Trump Pushes To Expand High-Speed Internet In Rural America (reuters.com) 317
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Monday to make it easier for the private sector to locate broadband infrastructure on federal land and buildings, part of a push to expand high-speed internet in rural America. Reuters reports: "We need to get rural America more connected. We need it for our tractors, we need it for our schools, we need it for our home-based businesses," a White House official told reporters ahead of Trump's speech at the annual convention of the American Farm Bureau Federation. "We're not moving mountains but we're certainly getting started," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to preview Trump's actions. The White House described the moves as an incremental step to help spur private development while the administration figures out what it can do to help with funding, something that could become part of Trump's plan to invest in infrastructure. "We know that funding is really the key thing to actually changing rural broadband," a second White House official said. Reuters cites a 2016 report from the Federal Communications Commission, noting that 39 percent of rural Americans lack access to high-speed internet service.
He knows rural (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"He is one of US!"
And a very stable, smart genius.
So Kentucky beware, there will be Alexas in every moonshine hut soon.
Re:He knows rural (Score:5, Funny)
Re:He knows rural (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect most people come to populated areas for career reasons, not necessarily because they prefer crowds and density.
It seems outsourcing and technology have shifted the jobs to more populated areas for some reason, good or bad. Rural areas recovered slower from the slump, and this is partly why T was elected: they felt slighted.
I believe the shift is partly due to farming automation, and partly due to the fact if your job is easy to do remotely, it's also easy to outsource to a cheap-labor country. Those jobs left here tend to require heavier teamwork and personal interaction. In the late 90's I thought telecommuting would take off and relieve population density. I was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect most people come to populated areas for career reasons, not necessarily because they prefer crowds and density.
Not necessarily. Crowds can often be a positive from a lifestyle point of view. Density definitely is. Density provides access, entertainment, lifestyle, basically every extrovert's dream.
In my field it isn't always easy to find a city centre and commute out of the city limits for work (who likes chemical plants in the middle of populated areas). That said I happily took a pay cut to move to a bigger city with a longer commute precisely because country life was draining my soul. When I ask around I get all
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I believe the shift is partly due to farming automation,
That should read "corporate farming" -- ED
... and partly due to the fact if your job is easy to do remotely, it's also easy to outsource to a cheap-labor country.
That should read "click farming" -- ED
Those jobs left here tend to require heavier teamwork and personal interaction.
That should read "cube farming" -- ED
In the late 90's I thought telecommuting would take off and relieve population density. I was wrong.
That should read "idiot farming" because only an idiot back in the '90s would believe the corporations would EVER allow workers out of their sight (or site). -- ED
Re:He knows rural (Score:5, Insightful)
what the living fuck is wrong with you people? i LOVE the idea of people living outside of big cities. more small communities would be GREAT. im a democrat. we dont need the tax revenue from living in the city, we need happy, productive citizens living where they want to. stop name calling, you motherfucker. stop it!
Re:He knows rural (Score:4, Informative)
There are definitely democrats/leftists that hate the idea that people can move out of the big cities, taking their tax revenue with them. I've talked with them. They don't consider it "fair" that people can move to suburbs and not support the inner city schools anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
There are definitely democrats/leftists that hate the idea that people can move out of the big cities, taking their tax revenue with them. I've talked with them. They don't consider it "fair" that people can move to suburbs and not support the inner city schools anymore.
Some of the more extreme Bill Ayers types spew loads over the idea of turning the US and the world into a bad remake of Logan's Run and/or Demolition Man.
They want a human ant-farm.
It's freaking depressing...hold on....
[turns to booth]
"You are an incredibly sensitive man, who inspires joy-joy feelings in all those around you."
[turns back]
OK, I'm good. What seems to be your boggle, citizen?
Be well!
Strat
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Trumpers quake with the knowledge that those successful Dems will retire with their stock portfolios into their underpopulated economically devastated wastelands, create boutique little shops that tolerate LGBTQ people and hire them or their kids (who might learn it's acceptable to be LGBTQ! or to tolerate people who are different!) and then how will they be able to be dicks to them then?
