Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Democrats Government Network The Internet United States

Democrats Pitch $100 Billion Broadband Plan, Repeal of State Limits On Muni Networks (arstechnica.com) 213

Posted by BeauHD from the ambitious-programs dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: House Democrats yesterday unveiled a $100 billion broadband plan that's gaining quick support from consumer advocates. "The House has a universal fiber broadband plan we should get behind," Electronic Frontier Foundation Senior Legislative Counsel Ernesto Falcon wrote in a blog post. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC.) announced the Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act, saying it has more than 30 co-sponsors and "invests $100 billion to build high-speed broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved communities and ensure that the resulting Internet service is affordable." The bill text is available here.

In addition to federal funding for broadband networks with speeds of at least 100Mbps downstream and upstream, the bill would eliminate state laws that prevent the growth of municipal broadband. There are currently 19 states with such laws. The Clyburn legislation targets those states with this provision: "No State statute, regulation, or other State legal requirement may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting any public provider, public-private partnership provider, or cooperatively organized provider from providing, to any person or any public or private entity, advanced telecommunications capability or any service that utilizes the advanced telecommunications capability provided by such provider." The bill also has a Dig Once requirement that says fiber or fiber conduit must be installed "as part of any covered highway construction project" in states that receive federal highway funding. Similar Dig Once mandates have been proposed repeatedly over the years and gotten close to becoming US law, but never quite made it past the finish line.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Democrats Pitch $100 Billion Broadband Plan, Repeal of State Limits On Muni Networks More

Democrats Pitch $100 Billion Broadband Plan, Repeal of State Limits On Muni Networks

Comments Filter:

  • and Idgit Pai(d) will probably stroke right out on the spot.

    • Re:Toss in banning caps for non-satellite internet (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday June 25, 2020 @01:52PM (#60227592)

      And ain't that alone worth it.

    • I think you forgot what it is that (some) people complain about with Pai. The issue people have with Ajit Pai is when he's asked to make law, such as a "network neutrality" package, he says that's up to Congress, not up to him. Congress has the power to make laws, not Ajit, he says.

      If Congress were to pass this law, that would be exactly what Ajit Pai says is supposed to happen.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Creepy ( 93888 )

        Ajit's been a corporate shill from the get go. I honestly give everyone a fair shake, but he's favored corporate interests over consumer interests multiple times. For example, he defines broadband as 25Mbps/3Mbps despite most countries requiring at least 100Mbps down. This in turn lists my broadband internet options as two instead of the corporate monopoly of one (Comcast). Fuck Comcast with a screwdriver. I'm actually getting 5G down/4G up wireless, which kind of meets the promise of a second broadband wit

  • Yeah yeah yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25, 2020 @01:26PM (#60227460)

    And the GOP passed the repeal of Obamacare several times when they didn't have the votes to repeal a veto too and proclaimed if only they had the Presidency too they could pass this easily. Then when they actually did have all 3 houses suddenly they couldn't pass a thing.

    Same here with the Democrats. This is just political season red meat.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ahodgson ( 74077 )

      Yeah I guess Comcast and Charter haven't ponied up enough election year donations yet. Time to make sure they get a reminder.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
        Bet they already gave to Black Lives Matter, so effectively they HAVE made their campaign contributions.
        • BLM is a movement, not a specific organization. So there's lots of "Black Lives Matters" organizations you can give money to (and get positive press from).

          One of them, that received quite a bit of corporate dosh, has a manifesto that spends it's time talking about trans rights and equal pay for women and somehow never gets around to mentioning all of those black folk killed by police...

          So yeah, those "donations" are really more an attempt to undermine the BLM movement while simultaneously getting go

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
            Go to BLM and click "DONATE". You'll see what your "movement" is. You are redirected to ActBlue Charities - which is a major campaign contributor for - the Democrat party! Talk about useful idiots.

    • Same here with the Democrats.

