You must log in or register to comment.

Apolybus t1_iu42vd4 wrote

We already paid for this and they just didn’t build it and kept the money. I guess here is round 2.


MetaStressed t1_iu49b0i wrote

The fact that internet is not a utility yet is further proof congress needs to have term limits and lobbyists need to be illegal.


disposition5 t1_iu5abq9 wrote

Actually probably a lot less effort than that.

An FCC appointee has been sitting on the shelf for over a year because the entire GOP and (reportedly) 2 Democratic senators are holding up the appointee.

But chances are folks are going to vote in favor of the GOP this cycle and then bitch & moan and act surprised when nothing of value is provided to regular folks.


fitsum_g t1_iu85mk9 wrote

>2 Democratic senators

Gee I wonder who they could be?


fortfive t1_iu4q91y wrote

I share the sentiment, but term limits (at least if they're too short) and ending of lobbyists will simply shift the corruption around.

It doesn't matter, it all has to end in revolution of some sort. If there is one group who will never vote against their own interests, it's federal and state legislatures.


lard-blaster t1_iu5ecpw wrote

0% chance a violent revolution doesn't eventually end in dictatorship


Spot-CSG t1_iu5m28f wrote

America's done it once before, they can do it again.


lard-blaster t1_iu5ob53 wrote

What kind of leadership structure would you like to see after an ideal revolution?


Minimum_Escape t1_iu6848j wrote

Let's just copy Finland or Sweden. They seem to have their stuff together.


Denidil_Taureran t1_iu65ef3 wrote

> needs to have term limits

people keep bringing this up, but it isn't actually a solution. it actually makes lobbyists more powerful.

the solution is to increase voter participation, voter knowledge, and to stop hiring almost exclusively lawyers to congress


BronzeHeart92 t1_iu5yvkn wrote

More than that, Internet should always be a RIGHT whatever it takes. That's something my country just happens to recognize.


pillbinge t1_iu9kyjj wrote

Making it a utility would "normalize" having, using, and needing the internet, but the government should work against that. Especially since it can't contain what's on there at the moment, and can't really even help people. It barely regulates anything, and then it doesn't really enforce what it has on paper. Get to that point, then maybe it should consider it a utility.


bengtc t1_iu55itt wrote

So we can be charged on usage like other utilities?


edthesmokebeard t1_iu4akpr wrote

Let me guess, you think it's a basic human right, like housing or medical care?


The_onlyPope t1_iu4lbxn wrote

Let me guess, you’re stupid and have a let’s go Brandon flag in your front yard.


HorseRadish98 t1_iu4euaj wrote

Me: wants us to gradually become the federation, where we evolve beyond the drive to acquire more wealth

This guy: Idk guys the ferengi look pretty great


kstip t1_iu4fzwg wrote

So not every human deserves housing or medical care? You seem like a nice person.


Flame87 t1_iu4o3ir wrote

Well considering you don't think people deserve those either, we already know that you don't actually want an answer. You just want somebody to respond so ecan go on an unhinged rant about the internet belonging to the 1% or what the fuck ever.

Nobody cares my dude. Go fasch somewhere else.


mikewoodson97 t1_iu4pt68 wrote

Was this sarcasm? It feels like sarcasm, and it sucks that we don’t know anymore.


meatball402 t1_iu5dfu6 wrote

>Let me guess, you think it's a basic human right, like housing or medical care?


Do you think the poor should die from preventable diseases, just for not having the money to pay for the cure?


councilmember t1_iu44xil wrote

Yeah, why not just mandate the work we paid for first time?


Semi-Hemi-Demigod t1_iu4zjcc wrote

Because that would be socialism


Denidil_Taureran t1_iu65bxy wrote

amusingly the people who would benefit the most from it oppose it the most, as usual


Minimum_Escape t1_iu67xeo wrote

It's true most of us would not benefit from rural people getting a bigger megaphone for spreading their controversial views.


Sapere_aude75 t1_iu797xs wrote

Maybe it's because they are simply acting selflessly to stand up for what's best for the country. The government is not exactly know for being an efficient allocator of capital.

Would you say it's amusing if I voted against a bill that would pay me 10 million a year by increasing taxes on the lowest bracket?