So, your idea is that rich leftists will move into poor rural areas where the rich leftists will open funny little shops, offend the locals, and you're wondering what the local's reaction will be? . . . . I'm guessing the locals won't buy much from the "funny" and pretentious little shops owned by the rich leftists. And then the next question is. . . will be rich leftists be able to stay rich with nobody buying from their "funny" and pretentious little shops?
By the way . . . I heard today that the White H
Re: He knows rural (Score:2)
So rich Hillaryists will move in and live in a neocolonial bubble where they don't have to interact with the oppressed classes of their own countrymen. Then they will use their control of capital to offshore more jobs and further depress wages, driving the common people to destitution. While they live in their happy little bubble.
Sounds awesome. I'm sure this plan will be very popular with the people.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he just reposts from Vox. That stuff is what they actually believe.
Re: He knows rural (Score:2)
They are plugged in to the matrix.
Broadband? (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't the FCC just change the definition of broadband to 10 mbps down 1 mbps up? I don't think I understand what's happening in this administration.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Nope, they just changed it to 25/3 up from 4/1 during the Obama administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Broadband? (Score:5, Informative)
Page 6, paragraph 14:Should we maintain the 25 Mbps download, 3 Mbps upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps) speed benchmark, and to apply it to all forms of fixed broadband? and in the footnotes: The 25 Mbps/3 Mbps speed benchmark was established in the 2015 Report and maintained in the 2016 Report. Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended by the Broadband Data Improvement Act, GN Docket No. 14-126, 2015 Broadband Progress Report and Notice of Inquiry on Immediate Action to Accelerate Deployment, 30 FCC Rcd 1375, 1403 -08, paras. 45 -55 (2015) (2015 Report ); 2016 Report , 31 FCC Rcd at 722, paras. 51 -52.
Page 7, paragraph 18: The Commission has not previously set a mobile speed benchmark...We seek comment on whether a mobile speed benchmark of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps is appropriate for mobile broadband services.
IMHO, 10/1 is probably "good enough" for "mobile broadband", but only as long as that isn't your ONLY choice. Most people aren't hotspoting multiple devices off a single cell phone.
Re:Broadband? (Score:4, Informative)
I was more curious about this:
up from 4/1 during the Obama administration.
Re: (Score:3)
IMHO, 10/1 is probably "good enough" for "mobile broadband", but only as long as that isn't your ONLY choice. Most people aren't hotspoting multiple devices off a single cell phone.
People in rural areas do. Can't get cable. Can't get DSL. Satellite is awful. My brother's family runs all the computers in the house off of one mobile hotspot.
Re: (Score:2)
There are ways you can make it less painful. A squid proxy, a local caching DNS server... Won't help with streaming, but for 'web traffic ... I had an entire dorm hanging off a 33.6 modem for a year (pages were a lot lighter then, but still).
Re: (Score:3)
over the previous broadband figure (10Mbps, IIRC)
No it was 4 Mbps, as the parent said. (link [theverge.com]) He was right about that part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, people playing online games or watching videos online might disagree.
Videos, yes, if you want more than 1080p or more than one stream. Games, on the other hand, aren't typically very bandwidth-intensive. Low latency is far more important for most multiplayer gaming.
Re:Broadband? (Score:5, Funny)
Didn't the FCC just change the definition of broadband to 10 mbps down 1 mbps up? I don't think I understand what's happening in this administration.
Thereby massively expanding the number of rural broadband connections? Wow, results!
Re:Broadband? (Score:5, Insightful)
Up until 2-1/2 years ago, I lived in a rural area 13 miles from the closest gas station. I only had 5 Mbps, and was lucky to have that. It was actually quite livable. I could easily stream a Netflix show while doing other things. I even did a little bit of telecommuting (chip design) over a VPN, using tools like SOC Encounter (very graphics based). Not ideal, but livable.
So, double that? Yeah, enough to support 2 or 3 streaming movies at the same time. More is always better, but 10 Mbps is definitely nothing to complain about. Yeah, if you are downloading a 10 GB video game, it might take more than 1/2 hour.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what technology you're using there, but in the case of DSL for instance if you were to force it to sync at a lower rate you'd generally get greater stability... If you can have an unstable 6-7mb you can probably get a stable 5mb.
