Starlink Benefits As Trump Admin Rewrites Rules For $42 Billion Grant Program (arstechnica.com) 161
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Trump administration is eliminating a preference for fiber Internet in a $42.45 billion broadband deployment program, a change that is expected to reduce spending on the most advanced wired networks while directing more money to Starlink and other non-fiber Internet service providers. One report suggests Starlink could obtain $10 billion to $20 billion under the new rules. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick criticized the Biden administration's handling of the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program in a statement yesterday. Lutnick said that "because of the prior Administration's woke mandates, favoritism towards certain technologies, and burdensome regulations, the program has not connected a single person to the Internet and is in dire need of a readjustment."
The BEAD program was authorized by Congress in November 2021, and the US was finalizing plans to distribute funding before Trump's inauguration. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), part of the Commerce Department, developed rules for the program in the Biden era and approved initial funding plans submitted by every state and territory. The program has been on hold since the change in administration, with Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and other Republicans seeking rule changes. In addition to demanding an end to the fiber preference, Cruz wants to kill a requirement that ISPs receiving network-construction subsidies provide cheap broadband to people with low incomes. Cruz also criticized "unionized workforce and DEI labor requirements; climate change assessments; excessive per-location costs; and other central planning mandates."
Lutnick's statement yesterday confirmed that the Trump administration will end the fiber preference and replace it with a "tech-neutral" set of rules, and explore additional changes. He said: "Under my leadership, the Commerce Department has launched a rigorous review of the BEAD program. The Department is ripping out the Biden Administration's pointless requirements. It is revamping the BEAD program to take a tech-neutral approach that is rigorously driven by outcomes, so states can provide Internet access for the lowest cost. Additionally, the Department is exploring ways to cut government red tape that slows down infrastructure construction. We will work with states and territories to quickly get rid of the delays and the waste. Thereafter we will move quickly to implementation in order to get households connected." Lutnick said the department's goal is to "deliver high-speed Internet access... efficiently and effectively at the lowest cost to taxpayers."
The BEAD program was authorized by Congress in November 2021, and the US was finalizing plans to distribute funding before Trump's inauguration. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), part of the Commerce Department, developed rules for the program in the Biden era and approved initial funding plans submitted by every state and territory. The program has been on hold since the change in administration, with Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and other Republicans seeking rule changes. In addition to demanding an end to the fiber preference, Cruz wants to kill a requirement that ISPs receiving network-construction subsidies provide cheap broadband to people with low incomes. Cruz also criticized "unionized workforce and DEI labor requirements; climate change assessments; excessive per-location costs; and other central planning mandates."
Lutnick's statement yesterday confirmed that the Trump administration will end the fiber preference and replace it with a "tech-neutral" set of rules, and explore additional changes. He said: "Under my leadership, the Commerce Department has launched a rigorous review of the BEAD program. The Department is ripping out the Biden Administration's pointless requirements. It is revamping the BEAD program to take a tech-neutral approach that is rigorously driven by outcomes, so states can provide Internet access for the lowest cost. Additionally, the Department is exploring ways to cut government red tape that slows down infrastructure construction. We will work with states and territories to quickly get rid of the delays and the waste. Thereafter we will move quickly to implementation in order to get households connected." Lutnick said the department's goal is to "deliver high-speed Internet access... efficiently and effectively at the lowest cost to taxpayers."
Not sure how to respond (Score:5, Interesting)
Should I react with outrage at the potential corruption; or, with the complete lack of surprise that comes with resignation and total abandon?
Re: (Score:3)
The Biden NTIA's rules did not prohibit the use of fixed wireless and satellite technologies, but defined "priority broadband projects" as those that use end-to-end fiber-optic architecture. The rules said states could choose a non-fiber provider if the cost of running fiber to a particular location is above the state's "extremely high cost per location threshold," or "for other valid reasons subject to approval" by the NTIA.
I guess this is the grift. There are rules in place to allow exactly what the overtly corrupt gop wants. They want to shred that regulation to appease their unelected illegal immigrant leon and let all the taxpayer's money flow freely into his pockets. Americn vioters has done fucked up.
