Ajit Pai wants to cap spending on broadband for poor people and rural areas
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
The telco's will claim to have spent that money, but they won't do anything, and once the cap is reached the telco's and shut it down again until the government gives them more incentives which they can use to line their pockets.
What a racket.
This isn't as bad as the headline makes it sound to be.
It shows a narrow way of thinking, and also assumes quite a few things about the US Govt / FCC.
After just glossing over the fact of fiscal responsibility, it assumes budget constraints in this regard are bad, as if a single penny of government money (taxpayer's money) is never wasted or poorly allocated.
Second, the article's attitude seems to take the position (and certainly the comments do) that the government is one of the few (if any?) entities capable of improving access to broadband in these affected areas. I doubt this.
I would also be interested to know if wireless telcos do a better job serving these apparently under-served communities versus their broadband providers. For example, what is the ratio of people who have slow broadband but smartphones with LTE service?
A distant third is that somehow the issue of a budget cap cannot be readjusted at a later date. Or that there are no programs outside of Universal Service that can also augment and support rolling out broadband. Or that you cannot create a new program targeting specific needs, etc...
This is a false dilemma.
It also makes the assumption that broadband equals improved economic development. I don't discount the idea, but I question just how much of an impact it has, in order to use this as leverage against the idea of the budget cap.
Ultimately, we're seeing a lack of imagination to problem solving unless it includes a blank check from Uncle Sam.
Oh, and we can slam Ajit Pai while we're at it -- let's not pass on that.
I also tend to mostly use tethering for my laptop in these areas, and can say, it's been a crap-shoot for the most part.
I also feel that this spending probably shouldn't target any metro area with more than say even half a million people in it. Simply because that is generally enough to create actual market pressure where local solutions are likely to be better and Federal funding will likely only help incumbents anyway.
I'm not against a budget cap, that's part of what a "budget" is. I think this is partially mis-sold, but in a lot of ways, I have almost no trust in current FCC leadership.
Second, I think that the Federal government should be in place to provide for what is considered essential infrastructure. In the late 1700's, essential infrastructure was enough road maintenance to support interstate commerce. Through the 1900's that grew to encompass clean water, electricity and telecommunications and radio. Today, I'd suggest that includes internet access. IMHO, if you can get electricity, water and a phone line, you should have access to high speed internet.
I'd rather see spending accountability and a focus on green markets over admittedly aging infrastructure in urban areas where market pressure should be forcing upgraded infrastructure and private spending for such measures. Also, I do feel there should be a spending cap and budgeting in most things. It isn't bad by itself, but it could be... the real thing comes down to "it depends." Given the guy in charge, I'm not sure that it's a good thing in any way.