Although cases like these are why i prefer to download rather than stream, i can let a download take place over night and it's ready to watch in the morning - even in high definition, which a slow connection would have no chance of streaming.
Re: (Score:2)
This allows me to both stream whatever I want, on multiple devices as I like
I simply can't fathom how the US can be so behind in such an important aspect of society.
Not everyone considers consuming more entertainment / toys / bandwidth / energy / etc "an important aspect of society".....
Red-State Favoritism? (Score:5, Interesting)
Some suspect he's rewarding those who voted for him and punishing blue states and their infrastructure projects. [cbslocal.com]
He's known to personally reward loyalty and punish non-loyalty above personal doctrine or dogma. Even though he's pro-infrastructure, he still may avoid blue-state infrastructure as punishment for not voting for him and/or giving him poor ratings.
The recent tax bill also tilts toward red states in that state and local taxes cannot be deducted as much as before from the total taxed. (Some may claim this is "more fair", but blue states already pay a disproportionate amount of money to the Federal Gov't, per population.)
Re:Red-State Favoritism? (Score:5, Insightful)
The recent tax bill also tilts toward red states in that state and local taxes cannot be deducted as much as before from the total taxed.
The only reason you can say it "tilts" is because the state and local taxes are tilted by state color, too. Fascinating correlation there, yes?
Re:Red-State Favoritism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and the states with low taxes have to be subsidized by the ones with higher taxes for exactly that reason, because they don't tax their own residents enough to cover their costs. I believe it's called 'redistribution of wealth'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you want to look at the big picture, areas that have dense population tend to tilt blue. Areas that have dense populations also need more local taxes in order to deal with the increased need to regulation and infrastructure-- i.e. the 300 square miles of NYC needs more spending and upkeep than 300 square miles in the middle of nowhere.
But also, that 300 square miles around NYC produces a disproportionate amount of economic activity and tax revenue. The 300 square miles in the middle of nowhere co
Re: Red-State Favoritism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Blue states were getting their own subsidization, via federal deductions on state and local taxes, letting blue states raise their taxes (and therefore revenue) and offsetting the difference to the federal government. Now, as for entitlements that go predominantly to red states: why do you think red states vote that way? They're sick of that shit. Cut off the spigot.
Re: (Score:2)
he still may avoid blue-state infrastructure as punishment for not voting for him
Newsflash: that's how the system works. They're not being "punished" anymore than the red states were "punished" by Obama.
And it works like that at every level; that's why the hometowns of senators get bigger infrastructure projects or tax breaks for job creation projects, or why the mayor's neighborhood is always first in line for snow or garbage removal. That's basically how democracy works.
Re:Red-State Favoritism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Please clarify with specifics. What O economic policies tilted blue?
I can't give you specifics of things that don't happen.
Re:Red-State Favoritism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama didn't do this, Bush didn't do it, Clinton didn't do it.
Obama -- Obamacare (a gold mine for insurance companies)
Bush -- war in Iraq (a gold mine for defense contractors)
Clinton -- repeal of Glass-Steagall act (a gold mine for wall street)
Get real dude
Re:Red-State Favoritism? (Score:5, Informative)
Obama didn't do this, Bush didn't do it, Clinton didn't do it.
Clinton -- repeal of Glass-Steagall act (a gold mine for wall street)
Get real dude
Indeed, get real.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall was accomplished by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA) authored by three hard right Republicans. it passed both Houses of Congress with veto proof majorities (Senate 90–8, House 362–57). Although it got majority support among Democrats, support was nearly unanimous from Republicans.
Clinton could have vetoed it, but it would have done no good, the veto would have been over-ridden.
Assigning blame to Clinton for repealing Glass-Steagall is torturing the facts beyond all recognition.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Clinton could have vetoed it, but it would have done no good, the veto would have been over-ridden.
Clinton could have vetoed it if he didn't support repeal. Removing his support from the bill and forcing proponents to override his veto may have eroded enough Democrat support to sustain his veto. Your theories deny the history and basic politics.
Instead, Clinton supported repeal of Glass-Steagal, signed it into law, and continues to defend repeal to this day. Please read the following quote that obliterates your fantasy.
