• Phunter@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Are there any reasons these aren’t loans or a bounty? Are there strings attached? The article does not say.

    • krolden@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Neither did his press conference. He just boasted about how the cable was going to be made in the USA.

    • jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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”

  • jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • krolden@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • krolden@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.