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.
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.
If the plan did include federal funding for broadband, there'd be bitching about "subsidized ISPs/cable companies/telcos".
I mean it says so right in the summary.
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...
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"
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
How about his plan for the par-5 on the back-nine?
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.
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?
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'.
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.
i.e. we need to increase military spending so there is no money left for silly things like Internet infrastructure.