Denidil_Taureran t1_iu7ah6l wrote

> Maybe it's because they are simply acting selflessly to stand up for what's best for the country.

no, they aren't.


Sapere_aude75 t1_iu7be5p wrote

I disprove your thesis


Denidil_Taureran t1_iu7bibr wrote

no, you don't. you're under the delusion that kissing corporate ass and letting them run roughshod over you is "Standing up to the government"



Sapere_aude75 t1_iu7coy5 wrote

Lol No... Maybe you need to look in the mirror when making statements like that. You are suggesting that we give corporations lots of money for work that isn't economically justified. I don't know what about this has to do with "standing up to government".

I don't think we should be wasting money to bury a bunch of fiber when it's not economically viable. On top of that government programs add even more bureaucracy further inflating the cost. I'd rather just get a starlink, mobile broadband, radio internet, etc...

Your the idiot


Denidil_Taureran t1_iu7ddaw wrote

> Your the idiot

nice english, bro.

> You are suggesting that we give corporations lots of money for work that isn't economically justified.

I think it would be better if we just seized all the data infrastructure and nationalized it, due to them being fraudulent fuckers that pocketed the $400bn we invested 20 years ago. But that's SOCIALISMS COMMUNISTS NAZISMS according to you ignorant fuckers who vote republican.

The fact that you think you're some hero standing up the the corporations when you vote for the party of "kiss every corporate ass in existence, encourage regulatory capture, cut taxes for the 0.1% and break any attempt of the government to protect the consumer" just puts lie to your bullshit.


Sapere_aude75 t1_iu7fbve wrote

You're making the mistaken assumption that I vote republican... This has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with not wasting money. Government intervention almost always increases costs in the long run.

What do you suggest next. Shall we provide water hookups to every house in the country? 5 million for each house bumba fuck nowhere, but don't worry the tax payer will pay for it from our unlimited funds. This kind of reckless spending is what drives inflation that we must now suffer. Low income groups are hurt the most.

I guess using your logic, urban groups who make the most should be subsidizing car costs for rural populations without access to mass transit


Sapere_aude75 t1_iu7fvrw wrote

The only thing you have said that I agree with is enforcement of the agreement that was previously paid. They need to fulfill the contract they agreed to when they were paid. Nationalizing the data infrastructure is not the solution


ExplanationJolly779 t1_iu477ol wrote

After the last round a local co op here got funding to connect rural areas. Now I have one gig up and down, without Spectrum.


ian2121 t1_iu4dpzy wrote

Yeah, the local providers have been going crazy with fiber near me.


ExplanationJolly779 t1_iu6i7pu wrote

I was so happy to kick Spectrum to the curb, now I just need a reliable mobile alternative.


lord_pizzabird t1_iu4adu6 wrote

Tbf there was a roll-out of wireless options that circumvented cable companies intentionally blocking development.

Source: I'm one of the people effected. I'm now on 5g Tmobile ISP.


bengringo2 t1_iu4iw3m wrote

I’ve been surprised how well T-Mobile 5G Home works. I have both it and Verizon 5G Home (My work mandates backup ISP’s) and it blows Verizon out of the water. I thought the opposite was going to be true.


BlkOwndYtFam t1_iu4aqnd wrote

>Paid for it

Well we gave them tax breaks, but ya, kinda.


Ready-steady t1_iu5o49q wrote

When did we do this again? I remember it but cannot pin down the timeline.


Mr_Kittlesworth t1_iu47qu0 wrote

To be fair, prior funding was run through different programs and wasn’t for fiber.

Things are in a much different and more productive place now between the ARPA and Infrastructure Bill programs - this is actually going to be good.


[deleted] t1_iu4901o wrote

Yeah Okay lol. Telecom companies wrote the book on this shit.


Mr_Kittlesworth t1_iu4c1fp wrote

Have you actually looked at any of the new rules?

No one gets any money up front. States and localities are involved and have the ability to submit their own plans. The government isn’t allowed to discriminate against coops or munis


zazz1337 t1_iu4v39l wrote

Thanks for this, seems like the immediate reaction to everything now is negativity and mistrust lol. Might help to look i to the actual grant specificities and how it might play out first.


asdaaaaaaaa t1_iu41kol wrote

You mean companies are about to get a big payout for doing next to nothing? I'd be surprised if they actually used most of that money for the purpose it's meant for, instead of just doing stock buy-backs and such.


