Slashdot Mirror


Trump's Infrastructure Plan Has No Dedicated Money For Broadband (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: President Trump's new 10-year plan for "rebuilding infrastructure in America" doesn't contain any funding specifically earmarked for improving Internet access. Instead, the plan sets aside a pool of funding for numerous types of infrastructure projects, and broadband is one of the eligible categories. The plan's $50 billion Rural Infrastructure Program lists broadband as one of five broad categories of eligible projects.

Eighty percent of the program's $50 billion would be "provided to the governor of each state." Governors would take the lead in deciding how the money would be spent in their states. The other 20 percent would pay for grants that could be used for any of the above project categories. Separately, broadband would be eligible for funding from a proposed $20 billion Transformative Projects Program, along with transportation, clean water, drinking water, energy, and commercial space. Trump's plan would also add rural broadband facilities to the list of eligible categories for Private Activity Bonds, which allow private projects to "benefit from the lower financing costs of tax-exempt municipal bonds." The plan would also let carriers install small cells and Wi-Fi attachments without going through the same environmental and historical preservation reviews required for large towers.

103 comments

  1. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Trump and the GOP will claim $50 billion has been set aside anytime anyone asks about funding for any of the myriad of things in the pool because that sounds far better than "1/10,000th of $50 billion."

  2. Bitch, bitch, bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the plan did include federal funding for broadband, there'd be bitching about "subsidized ISPs/cable companies/telcos".

    1. Re:Bitch, bitch, bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't want Federal Santa Claus money anyhow. It is painfully obvious that all we need is to allow local governments the liberty to build their own networks and the problem with broadband in the US will solve itself, sans any help from the army of racially and sexually optimized Federal Deputy Assistant Vice Directors of Communications Infrastructure Program Managers.

    2. Re:Bitch, bitch, bitch by nonBORG · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Trump's Infrastructure Plan Has No Dedicated Money {my special interest which I want free government money for}

      --
      You can't handle the truth! - Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
    3. Re:Bitch, bitch, bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's Trump's own advertised program and he doesn't fund it, moron. Just like ALL OF THE TRUMP PROGRAMS, he has NO WAY TO FUND ANY OF IT. Just bullshit "we'll figure it out later" can kicking.

      His tax cuts are going to make record-setting deficits and he knew that when he gave taxpayer money away to corporations. Now Paul Ryan pretends to be a fiscal cconservative and they try to gut food stamps, etc.

      You're a moron for defending these idiotic traitors, but then we expect that by now.

    4. Re:Bitch, bitch, bitch by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 0

      Where were you when Obama was running up the debt the tune of a trillion a year, hotshot?

      Not that you're wrong, but why are you only choosing to be right now? And why do I think you'll go stealth next time a Democrat is in the White House?

    5. Re:Bitch, bitch, bitch by Mr+Bubble · · Score: 0

      "Where were you when Obama was running up the debt the tune of a trillion a year, hotshot"

      Do you have a citation for this?

      --
      "The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
    6. Re:Bitch, bitch, bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      name checks out.

    7. Re:Bitch, bitch, bitch by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Record of Federal debt, to the penny. About $10.625 trillion to $19.947 trillion when he left office. That's about $9.32 trillion over 8 years - a bit more than $1.16 trillion a year, for 8 years.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re:Bitch, bitch, bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't want Federal Santa Claus money anyhow. It is painfully obvious that all we need is to allow local governments the liberty to build their own networks and the problem with broadband in the US will solve itself....

      In many cases you are correct. In fact in most cases I think you are correct. I had a larger post, but it mostly boils down to in the areas that local governments can't afford broadband, I'm not sure it makes sense to have the federal government provide it.

      Those kind of areas would be some of the smaller rundown towns or very low population areas. The former probably need to do things like afford to tear down abandoned homes and such before broadband. The later, well the most I think may make sense to be government subsidized is encouragement of some more cell towers so 4G works better (or at all).

