Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has proposed a new spending cap on the FCC's Universal Service programs that deploy broadband to poor people and to rural and other underserved areas.
Pai reportedly circulated the proposal to fellow commissioners on Tuesday, meaning it will be voted upon behind closed doors instead of in an open meeting. Pai has not released the proposal publicly, but it was described in a Politico report Wednesday, and an FCC official confirmed the proposal's details to Ars. Democratic FCC commissioners and consumer advocacy groups have criticized Pai's plan, saying it could harm the FCC's efforts to expand broadband access.
The FCC's Universal Service system's purpose is to bring communications service access to all Americans and consists of four programs: The Connect America Fund, which gives ISPs money to deploy broadband in rural areas; Lifeline, which provides discounts on phone and broadband service to low-income consumers; the E-Rate broadband program for schools and libraries; and a telecom access program for rural health care providers.
Pai's plan suggests an $11.4 billion annual cap on the total cost of the four programs, which is more than current spending but would put an upper bound on what the program could spend in the future. The cap would be indexed for inflation, FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly wrote on Twitter.
Related Stories
Plans for the U.S. government to build a national 5G network secured against China appear to have been quashed following intense telecom industry lobbying:
The Trump Administration made a few announcements about building super-fast 5G wireless networks on Friday, but the real purpose of the White House event was buried beneath the headlines.
On the surface, President Trump and Federal Communications Commission chair Ajit Pai were promoting the schedule for a new spectrum auction and funds for extending faster Internet service to rural areas. But the auction, now slated to start on December 10, has been on tap for the "second half of 2019" since last year. And the funds for rural Internet connections, which don't have to use 5G technology or even wireless, were just an extension of a long-existing program.
Instead, the real agenda was to try and kill a well-funded lobbying effort to convince the federal government to take over 5G airwaves and build a nationalized network that private carriers would have to lease from the government. Supporters included prominent Republicans Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove, as well as Trump 2020 campaign manager Brad Parscale.
But the idea has driven the U.S. telecommunications industry, which is spending tens of billions of dollars to build private 5G networks, bonkers.
Ajit Pai talked about "up to" gigabit connections for rural homes.
Also at Engadget.
See also: FCC "consumer advisory" panel includes ALEC, big foe of municipal broadband
Related: FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Proposes Raising Rural Broadband Speeds
Ajit Pai's Rosy Broadband Deployment Claim May be Based on Gigantic Error
Ajit Pai Wants to Cap Spending on Broadband for Poor People and Rural Areas
(Score: 4, Troll) by Revek on Tuesday April 02 2019, @01:49PM (4 children)
Being poor.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 2) by Revek on Tuesday April 02 2019, @01:56PM (3 children)
How is it that my spell check thinks thats spelled correctly?
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @02:45PM
Rutabega salad... the difference is you'll experiencement them.
(Score: 4, Informative) by fustakrakich on Tuesday April 02 2019, @05:40PM (1 child)
Doesn't work in a form with only one line
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1) by Yates on Wednesday April 03 2019, @01:34PM
In Firefox you can "fix" this asinine behavior by going to "about:config" and setting "layout.spellcheckDefault" to "2"
Options are:
0 Spell Checker Off
1 Check Only Multi-Line Input Boxes.
2 Check Multi And Single Line Input Boxes.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday April 02 2019, @02:05PM (8 children)
My understanding of how rural broadband spending works in the US is this:
1. The government gives telecoms a bunch of money to build out rural broadband capacity, replacing the antiquated copper that's still in use in a lot of places.
2. The telecoms kick back about 2% of that money to politicians as "campaign contributions" to both keep the program going and make sure nobody's asking annoying questions about where the money is going.
3. Almost nothing gets built. Most of the remaining cash just goes straight to the bottom line.
So while in theory, there's big bucks going to rural broadband, the amount actually spent on rural broadband is a fraction of what is supposed to be spent on rural broadband. The investors are happy, the politicians are happy, what's the problem?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday April 02 2019, @05:44PM (5 children)
4. Reelection rates remain steady at around 95%
The voters are happy too. Really, what is the problem?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday April 02 2019, @06:12PM (1 child)
What's the problem, really:
1. We're all chipping in tax dollars so that those who own telecom stocks can get richer than they otherwise would, which is probably not the best use of government money.
2. Rural telecom networks aren't being improved, which is the ostensible goal of the policy. This is all part of the US having an embarrassingly bad and expensive network compared to other developed countries.