2wice t1_iu43mtb wrote

Bold of you to think rural areas will get anything.


4354523031343932 t1_iu63hto wrote

I imagine it all depends who gets the funds but some regional fiber ISPs and co-ops have been running a lot of fiber in the midwest the past few years.


BlkOwndYtFam t1_iu4auhi wrote

I live in a rural area and just recently got fiber.


vegence t1_iu5g1rb wrote

same here, all I could get is 1.25MBS dsl until about a month ago I finally got rural fiber and now i run at about 950MBS


Thesonomakid t1_iu9j0nr wrote

I’m involved in inspecting multiple rural builds from the current awards. Some of the places are so rural I question why hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars were awarded to build them out with GPON. Yes, I said hundreds of millions - as in over $300 million to build out fiber to serve around 24,000 in 15 communities.


-29- t1_iu492ga wrote

I live in a rural area where a local ISP actually rolled out a LOT of fiber. Problem is, they stopped 2 city blocks short of my property and refuse to put in any more fiber because the county is no longer considered "under served"


I should say I am not without internet. I do have Comcast, which is a whole other can of worms.


unique3 t1_iu550bg wrote

> rural

> 2 city blocks.

Are you using that as a unit of measure for a country road or are you in a city/town development of some kind?

To me rural is when your nearest neighbour is measured in miles not feet.


Frumpy_little_noodle t1_iu5hjqd wrote

My property line is 30 feet from my neighbor's house. They have Spectrum and I can't get it because my house is over 300' from his.


PreppyAndrew t1_iu5iuww wrote

See if your neighbor will install a point to point ap Like

You should be able to leach off their internet

Something like this>!


Black_Moons t1_iu65h3l wrote

Second this. I got some 5ghz directional units ($150 each?) and could share internet at 100mbps solid with someone 200~300' away.

Protip: Don't buy 2.4ghz units unless you don't live near other people, because any apartment building will be so full of 2.4ghz signals that you'll never get your own signal through that noise.

2.4ghz has 3 non overlapping channels, 5ghz has dozens. But 5ghz won't go through walls, and even glass windows block a good deal of signal so you really gotta mount the units outside, or at least 1 outside and one in a window. (But this also means apartment buildings don't leak nearly as much 5ghz because all the walls stop it)


-29- t1_iu5hqli wrote

The town I live in is in the middle of a farm community and only has 3000 ish people. So it’s not a Minden City or a Ruth but it’s definitely not a Bay City or Detroit.


smaartypants t1_iu4qxzn wrote

Didn’t the government do this before and all the Internet companies just kept the money?


hells_cowbells t1_iu58oty wrote

Yes. The state of Mississippi is suing AT&T for $283 million because they took the money from the FCC to roll out broadband to rural areas and didn't do it.


BogBabe t1_iu459lt wrote

Yeah, we've heard this before.

It's 2023, and if it weren't for Elon Musk and Starlink, we still wouldn't have anything close to broadband. Five miles east of me, they have broadband. Three miles west of me, they have broadband. And I'm still sitting here going "what am I, chopped liver?"


donotmatthews t1_iu48i5o wrote

Spectrum wants $10,000 to run a line to my house. The closes the house to me with cable internet is 3,200ft by their estimates. I have T-Mobile as my main internet and starlink as my failover. It’s awful out here.


JustNeedAUsername12 t1_iu4k9es wrote

I’m sure most of them voted against it though


rumncokeguy t1_iu553ao wrote

My rep voted against it. He has been taking credit for expanding internet I’m my state the minute the bill passed. What a pos.


Marduk112 t1_iu51xfd wrote

Yes, why are we making it easy for MAGA country access to the internet? Does anyone honestly think conservatives would extend the same courtesy to their opponents? I’m so sick of the shittingly stupid political moves of my party.


THE_DICK_THICKENS t1_iu5b5qe wrote

By neglecting rural infrastructure you only reinforce the view many rural Americans have about the Democratic party, namely that they only care about urban development and not the needs of rural Americans. The political divide in the US is primarily an urban-rural divide.


