Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Government The Almighty Buck United States

FCC Shuts New York Out of $20 Billion Broadband Fund, and Senators Are Angry (arstechnica.com) 67

Posted by BeauHD from the left-out dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission has unfairly shut New York state out of a planned $20.4 billion broadband-funding program, US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) wrote in a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai last week. ISPs in 48 states are eligible for funding in the FCC rural-broadband program, which will distribute the money over 10 years to providers that expand their networks to new homes and businesses. The FCC said it blocked New York and Alaska from Phase I of the program "because of previously established programs to fund rural broadband in these states." (Phase I will distribute $16 billion of the $20.4 billion.)

The FCC previously established a separate funding program for Alaska with $1.5 billion over 10 years. But Schumer and Gillibrand say New York has only gotten its fair share of nationwide FCC programs, rather than something extra. Schumer and Gillibrand's letter urged Pai to reverse the decision and let New York-based ISPs participate in the fund, which is supposed to provide broadband access to up to 4 million rural homes and businesses nationwide. "The FCC is undermining New York State's due process and penalizing New York for proactively creating a program to address unserved communities across the state," their announcement said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Shuts New York Out of $20 Billion Broadband Fund, and Senators Are Angry More

FCC Shuts New York Out of $20 Billion Broadband Fund, and Senators Are Angry

Comments Filter:

  • WTF? (Score:3)

    by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Thursday January 23, 2020 @05:25PM (#59649306)

    " But Schumer and Gillibrand say New York has only gotten its fair share of nationwide FCC programs, rather than something extra. "

    Only it's share. OK. What has New York actually done so far, besides funnel money into companies with no actual plans to ever implement rural broadband?

    • You misread it (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
      they mean they got their share of the existing fund for broadband expansion but that the FCC set up an additional fund which they feel they are due a share of.

      I tend to agree, the new fund seems designed to target red states with weak social programs. It excludes states with their own separate programs simply because they have existing programs. That'd be like cutting NYers off from food stamps because NYC runs a soup kitchen.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Holi ( 250190 )
          They did not waste a dime of the money they received. It went precisely where they wanted it to go.

      • It excludes states with their own separate programs simply because they have existing programs

        It excludes one state because it has a different federal program (Alaska).
        This is an argument about whether it should exclude a state because it has a state program.

      • By that logic, only NY and Alaska are blue States, because those are the two left out. It's also a RURAL broadband subsidy, and red States tend to be more rural.

        And if you read all of the summary, you'd have noticed that the FCC, not the State, had already created a similar program just for Alaska. Alaska did not set up its own. New York did set up and fund its own, so what do they need me to help them with?

        Maybe NY is entitled to a portion of the funds, maybe not. That will have to be reviewed by

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      You snark attack them for not having done enough, but they were explicitly denied it because they have done more than 48 of the other 49. Alaska being a special case, because a separate fund to tackle their unique issues was already established.

      So they haven't done enough, and have done too much, at the same time.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jmccue ( 834797 )

      Well it is their own fault along with every other gov entity. They should allow public (local gov run) ISPs and open up complete wireless competition.

      Instead the pols want to keep the lobbying gravy train going

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Rhipf ( 525263 )

        So if the private corps don't want to build out Internet services in rural areas the state should tell the citizens in those areas "too bad, so sad"?

        Also, opening "complete wireless competition" isn't necessarily the best option. Wireless options are slow and expensive. I am forced to use cell based Internet and would jump at the chance to have a hardwired connection even if it is only 5-10mbps.

    • Paid tax. A lot of fucking tax. And got back a lot less of it in federal spending than average.

  • Typical liberals. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Typical of liberals to want everything, including what isn't "fair" yet claim it is not fair. They have received prior funding yet they blew it. Now they want more for themselves.

    A New York state of mind or just more socialist clap trap?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      [NYC] have received prior funding

      False, they funded their own rural broadband program themselves.

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by silverlake ( 6184786 )
      No, what this is about is states that already try to do things to improve life for its citizens losing out to (red) states that do fuck-all. Typical of regressives to want both limited government and plenty of pork...
      • Blues want spending, reds don't. Only fair blues spend money on reds.

        • Blues want spending, reds don't. Only fair blues spend money on reds.

          No, reds SAY they don't want spending but if you look at actual budgets they pass they spend just as much or more than blues. Reds say they want small government but every time they are in charge they grow the size of the government. Just because they say they want something doesn't mean that's how they actually vote, or even that's what they actually want. Politicians in general want to grow government, because the bigger it is and the more money it spends the more power the politician has. Really the

  • Starlink (Score:5, Funny)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Thursday January 23, 2020 @05:54PM (#59649416) Homepage Journal

    $20B should be more than enough to provide broadband-level Internet to everyone in America through Starlink. Just hand the money to SpaceX, and call it done. Of course, having more than one option is good, but I would like to think Starlink should be eligible for at least some of the funds.

    • This is what I am really curious about. Once Starlink comes online and assuming that it can deliver what is promised, in that moment "access to broadband" will instantly go to 100%. Sure, you can break it down to terrestrial broadband etc. but that is hardly relevant. What will be interesting will be what terrestrial providers do and how it will impact pricing. Pricing will be the leg challenge for broadband access. "Access to affordable broadband".