      Democrats control 1 of the 3 houses. Come back in November and re-post this.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        A better way to say it:

        When you only have one houses, you get to BE the peanut gallery.

        BTW, there are only two houses of Congress.

      • If the majority is small enough the minority can stop any legislation it chooses to. Notice how the Democrat minority in the senate killed the Republican police reform bill this week.

        The minority can't put forth legislation and expect it to pass, but they can usually block anything the majority puts forth, if the majority is small enough.

        I heard Republicans seated their 200th federal judge yesterday - thanks Harry Reid!

        • Senate Republicans couldn't even get all of their own party members to vote for that lip service reform bill

          • Re: Yeah yeah yeah... (Score:3, Informative)

            by kenh ( 9056 )

            And by accusing republicans of killing George Floyd - a man that died under the knee of a Democrat officer, in a Dept with a Democrat police chief, with a Democrat city council, in a city with a Democrat mayor, in a state with a Democrat assembly and governor... Yeah, classic Republican crisis.

      • In November, it will still be the same. I think you meant you were looking forward to January, when newly elected politicians are seated.
    • So much virtue when they can't pass a thing, and then nothing when they can. Politicians are worse than used car salesmen, salesmen can drive a car and they know when their lying. Why is this so hard for even an average person to understand or care about?

      "...like a bowl of shit admiring itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black

    • So give them the House & Senate (Score:5, Informative)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday June 25, 2020 @02:49PM (#60227852)
      and kick out the "blue dogs" who are bought off by Cox & Comcast & AT&T, et al.

      Go online to Open Secrets (or watch Secular Talk on YouTube) and you can quickly find out which Democrats (*cought* Wasserman-Schultz*cought*) are hopelessly corrupt. Then register as a Dem, vote them out in the primary and boom! Bob's your Uncle!

      What I'm saying is this: Instead of bitching about all this take action at the polls and inform yourself first so you can take action.

  • How on earth does this make sense? If you are redoing the 101 between LA and Santa Barbara, fiber might be a good idea. If you are redoing I-15 through the Mojave desert, I think the money spent on burying fiber could be best used elsewhere.

    • Re:Dig Once (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Thursday June 25, 2020 @01:35PM (#60227508)

      could be best used elsewhere.

      Like a high speed railway line.... oh wait - too soon?

    • Dig Once doesn't require fiber installation, but "ready-made buried conduit" for future installs which may be fiber.

      https://www.ncbroadband.gov/pl... [ncbroadband.gov]

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        That makes even *less* sense in an area that is unpopulated. It costs approximately nothing to use a water trencher along the side of a highway in the middle of nowhere if you need to run a line in that particular stretch. I mean *maybe* it might make sense to require a conduit under new bridge overpasses so you don't have to bore through the berm or whatever, but even that is probably a lot of money for something that won't ever get used.

        If they required fiber *and* a conduit for running future tech, th

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Cyberax ( 705495 )

          That makes even *less* sense in an area that is unpopulated. It costs approximately nothing to use a water trencher along the side of a highway in the middle of nowhere if you need to run a line in that particular stretch.

          Have you TRIED doing it? I have. My GF's parents are piggy-backing on a project to lay fiber along HWY26 in Oregon to get fiber to their community. The costs to lay down fiber along the road were about $100000 per mile, with all the permits, digging, road diversions, etc. And this is a rural road in the middle of the National Forest, the costs to do that for a busy freeway would be an order of magnitude greater.

          Plastic conduit itself costs around $2000 per mile. The US interstate system is 46,876 miles, s

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dgatwood ( 11270 )

            You're assuming that there's no cost other than the conduit itself. One reason that laying fiber in the area you mention costs so much is that I'm pretty sure that goes through a mountainous area, and trenching in rock is problematic. Maybe the road construction will reduce the trenching costs, depending on whether the road bed starts below grade or not, but I wouldn't assume that it will.