Denidil_Taureran t1_iu68cm7 wrote

No matter how many times we try to improve life in rural areas they tell us to eat shit and die, and prevent us from having nice things.

it's natural for people to get frustrated with that.


Galvaknight t1_iu56kf5 wrote

This is ridiculous and counter-productive. No progress will ever be truly made as long as people are unwilling to extend a hand to others. It’s time to be better.


Flame87 t1_iu4nu4c wrote

Another round of rural net grants,

Another round of checks going into a CEOs pocket in exchange for a hearty shrug.

Demand the work from the first time or enact a judgment ordering them to return those funds.


Upstairs-Farmer t1_iu4uu6c wrote

Lol it’s cute you think you have a representative government they don’t give a shit sucks to be a Plēb


Flame87 t1_iu4v0rc wrote

I don't know what makes you think I'm holding my breath. The logical move and what gets done are in separate universes.


KingRBPII t1_iu40wkl wrote

Give it to that guy who made his own isp!!! F big tech. They won’t use the money appropriately.


royiroyi t1_iu496df wrote

“Why do we rural folk have to pay for infrastructure in the cities????” - them rural folk still


evil_burrito t1_iu4p7pd wrote

Well, we're certainly not getting any infrastructure out here.


Thesonomakid t1_iu9pd0m wrote

You might be surprised. I’m overseeing build outs in multiple rural areas - and very few people in those communities know what’s coming. I just ran across a local government study about broadband availability in those areas completed under a year ago and it said those areas were likely not going to be served. We complete construction Q3 2023 in those areas.


evil_burrito t1_iu9pjd8 wrote

I would love to be proven wrong.


Thesonomakid t1_iu9pqpr wrote

What town do you live in?


evil_burrito t1_iua5i39 wrote

I live in Central Oregon. As it happens someone has been laying thousands of miles of conduit which I have been told is for fiber, though I haven't been able to discover by whom or if there is any "last mile" plan.

Writing this out loud makes me feel kinda silly wrt my original comment. We've just been burned by big telcos on this subject for a long time.


Thesonomakid t1_iuabey7 wrote

I was just up in Oregon last month and was talking with some people there - there are quite a few fiber builds in small areas that are under construction. Pioneer Telephone Co-Op is building out Benton, Lane, Lincoln and Polk Counties.

The company I work for is building out massive swaths of the Southwest including some super small places (pop ~300 in one “town”) that are miles from anywhere. It just takes time. I know my projects have compelteion dates between 1 to 5 years, depending on the town.


bagelizumab t1_iu4wccl wrote

they complain because they actually never get the internet. Comcast or some Satanic ISP just pocket most of the money.


kickasstimus t1_iu49tk8 wrote

There better be some accountability this time.


Tactical_Crabman t1_iu4b4w7 wrote

My local government is going to be so happy to be getting a new fleet of cars for the police with this grant money


papak33 t1_iu4ompx wrote

Slovenian here, thanks to the EU founds, now they deploy Optical lines together with electricity.

Even my rural village of 600 people have top shit Internet.

As always, go to your local governor and demand he tries to get some of this money for developing your little area.


Waspkeeper t1_iu47z60 wrote

Round 2 fiber Boogaloo.


Blissontap t1_iu48eb1 wrote

Nicely timed for Trump’s reemergence on twitter. Because what rural areas need is more bandwidth.


[deleted] t1_iu4pqr2 wrote

What you’re suggesting is actually really counterproductive


IPushButton t1_iu4fu6z wrote

"Mega corporations to get money for claiming to update internet in rural areas."


ZzyzxFox t1_iu4i8xl wrote

I live in the 7th largest city of the USA, less than 20km from downtown and I dont even have high speed internet, yet get charged USD 80/month 😂


Nagi21 t1_iu4vukk wrote

ISP CEOs to get 759M$ in bonuses


kspmatt t1_iu48lkh wrote

Excited for them to just keep the money like the last time!


edthesmokebeard t1_iu4ahex wrote

No. ISPs are getting another 759M in free money.


