SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
John Brodkin over at Ars Technica is reporting on a House bill which would allocate USD$100 billion for high speed (100mb/sec or higher) fiber to the home (FTTH) infrastructure.
The bill also addresses state laws blocking municipal and public/private broadband.
From the article:
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-S.C.) 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 [PDF].
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 [PDF] 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.
So Soylentils, Do you have high-speed (100+mb/sec) broadband in your area? If not, what steps have your state/local government taken to get it or, alternatively, block it?
Should the Senate majority support legislation like this? If so, why? If not, why not?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tokolosh on Sunday June 28 2020, @03:00PM (4 children)
One person's subsidy is another person's tax. Any time someone gets something free or at a reduced rate, someone else has to pay tax or a higher price.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2020, @08:58PM
This comment completely confuses what taxes and subsidies are. And it's wrong. A subsidy is usually just allowing a business to get off the hook for some of the tax revenue that they'd normally be owed. It does not automatically show up as a tax somewhere else. And, if the subsidy was well thought out, there's a net increase in taxes due to increased economic activity. Obviously, it doesn't always work out like that as many subsidies are so large as to counteract that.
Additionally, even when that doesn't happen, the alternative is a bit of extra inflation, which isn't a particular problem for those that have significant holdings in inflation resistant investments. Or who have significant debts like a mortgage. The main purpose of taxes is to remove the inflation that comes from federal government spending.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2020, @10:06PM
It seems like you aren't paying inflated bills for internet to a private company. Sure it's not a tax but it's money that comes out of your pocket just the same. And forever ekes upwards with bundled packages of landlines and no opt-out for selling your browsing habits.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday June 29 2020, @09:55AM (1 child)
This is true, if you have an incredibly oversimplified model of a zero-sum economy. It can also be true in practice in some cases. The goal of subsidy is to address inefficiencies in a system to increase tax revenue. There's a load of research in economics that shows that investing in communications infrastructure (typically roads) is almost always a net win for the economy. In the US, the Interstate Highway network has been linked to economic growth that increased tax revenue by far more than the system cost. $100bn is about 2.5% of federal income tax revenue. The benefit is likely to be felt over at least 10 years, so it needs to increase the tax base of the US by 0.25% to be a good investment.
There isn't yet a huge body of evidence to indicate whether investing in Internet infrastructure has the same benefits that roads, rail, and telephones did, but the studies that have been done suggest that it probably is. If this is the case, then this could well be a net benefit (depending, of course, how the money is spent - if it all just goes to Verizon shareholders, probably not).
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Friday July 03 2020, @02:26AM
The title of the bill includes the words "For All". If this were true, I would be in somewhat agreement with you, setting aside fatal conceit. However, further down we read that it is "to build...in unserved and underserved communities and ensure that the resulting Internet service is affordable." This is nothing more than taking money from taxpayers and giving it to special interests. This is not for the greater good, or for the benefit of everybody, this is buying votes at the expense of middle-class taxpayers.
But one example of government "For Some People', not "For The People".