      Now a real problem is there are people in local governments who believe that local governments should not do this, that it is some form of great sin against capitalism that must never happen. Ultimately people need to stop voting in right wing nut jobs, but that is another matter altogether.

      Could a correctly run nation wide broadband program work? Sure. Is our government competent enough to manage one? Ya, the jury is out there...

    9. Re:Bitch, bitch, bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Something something near economic collapse inherited from bush...

    10. Re:Bitch, bitch, bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where were you when Obama was running up the debt the tune of a trillion a year, hotshot?

      You mean back when the economy really was a mess? Back when the down was at 8000 and falling to 6000? Back when government revenue (tax dollars) were going down (and not in a good way)?

      Yeah, that was when we ran a trillion dollar deficit. Wanna guess where it was in 2017?

    11. Re: Bitch, bitch, bitch by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      I ordered lunch at Chipotle, and Donald Trump stole my guacamole! Then he gave it to Vladimir Putin!!

    12. Re:Bitch, bitch, bitch by ravenshrike · · Score: 0, Troll

      You mean the economic collapse driven by Clinton's housing lending policies combined with the collapse of the dot-com bubble? *looks at current tech companies* A bubble that looks to be heading for another collapse in the near(2-3 years) future?

    13. Re: Bitch, bitch, bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I ordered lunch at Chipotle, and Donald Trump stole my guacamole! Then he gave it to Vladimir Putin!!

      I believed you, but then I realized you didn't mention him picking your pocket & stealing your wallet too.

      Fake News!

    14. Re: Bitch, bitch, bitch by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but he spit on my shoes AND insinuated that my granny sucks eggs. That bastard!!

  3. So it is eligible for funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I mean it says so right in the summary.

    1. Re:So it is eligible for funding by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      I mean it says so right in the summary.

      Eligible != Dedicated.

      Broadband may get money. Or it may not.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:So it is eligible for funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Get ready for some more blue state punishment. The dollars will only be available for red states. Not explicitly, as that would be subject to legal challenges. It will rely instead on appropriations metrics which, only by coincidence wink wink, happen to apportion the money overwhelmingly to red states.

      Just like the loss of the SALT deduction on your Federal taxes. Oh, that punishes blue states? Just a coinkydink.

    3. Re: So it is eligible for funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you. Us Californians fail to see how sending $100,000,000,000 a year to keep you flyover states functional provides any benefit to us. Or to you, frankly.

    4. Re: So it is eligible for funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet you guys are the ones who keep voting for the polices which require the money...

    5. Re: So it is eligible for funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen. Wish I still had mod points...

    6. Re:So it is eligible for funding by sabbede · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So? The State, which best knows it's needs and priorities, decides how much to devote to what. !Devoted != None.

    7. Re: So it is eligible for funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $100,000,000,000 a year
      [citation needed]

  4. Seems fine to me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    It lets each state determine where the money is needed most

    1. Re:Seems fine to me? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right.

      $50 billion for broadband for hobos if you let our governor decide.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Seems fine to me? by jonsmirl · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of rural people would choose to have an unsafe bridge their kids cross on the way to school fixed before getting subsidized broadband. And there are an awful lot of those unsafe bridges in rural America.

    3. Re:Seems fine to me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, right.

      $50 billion for broadband for hobos if you let our governor decide.

      Sounds like you live in Kalyfornya where the Leftist "dumbo-crats" in Sakramento want to spend endless amounts of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY without any regard as to how to sustain their mindless spending sprees....

    4. Re:Seems fine to me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      got no problem spending all your money comrade

    5. Re:Seems fine to me? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think a lot of rural people would choose to have an unsafe bridge their kids cross on the way to school fixed before getting subsidized broadband. And there are an awful lot of those unsafe bridges in rural America.

      Oh really.

      Why can't they have both?

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    6. Re:Seems fine to me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Billions and billions for new churches! Churches everywhere!! That will transform America and Uplift the Spirit of the Americans!!!

    7. Re:Seems fine to me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn! I bet you're real good friends with this guy!

