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.

49 of 103 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    2. 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!
    3. 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!!

    4. 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 sabbede · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  4. 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...

  5. 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 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.

  6. 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 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"
  7. 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.
  8. 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. 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
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. Plan? by dohzer · · Score: 2

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

  14. 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.
  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. 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! --
  18. 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.

  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"
  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. 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.

  22. 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'.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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
  26. 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.
  27. 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
  28. 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.

  29. 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.
  30. 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.