Bill Clinton [bloomberg.com]:
On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I'd be glad to look at the evidence. But I can't blame [the Republicans]. This wasn't something they forced me into.
Republicans forced nothing on Clinton. He signed the law of his own free
Re: (Score:3)
Because single payer works so well in the UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk]
Every hospital in the country has been ordered to cancel all non-urgent surgery until at least February in an unprecedented step by NHS officials.
The instructions on Tuesday night - which will see result in around 50,000 operations being axed - followed claims by senior doctors that patients were being treated in "third world" conditions, as hospital chief executives warned of the worst winter crisis for three decades.
Hospitals are reporting growing chaos, with a spike in winter flu leaving frail patients facing 12-hour waits, and some units running out of corridor space.
Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS medical director, on Tuesday ordered NHS trusts to stop taking all but the most urgent cases, closing outpatients clinics for weeks as well as cancelling around 50,000 planned operations.
Trusts have also been told they can abandon efforts to house male and female patients in separate wards, in an effort to protect basic safety, as services become overwhelmed.
Re:Red-State Favoritism? (Score:4, Insightful)
It does, but an ageing population [wikipedia.org] (especially problematic is the wave of baby boomers, called that for a reason) puts a lot of extra strain on all European countries. It's a struggle to find solutions that work and considering that the conservative approach in the UK has been "You're not getting more money, deal with it", the story you mentioned is the result:
- http://www.independent.co.uk/n... [independent.co.uk]
- http://www.independent.co.uk/n... [independent.co.uk]
See also:
- https://www.ineteconomics.org/... [ineteconomics.org]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The ECHI pointed out that 'Bismarck beats Beveridge". I.e. systems based on compulsory purchase of individual insurance from a market of competing suppliers like the ones in Germany and the Netherlands beats single payer.
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog... [adamsmith.org]
The Euro Health Consumer Index (ECHI) 2009 was released this week, and got lots of media coverage in the UK because it ranked the NHS 14th out of 33 countries and said the British health service was let down by waiting lists and "uneven quality performance". Only 4 counties in the EU15 (Western Europe, roughly speaking) got lower scores - Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal.
The report is full of interesting information, but one point (on p9) particularly interested me. In their words, "Bismarck Beats Beveridge - yet again!" To explain:
Bismarck healthcare systems are "based on social insurance, where there is a multitude of insurance organizations... who are organisationally independent of healthcare providers." They are named after Otto von Bismarck, who founded the German welfare state.
Beveridge systems are "systems where financing and provision are handled within one organisational system, i.e. financing bodies and providers are wholly or partially within one organization." They are named after Wiliam Beveridge, who founded the British welfare state.
Anyway, the point the reports makes is that, "Looking at the results of the EHCI 2006 - 2009, it is very hard to avoid noticing that the top consists of dedicated Bismarck countries, with the small-population and therefore more easily managed Beveridge systems of the Nordic countries squeezing in. Large Beveridge systems seem to have difficulties at attaining really excellent levels of customer value."
The following list shows the rankings of Western European healthcare systems according to their 2009 score. The Bismarck countries are in bold:
(1) Holland, (2) Denmark, (3) Iceland, (4) Austria, (5) Switzerland, (6) Germany, (7) France, (8) Sweden, (9) Luxembourg, (10) Norway, (11) Belgium, (12) Finland, (13) Ireland, (14) UK, (15) Italy, (16) Spain, (17) Greece, (18) Portugal.
Clearly there is something in what the authors of the ECHI say. They suggest two points which could explain the comparative underperformance of Beveridge systems:
(1) Managing organizations of this size (the NHS employees 1.5m staff) requires management skills which just don't exist in the public sector. (I'd say they are extremely rare in the private sector too.)
(2) The primary loyalty in Beveridge organizations tends to be to politicians and other top decision-makers, rather than patients.