    8. Re:Seems fine to me? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Yes, really. That would be my preference as well. Water, power, roads, sewers, etc. all come well before internet access.

      And they can't have both because we don't have infinite resources and things must be prioritized.

    9. Re:Seems fine to me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a bad deal if you let the free market work. You can get his Gigabit broadband in exchange for some Fentanyl-laced smack.

    10. Re:Seems fine to me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't these churches also provide broadband access to their rural congregation who don't have access? That solves all the problems all the way around. You want to cruise the interwebz? Come and sit in our pews while we preach to you about how your soul is going to hell...would dry up all those porn sites in no time.

    11. Re:Seems fine to me? by Rhipf · · Score: 2

      i.e. we need to increase military spending so there is no money left for silly things like Internet infrastructure.

    12. Re:Seems fine to me? by sexconker · · Score: 0

      Did I ever mention increasing military spending?

  5. It does have plans for a 'series of tubes' though by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    The oil and gas carrying kind... See https://www.truthdig.com/artic...

  6. Didnt we already pay? by BrookHarty · · Score: 5, Informative

    I thought we already paid ISP's to build out, they just kept the money and cities/states kept quiet.

    Something along the line of the 200 billion scandal

    https://www.ntia.doc.gov/legac...

    1. Re:Didnt we already pay? by burtosis · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is a Reddit eli5 thread where the top comment is the author of broken promises which directly references this as the subject of his book. In today's dollars it's actually much closer to half a trillion dollars in today's currency.

    2. Re:Didnt we already pay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      regardless of the amount. the connection providers didn't spend the money to build out.

    3. Re:Didnt we already pay? by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Well, just goes to show that when you have evidence to believe it's really bad, reality never forgets to find a way to actually be worse.

  7. So now people want gov networks? by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Open ended hand outs and tax changes to big telco monopolies for networking did not get results in the past.
    Same monopolies looked after their same paper insulted wireline networks.

    How about the gov just allowing the private sector to build community broadband?
    That would be a good change after all the past gov efforts trying to help with broadband.
    Let gated communities, wealthy parts of a city, businesses work out their own networking.
    Parts of the US with a plan can work together as a community and get their private sector networking done as they need to.
    The plan is to rebuild infrastructure in America without just giving existing monopolies more cash to extended their paper insulated wireline again.
    That did not result in better connections and held innovative parts of the USA back.
    Now the gov is letting local communities build really great new networks as needed. No more NN rules to keep competition out.
    Less of the past failed funding that saw support only for a few select telco monopolies.
    Time to allow innovation and the private sector to try new networking methods and offer new services.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:So now people want gov networks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Time to allow innovation and the private sector to try new networking methods and offer new services."

      You mean like they did in the past? The big comms companies were dragged screaming into the internet era.

    2. Re:So now people want gov networks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... "gated communities, wealthy parts of a city, businesses" get to route around the mandated monopolies, but everyone else remains stuck with them? Yeah, that sounds pretty Trumpian.

      How exactly did "NN rules" keep competition out?

    3. Re:So now people want gov networks? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re 'How exactly did "NN rules" keep competition out?"
      The federal rules ensured only a few existing US telco monopolies could show they could meet NN rules.
      It was a way to protect existing telco monopolies and keep their users on paper insulted wireline networks.
      With a new way of doing US telco infrastructure more innovative local communities can have a way to build out their own network designs without fear of federal NN rules.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  8. That's only 5 billions per year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember the 50 billion is over 10 years. For those who can't do the math that's 5 billion a year. That's peanuts. Comcast alone claims it will spend 10 billion a year on infrastructure (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/comcasts-network-investments-soared-with-net-neutrality-rules-in-place/).

    1. Re:That's only 5 billions per year by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Comcast will spend 10 billion on advanced traffic throttling and executive bonuses. They won't spend shit on the rest of their infrastructure.

  9. Re:Please by Tesen · · Score: 1

    I see your dealer made out tonight...

  10. Finally! A plan that makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Internet access is not the end-all of everything.