I agree that politicians keep getting reelected, but this is one of those things where it's unlikely that any politician will be punished electorally for any of this: It's an obscure issue, and not as important in the grand scheme of things. And that's exactly the kind of thing where public corruption gets a foothold.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday April 02 2019, @10:34PM
Still can't blame the politician for voters lack of oversight. It's time to acknowledge the high maintenance costs of this majority rule stuff. Only we can make it work.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday April 02 2019, @08:49PM (2 children)
Are you sure the voters are happy or are they just choosing between giant douche and turd sandwich?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday April 02 2019, @10:38PM (1 child)
Doesn't matter, choosing between giant douche and turd sandwich is still their own choice, they can't blame anybody else for the limits they put on themselves.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday April 02 2019, @10:58PM
Don't blame me, I voted for Ficus.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Tuesday April 02 2019, @10:15PM (1 child)
So.. assuming what you say is true, Ajit Pai is doing the right thing then by breaking that cycle? .. and channeling the funds for the better good or other evils..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 03 2019, @01:59AM
We have at this point given billions to AT&T, Verizion, and comcast to build out networks both state and federal. Just ask the people of new york city and New Jersey how well that is working out.
For example VZ has basically all but abandoned any sort of expansion. They took the money and bought out vodaphones share of verizon wireless. That does not build more fiber.
If you want we can find hundreds more examples like this. In a few cases it is working. But overall we are getting ripped off.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @02:05PM (6 children)
Just when you thought he couldn't top his last shenanigans BAM AND WHAM he does it again.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 02 2019, @02:26PM (5 children)
They all fuck the people. Some of them are nice enough to use a little lubricant.
(Score: 5, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 02 2019, @04:26PM (3 children)
Obama's FCC implemented Net Neutrality, which is a policy supported by the vast majority of Americans.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 02 2019, @04:51PM
Yes, I believe I've given O'Bummer credit for that. Like all the rest of the politicos, he was right a couple of times. Doesn't change the fact he's a politician, and he was wrong almost every time he opened his mouth.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by fustakrakich on Tuesday April 02 2019, @05:48PM (1 child)
Congress is supposed to implement "net neutrality", not Obama. What he did could be and quickly was reversed, and he knew that would happen. So it amounted to nothing but more kabuki.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @10:46PM
Redundant
Sheesh! Can the Obama/DNC worship be any more obvious?? Still sore about your Russia Thing, eh?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @06:50PM
Check your receipt. They're billing a premium for the lube.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday April 02 2019, @02:57PM (3 children)
If poor people get broadband, they might be able to become better informed, get better jobs and participate more in society.
And we cannot have that. Especially the last part which could lead to them voting.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday April 02 2019, @03:19PM (1 child)
And not only that, but they might vote for candidates based on their actual policy positions and history rather than on what highly-paid useful idiots are saying on the squawk box. That would really be devastating to the system.
Regardless of the rhetoric, they do not want an informed electorate. They want voters who have no clue who candidates are unless they've been deemed acceptable by the people with the biggest bank accounts. For example, from their point of view, part of what went wrong in the 2016 Democratic primary was not that 1/3 of primary voters had no clue who Bernie Sanders was, but that 2/3 of primary voters did.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by darnkitten on Tuesday April 02 2019, @09:45PM
Rural fttp user here--We got fibre several years ago, and it has made no noticeable difference with regards to how informed folks are. Instead of seeking out other sources of information (they won't even look up easily verifiable information on Wikipedia, as limited a source as that can be at times), they supplement their propaganda outlets of choice with Netflix and YouTube conspiracy theory channels.
And their kids don't even get the propaganda, unless they happen to look up from their phones while their parents are watching the "news." No information literacy whatsoever.
Voting patterns haven't changes at all, and I doubt, even if our ISP upgrades us to full minimum broadband standards, that it would change anything except the amount of streaming and viral videos watched.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday April 02 2019, @05:50PM
That's why we have to regulate Facebook and tell the ISPs to block everything else
/s
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @02:57PM (5 children)
Just sayin'
(Score: 1, Troll) by TheFool on Tuesday April 02 2019, @03:29PM (4 children)
Obama was the one who first nominated him (although Trump appointed him chair and re-nominated him).
(Score: 5, Informative) by Whoever on Tuesday April 02 2019, @04:04PM (2 children)
Obama appointed him when Obama was required to appoint someone approved by the GOP.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @06:53PM (1 child)
He could have left the office unattended and give the orders himself like Trump did.
(Score: 5, Touché) by sjames on Tuesday April 02 2019, @08:53PM
Except that he was ethical and tried to do his actual job.
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Wednesday April 03 2019, @01:23PM
nominated to the board, not as chairman. That is all Trump.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @04:24PM (2 children)
You can always count on Republicans to screw the rural poor people that they pander to while campaigning.
Conservatives say they're upset that politicians lie to them, but then they gave that as the reason that they voted for a pathological liar, and say that he tells it like it is. They have no idea what's real, because they're watching pro-bigotry propaganda instead of news.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @04:53PM (1 child)
Yep, this is obvious to all of us who don't watch Fox News. The clips, stories, and factual statistics all point to Fox being one giant manipulative FUD machine. Yet we have users on here who probably swear by it. I've seen some of the more liberal outlets pull the same sort of emotional crap, but not on the same level and usually with some actual evidence behind it.
All the major news outlets are corrupted, but Fox is on its own level of nasty bigoted bullshit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 03 2019, @02:02AM
Just like when Verizon under the obama years took the billions given to it to build fiber and said 'yeah we good and we did a good job too'.
