Trump's Infrastructure Plan Has No Dedicated Money For Broadband (arstechnica.com) 103
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.
Translation (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."
Bitch, bitch, bitch (Score:5, Insightful)
If the plan did include federal funding for broadband, there'd be bitching about "subsidized ISPs/cable companies/telcos".
Re:Bitch, bitch, bitch (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
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?
Re: (Score:1)
"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?
Re:Bitch, bitch, bitch (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, 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?
Re: Bitch, bitch, bitch (Score:2)
I ordered lunch at Chipotle, and Donald Trump stole my guacamole! Then he gave it to Vladimir Putin!!
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but he spit on my shoes AND insinuated that my granny sucks eggs. That bastard!!
So it is eligible for funding (Score:2, Informative)
I mean it says so right in the summary.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean it says so right in the summary.
Eligible != Dedicated.
Broadband may get money. Or it may not.
Re:So it is eligible for funding (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, right.
$50 billion for broadband for hobos if you let our governor decide.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Seems fine to me? (Score:4, 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. [wikipedia.org]
Why can't they have both?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
i.e. we need to increase military spending so there is no money left for silly things like Internet infrastructure.
Re: (Score:1)
Did I ever mention increasing military spending?
It does have plans for a 'series of tubes' though (Score:2)
Re:So much trolling (Score:4, 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'.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Didnt we already pay? (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... [doc.gov]
Re:Didnt we already pay? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see your dealer made out tonight...
So now people want gov networks? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Priorities people... (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only is it the least important, it doesn't belong in the same list.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 clunk
Re: (Score:2, 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 [infrastruc...rtcard.org]
Drinking Water Rating: D [infrastruc...rtcard.org]
Energy Rating: D+ [infrastruc...rtcard.org]
Full Infrastructure Report Card [infrastruc...rtcard.org]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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$ pr
Plan? (Score:3)
How about his plan for the par-5 on the back-nine?
Re: (Score:1)
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.
oh yeah because people are assigned places to live (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Honestly most of them were born somewhere without decent internet and can't imagine what it would be like to have it.
Sounds Great (Score:4, 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?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The problem is that the President is a Republican. Some people find that situation utterly intolerable.
Re: (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. enhanc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technophobe (Score:1)
All borrowed rubles, no actual funding (Score:1)
Typical.
Now you know why no US bank will do business with him.
$50 Billion? (Score:2)
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.
Well duh (Score:1)
No one ios paying attention ... (Score:1)
... to Trump in a serious way.
He can't be serious because the only lecture he ever gave was a confession [youtube.com].
Donald Trump On Tape: I Grab Women "By The Pussy”
Re: (Score:2)
I know we'll survive Trump.
We survived Nixon.
Trump's plan for the internet (Score:2)
Uh, yeah (Score:2)
Because the feds don't own the internet or the rights-of-way or the hardware or the software.
Um.... (Score:1)
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
We've been paying for broadband buildouts on our m (Score:2)
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.
Is the headline intentionally misleading? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Liar.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't need to be eloquent. You're and AC...and a liar.