Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

majoritywhip.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–96 of 96 posts

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#91

Post by rayiner »

manigandham wrote: post #87
rayiner wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is simply not true. Federal money wasn't used to build broadband until Obama's second term, and that amounted to a couple of billion a year since 2012. (Of the tens of billions invested in broadband networks annually.)

I trust your background and comments, but perhaps we're referring to different accounting here? There are grants, subsidies, tax breaks and all have been taken without the requisite buildout of infrastructure. Some sources: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131012/02124724852/decad... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150126/04502529814/what-... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200127/09334443804/look-... http…

Thanks for collecting these sources. Let's keep in mind that ISPs were investing $40 billion+ per year of their own money in wired broadband networks during the 2000-2010 timeframe, and maybe $30 billion+ in the 2010-2020 timeframe. Conservatively, you're talking about well over half a trillion since 2000, and that’s excluding wireless.

> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131012/02124724852/decad....

This is a state-level tax-break from 1994 of about $2.1 billion. There's probably a few more like this scattered around, but I don't think there are many, because the Pennsylvania one is always the one that comes up.

> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150126/04502529814/what-....

This is referring to the Pennsylvania subsidies, above.

> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200127/09334443804/look-....

This is the CAF funding I'm referring to. The article also references the Pennsylvania subsidies, and the New York FiOS rollout, which didn't involve any subsidies at all.

> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200414/07290544296/fcc-s....

This is about future subsidies.

> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/isps-want-to-be-....

Also about CAF, mentions $1.5 billion per year.

Obviously, billions of dollars of government funding that’s not delivered the desired results is a problem in its own right. I’m not well versed in rural issues so I don’t really know what the problems were there. My point simply is that the government never tried to build a “nationwide network” like OP suggested, not do these failed projects add up to even a year’s worth of the investment that would be required to actually do that.

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#92

Post by tomohawk »

Instead of all this, pass a law giving safe harbor to municipal broadband - give legal protection to municipal governments that want to pursue this.

Also require that affordances such as utility poles, rights of way, etc, be made available for expanding broadband.

In many cases, municipal governments are prohibited from creating or operating broadband infrastructure.

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#93

Post by [deleted] »

Supermancho wrote: post #90
rayiner wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim that "we already paid for nationwide broadband installations several times now" is not true. The bill you linked to, for example, just says that the Secretary of Transportation "shall require States to evaluate the need for broadband conduit in accordance with this section as part of any covered highway construction project." It doesn't even appropriate any money. The ARRA appropriate a small amount of mone…

I disagree with your initial statement. You are saying no specific bill was introduced to ensure this condition, which is a different stance. > It doesn't even appropriate any money. So what? The entirety of the bill might be a good reference...like an appropriate number of broadband conduits are installed along such highway to accommodate multiple broadband providers, > Whether or not the government money has been p…

[deleted]

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#94

Post by misiti3780 »

rayiner wrote: post #62
misiti3780 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why though?

There's no money in wired broadband. Investors have been trying to get Verizon to divest itself of FiOS pretty much since the beginning. It's probably profitable at this point, but barely. (Verizon's entire wireline division has a 5% or less profit margin.) Chatanooga Tennessee charges about $60/month for 300 mbps fiber. It is probably financially sustainable, but: 1) Tennessee is a low-cost, right-to-work state; 2)…

thank you!

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#95

Post by zaroth »

nordsieck wrote: post #16
thechao wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really hope Starlink will have a turnkey small-community ISP “solution”.

> I really hope Starlink will have a turnkey small-community ISP “solution”. I mean, an ISP could get a receiver and use Starlink as backhaul, but IMO, that just doesn't make much sense. The cost of infrastructure is almost certainly more than the cost of a receiver per consumer.

I assume that Starlink will be a boon for building out 4G/5G rural coverage by slapping base stations on poles with electricity and a Starlink terminal.

I wonder how much solar square footage and battery capacity you would need to not even need the electricity part.

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#96

Post by Supermancho »

Supermancho wrote: post #90
rayiner wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim that "we already paid for nationwide broadband installations several times now" is not true. The bill you linked to, for example, just says that the Secretary of Transportation "shall require States to evaluate the need for broadband conduit in accordance with this section as part of any covered highway construction project." It doesn't even appropriate any money. The ARRA appropriate a small amount of mone…

I disagree with your initial statement. You are saying no specific bill was introduced to ensure this condition, which is a different stance. > It doesn't even appropriate any money. So what? The entirety of the bill might be a good reference...like an appropriate number of broadband conduits are installed along such highway to accommodate multiple broadband providers, > Whether or not the government money has been p…

> We already paid for nationwide broadband installation several times by now.

If this isn't a reference to how the money has been spent, I'm not sure what you think is being argued. The downvotes are wrongheaded.

Post reply on HN