            Either way, it might make sense to have conduits are under cross streets to eliminate the need for road closures. Bu

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Cyberax ( 705495 )

              You're assuming that there's no cost other than the conduit itself.

              If you are building a new road or rebuilding an existing one then the costs pretty much don't exist. You simply lay the conduit in the soil you have to prepare anyway. It will add a small amount of labor, but that's it.

              One reason that laying fiber in the area you mention costs so much is that I'm pretty sure that goes through a mountainous area, and trenching in rock is problematic.

              Their segment goes through level terrain and uses road's right-of-way. It's pretty much the best case you can get except maybe for a road in the middle of a desert on BLM lands.

      • How is a burried conduit along the middle white line going to work exactly?

      • It's planning for the future. Which means the politicians won't like it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by chill ( 34294 )

      The cost of dropping fiber along a highway where they're already digging and have right-of-way is negligable compared to the cost of the highway construction itself.

      Costs vary, but estimates are readily available. Here's one [midwestind.com]:

      Nonetheless, here are the daunting numbers: constructing a two-lane, undivided road in a rural locale will set you back somewhere between $2 and $3 million per mile â" in urban areas, that number jumps to between $3 and $5 million. In a rural area, you can essentially build a road

      • $5,000 per mile doesn't seem like a lot of money if it's going to be used. My point is that there are stretches of highway where it is not going to be used. In which case, it's pretty damn expensive. It's easy to throw around money when it's not yours.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by chill ( 34294 )

          I think of your example along the lines of distributed backbone path, and not last-mile. We're talking adding resiliancy, like the original Internet was imagined way back when.

          Putting a strong internet infrastructure in place will allow further development, both business and residential. Internet has evolved to be as important to society as electricity, water, and telephone. In fact, it has essentially replaced old-style telephone.

          • I can see that as an argument. However, a properly laid out network providing redundancy, I don't think, would necessarily overlay with the highway network. Continuing my example above, why run fiber under I-15, which goes through an uninhabited desert, when you can route it down I-40, which passes through a few large towns? Keeping in mind, of course, this is probably already providing backup from existing fiber on telephone lines.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by chill ( 34294 )

              Maybe. The details of the proposal require conduit to be buried and not fiber, so that is cheaper. My argument would be it is a very cheap way to cover "those things we don't think of now".

              Honestly, if there's a road being built to somewhere, then fiber/conduit to the same place probably makes sense, even if we can't think of a good use right this minute.

              I-40 is East-West, California to North Carolina. I-15 is North-South, California to Montana. I believe you're speaking to a small stretch in Southern Calif

  • Oh GOD! (Score:5, Informative)

    by I'mjusthere ( 6916492 ) on Thursday June 25, 2020 @01:32PM (#60227482)
    There IS such a thing as legislative porn! I just creamed my pants!

    I live 20miles outside of Metro-Atlanta. I am stuck with for internet only a 1.5Mpbps down/.25 up AT&T shit connection.

    Now, I COULD buy a package from Xfinity/Concast for $99 introductory rate for a year then a BOHIC (Bend Over Here It Comes!) rate after that.

    And with AT&T, I would have to buy there UVerse overpriced shit package with all the shit cable channels and another BOHIC rate after that.

    Why?

    Because their lobbyists bribed the Georgia State Legislature and local politicians to allow it.

    I live in the United States of Fucking America and I have Third World Shithole Internet connectivity.

    But I am sure that when the ISP Lobbyists get done and after their bribes - I mean campaign contributions - we will get some shit that we got under Clinton and Newt Gingrich's Congress.

    Lots and lots of money spent by government that goes nowhere but into the shareholder pockets of the ISPs.

    This is why we NEED municipal ISPs.

    • I have u-verse with out any television or phone service from AT&T, it's internet only. Just like with Comcast, you have to very patiently explain to the sales person that you don't want their crap, you're going to use Netflix or Amazon or something like that. Or be diplomatic and promise to buy their TV service if television ever gets good again.