Somehum t1_iu4f6bp wrote

Rural areas in Mississippi to have that money siphoned off by friends of Bret Favre to made upgrades to country clubs and marinas.


stajus67 t1_iu4s8n4 wrote

They would be better off paying rural people themselves to have said internet access installed.


Esc_ape_artist t1_iu63vaq wrote

They’ll just keep the money and ask for a tax break too.


insearchofanswers32 t1_iu65h1m wrote

So companies can spend all of it on corporate bonuses, then years later say it’s not possible to bring high speed internet to rural areas.

We’ve been here before.


HotFightingHistory t1_iu76fg5 wrote

Rural areas AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast are about to get $759 million richer.


timberwolf0122 t1_iu7kqmc wrote

Okay, but this time let's put some penalty clauses into telco contracts so they Dont just take the money and run


lightning228 t1_iu4anpe wrote

Haha. No they are not. This isn't the first time rural America has been shorted with the promise of high speed internet


RayseBraize t1_iu62wqc wrote

Would help if rural Americans would stop voting against their own interests.


caracole t1_iu4g4a4 wrote

In our area there is fiber at the main streets but everyone has long driveways and it costs 10’s of thousands for an approved contractor to trench it to the house. My parents were quoted over $60,000. How is this helpful? How does this make any average person closer to getting fiber at their home?


kira7setsuna t1_iu4n681 wrote

theyre not getting internet, again


_AccountSuspended_ t1_iu58ta4 wrote

Or.. maybe just buy all residents a starlink subscription?


DIYwcoldcoffee t1_iu59y5m wrote

Yeah,..just like the 96’ Telecom act said. Bullshit


adultdaycare81 t1_iu5da85 wrote

They will just use it to post memes about Socialism! Hey wait a minute (cries in taxpayer)


FuckMo4sh t1_iu5o2rl wrote

I am one of the townships getting this and construction is in progress!


SXOSXO t1_iu5ost5 wrote

You want to know the definition of insanity?


gibson1963 t1_iu5ptku wrote

SO tired of all this BS they keep throwing at us.


OJwasJustified t1_iu5uty1 wrote

I’m sick of my tax dollars going to red America. You choose to live in an area where it’s not economically efficient for private companies to invest in your infrastructure, you pay for it yourself.


mockingbird13 t1_iu5vb5n wrote

You mean telecom CEOs get $759M in bonuses this year.


cptnobveus t1_iu5xpli wrote

Isp's want the taxpayers to foot the bill for the initial infrastructure and then they will gladly step in and maintain it for a small fee, once it is built.

I wish I could have had my business handed to me too.


samtaher t1_iu61t33 wrote

Title should be "Cable monopolies to get $759M in grants for high-speed internet that they will never provide to rural areas."


Red_Carrot t1_iu68w1j wrote

As a person who does not live in a Rural area and a democrat. Good. They need it. This is what tax money is supposed to pay for, even if their representatives do not think they deserve it.

Hopefully it will actually get installed this time.


rust1112 t1_iu6a32b wrote

I thought this was done in the past and they just pocketed the money?


the_grungydan t1_iu6ay9r wrote

Which one of Cletus's cousins' "totally real companies" will be pocketing the money and doing nothing this time?


catwiesel t1_iu6gdxz wrote

that will be 758million for consultants that determine need and help determine the best ISP to upgrade the internet in the area according to need.

and 1 million to buy another 4g tower


Popomatik t1_iu76fxr wrote

Good, Elon needs more people to be racist on twitter. /s


Grouchy_Stuff_9006 t1_iu78cfw wrote

A billion dollars in grants on the cusp of starlink being globally available. Why bother?


timberwolf0122 t1_iu7kwns wrote

Star link doesn't have the capacity and ground cables will be faster and more reliable for the vast majority of rural locations. Star link is best suited for the very, very rural/off grid/remote island/at sea//in the air type locations


Grouchy_Stuff_9006 t1_iu7lqvj wrote

By ‘cusp’ I just mean that starlink will have the capacity within the next couple of years that this money gets spent.


timberwolf0122 t1_iu7ly76 wrote

I'm still not 100% convinced by the long term viability or capacity of startling. Time will tell if this is a tesla or a complete hyper loop


Grouchy_Stuff_9006 t1_iu7nymv wrote

Personal opinion - starlink is what will make Elon the first trilionaire.


timberwolf0122 t1_iu7pmhj wrote

It’s not impossible, but it needs customer who doesn’t have access to any other form of internet, either 4/5G or cable. That number is going down fast.

