Broadband Stimulus Plan Keeps Looking Worse And Worse
from the that's-not-stimulus dept
From the beginning, we've questioned the broadband stimulus plan, which was designed not to actually stimulate broadband so much as it was designed to stimulate jobs by getting people to install broadband in places where people weren't that interested in getting broadband. It had little to do with actually increasing broadband in a meaningful way. For that... all we kept hearing about was about how we'd also get some magical broadband mapping solution with hundreds of millions of dollars given to Connected Nation -- an organization favored by incumbents, because it lets them retain control over the mapping process. And, indeed, it looks like the broadband stimulus remains something of a boondoggle. As Stacey Higginbotham notes, there's "no map for success," and the plan itself has been watered down. The mapping plan has been cut back to appease telcos, and the focus of stimulus money will go to those not served by broadband, rather than those underserved by broadband. Installing broadband in far off places where there's no current access may sound good, but those are sparsely populated areas where broadband doesn't do all that much. Meanwhile, folks in densely populated regions have only one or two very slow options. Focusing on boosting broadband competition and speeds in those areas would seem to have a lot more bang for the buck... but doesn't seem to be in the current plans.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: boondoggle, broadband, broadband policy, broadband stimulus
Companies: connected nation
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
M'K but you are confusing things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now they are paying to get the final mile done for the same areas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
government funding of cable infrastructure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't mind this, I want those people to get their news from places other than mainstream media and I want them to also join blogs like techdirt and I want to get their opinion and I want them to read everyone else's opinion. It would be nice to have more participants on the Internet. Again, what bothers me is the fact that the govt often funds these ventures to expand broadband and then the govt grants special interest groups monopolies over the infrastructure. They shouldn't have it both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a government project
BTW, whatever happened to that billions of dollars that was given to the telecom companies to install broadband across the nation? That was over a decade ago and they never fulfilled their obligation. Now we're giving out more money to do effectively the same thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's a government project
This broadband 'stimulus' is looking a lot like Universal Lifeline taxes all over again. At least the incumbent monopoly telcos aren't allowed to add a "service fee" to our bills for it, and keep on charging it long after the program intentions have been fulfilled. Now they just get all the tax money up front.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's a government project
You're kidding, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's a government project
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's a government project
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about civil defense?
However, they could also just text people about the disaster, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am lucky!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am lucky!
You are wholly ungrateful. Whah, you poor baby, you could download a three hour long movie in thirty minutes instead of downloading a three minute video in an hour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read It
http://www.muninetworks.org/content/how-ntia-dismantled-public-interest-provisions-broadband -stimulus-package
It looks like nothing but a scam to fund private interests at public expense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Underserved areas
Yes, urban America needs competition, but rural America still needs access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, if we get it, it will do much for the millions of rural Americans like me who have no broadband access. I read an earlier comment from someone who is complaining about only getting 1.5MB download speeds and laugh. You don't know how lucky you are. Try dial-up sometime, or pay $70+/month for a crappy satellite connection.
I am not optimistic that this program will make much difference to the availability of broadband in rural America, but at least it has its priorities right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So city people are worth more than country people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
still have dial up here in san antonio, texas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Selfish much?
That attitude right there is precisely why the inefficient and sometimes maddening electoral college was and is still necessary. Otherwise, the needs of those in more sparsely-populated areas are ignored for the needs of the all-important majority.
What do you think would be harder in today's world? Being in an urban/suburban area with an always-on connection limited to, say, 768K (the minimum threshold to be considered broadband)? Or being in a rural area, limited to 56K? Web sites are now built for broadband. A dial-up connection has become virtually unusable. Those not served by broadband are increasingly closer to being completely unserved by the Internet.
Personally, I have reservations about the idea of the government paying for broadband expansion. However, if the government is going to fund anything, it should be the unprofitable "last mile" connections, which are not likely to happen without government involvement. Improvements to infrastructure to help those poor "underserved" users can be paid for by the telcos. Those kinds of improvements would come naturally if the government did something about the lack of broadband competition. They don't need to pump in money to solve the "underserved" problem. They probably do need to chip in to get broadband to much of the rural Midwest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Selfish much?
So I live in a densely populated area, but I wish I had all the luxuries of living in the country. Should I expect the gov't to make that possible for me?
So why should we expect the opposite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Selfish much?
Speaking of luxuries, why should the government pay to up the speed in your so-called "underserved" areas? Speeds of 1.5MB, or even 768K, are perfectly adequate for most tasks, educational purposed, etc. Anything faster truly is a luxury, no matter where you live.
If the government took your attitude back when phone service or electricity were considered "luxuries," how many rural areas would still be without such essential services?
No one is saying that cable TV, skyline views, nearby shopping, etc should be extended to rural areas on the public dime. However, the Internet has become completely integrated into society. It is really no longer any more optional than a telephone, and basic broadband is not a luxury.
Last, on a less-related note, the "luxuries" of the country really only apply to a select few wealthy sub-suburbanites. For most, rural living is not a luxury at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Increase competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Increase competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WRONG on Rural
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rural areas NOT that interested in getting broadband? Says who?
When there is a market failure, as is the case in most rural areas where density of home per mile makes it cost prohibitive to build the infrastructure and/or to support broadband services based on take rates, we should do nothing?
And to all the other snarky posters who say that government will ruin it if they get involved, well, look I'm no booster-cheerleader for governments, but if there are public private-partnerships that can subsidize the cost of building the infrastructure, why shouldn't people in rural areas get broadband?
The key to success will be to find a way to make the ongoing operations profitable, and that's the issue. There is plenty of demand for broadband in rural markets,it's access to networks and services that it the issue. Ultimately, it's likely to come down to wireless infrastructure that serves users in those markets, which is cheaper to install than either fiber or copper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More Broadband is not the same as more Internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about electricity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not free
The town of Wilson, NC took $28 million to build an in town fiber system. In 2007 Wiki listed 48k population and 18660 housing units. The cost would come out to $1500 per housing unit. The lowest internet only of $35 would take 3 years to repay the $28 million. This is at 100% uptake in a town. You can go to the town site and see all they offer TV phone internet and the price.
Rural may be 3 to 4 times that about with an uptake of less then 100% I have seen figures of around 25% to 50% uptake. Some body has to come up with the up front money and these figures do not include the on going costs.
It is easy to say do it but let somebody else pay for it. The posters on this forum are the somebody else and they already have some broadband.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Broadband in area not served
Not exactly rural by any standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Broadband in area not served
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stimulus plan
I suppose it is easier to gripe than to think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Broadband Stimulus Plan Keeps Looking Worse And Worse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here’s the video link:
task 1 – replace the text on the main page
task 2 – switch the sign up page and the registration page. The payment page needs to be first, and then the registration page second. Also, replace the text at the top of the payment page where it says “Membership Step 2 of 2” to “Membership Step 1 of 2”
task 3 – insert the new text into the payment page. the text has been attached to this task.
task 4 – I need you to create a basic ‘sign in’ page that people will see after they register. You will put the following text on the site, so they know that is where they sign in:
Congratulations, and welcome to the Prime family! Now that your registration is complete, simply use the login and password you selected to login to the members area now. We’ll see you on the other side!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]