      • I have u-verse with out any television or phone service from AT&T, it's internet only. Just like with Comcast, you have to very patiently explain to the sales person that you don't want their crap, you're going to use Netflix or Amazon or something like that. Or be diplomatic and promise to buy their TV service if television ever gets good again.

        Jesus! Really?! I will try the next time the sale people use their hardball tactics.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by sconeu ( 64226 )

          Or even better, order it online, and completely avoid the sales droids.

        • It does remind me a lot of the people who had TV+phone+internet service from Comcast, and they would always bitch about how some of those services were crap. Then I asked why not use a competitor and they'd say "but we get such a good discount if it's bundled!"

    • Never Ever EVER buy a Cable Package. Get Internet, Only Internet. and nothing else!

      No one watches TV. There's nothing worth watching on TV. All you're probably watching are commercials with extra movie reruns that are on Netflix or one of the other 100's of steaming services that are ultimately cheaper. Your Kids are watching Youtube slime videos and could give two shits about Spongebob or Teen Titans. You Wife is Watching Netflix or Amazon Prime since you probably already have that. Hell you're probably wa

  • You can stop right here. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Thursday June 25, 2020 @01:35PM (#60227504)

    House Democrats yesterday unveiled ...

    A bill that will die in the GOP-controlled Senate.

    ... a $100 billion broadband plan that's gaining quick support from consumer advocates.

    Can't really imagine the GOP wanting to invest in this *and* it would also prevent state/local laws prohibiting growth of municipal broadband, which ISPs/Telcos rely on for their quasi-monopolies in localities.

    On the other hand ... These companies will probably find a way to pocket the funding and/or direct it to management and shareholders w/o providing any real, substantial, upgrades/expenditures that may benefit anyone else, so I could be wrong. All I'm sure of is that Congress will act to protect their real constituents -- large, wealthy corporations. /cynical

    • Re:You can stop right here. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Thursday June 25, 2020 @01:48PM (#60227570)

      House Democrats yesterday unveiled ...

      A bill that will die in the GOP-controlled Senate.

      Any legislation introduced at this point is part of their bid to take the Presidency and the Senate in November. 'Vote for us and this is what will happen...'

    • A bill that will die in the GOP-controlled Senate.

      Well, why do you think they suggest it now instead of when they would actually have to justify why they can't pass it? Of course something that pisses off those corporate whores' Johns but would make the ones footing the bill happy gets only suggested when they know that it doesn't even have a snowball-in-hell chance of succeeding.

    • But if the public can get behind it, then in an election year there may be a lot Republicans who abandon the party line of "Mitch is always right". The trick then is to get the public behind it. The urban areas with good internet are leaning Democrat anyway. The rural areas with crappy internet are leaning Republican, so that's where the push should be.

  • Create telecommunications legislation that requires carriers such as SpaceX or 5G providers to sublease their infrastructure to service providers for a pre-set fee as part of their common carrier license approval. Ground-based consumer bandwidth solutions like fibre and cable are old school now, and spending $100B on them is dumb.

    • Re:Starlink? (Score:5, Informative)

      by StormReaver ( 59959 ) on Thursday June 25, 2020 @01:57PM (#60227620)

      I don't think Starlink is intended to serve everyone in the world, but rather to serve those who are under-represented (which is itself a HUGE market), so municipal fiber is still necessary.

      The best model is one where the city owns the pipes/infrastructure, but private ISP's run the service. All ISP's use the same infrastructure, so no one ISP can lock out any other ISP through unfair competition. The privately owned ISP's pay a monthly fee to the city to get access to the infrastructure and pay for maintenance, then compete on the quality of their customer service. I first read about this in a Slashdot article about Ammon, Idaho.