      • What will be interesting will be what terrestrial providers do and how it will impact pricing. Pricing will be the leg challenge for broadband access. "Access to affordable broadband".

        Economists predict a price drop across all US markets, based on past ISP behavior when new competition showed up (Verizon fiber, mainly.) Everywhere Verizon pulled fiber, the incumbent dropped their price. Since Starlink will be a national network, this will affect every single ISP.

        The assumption has been that Starlink will offer service at the national average price for the speed tiers they'll be offering. But Gwynn Shotwell has been hinting that it could be priced considerably cheaper. If that happens

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      The idea would be insane. Fibre optic cable is hugely more reliable, stable and durable than a satellite. That satellite can be taken out at any time by a tiny micro-meteorite and then needs to be replaced and definitely not the same day, or week or month maybe not even year, wonderful rural service that.

      They of course will do everything possible to pocket that 20 billion as entirely profit and provide zero extra service because the FCC is corrupt as fuck. What should have happened is they should have ten

      • Starlink is not "a satellite", unlike most satellite internet services which use one or two satellites in geostationary orbit, but hundreds of satellites in low Earth orbit. That approach is not without its challenges, but it will be highly redundant against losses of satellites.
  • If New York wanted to be treated like other states, then it should have voted for Trump.

    It's not Trump's fault that New York voted for someone else. Now they can pay their own way.

    (And also they need to pay for Oklahoma. Arkansas. Louisiana. Alabama. Mississippi. ....)
    • See, you've said that as a joke, but NicknameUnavailable above is quite serious when he wrote:

      Blues want spending, reds don't. Only fair blues spend money on reds.

      People can be weird.

  • More taxpayer money down the drain (Score:3)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Thursday January 23, 2020 @07:21PM (#59649772)

    When Bill Clinton was in office, he gave $200 billion [newnetworks.com] to telcos and ISPs to upgrade the nation's entire networks from copper to fiber optic. The private companies promised we would have 45 Mbps bi-directional for around $40/month.

    In reality, the vast majority of that money was pocketed for other purposes though thousands of miles of fiber were run. It was just never used.

    Now here we are giving billions more to private companies making billions of dollars. Wouldn't it be simpler to tell these freeloaders to do their job or pay back all the money they've been given? With interest.

    • +1 above

      It is typical of government, and ESPECIALLY Federal. If any of this stuff happens, it should be done at the State level. And it should certainly have STRONG penalties for not doing what they took the money for in the first place.

    • Oh that Clinton! We definitely should blame him for all of the fraud that the telcos have been committing for the last twenty years. It's good that you called him out specifically, so we know that this is all his fault. And, by extension, his evil evil wife. And lets not forget the Democrats.

      ... Of course, according to the author of your book [reddit.com] it's really about decades of fraud and poor accountability practices. The only person he calls out specifically there is Mike Powell. Let's not let that keep us from

  • This is a typical example of modern greed... New York already has broadband funded by the Feds, now it's time to give that to everyone. Where's NY's budget having a hole for this?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jbengt ( 874751 )

      New York already has broadband funded by the Feds, now it's time to give that to everyone. Where's NY's budget having a hole for this?

      From TFA:

      But that program is funded primarily by state grants, with the FCC committing $170 million over 10 years. New York committed $500 million to the fund.

      Even that $170 million wasn't anything more than what New York was eligible for through standard FCC programs The money became available because Verizon in 2015 turned down $170 million for New York expansions in the FCC's Connect America Fund (CAF), which pays for rural-broadband expansion throughout the United States.

      The FCC previously established a separate funding program for Alaska with $1.5 billion over 10 years.

      . . . the FCC rural-broadband program, which will distribute the money over 10 years . . . (Phase I will distribute $16 billion of the $20.4 billion.)

  • $20.4 billion here [arstechnica.com].

    $550 million there [usda.gov].

    Another $25 million there [wdtv.com].

    Most of it's going to red states. Oh, that's right. It's an election year. Someone wants to get re-elected.

    • I wonder why the Coast Guard HQ is hundreds of miles from the ocean. I wonder why Huston is command and control for Nasa 800 miles from the launch site. I wonder why Congress forces weapon systems even the voracious military doesn't want.

      It's a mystery to me!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by SeaFox ( 739806 )

      Most of it's going to red states. Oh, that's right. It's an election year. Someone wants to get re-elected.

      Hahaha. Like any of this money is actually going to show up as expanded network coverage to residents in those states. That's a good one.

  • You will, then, know that the FCC is being challenged to stop protecting the telcos from actually delivering services subsidized by decades (decades) of subsidies under the guise of universal service by permitting arcane and obsolete accounting methods to hid the fact that these telcos have not, in fact, delivered any of what was agreed to.

    Not just mandated, but services and facilities they, the telcos, agreed to provide, and our government has been collecting fees for for decades.

    This is nationwide.

  • When you investigate the President's many crimes, you have to expect he would retaliate. We know he is still seething about losing his petty cash fund, I mean charity.
  • What about Warren? She said that anyone who busted their butt to pay for college should not be reimbursed and anyone who ran up huge debt should. Sounds similar to me. If NY already has a plan, let them go do it. Let's pay to get new programs off the ground and get to the real rural areas that are not being serviced.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I've finally learned what `upward compatible' means. It means we get to keep all our old mistakes." -- Dennie van Tassel

Close