This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
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.
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.
On the contrary, I bet they got their dicks sucked real hard while going on an extra-long vacation.
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.
Not the existing players, your government. Telephone companies gained right of way from your state because everybody wanted a telephone. Cable companies made a deal with your municipality for right of way by paying for it with a non-compete clauses. Power companies did the same thing. Why would they put millions of dollars worth of infrastructure in the ground for anything less? Your state and local government, and by extension you, sold it to them.
The only ISPs that can compete are ones using existing power line infrastructure, so utility companies and cooperatives.
Tried that. You get a lot of errors in power line delivery.
My grandmother lives in a very rural area and gets gigabit because of her cooperative. They do work in some places at least.
If it worked well at scale, the power companies would be in with both feet. It doesn't
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.
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
You could cut the cable altogether and just go full mobile. That's what I do, and I'm happy to see an extra $600 in my bank account at the end of the year.
I use Visible for only $25/month. Unlimited data, great coverage, and they even sent me a free 5G phone when I refused to upgrade.
Couldn't be happier.
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.
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!
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
Yeah I also don't understand how it's a barrier. Unless I'm thinking of the wrong thing I know some people who had to get a letter of credit when getting some service at their new property in order to not have to pay some equipment deposit. As private individuals (although commercial property with no history of income), it took them a phone call, 2 emails and about 30 minutes to get one.
I really can't see any small ISP that isn't some scheme having trouble getting one.
