This isn't a broadband grant. It's free money for corporations that currently hold an oligopoly on the ISP industry.
Over the years there have been several instances where ISPs like Comcast, received substantial government funding to expand and improve their networks. However, the ISPs largely failed to follow through on the network improvements and instead just pocketed the money.
Isn't this like the third round of fiber money? If I remember correctly, the only company that didn't just pocket basically all of the money was Verizon which rolled out some fiber, no where near the commitment though.
I'm pretty sure this is the third.
They constantly pocket it, in addition to their profits, and refuse to expand their networks because it's expensive to dig holes and lay down wire.
Not sure how we did it before. Not sure how we built roads, or telecommunications, or railroads. Maybe our ancestors were magical or something.
When unions had more power, things actually got done. Unions used to be much more involved in the planning of activities and work direction. That has been eroded, most of our laws and protections have.
Laws and protections that basically hark back to the days after unionization, which wars were fought for.
People take for granted all of the laws and protections that are even still in place, let alone those removed because "there no longer needed and get in the way of growth", or whatever excuse, forgetting we had to basically fight a civil war just to get weekends and a standard 8 hour work day. We were even getting close to unions talking about owning the means of production (socialism) but that obviously never came to fruition as the government/Capitalists quickly realized placating the unions with their wish list would be far better for them in the long run then them getting any funny ideas about actual wealth ownership for the common man or good.
With all the money the government has handed them over the years we could of have government run highspeed internet in most metro areas. Instead we get some of the worst speeds for the highest prices in the western world. Corporate welfare/socialism is just the best. Brutal fuck you capitalism for consumers though. Always.
This is how you wash federal money and turn it into campaign donations. There is no way our politicians will turn off that spigot.
well, I was optimistic but now we might still have the monopolies using the grants to line their pockets off the consumers by using our govt money.
Exactly what will happen and they won't use to the grant money towards what it meant for.
It big grift and Biden gave it to them. Remember he is a centrist who caters to the rich.
Remember we paid for every home in America to have fiber optic internet in the 90s. They took the money, ran, and faced no consequences.
I mean he's always been considered a moderate. The voting system encouraged him through since we can't get voting reforms to pass. What I wouldn't give for ranked elimination style voting or something.... I'm so tired of being continually screwed by the system and it encouraging the gerrymandering that happened in my state despite our own laws against it
No different from the last time the government gave them billions of dollars for nothing.
Having been in the broadband delivery business at all levels, I sadly report that small ISPs can't compete in this marketplace to begin with. Reason being they don't have the investments needed for last mile delivery. If they had the money needed to install landlines, or buy frequency leases, or fly a global satellite network then they wouldn't be a small ISP. The best that they can do is develop resell relationships.
Part of the reason they can't compete is cause of all the bullshit roadblocks the existing players put in their way. This was made readily apparent anywhere Google fiber tried to rollout and all of the crap they had to deal with to just roll out fiber.
It's not that they don't have the money to install the infrastructure, it's that they don't have enough money to fight all the legal battles just to do their jobs.
The only ISPs that can compete are ones using existing power line infrastructure, so utility companies and cooperatives.
That wasn't always the plan?
🎶 Tale as old as time 🎶
Here in Seattle I have two options: Centurylink or Comcast. I would happily purchase a plan from a smaller company, but due to the duopoly we have here, I have no other choice.
There's also astound (formally wave) offering gigabit+ in Seattle.
Thanks! I'll check them out. I've tried Ziply several times, but my specific location has some unique challenges getting a provider in.
Same. When I moved, we had the option for Ziply 9ver Comcast and finally was able to shake them.
Internet should be a public utility and owned by the local government.
Plenty of smaller ISPs are WISPs, wireless ISPs. Great for rural too, you just need line-of-sight. Look up if any serve your area
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The biggest Internet service providers will dominate a $42.45 billion broadband grant program unless the Biden administration changes a rule requiring grant recipients to obtain a letter of credit from a bank, according to a joint statement from consumer advocacy groups, local government officials, and advocates for small ISPs.
The rule is part of the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program that's being administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
One signer is Gigi Sohn, the longtime consumer advocate who was nominated by President Biden to the Federal Communications Commission.
After the US Senate refused to confirm her nomination, Sohn became executive director of the nonprofit American Association for Public Broadband that lobbies for municipal networks.
The letter was signed by advocates from various other broadband-focused groups, including Public Knowledge; Connect Humanity; the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition; the Institute for Local Self-Reliance; Free Press; Next Century Cities; the Multicultural Media, Telecom, and Internet Council; the Coalition for Local Internet Choice; and Consumer Reports.
ISPs that signed the letter include Astound Broadband (owner of Grande, RCN, and Wave) and several smaller providers.
The original article contains 748 words, the summary contains 186 words. Saved 75%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
No shit, it's the monopoly game all over again. I worked for a local provider for 4 years in engineering. I would personally like to see greater restrictions on ISP M&As, investor ownership of communication providers, and media company owners of communication providers.
At my company, we were purchased by another provider that had mismanaged themselves to the brink of bankruptcy only to be saved by some investors at the last second. Our staff was cut by about half. A year or so after that we were bought by the biggest bunch of soulless monsters I've ever worked with. From there the company went growth-by-acquisition crazy, purchasing every Mom and Pop provider they could get their hands on.
Years later I was working an IP address consolidation project when I came across an FCC filing from the late 90s written by former management at my original company asking the FCC to reject the GTE purchases that resulted in Verizon as we know it today. I was amazed, and also saddened. It was all coming true.
When the dust settles, it'll be just like Ma Bell in 1975: There will be the "Internet Company" just like there was the Phone Company, with a probable 'bonus' of an extra "National Internet Corporation" modeled on the BBC.
Maybe this time we can learn from our mistakes and nationalize such industries instead of breaking them up and forcing needless competition.
The competition should be for the job. If someone else can do the job better, then you get replaced. It's a simple concept, lol. But capitalists have convinced people that public ownership is bad. That way, people spend enough to keep the businesses operational, in addition to funneling as much money as possible to the owners.
Edit: I missed the part where municipalities in certain states are allowed to get LOCs due to state law, so the grant program would exclude ISPs directly owned by the municipality. To me that is a state issue rather than a fed issue, especially as the NTIA says it will waive the requirement on a case-by-case basis
I'm sorry except for the smallest WISPs (which wouldn't qualify as broadband anyway), how does requiring a letter of credit from a bank represent a barrier? Carrier grade equipment is not cheap, nobody is paying is paying cash for it. So they should have a good relationship with a community bank anyway.
Go out and try to get one as a small ISP then come back and let us know how it went.
I actually worked at a small ISP that served a population of <10,000 a decade ago and we had no problem getting grants the last time Obama was handing them out
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