Adopting a competitive social insurance system like Holland's would be a huge step forward for the UK, even if - in an ideal world - I would prefer something based on medical savings accounts. You can read more about it here, in our excellent 2002 report
Re: (Score:2)
And if you look at the ECHI 2016 report they have this to say on Bismarck vs Beveridge
https://healthpowerhouse.com/f... [healthpowerhouse.com]
1.5 BBB; Bismarck Beats Beveridge - now a permanent feature
The Netherlands example seems to be driving home the big, final nail in the coffin of Beveridge healthcare systems, and the lesson is clear: Remove politicians and other amateurs from operative decision-making in what might well be the most complex industry on the face of the Earth: Healthcare! Beveridge systems seem to be operational with good results only in small population countries such as Iceland, Denmark and Norway.
1.5.1 So what are the characteristics of the two system types?
All public healthcare systems share one problem: Which technical solution should be used to funnel typically 8 - 11 % of national income into healthcare services?
Bismarck healthcare systems: Systems based on social insurance, where there is a multitude of insurance organisations, Krankenkassen etc, who are organisationally independent of healthcare providers.
Beveridge systems: Systems where financing and provision are handled within one organisational system, i.e. financing bodies and providers are wholly or partially within one organisation, such as the NHS of the UK, counties of Nordic states etc.
For more than half a century, particularly since the formation of the British NHS, the largest Beveridge-type system in Europe, there has been intense debating over the relative merits of the two types of system.
Already in the EHCI 2005, the first 12-state pilot attempt, it was observed that "In general, countries which have a long tradition of plurality in healthcare financing and provision, i.e. with a consumer choice between different insurance providers, who in turn do not discriminate between providers who are private for-profit, non-profit or public, show common features not only in the waiting list situation ..."
Looking at the results of the EHCI 2006 - 2016, it is very hard to avoid noticing that the top consists of dedicated Bismarck countries, with the small-population and therefore more easily managed Beveridge systems of the Nordic countries squeezing in. Large Beveridge systems seem to have difficulties at attaining really excellent levels of customer value. The largest Beveridge countries, the U.K., Spain and Italy, keep clinging together in the middle of the Index. There could be (at least) two different explanations for this:
1. Managing a corporation or organisation with 100 000+ employees calls for considerable management skills, which are usually very handsomely rewarded. Managing an organisation such as the English NHS, with close to 1.5 million staff, who also make management life difficult by having a professional agenda, which does not necessarily coincide with that of management/administration, would require absolutely world class management. It is doubtful whether public organisations offer the compensation and other incentives required to recruit those managers.
2. In Beveridge organisations, responsible both for financing and provision of healthcare, there would seem to be a risk that the loyalty of politicians and other top decision makers could shift from being primarily to the customer/patient. Primary loyalty could shift in favour of the organisation these decision makers, with justifiable pride, have been building over decades, with justifiable pride, have been building over decades (or possibly to aspects such as the job-creation potential of such organisations in politicians' home towns).
Re: (Score:2)
Given the fact that he's a giant elderly toddler, I don't doubt it. However, this might be the one instance where I'd be ok with letting it slide. If the government wants to do any kind of economic stimulus, building and repairing infrastructure is probably the best thing it can do (assuming the infrastructure is needed and not just a boondoggle).
Building decent internet infrastructure might be one of the best options, as far as building infrastructure goes. The modern economy runs on computers and inte
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Blue states are already bigger net-contributors to the federal coffers before the tax "reform." This makes it more lopsided.
What's "High-Speed" you speak of? (Score:2)
So let's see... (Score:2, Insightful)
Whelp.. the Trump trainwreck just keeps on a rollin'!
Isn't this contradictory? (Score:5, Informative)
I thought the FCC was in the process of relaxing the definition of broadband so the established players could pretend they were doing more than they are?
Re: (Score:2)
With NN rules changes expected, more innovative and new telcos can connect the USA again.
No more federal NN rules to hold back US ISP building new networks with federal NN compliance rules.
The ability to enter the US telco market is now not protected for just a few NN monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an excellent recitation of political talking points that doesn't actually address my post.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember this comment in 10 years when people in rural areas still don't have (actual) broadband internet, because you will be proven wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? Making it EASIER is not a guarantee that it will happen.
