SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept.
Big Telecom Convinces Missouri Lawmakers To Block Funding For Broadband Competition:
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) set aside $42.5 billion to be spent by the states on expanding access to affordable broadband. But state by state, telecom lobbyists are working hard to ensure that this money only goes toward "unserved" locations, and can't be used to potentially create competition in markets they already serve.
Last month we noted how states like Illinois, at the direct demand of companies like AT&T, have been passing restrictions on who can or can't access these funds. That includes blocking some cooperatives or local governments from building broadband networks. Since that's expressly forbidden by the IIJA, these states are risking all broadband funding
In other instances it's a bit more subtle than that. Missouri, for example, just passed a bill (once again directly demanded by AT&T) stating that "no federal funds received by the state, political subdivision, city, town, or village shall be expended for the construction of retail broadband internet infrastructure unless the project to be constructed is located in an unserved area or underserved area."
On its face it doesn't seem controversial. But if you know how the U.S. telecom sector and policy actually works, its intention becomes more clear. The bill doesn't just block funding for areas that are already served, it blocks access to projects in areas incumbent ISPs claim they might serve someday:
the current version of the bill would allow incumbent ISPs to block federal funding to competitors if they vaguely indicate they have eventual interest in upgrading an area. Historically, state and federal regulators in fealty to regional monopolies aren't consistent about following up on fiber deployment promises, potentially perpetuating longstanding Internet access coverage gaps.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 02 2022, @05:36AM (1 child)
You have a rosy memory. If Ma Bell was still running things you wouldn't have that 10Mbs DSL line. Bell didn't allow third party direct wired telephony equipment on their network, so you'd be stuck with a 300 baud acoustic dial up modem [wikipedia.org]. That's also why fax machines didn't take off in the US until after the breakup, despite being popular internationally in the 1970's. Bell didn't allow them. Keep in mind that Bell had demonstrated a working fax machine of their own in 1924. The phrase "We're the phone company, we don't have to care" was inspired by Ma Bell.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 02 2022, @10:41AM
You're assuming that Ma Bell wouldn't have changed in the past 40+ years, then. You're also assuming that telephony would not, could not, have progressed in a different direction. If the old monopoly were still around, we may have retired POTS by now, and replaced it all with fiber. During the first ~25 years of my life, that monopoly progressed from the ancient, clunky, wall mounted rotary dial party line phones, to tone dial phones that were crisp and clear. During that same time, they did away with most operator assisted phone calls, replaced with the automatic systems. You really shouldn't discount all the advances Ma Bell made. In their spare time, they created Unix, after all. Which telco today operates anything comparable to Bell Labs?