Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday December 04 2015, @09:51PM   Printer-friendly
from the how-many-times-do-we-have-to-pay-for-broadband? dept.

U.S. Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has proposed up to $275 billion in infrastructure investment, including investment in broadband:

Hillary Clinton has announced a $250bn plan to build out the United States' broadband infrastructure and ensure that everyone has fast internet access at an affordable price by 2020.

That's the headline figure anyway in her new policy position called "Building Tomorrow's Economy Today." In reality, the presidential candidate has pledged to fund a $25 billion dollar "national infrastructure bank" over five years that will cover all infrastructure improvements for roads, bridges, pipes, and internet network.

That bank will provide "up to an additional $225 billion in federally supported investment," according to the policy paper, by leveraging "the $25 billion in direct loans, loan guarantees, and other forms of credit enhancement."

[...] Interestingly however, even Clinton's $25 billion infrastructure bank idea doesn't appear to have been her own. Democratic rival Bernie Sanders has been talking about the US' lackluster networks for some time, noting that the US comes 16th globally in terms of broadband access, and 12th in terms of average speed, according to the OECD. "Today, businesses, schools, and families in Bucharest, Romania, have access to much faster internet than most of the United States. That is unacceptable and has got to change," Sanders says in his policy position on "rebuilding America."

Interestingly, Sanders pledged the exact same figure as Clinton – $5 billion a year – but solely for internet rollout, rather than all infrastructure needs, through an Act of Congress. "The Rebuild America Act will invest $5 billion a year to expand high-speed broadband networks in under-served and unserved areas, and to boost speeds and capacity all across the country. Internet access is no longer a luxury: it is essential for 21st century commerce, education, telemedicine, and public safety," he said.

DSLReports calls the promises "painfully ambiguous". Other outlets have gravitated to the promises of "smart cities", "free Wi-Fi", "5G networks", and supporting "tomorrow's Internet of Things".

Billions in broadband investment? Hmm, where have I heard that one before?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @10:25PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @10:25PM (#271970)

    Is there anybody who actually believes these premisses?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Touché=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @10:31PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @10:31PM (#271974)

    I believe the ISPs will gladly take the money, do nothing with it, and will never be punished.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday December 04 2015, @11:16PM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Friday December 04 2015, @11:16PM (#271992) Homepage

      What needs to be done about this is to simply encourage municipal broadband and stop the big telcos from lobbying and suing municipal broadband out of existence.

      That would have a much better effect than simply throwing more money at the big telcos. Although you are wrong about them doing nothing with it - it will go to executive bonuses and perhaps some stock dividends.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by davester666 on Saturday December 05 2015, @02:18AM

      by davester666 (155) on Saturday December 05 2015, @02:18AM (#272055)

      Of course Congress will have no problem authorizing what Hillary proposes. Unlike when Obama was elected/reelected, the Republican's are lining up in their support for her. It will definitely be smooth sailing for her.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2015, @06:16AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2015, @06:16AM (#272106)

        Almost as if she is a career politician that has been making backdoor deals with everyone she could for the last fifteen years to ensure this victory.

        • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday December 05 2015, @07:06AM

          by davester666 (155) on Saturday December 05 2015, @07:06AM (#272116)

          I can't decide if you were completely whooshed or you were doubling down on my comment.

          The only thing easier for Hillary [vs Obama] is that there will be fewer questions about whether she is eligible to run for President, because she has two white American parents.
          It's also not quite as bad that she's female vs Obama being black. It's close, but definitely better that she isn't black.

          • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday December 05 2015, @07:13AM

            by davester666 (155) on Saturday December 05 2015, @07:13AM (#272117)

            Note, this is my view of what the Republican party thinks of her, not my personal view of her.

            Like virtually every politician at that level, I'm sure she would make me want to go home and wash the slime off if I had to work with her for any length of time, but she'll be better at the job than whomever makes it through the Republican primaries. The R primaries seem to be a contest about having a group of people having gun, and during the primaries they have to shoot as close to their toes as they can, but knowing that they need all their toes intact to win the general election.

            • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday December 05 2015, @01:13PM

              by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 05 2015, @01:13PM (#272149) Journal

              No she wouldn't, my friend. The Clintons are desperately incompetent. What they are competent at, you don't want.

              We've all been sitting around for 3 years now pointing out that the NSA police state surveillance will be abused for political control. She is one who will do that. She has a lifetime of scores to settle, and if she is put in the Oval Office that's exactly what she'll do.

              Also, consider that the Clintons are in bed with Wall Street and the very evil 1% they play fight with in front of the cameras. I have witnessed them meeting with Chris Ruddy, the CEO of Newsmax and the architect of the Vince Foster suicide theory, and Rupert Murdoch.

              Hillary Clinton must never be President.

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
              • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday December 05 2015, @08:26PM

                by davester666 (155) on Saturday December 05 2015, @08:26PM (#272262)

                Right. Unfortunately, any Republican who wins the primary will do the same or worse.

                Right now, she is the least-worst person from the field of people who have a reasonable chance of actually winning the job.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @10:38PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @10:38PM (#271976)

    > Is there anybody who actually believes these premisses?

    Campaign promises matter [vox.com]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @10:40PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @10:40PM (#271977)

      >Vox
      Shiggy.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @10:50PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @10:50PM (#271984)

        Sounds like more political doubletalk bullshit to me. Lets not take care of real problems, we'll just dump a bunch of taxpayers money into a non-existent problem whose only cause is to get corporate donations to Clitons campaign. And maybe get her brothers uncles step-cousins son a job at the fiber optic plant.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @11:29PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 04 2015, @11:29PM (#271993)

          Lemme guess - as far as you know, anything a politician says is "doubletalk bullshit."
          Which is the kind of know-nothing bullshit that article explicitly debunks.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Friday December 04 2015, @11:30PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Friday December 04 2015, @11:30PM (#271994) Journal

          This is absolutely true. It's using a real problem to divert money from our pockets to the pockets of Friends of Bill (clinton, that is), in order to get a freshly laundered kickback in their own bank accounts. The Clintons are grifters, through and through.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2015, @04:45AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 05 2015, @04:45AM (#272084)

            > It's using a real problem to divert money from our pockets to the pockets of Friends of Bill

            You've been scored informative for that. Which friend is a beneficiary of this proposal? You do know what you are talking about, right? You wouldn't just be indulging yourself, right?

            • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday December 05 2015, @12:58PM

              by Hairyfeet (75) <reversethis-{moc ... {8691tsaebssab}> on Saturday December 05 2015, @12:58PM (#272146) Journal

              The giant cable/DSL duopoly, just like the payout her husband backed in the 90s [pbs.org], and ironically damned near the exact same amount and just like that deal all we'll get for all that cash is a nice low res picture of the CEOs burning a c-note from their brand new mega-yacht while flipping us the bird.

              Remember folks, socialism is only for rich people, you poor actually have to pay your bills and do the job you get paid a pittance for while the rich can just hold out their hand and get billions for absolutely nothing. old Billy proved that with his 200 billion dollar kickback in the 90s and if Hillary gets elected she is just gonna follow his example. After all they've had 20 years of letting the infrastructure fall apart and they can't milk anymore money out of it with caps and gouging, won't somebody think of the rich CEOs of these corps? Those 10k hookers and McMansions don't pay for themselves ya know!

              --
              ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
            • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday December 05 2015, @01:22PM

              by Phoenix666 (552) Subscriber Badge on Saturday December 05 2015, @01:22PM (#272153) Journal

              You're not really getting how it works. Clintons use a crisis or problem to put together a big pile of money. If they have an FoB in mind already to give it to, they do. If they don't, they wait around until a new plutocrat decides to become a new FoB. That FoB gets the contract, then a fat check from the FoB wends its way through various channels, ie. campaign donations, contributions to certain charitable funds that don't actually do anything, etc. and ultimately winds up in the Clintons' bottom line. Money that gets applied to the crisis or problem? None, or virtually none.

              It's all a big scam.

              And, yes, I do know what I'm talking about. I have first-hand knowledge.

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.