I used to live in a rural area. It takes money to bury miles of cable, and money to install the DSLAM. If your expected payments over the next 10 years do not even cover the cost of installation, what do you suggest the ISPs do? Operate at a loss? Most companies don't intentionally set out to loose money.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
I work for a small company that is trying to provide rural internet to places the ISPs won't touch for exactly the reasons you state. And nothing about NN has any effect on what we are trying to do. Period. In fact, we are going to make guarantees that we will respect NN anyway, because it has no effect on our ability to deploy, operate, or maintain our network.
I had broadband nearly a full 20 years before the 2015 rule change. Where was all the rural broadband in that time?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With rule changes some of the better funded states, cities, towns might just have a chance to build a network, community broadband if they so want.
No more NN rules to keep giving the protected monopoly court wins to block any new networks.
Some parts of the USA might just get better networks. Gated communities can find a new, better quality ISP.
Resorts, hotels, small business that employ local people might just attract
Re: (Score:2)
First of all:
under the years of NN rules
You mean the 2 years since 2015? I gave you 5x that and it still won't make a difference.
I'm glad you got specific, remember this comment too.
Re: (Score:2)
Hows that "difference" been working out for networks and communities over the past years?
Time to try the private sector and see what they can do where federal NN rules and federally protected telco monopolies failed.
Re: (Score:2)
What has NN got to do with lack of competition? Just because your ISP can charge you extra time watch Netflix in more than 240p isn't going to magically fix the last mile problem or remove laws blocking municipal broadband.
In fact, the only solution to those problems is more regulation, not less.
Re:Isn't this contradictory? (Score:5, Insightful)
You assume Trump is not going to pretend he is doing more than he is?
If anything, any (not yet decided on) funding will be funneled to monopolistic underdelivering price-gouging 'friendly' ISPs whilst loudly proclaiming having connected rural America to broadband.
This is a good thing, right? (Score:5, Funny)
You can't tell by some of the comments.
At this point if the executive order provided free high speed internet to all Americans the headline would probably be
"Trump signs order making it easier to spy on all Americans".
At least he's not literally Hitler any more (Score:4, Interesting)
You can't tell by some of the comments.
At this point if the executive order provided free high speed internet to all Americans the headline would probably be
"Trump signs order making it easier to spy on all Americans".
Damn!
Just checking the early comments, and it's all "he's only rewarding the red states for voting him in", "it's encroachment on public lands - will end with offshore drilling and commercialization of public lands", "write a check to your cronies".
They left out "he's only doing it to watch liberal heads explode [imgflip.com]".
Even though I disliked Obama and [president] Clinton, at least I accepted that they were duly elected, and note that they did some things that were actually good for the country. Notably, Clinton reduced regulations and reduced the deficit (and national debt) for awhile.
Is there *nothing* good that will come from this president?
At least he's no longer literally Hitler. That's progress.
Re: (Score:2)
At least he's no longer literally Hitler. That's progress.
He still exhibits some of the most worrying traits of Hitler, like his constant attacks on the free press.
Re: (Score:2)
Free? What free press? The press is a partisan force, part of the Democratic Party.
That's a dumb thing to say. If anything, the press is republican-leaning, since it's so overwhelmingly owned by rich republicans like Rupert Murdoch.
The "free press" came right out and admitted that they thought the world would virtually end if Trump won,
You think that's evidence that they are owned by the democrats, but I think that's evidence that they're paying attention. America is accelerating down the tubes.
They're not some neutral truth-tellers, they abandoned that when they went all-in on backing Hillary in the election. Did we seriously forget this already?
Did you seriously forget already that Trump is, was, and always will be a massive piece of shit? As a starting businessman, he was a failure who required millions of additional cash loans from his fath
Re: (Score:3)
Not only that but he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel!
ONLY HITLER WOULD DO THAT! TRUMP IS LITERALLY HITLER!
I don't have to be specifically worried for the Jews to be worried about Trump. Enough of his policies and attitudes are Naziesque to be chilling. That makes sense, because his daddy was a racist [rollingstone.com] and maybe a Klansman [vice.com]. Ironically, his grandfather was deported for illegal immigration [sbs.com.au]. Trump is a shining example of exactly the kind of person he wants to keep out of America: he's a rapist [splinternews.com], no less. Wasn't rape one of the things he was worried about illegal immigration bringing to our country? I guess he'd know.
