SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for chromas
Verizon won't speed up 5G buildout despite FCC preempting local fees
Verizon Wireless says it will not move faster on building its 5G cellular network despite a Federal Communications Commission decision that erased $2 billion dollars' worth of fees for the purpose of spurring faster 5G deployment.
The FCC's controversial decision last month angered both large and small municipalities because it limits the amount they can charge carriers for deployment of wireless equipment such as small cells on public rights-of-way. The FCC decision also limits the kinds of aesthetic requirements cities and towns can impose on carrier deployments and forces cities and towns to act on carrier applications within 60 or 90 days.Ajit Pai slams cities and towns as FCC erases $2 billion in local fees
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai justified the decision by saying it would speed up 5G deployment, and he slammed local governments for "extracting as much money as possible in fees from the private sector and forcing companies to navigate a maze of regulatory hurdles in order to deploy wireless infrastructure."
But in an earnings call last week, Verizon CFO Matt Ellis told investors that the FCC decision won't have any effect on the speed of its 5G deployment. Verizon also said that it is reducing overall capital expenditures—despite a variety of FCC decisions, including the net neutrality repeal, that the FCC claimed would increase broadband network investment. (Verizon posted a transcript of the earnings call here.)
An analyst asked Ellis if the FCC order would "change the sort of internal targets you have for the rollout of the small cell and 5G infrastructure and possibly allow you to go a little faster as you look out to 2019 and 2020."
Ellis responded that the FCC decision "doesn't necessarily increase the velocity that we see." Verizon is "going as fast as we can" already, he said.
Also at ExtremeTech
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 06 2018, @01:59AM
And it's entirely possible that will happen, due to one constituency in particular where the Democrats are rapidly losing ground.
The giant demographic shift between the 2008 and 2012 electorates versus the 2016 electorates was not any of the things pundits usually go on about. Compared to 2012: Turnout was up overall, so the "lazy voters sat on their hands and gave us Trump" theory pushed by lots of Democrats doesn't hold water. Turnout was up among younger voters too, so again the "lazy stupid kids didn't do what they were supposed to" theory pushed by lots of Democrats doesn't work either. Trump didn't pick up massively more votes than George W Bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney, which puts to pasture the Republican's idea that Trump was some sort of awesomely awesome guy who managed to pull in tons of people into the GOP who weren't there before. Nor was it unusually vote totals for the Greens or Libertarians that made the difference.
The actual change was this: about 1 out of 15 black people who had voted in 2008 and 2012 did not vote in 2016, and black people have been generally the Democrat's most loyal constituency since 1964. They weren't going to vote for Trump, but they also weren't going to work too hard to vote for Hillary Clinton. That requires explanation, and I think there is one: The last time there was a big drop in black people voting was 1996, which was also the last time someone named "Clinton" was on the ballot. Bill Clinton, for all his Arsenio Hall appearances and attempts to appear to enjoy "Lift Every Voice and Sing", repeatedly sold out black people in his first term, and a fairly large number of black people took notice. They were somewhat willing to accept that kind of treatment from Obama because he appeared to be one of their own, but when Hillary Clinton (whose own record of how she treats black folks is mixed at best) basically took them completely for granted, they decided to not vote for her.
The prospect to Democrats of losing their strong support among black folks is why this doesn't enter into the pundit's discussion of what the heck happened in 2016, even though it is the explanation that fits the numbers better than anything else.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.