    1. Re:Finally! A plan that makes sense by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Unpatriotic lies. If it's not an app, it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, it can't be taxed. If it can't be taxed, it can't lobby. If it can't lobby, it can't make campaign contributions.

  11. Priorities people... by zifn4b · · Score: 2

    These are the five things included in "Infrastructure":

    Transportation: roads, bridges, public transit, rail, airports, and maritime and inland waterway ports.
    Broadband (and other high-speed data and communication conduits).
    Water and Waste: drinking water, wastewater, storm water, land revitalization, and Brownfields.
    Power and Electric: governmental generation, transmission, and distribution facilities.
    Water Resources: flood risk management, water supply, and waterways.

    I'm pretty sure Broadband is the least important of all of these. Also, Google and Verizon are already following out Fiber. It's only a matter of time before we have that.

    --
    We'll make great pets
    1. Re:Priorities people... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Not only is it the least important, it doesn't belong in the same list.

    2. Re:Priorities people... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      Google seems to have stopped rolling out fiber, and Verizon rolled out a bunch like 10 years ago and seems to have stopped.

      As for the "least important" of all five, you're assuming from a state of none of them existing. I think my internet needs improving more than my Water Resources... because my Water Resources are already pretty good. Repeat for broadband vs. X for the entire list.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:Priorities people... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because there is precious little money to be made in fiber to the home? I would wager that 95% of Internet users want fast download, and essentially zero for upload speed. Something that cable and DSL are great for doing - 100-200 Mbps down, and 5-10 Mbps up. Do that - and you've taken care of the vast majority of people, and the few who want more - well, you can get it, it's just not cheap...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re:Priorities people... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      1) Please pay attention to context. You're responding to a comment I made about the inevitability of fiber. If you don't think it's necessary, you should have responded to the parent.

      2) It seems weird not to expect some use for that upload speed once we have it. Upload speed will only get more important, and reliable upload speed will create new industries, as it becomes more ubiquitous. Just like no one could have predicted streaming video being as big a thing when download speed was still bad and clunky, something is going to come along to properly utilize all that upload speed.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:Priorities people... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The better your broadband the less you have to use transportation, simply the way it works. Of course the underlying reality, it's an unfunded plan, completely utterly meaningless until it is funded. Pretty much a bloody empty PR=B$ stunt. I don't get what any one sees in it, it is just unfunded marketing bullshit. Produce real plans, of what is really going to happen, with funding that has been approved and that you will do in the three years you have left. No funded projects, than you just have a PR=B$ press release.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:Priorities people... by zifn4b · · Score: 1, Informative

      As for the "least important" of all five, you're assuming from a state of none of them existing.

      Absolutely not and by the way stop asserting you can read my mind:

      Transportation Rating: D
      Drinking Water Rating: D
      Energy Rating: D+

      Full Infrastructure Report Card

      Next time do 5 minutes of research with Google.

      Resources are already pretty good. Repeat for broadband vs. X for the entire list.

      See above, the facts disagree with you.

      --
      We'll make great pets
  12. Plan? by dohzer · · Score: 2

    How about his plan for the par-5 on the back-nine?

    1. Re:Plan? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      How about his plan for the par-5 on the back-nine?

      Sources say that Stormy Daniels pegged her par-5 into Trump's back nine, if you catch my meaning. There's got to be a good reason that the negotiator-in-chief would pay her $130k to keep her mouth shut. That's way too much for straight sex.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  13. Re:I would get an erection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If even one Dem stood up and told them, only shovel ready.

    WHAAAA...

    Don't you know that "dumbo-crats" don't know which end of a shovel to stick into the ground!!!

  14. oh yeah because people are assigned places to live by slashmydots · · Score: 0

    Wait, no, they knew exactly where they were moving to. They moved to a place with no internet. So forget those geniuses.