Re: (Score:2)
Notably, Clinton reduced regulations and reduced the deficit (and national debt) for awhile.
Clinton and Gingrich reduced the deficit, but the debt hasn't dropped [treasurydirect.gov] since Eisenhower.
Re: (Score:3)
We don't know. The text of the orders hasn't been published. However, there are some details on the White House website [whitehouse.gov]:
The first of these two orders instructs the Department of Interior to dedicate a portion of its assets for rural broadband installation. The second order will streamline the installation process by requiring agencies to use standardized forms and contracts for installing antennas on federal buildings, thus improving process efficiency.
According to the White House, it certainly sounds positive. However, there is still room for speculation, and certainly cause to be concerned.
The first order could be anything, from allocating funding for connection projects to forcing the DoI to sell off chunks of land [businessinsider.com] for corporate use. There's so little detail in the descriptions I've seen that it's very difficult to determine exactly w
Re: (Score:2)
Chris Farley (Score:2)
Remember when Cons complained about "ruling through executive orders"?
Yeah - that was awesome!
(Remember when you said it was OK to do that?)
Re:Chris Farley (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah - that was awesome!
(Remember when you said it was OK to do that?)
Executive orders in the face of a Congress & Senate that outright refuse to even talk about the issues you want heard is one thing. Writing more than all other presidents in the last 50 years because you really wish you were a dictator and not bothering to even ask the legislature who is your own party and holds majorities in both Congress and the Senate is quite another.
Also, taking something you hated when the other guy did it and going completely wild with it when you're in power, is not winning. It's just being a ginormous hypocrite.
Re:Chris Farley (Score:5, Insightful)
Amusingly, Wikipedia has a list of executive orders per year [wikipedia.org]. Trump's 12-month executive order total equals Obama's last 15 months in office. Not 50 years. And Carter (37 years ago) was the last President to issue executive orders at a higher rate than Trump. If you're going to badmouth him, at least get your facts right.
I suspect Trump's rate is high just because this was his first year, and many of his executive orders [wikipedia.org] were rolling back or modifying Obama's executive orders. Nothing hypocritical about that. As much as Democrats would've loved it if Trump had kept all of Obama's executive orders in force, we all knew that simply wasn't realistic. The next 3 years will tell if he's a hypocrite about executive orders.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Until we see the actual text, I will assume this is just another case of shovelling money at large telecom companies to increase their profits.
Re: (Score:2)
This is enchroachment ... (Score:2)
... on public lands.
This administration is out to commercialize protected areas including offshore drilling and Alaskan drilling as well.
It's the camel nose approach.
"Think of the children without the internet where we plan to put government and private interests."
Re: (Score:2)
So what? That's been going on for 97 years! Completely legal, federal land and the minerals under them can be rented out and used by businesses and individuals who then have to pay royalties and rents.
Nothing new, herds of camels have been kept in the tents for nearly 100 years; no notion of there being any nose poking in now.
Re: (Score:2)
was talking about the mineral leasing act of 1920
for example there are coal mines leasing federal land, having to pay royalties. lumber companies, gas companies, cattle grazers, etc.
all legal.
Re: (Score:2)
So no running water into public lands?
No electricity?
No paved roads?
Public lands are just left to become wild? Some sates in the USA have a lot of "public land" between other parts of their state, towns and cities.
Kind of a great idea to build a paved road, bridges, connect electricity, have working phones, fast internet as needed all over the USA? Some of the networks will have to pass "public land" to connect real peo
Funding? (Score:5, Insightful)
A) Broadband companies have received well over a billion taxpayer dollars in both direct and indirect subsidies since the Clinton administration. How can providing them with more taxpayer money possibly do any good?
B) With the massive tax cut just implemented, these companies should be rolling in dough and not need taxpayer help.
C) Why is it when we hear about subsidies for wind or solar we're told those companies should either stand on their own or die on the vine, yet for established, multi-billion dollar companies no amount of taxpayer funds is ever enough?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
$400 billion to be more precise:
https://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/11/27/americans-fiber-optic-internet/
This is for right-of-way etc. (Score:2)
This is about right-of-way and locating facilities, not funding. How this will play out in real life is unclear.
