Are there any reasons these aren't loans or a bounty? Are there strings attached? The article does not say.
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2023
16 points (94.4% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7120 readers
409 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Neither did his press conference. He just boasted about how the cable was going to be made in the USA.
Damn I read that as free money for 🌮 tacos and got excited.
To be fair it hasn't worked so far, why stop now?
Just another handout to big telco without any stipulations
I posted this in another comment, but from the article:
The amount each state, territory and Washington, D.C., will receive from the $42.5 billion program depends primarily on the number of unserved locations in each jurisdiction or those locations that lack access to internet speeds of at least 25 megabits per second download and 3 Mbps upload.
and
States will have until the end of the year to submit initial proposals outlining how they plan to use the money, which won’t begin to be distributed until those plans are approved
and
Under the rules of the program, states must prioritize connecting predominantly unserved areas before bolstering service in underserved areas, or those without access to internet speeds of 100 Mbps/20 Mbps, and community anchor institutions, such as schools and libraries.
So not exactly, "without stipulations"
Have the telcos ever gotten in trouble for not fulfilling the terms of their handouts?
Nope
Not a single word about holding telcos responsible for the billions they've been receiving over the last three decades and only used it to lobby to lower the definition of broadband to 25mbps
No Q&A either.
Yeah, because you don’t go over the details of implementation during rollout speeches. No one would pay attention if you did. The coverage has the details your comment claims don’t exist and we’ll as the enforcement mechanisms you’re positive are absent.
They're absent in the actual wording as well
They genuinely are not. Are you just trolling?
I personally think expanding access to high-speed Internet is a good thing, especially if you can lower the barrier to access for individuals who may not be able to afford an Internet plan.
Except theyre not and it won't. They've been giving telcos billions over the last 30 years for that and all they've done is lobby against regulation and raise peoples internet bill. Mine has gone up $20 over the last two years and ive heard nothing about putting price caps on isps.
I'm not certain how to prove or disprove your statement, so for now I'll assume it's true. But, from the article, it seems like this money is going to the states, themselves:
The amount each state, territory and Washington, D.C., will receive from the $42.5 billion program depends primarily on the number of unserved locations in each jurisdiction or those locations that lack access to internet speeds of at least 25 megabits per second download and 3 Mbps upload.
and
States will have until the end of the year to submit initial proposals outlining how they plan to use the money, which won’t begin to be distributed until those plans are approved
and
Under the rules of the program, states must prioritize connecting predominantly unserved areas before bolstering service in underserved areas, or those without access to internet speeds of 100 Mbps/20 Mbps, and community anchor institutions, such as schools and libraries.
So I think it is a little more nuanced than just giving telcos free money.
view more: next ›