  15. Sounds Great by sexconker · · Score: 3, Informative

    Eighty percent of the program's $50 billion would be "provided to the governor of each state." Governors would take the lead in deciding how the money would be spent in their states. The other 20 percent would pay for grants that could be used for any of the above project categories. Separately, broadband would be eligible for funding from a proposed $20 billion Transformative Projects Program, along with transportation, clean water, drinking water, energy, and commercial space. Trump's plan would also add rural broadband facilities to the list of eligible categories for Private Activity Bonds, which allow private projects to "benefit from the lower financing costs of tax-exempt municipal bonds." The plan would also let carriers install small cells and Wi-Fi attachments without going through the same environmental and historical preservation reviews required for large towers.

    States get to decide how the bulk of the money is spent. Work with your state's government to make your voice heard. The rest of the money is available for grants for a wide range of shit.

    This all sounds great to me. What's the problem?

    1. Re:Sounds Great by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1, Troll

      The problem is that the President is a Republican. Some people find that situation utterly intolerable.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    2. Re:Sounds Great by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      If the plan succeeds, Trump will look good. That's an intolerable situation for our media. They hate his guts and wish him dead.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Sounds Great by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It would arguably be better if the money never left the states to begin with. No reason to pass it through the national government, giving the centralized region that much more power. (For example, for one thing, if the national government had less money, it would be harder for it to go to war).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Sounds Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the President is a Republican. Some people find that situation utterly intolerable.

      Personally & as a liberal, I don't mind a Republican President if he's NOT an idiot or idealogue.

      I don't have a particular objection to States spending the $$$, though there are times when it might make sense to have a Federal response to certain needs.

      If the States give the money to the cities & the cities spend it fixing bridges, potholes, water pipes & pavements (in their rich neighborhoods) ... that's infrastructure, right?

      OTOH, a coordinated response by the Federal Government to e.g. enhance our grid with storage, solar & wind with a path to all electric vehicles by 2025(?) might also be useful.

      Is failing to do all these big tasks (e.g. grid, broadband, manufacturing rebuild, UBI) an abdication of responsibility? Probably. Is the failure to do any of them? Absolutely!

      Don't get me wrong. Punting stuff to the states works for the small stuff. There ARE times when delegating makes sense (and hoarding all responsibility all the time doesn't make sense either).

      But failing to address the big tasks will not Make America Great Again.

  16. Technophobe by warewolfsmith · · Score: 1

    No surprise really, Trump still uses an abacus and a slide rule.

  17. Re:So much for "Russia! Russia! Russia!" by sexconker · · Score: 0

    It's gonna be hilarious in 9 months when the DNC loses, loses, loses. They're still trying to lie and spin and pretend it's all nothing. Most people are smarter than that, however, and they're not gonna have anything but the most zealous and rabid of supporters left when the midterms roll around.

  18. All borrowed rubles, no actual funding by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Typical.

    Now you know why no US bank will do business with him.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  19. $50 Billion? by Mr+Bubble · · Score: 1

    I don't see any citation for the $50 billion figure - which seems to be implied to be PER state. The proposed bill spends $200 billion total for all infrastructure, spread out over 10 years - so, $20 Billion a year for all 50 states - or $400 million a year per state. The articles seems to imply %80 of $50 Billion per state.

    --
    "The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"
    1. Re:$50 Billion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course Trump's budget reduces infrastructure spending by $250 billion, so on net the infrastructure spending goes down.

  20. Re:He's got my vote, here's why by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    Liar.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  21. Well duh by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    after repealing Net Neutrality there's so much broadband investment that the gov't doesn't have to chip in. Ajit Pai told me so himself.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  22. No one ios paying attention ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 0

    ... to Trump in a serious way.

    He can't be serious because the only lecture he ever gave was a confession.

    Donald Trump On Tape: I Grab Women "By The Pussy”

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:No one ios paying attention ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A confession of what? It tends not to be assault when it is consensual, hence the "they let you do it".

      I seem to recall another candidate having written a confessional book back in 1995 who admitted to using marijuana and cocaine illicitly.

      Interesting as always the double standard of those suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

      We survived 8 years of Obama... you'll survive 8 of Trump.

      And this coming from a person who has never cast a vote for the winning presidential candidate, going back decades.