Spin this into a bad idea in 3, 2, 1 (Score:2)
10 years and still waiting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have fiber at the end of my street, but unless Spectrum decides to spend $150K ...
You must have a very long street. Suburban installation cost for in-ground fiber are usually $50,000/mile or so.
OK then (Score:2)
I think, what the current POTUS is doing is manipulative or suggested by others and he could agree.
The real stuff is done in another room. And things go how the wind blows, nobody knows for real.
That's life at the moment....
Jesse Pinkman needs his VPN (Score:2)
I didn't realize meth labs required so much bandwidth.
Crackdown on legal reefer states and broadband so grandma can buy her oxycontin on the dark web. Clearly, America is being made great again.
Did he fire Ajit Pai? (Score:2)
Because the first thing the president should do to open up the internet to rural america is fire the entire FCC board and get some sensible people that aren't propping up companies like comcast, qwest, Att, verizon ect. That want to offer crappy service and charge people through the nose for it.
Time To Be Suspicious (Score:2)
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p... [arstechnica.com]
that States are now hard at work to write their own net neutrality legislation at the State level. Bearing in mind just how much money the big telcos have just spent paying on "lobbying" to have the FCC overturn the Obama Net Neutrality legislation, the idea that States could push back against this by enacting their own laws must really chafe.
So maybe what is going on here is simply a measure, pushed for by the cable lobby, to
Municipal fiber (Score:2)
Where to start... (Score:2)
If Donald Trump (or any other politician in Washington) was serious about increasing the availability of broadband to Americans (rural or otherwise) the best place to start would be to use whatever federal powers exist to overturn or block laws put in place by state and local government that restrict broadband competition (or have the effect of restricting broadband competition even if that wasn't the intent of the people who created the laws).
Getting rid of laws restricting competition (as well as deals do
Tractors? (Score:3)
We need it for our tractors
That's an odd thing to say. Perhaps the driver for this is the desire of tractor makers to limit use. Sorry Mr Farmer, you need to pay for this broadband since your tractor will not work unless it can phone home over wifi every five minutes.
Re:Ahhh, there's the grift. (Score:4, Insightful)
But this is just gonna be a gimme to the fine people at Comcast and AT&T.
And everyone else who already does or wants to do broadband.
You know that "easier" doesn't mean "free", it means "it can happen". As in, previously forbidden access to federal buildings or sites can now be granted."
Re:Ahhh, there's the grift. (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, more Federal government spending. Those guys really like to spend taxpayers money.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I remember reading years ago that the last time we funded verizon and comcast to expand in rural america they managed to convince the government that the south side of Chicago was rural.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At least he didn't threaten rape victims. Or got them fired and then sent the IRS after them the same day, claiming that they had surprisingly nice cars for unemployed people.
(^ Yes, Clinton did all that)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Threatening to sue and killing the cat of a rape victim to shut her up are two different things. One of them is Trump, the other one is Clinton.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Heard this line a few times ;~) (Score:5, Funny)
Just write a check to your cronies
You got it all wrong. The cronies are the one sending checks... Congress then pass appropriation bills and spending packages based purely on their conscience and on what they think is best for the country.
Re:We need it for our tractors (Score:4, Informative)
The 'right to repair' movement is using tractors as an example of manufacturers being evil - restricting the rights of people who have purchased tangible devices to repair them.
If they're not already full of computers (much like a car is these days), they soon will be. With wireless diagnostics and controls. And with that will come the 'option' for firmware updates, which will then become mandatory with a periodic phone-home requirement or they'll shut down the tractors.
So yes, tractors have managed without Internet (at all!) until fairly recently... but the people making the tractors don't want that to continue any longer than they can help.
Re: (Score:2)
Writing also.
The good old days?
Why is that not awesome??? (Score:2)
US government owns majority of the land and this is an invite for cheap land to put up cell phone towers.
Ok, that sounds amazingly beneficial to everyone. Cell towers hardly impact the environment, they usually are fairly visually disguised, it means cell companies can put up more towers overall when costs are lower, especially for prime locations. That in turn does mean wider cell coverage for rural users which is awesome. It's wins all the way around and a role the government can fulfill well since it h