      I was ecstatic to read an article in my local news a few months ago about my city's utility company embracing this very model. The company has begun laying fiber throughout the city, and will lease it to ISP's (both old and new) when it's done. This will eliminate the city's ISP duopoly (Mediacom and AT&T), and encourage competition and low prices.

    • First off, you are confusing end user connections with backbone, how the fuck do you think 5G towers get their connection? fiber, that's how. Fiber is their infrastructure.

      Second, Starlink will never be able to replace the low latency of a fiber run, they are bragging about 30ms response time, which for satellite is really good, for cable is decent, but comes nowhere close to the 0-1ms I get on fiber. 5G also can't touch the low latency of fiber.

      Third, neither of the options you have provided come anywhere

      • Second, Starlink will never be able to replace the low latency of a fiber run, they are bragging about 30ms response time, which for satellite is really good, for cable is decent, but comes nowhere close to the 0-1ms I get on fiber. 5G also can't touch the low latency of fiber.

        All of these technologies are limited by the speed of light. A 1 ms there-and-back latency is physically possible only within a 150 km radius of your location. If your ISP caches certain websites for you within that radius, then fine. But in general, it's desperately futile to expect that kind of low latency for most sites.

  • The real question here is (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MiniMike ( 234881 ) on Thursday June 25, 2020 @01:47PM (#60227566)

    Do the entrenched telecom companies have enough in their budget to keep bribing various state officials AND enough Senators to keep this squashed? Will this result in another obscure line charge on customer bills to fund the bribery?

  • AAIAA!!! is the scream you're about to hear from the GOP-controlled Senate.

    Or maybe it's Ajit Pai's last exclamation as he's stroking out upon seeing this bill...

  • As long as they ban track and intercept (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Shaitan ( 22585 ) on Thursday June 25, 2020 @02:39PM (#60227816)

    As long as they make it illegal for the feds, states, and cities to take advantage of those lines to monitor, track, or otherwise search connectivity and metadata of citizens even with a warrant and enforce a strict requirement to operate as a blind common carrier.

  • The bill is 150 pages long. I guarantee you they didn't read it and it's packed full of crap

    • Oh yeah, as expected. It's basically going to fund every community agency they like, and also provide free equipment to organizations and people that want it, including:
      17 (c) EQUIPMENT DESCRIBED.—The equipment de
      18 scribed in this subsection is the following:
      19 (1) Wi-Fi hotspots.
      20 (2) Modems.
      21 (3) Routers.
      22 (4) Devices that combine a modem and router.
      23 (5) Connected devices.

      I'm sure there's a lot more hidden in all that text

  • Just another $100 billion on top of the hundreds of billions we've already handed over to private industry to do their job. And this doesn't include the billions in fees these same companies have collected for decades to do this very job.

    At this point no more money should be given to private industry. They have shown they have no inclination to use the money for its intended purpose. Instead, legislation should be written ordering these companies to use the billions they've already received to build out t

  • Text of the Bill defines this "Universal Fiber Broadband" as 25Mbps download and 3Mpbs upload. Liars and Crooks. $100b could pay for nationwide Fiberoptic deployment at $400 per household passed, but instead the bill seeks to pad the profits of big corporate donors to provide nothing more than DSL internet, which literally 99.9% of America already has access to.

    (A) with a download speed of at least 25
    megabits per second, an upload speed of at
    least 3 megabits per second, and a latency that
    is sufficiently l

  • I'm not sure the feds have the power to tell the states what laws the cities can pass. That's a huge violation of separation of powers. Cities are creations of the states, not the feds.

    This is vastly different from passing a law that states cannot un-do because of federal supremacy.

  • ... or any service that utilizes the advanced telecommunications capability ...

    Cue the bribes, I mean, campaign contributions to knock huge exemptions in the right of small businesses/municipalities to provide a service.

    I know how the USA works: Once again, the US senate will ensure this law doesn't apply to the richest 'people'.

Slashdot Top Deals

Successful and fortunate crime is called virtue. - Seneca

Close