That money is not being used to build networks. It is being used to buy other toys and pay out dividends.
Instead the gov needs to go with 'build us network X and we will pay you'. Instead of 'here is a pile of money now pinky swear to do this'.
But losers like you want to blame the fox news. Do what I do. Fucking DO NOT WATCH THEM.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mobydisk on Tuesday April 02 2019, @04:29PM (7 children)
Based on the headline "wants to cap spending...for poor people" I think I am supposed to be outraged. But the summary says that the proposal increases the amount of money, and indexes it to inflation. Is that not... perfectly fair and logical?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by HiThere on Tuesday April 02 2019, @04:48PM
How about getting upset about the fact that he's keeping the details of the plan secret, and the voting will be secret, so we won't really know what it does until "O, that's policy. We can't change that.".
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 02 2019, @04:49PM (4 children)
Fair and logical? Try this in your fair/logical detector - we've already PAID FOR broadband that we don't have. Then run this through it - Ijit is dividing the nation along a class line that hasn't existed in the past. One tier of infrastructure for the rural class, and another tier for the urban class. Now this one - Ijit wants to set a top limit to the money spent in rural areas and poor urban areas, so that all the rest is freed up for those lucrative urban areas.
We already see the most lucrative urban areas built, built again, redundantly, then upgraded just as redundantly. Yet, within only a mile, sometimes less, there are poor urban areas that are seriously underserved. Those poor urban areas are miles ahead of the rural hayseeds, though, because THEY only get one monopolized service, which has zero intentions of EVER upgrading anything, so long as their monopoly lasts.
I don't know how fair and logical that all seems, but the fact that we've ALREADY PAID for millions of last miles, just seems terribly unfair and illogical to me. Logic says, we should stop paying any of the bastards until they start listening to what we need. We certainly don't need twelve more fiber lines run in to the White House, the house, and the senate this summer. There is more than enough hot air escaping all three of them, we don't need any more conduits for that. Probably don't need 30 more fibers run in to Wall Street, either. The wealthy neighborhoods of Chicago and the California coast almost certainly are saturated by now. I doesn't serve any purpose to build new lines where there are multitudes of lines already, while the rest of us do without.
(Score: 4, Informative) by AssCork on Tuesday April 02 2019, @06:29PM
I've got $20 on RunAway in the next DeadPool.
Any takers?
Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday April 02 2019, @09:39PM (1 child)
One of the things we need is an audit of where all that money has gone. I've had my own phone accounts since the very early 1980's, and I'm pretty sure I've always been paying a special "Universal Service Fee". Where is all that money?
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Tuesday April 02 2019, @10:13PM
Among other things, it goes to subsidize telecom services to schools and libraries in rural or impoverished areas; though, recently, they cut subsidies for telephony (because everyone uses VOIP now) and other useful telecommunications and infrastructure, in favor of subsidizing broadband with mandatory filtered internet (with contradictory filtering requirements)--which, in addition to the onerous paperwork to apply, confirm application, accept and then report, is why most rural public libraries in my state have stopped applying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13 2019, @04:50AM
Of course he's going to help keep the pariah class in their place, whatever their skin color, in America.
He knows his place in the world, and he has to help America establish its places according to the system India has.
If you think I am joking, look at his habits and activities more closely.
This is why America was nominally supposed to be a secular state. It has never truly lived up to that ideal, but for a time in the late 80s until 9/11, it was making progress towards true secularism. Now....
(Score: 2) by Kalas on Wednesday April 03 2019, @01:59PM
Read it more carefully. This is merely setting a cap on future spending that happens to be higher than the current annual budget. It will only serve to reduce then stop future increases in spending as the budget approaches cap. Considering that Pai has turned the FCC's official goal into screwing over Americans (but especially the poor ones), plus that this proposed policy can only serve to limit spending on infrastructure, you'd be deluded to think this is a good thing for anyone other than the politicians taking a percentage to screw over their fellow countrymen and the ISPs who will continue building practically nothing with the money they're given for rural development.
If it weren't for that last part this wouldn't be quite as bad, but none of Pai's actions so far indicate concern for anything other than profits so you can be sure this policy won't implement more regulation and oversight ensuring that the govt. money bestowed upon ISPs is properly spent.
(Score: 5, Funny) by AssCork on Tuesday April 02 2019, @06:28PM (1 child)
Makes sense - I'd wager most Poor People and Rural Areas wanna Cap Ajit Pai, too.
OH!
On spending! Gotcha.
Just popped-out of a tight spot. Came out mostly clean, too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 03 2019, @02:05AM
At this point we have given hundreds of BILLIONS to these companies to build networks. Where the F are they? But yes lets blame the guy who said 'ok enough no more money until you give us real networks'.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by saturnalia0 on Wednesday April 03 2019, @12:50AM
>The Connect America Fund, which gives ISPs money to deploy broadband in rural areas
Taxpayer money directly to big corporations, chosen by some government-established rules... What could go wrong?