the jobs to more populated areas for some reason, good or bad. Rural areas recovered slower from the slump, and this is partly why T was elected: they felt slighted.

      I believe the shift is partly due to farming automation, and partly due to the fact if your job is easy to do remotely, it's also easy to outsource to a cheap-labor country. Those jobs left here tend to require heavier teamwork and personal interaction. In the late 90's I thought telecommuting would take off and relieve population density. I was wrong.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:He knows rural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

  2. Red-State Favoritism? by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Some suspect he's rewarding those who voted for him and punishing blue states and their infrastructure projects.

    He's known to personally reward loyalty and punish non-loyalty above personal doctrine or dogma. Even though he's pro-infrastructure, he still may avoid blue-state infrastructure as punishment for not voting for him and/or giving him poor ratings.

    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. (Some may claim this is "more fair", but blue states already pay a disproportionate amount of money to the Federal Gov't, per population.)

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:Red-State Favoritism? by lucm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
  3. This is a good thing, right? by magzteel · · Score: 5, Funny

    You can't tell by some of the comments.

    At this point if the executive order provided free high speed internet to all Americans the headline would probably be
    "Trump signs order making it easier to spy on all Americans".

  4. Re:Broadband? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's talked about here...the 10/1 is a proposed standard for "mobile broadband".

    Page 6, paragraph 14:Should we maintain the 25 Mbps download, 3 Mbps upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps) speed benchmark, and to apply it to all forms of fixed broadband? and in the footnotes: The 25 Mbps/3 Mbps speed benchmark was established in the 2015 Report and maintained in the 2016 Report. Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 14-126, 2015 Broadband Progress Report and Notice of Inquiry on Immediate Action to Accelerate Deployment, 30 FCC Rcd 1375, 1403 -08, paras. 45 -55 (2015) (2015 Report ); 2016 Report , 31 FCC Rcd at 722, paras. 51 -52.

    Page 7, paragraph 18: The Commission has not previously set a mobile speed benchmark...We seek comment on whether a mobile speed benchmark of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps is appropriate for mobile broadband services.

    IMHO, 10/1 is probably "good enough" for "mobile broadband", but only as long as that isn't your ONLY choice. Most people aren't hotspoting multiple devices off a single cell phone.

  5. Re:Chris Farley by Daemonik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.