    2. Re:No one ios paying attention ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I know we'll survive Trump.

      We survived Nixon.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  23. Re:oh yeah because people are assigned places to l by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    Honestly most of them were born somewhere without decent internet and can't imagine what it would be like to have it.

  24. Re:He's got my vote, here's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lemme fact check your oh so eloquent argument.

    Fact check... false.

  25. Re:So much trolling by another_twilight · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The US survived the civil war

    620,000 people didn't. More US soldiers than lost in any, single, foreign war and until Vietnam, more than had been lost in _all_ foreign wars.

    That number is just the dead. Not those left scarred and wounded. Or the families destroyed.

    That something that called itself 'the United States of America' continued to exist after the civil war ignores the terrible cost and incredible tragedy of that war, and the deep damage done to those involved and to the institution of the 'US' itself.

    Maybe you should aim for more than 'survived'.

  26. Trump's plan for the internet by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    Donald Trump's grand plan for the internet is two dixie cups and some yarn.

    1. Re:Trump's plan for the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His son is in the basement right now on the Cyber, making the Cyber work for you.

    2. Re:Trump's plan for the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald Trump's grand plan for the internet is two dixie cups and some yarn.

      I guess he doesn't realize it's really tubes.

  27. Uh, yeah by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Because the feds don't own the internet or the rights-of-way or the hardware or the software.

  28. Um.... by Ferretman · · Score: 1

    ...nor should it? Providing broadband service is a legitimate federal government obligation....

    Cities can provide it and many are. Counties can provide it and probably some are (haven't looked). Heck, even states can get together if they want to provide it. Why in the world would it be a Federal responsibility?

    Ferret

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    1. Re:Um.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because...many states and municipalities are restricted from deficit spending, or the process to go into debt (bonds, etc.) is onerous and difficult (for good reasons), whereas the federal mechanism is simple and well trod. Most large government-sponsored infrastructure spends (utilities, etc.) end up going to the people in a bond election, with the knowledge that the decision to make the infrastructure spend will also involve an increase in taxes or utility rates. The federal doesn't have any such mechanism.

  29. Re:So much for "Russia! Russia! Russia!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's still all identity politics all the time. Hillary is still the leading light ffs. She's still hacking into microphones — the victim of a multi-year pneumonia infection, apparently, an explanation our studiously incurious media has never examined — and if we had to have an election today she'd be the nominee, because that's just how vacuous and empty handed liberals are. That's what their brand of irrational oikophobia produces.

  30. Trump is going to build a big, beautiful Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and the Russians will pay for it

  31. We've been paying for broadband buildouts on our m by guruevi · · Score: 1

    If Spectrum wants to get money for expanding broadband as they promised and legally obliged to do, they should take it out of the 10% taxes they levy for that purpose.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  32. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good. Last time we gave billions to telecoms to 3xpand broadband, they did noth8ng and kept the money anyway.

  33. BeauHD whines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... broadband is one of the eligible categories.

    IIRC, this is the second time in as many months where BeauHD has whined that dishonest pork-barrelling corporations aren't getting their snouts into the "rebuilding infrastructure in America" fund.

  34. Is the headline intentionally misleading? by sabbede · · Score: 2

    It sure sounds like it's trying to whip up outrage while implying political deception. As if letting the State decide how to allocate the funds is the same as not allocating any.

  35. Re:He's got my vote, here's why by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    Don't need to be eloquent. You're and AC...and a liar.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  36. Re:So much trolling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the Civil War lead to the Reconstruction, which lead to the rise of the KKK. 150 years later are still feeling the repercussions of that damn war. The phrase "the South will rise again" is telling us that the South never really healed after the Civil War, and the power imbalance between Northern industry and Southern agriculture continues to leave an imbalance in power and money between the two regions.

    Survival is not a sufficient goal. Thriving should be a goal. We should live in a country of prosperity and opportunity. We should have communities and neighborhoods. Instead some people want to divide our nation up into gated communities and ghettos. Those people will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.