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

81–90 of 96 posts

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#81

Post by fergaral »

Just to give you another perspective (although to be fair we are a much smaller country) here in Spain the Government each year has a program called PEBANG (New Generation Broadband Extension Program), which essentially subsidizes the deployment of fiber (FTTH). The ISPs submit proposals to cover a set of so-called "white zones" and then the Government subsidizes up to 80% of the cost (up to a limit, of course).

This program, along with the fact that Telefonica, the incumbent operator, decided years ago to concentrate its efforts on deploying FTTH (all that's really left right now is to complete rural areas), and having an incentive of doing copper switch-off, means that each year there are more and more villages (even really small ones of, say, 10 people) covered by fiber. Telefonica hopes to have 100% FTTH coverage by 2024 (right now we're on 80%).

Orange is also another operator which also deployed lots of fiber both by itself and through this program for rural areas.

The competitive telecom market in Spain and also the regulations appear to have also been a factor in this transformation.

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#82

Post by Supermancho »

rayiner wrote: post #45
manigandham wrote: post #6

We already paid for nationwide broadband installation several times by now. How many more funds do we need to siphon to major corporations that still don’t build anything?

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.)

> This is simply not true.

How so? (eg https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3805..., there are lots of bills over the last decade, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, etc)

Unless you can go through each individual bill that was mandated to build infratructure, the history indicates that the OP statemnt is true. The money was pocketed and it wasn't done. Business as usual with govt contracts.

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#83

Post by ac29 »

danShumway wrote: post #35
darwinwhy wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like it or not, certain parts of the US are too rural/poor to justify even monopolists expanding internet service there. This will incentivize them to build in those areas.

We already have incentivized them. They take the money, promise to build, and then just don't. They know that neither the FCC nor any of the state/local governments have any will right now to punish them for not following through on their commitments. At this point, it would be more efficient to just give the money to municipalities directly and just tell them to build their own infrastructure. Government incentives…

I don't know why these sort of things don't work on a reimbursement basis. Instead of just handing over a huge chunk of money, why shouldn't telecoms be required to submit invoices for reimbursement on qualifying work? It would ensure taxpayers were only paying for work actually completed, not empty promises.

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#85

Post by ac29 »

dantheman wrote: post #57

It feels like people don't realize how broke the US is right now. We're going to be in a recession, we're going to have massive unemployment bills, we already spent a ridiculous amount of money this year... Tax revenue is going to be way down. We can't afford these things; if the internet is too slow, you can either pay more for it or you can move somewhere where it is better.

Infrastructure spending should have one of the best returns on investment that government spending can. It generates economic activity during the build phase, and continues to deliver a return after completion.

"Just move" isn't a reasonable alternative. Many people in rural areas can't afford to live anywhere else - having access to decent internet might help change that.

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#86

Post by rayiner »

Supermancho wrote: post #82
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.)

> This is simply not true. How so? (eg https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3805... , there are lots of bills over the last decade, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, etc) Unless you can go through each individual bill that was mandated to build infratructure, the history indicates that the OP statemnt is true. The money was pocketed and it wasn't done. Business as usual with govt cont…

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 money for rural broadband, about $2.5 billion, much of which was never even spent: https://www.benton.org/blog/questioning-federal-broadband-sp.... That was 10 years ago. Then the Connect America Fund spent less than $10 billion over the last decade. These are the only major federal programs I'm aware of that spent any significant amount of money on broadband. Over that same decade, private companies invested over $70 billion per year: https://morningconsult.com/opinions/reversal-of-fortune-broa.... I don't have a recent breakdown, but in the 2007-2008 timeframe, it was $40 billion+ per year for wireline, and $20 billion+ for wireless: http://cpham.perso.univ-pau.fr/ENSEIGNEMENT/PAU-UPPA/RHD/PAP.... It might well be the reverse today, with most of the investment in wireless, but you're still talking $20-30 billion+ per year in wireline.

So over the past decade, it's maybe $10-15 billion in government funding, targeted at a few rural areas, compared with hundreds of billions of dollars of private investment. Whether or not the government money has been properly used is a fair discussion, but a separate one. It's just a tiny fraction of what you need to build and maintain a nationwide broadband network, which is what OP was talking about.

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#87

Post by manigandham »

rayiner wrote: post #45
manigandham wrote: post #6

We already paid for nationwide broadband installation several times by now. How many more funds do we need to siphon to major corporations that still don’t build anything?

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-...

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

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

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#88

Post by manigandham »

crazygringo wrote: post #52
manigandham wrote: post #6

We already paid for nationwide broadband installation several times by now. How many more funds do we need to siphon to major corporations that still don’t build anything?

Wait, really? What happened to the money? Is it not contingent on delivery of the completed product? Or was it intentionally badly written in order just to funnel money/pork to big donors? Can you provide some citations? I'm not finding anything with a quick search.

Some sources here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23646690

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#89

Post by bzb3 »

fergaral wrote: post #81

Just to give you another perspective (although to be fair we are a much smaller country) here in Spain the Government each year has a program called PEBANG (New Generation Broadband Extension Program), which essentially subsidizes the deployment of fiber (FTTH). The ISPs submit proposals to cover a set of so-called "white zones" and then the Government subsidizes up to 80% of the cost (up to a limit, of course). This…

They also said they'd have turned off the entire pots network (including ADSL) by 2020 and here we are.

Re: Dems pitch $100B broadband plan

#90

Post by Supermancho »

rayiner wrote: post #86
Supermancho wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is simply not true. How so? (eg https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3805... , there are lots of bills over the last decade, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, etc) Unless you can go through each individual bill that was mandated to build infratructure, the history indicates that the OP statemnt is true. The money was pocketed and it wasn't done. Business as usual with govt cont…

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 properly used is a fair discussion, but a separate one.

That is the core of the discussion. Reread the thread.

Post reply on HN