Developing nations aren’t likely to have many subscribers at >$100/mo


miltonfriedman2028 t1_iu7ira9 wrote

We need to stop subsidizing rural areas so much. If you want a rural life style, great, but government shouldn’t be subsidizing your choices.


tuscabam t1_iu7k6vc wrote

If any of that money comes to Alabama they’ll use it to build a prison or a giant cross.


Arzn999 t1_iu85qt8 wrote

Nice. It’s not like we have trillions in debt and rising inflation.


pakito1234 t1_iu4bx22 wrote

Just in time for Peon Musk to keep people indoctrinated.


Alandales t1_iu5c1f5 wrote

Pure socialism. /s but kinda not /s…


RayseBraize t1_iu635et wrote

They still have to pay for the service genius. I get taxes are not the easiest subject but something any adult should be able to understand the basics of.


Alandales t1_iu6cjxs wrote

If someone else pays for the initial cost of something for the communal good, and I only have to pay an access or monthly fee…any adult should be able to comprehend the implication of a sarcastic Socialism…


Funny-Education2496 t1_iu494mr wrote

I'm all in favor of this, but the whole point of Starlink is to accomplish exactly this. Why not break off a piece of this grant and use it to contract Starlink to provide dishes to these regions.


SurgicalWeedwacker t1_iu4dfnw wrote

Because Elon musk is petty enough to stop supporting Ukraine because zelensky won’t worship him. Also, satellites have some disadvantages like being destroyed by space debris


parkedr t1_iu4ej39 wrote

I have Starlink at my house in the country and fiber at my house in the city and Starlink sucks hard in comparison. I’d much rather my tax money go towards fiber than lining Elon’s pockets.


coffin420699 t1_iu4ty3d wrote

starlink is good for what it is, but it was never meant to be the champion of rural people. theres too many of em". we need to just run infrastructure to them and call it good for the next 50 years


RayseBraize t1_iu614yr wrote

Until Elon gets pissy and turns off your internet lol


coffin420699 t1_iu64hhy wrote

pretty weird future we live in right? weve just accepted that as something he will likely do


andoryu123 t1_iu6mltn wrote

I am pretty sure US Rural areas was going to be one of the major backbones (other is US defense, and third world countries) to Starlink's business case. Wealthier US customers dispersed, not urban dense, and line of sight to satellites (think ground space) are the best customers.


coffin420699 t1_iu7li22 wrote

youre not wrong, and im sure all the wealthiest people out there have it already..there wouldnt be enough space for everyone


Tactical_Crabman t1_iu4bqim wrote

The whole system around infrastructure is super corrupt I expect maybe a 1/3 of it will actually go to building new lines


PoorPDOP86 t1_iu46ohp wrote

Rural of course meaning "proper" communities that "vote correctly" aka Democrats. You're not going to see places like Boonville, NY or Sulphur Springs, TX ever see money for this.


Flowzyy t1_iu48sno wrote

Just because red leaders pull this bullshit, doesn’t mean everyone does…

Don’t forget about all those congressmen who shit on Biden’s bills then turned around and bragged to their constituents on the hard work they did to secure funds for their district/state


JonSnowL2 t1_iu48xgs wrote

Let’s hope. Enough people already can’t tell the difference between a fact from a real source, and some non sense from Russian propaganda website. Don’t need to give these people even easier internet access to get further radicalized


Thesonomakid t1_iu4c542 wrote

Neither of those two places will receive funding because they don’t qualify. Both Booneville, NY and Sulphur Springs, TX both have gig-speed internet available.


Minorous t1_iu49g1k wrote

It's never good enough for you right? Republican give trillions to corporations you dimwits don't even bat an eye. Here they're trying to help communities, students and less fortunate and here we are, moron is beating his drums and expunging his ignorance.


nick1812216 t1_iu4pmrv wrote

Isn’t the ratio of federal aid received vs federal tax paid higher for red states than blue states?