Re:Not sure how to respond (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess this is the grift. There are rules in place to allow exactly what the overtly corrupt gop wants. They want to shred that regulation to appease their unelected illegal immigrant leon and let all the taxpayer's money flow freely into his pockets. Americn vioters has done fucked up.
Worse is that Musk has already shown himself to be capricious about providing/denying promised services/results based on his mood and whims. I'd be way more wary of him than the board of Verizon.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not sure how to respond (Score:5, Insightful)
"Potential" corruption? This is the textbook definition of corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're accusing the wrong administration of corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
You will get your Volksempfaenger and you will love it!
Re: Not sure how to respond (Score:2)
Re:Not sure how to respond (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Not sure how to respond (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Not sure how to respond (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've chosen to see things the way you're seeing them. The reasoning is your own.
All that I'm saying, is that all of the governing powers of the world, today, are run by a mentality that doesn't serve humanity, but rather serves itself. What we have today, as far as a world-wide political system, also is much worse than anything that you've seen in your lifetime. In fact, most everything today is in the worst state that it's ever been in, and the trend continues to grow exponentially.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like the way things are, then be the change that you wish to see in the world. I've never seen 'voting for a president' produce any real change. In fact, politics seems to be THE drum that creates the beat that all of this insane dance-of-the-world dances to the beat of. Any time you're pointing the finger at the political decisions made by others, all you're doing is the same thing that they're doing, and the beat goes on.
Donald Trump isn't God, and never will be. But the people hold dear,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your government, and all other governments are corrupt.
Usually they at least make an attempt to hide the corruption. This is like Trump getting on stage and handing Leon one of those oversized Publisher's Clearinghouse checks, and the rest of the Republican Party just nods approvingly.
Re: (Score:2)
In a surprising turn, the lawyer revealed that people receiving the money have not been chosen randomly in a lottery-style contest, as many believed, but were selected by the group.
To be honest, I'm more surprised anyone actually got anything.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, I'm more surprised anyone actually got anything.
Though I wouldn't bet on it, to be fair to Elon, I think stiffing people is more Donald's thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not sure how to respond (Score:4, Insightful)
So your justification of clear and direct corruption is "everyone's corrupt, what ya gonna do"
Horseshit.
Accepting corruption because of hand-wavey bothsides nonsense just breeds more corruption because you've now normalized it and allowed it to happen without consequence, which emboldens the corrupt and corrupt-wishers. Fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
What a load of total bullshit.
While there is no guarantee that anything is corruption-free, claiming that "all governments are corrupt" is BS. It is like saying that humans are idiots just because some humans are idiots. And there is certainly different degrees of corruption. But for someone who has claimed to want to "drain the swamp" and ranted about "the corrupt politicians", it is certainly eye-brow raising to let the guy who paid to get you elected get such a major contract.
What do you really mean with "humans need to turn things back around"? You mean the same stupid humans that willingly elects a conman and let him get away with the lies and false promises? The conman that appointed his own family members for political positions the last time he was in power. The conman who sends his entourage to his own resort to collect money because there are no other golf courses inbetween Washington DC and Florida! Someone that say something one day and goes back on it the next? Someone who cancels cancer research and then grants a kid with cancer a wish (and is applauded for being such a decent human being)? Oh, those humans will definitely be part of a movement to stamp out corruption. /s
I am not saying that there was no corruption in earlier administrations, but the blatant corruption being displayed right now puts US on the same level as some backwards third-world country dictatorships.
If you think this is a valid "both sides" situation, you are either a russian troll or the most stupid dumb-f**k to visit /., the meta-moderator who gave you a +1 should have their account banned.
Its almost as if letting the people that want to be in power is the exact opposite of what humans should be doing.
Government should be like Jury duty. Every years dump the whole lot and run a random draw of every citizen over 18. For their term they will be paid a standard amount that is reasonable. Their job will be guaranteed to be waiting for them when they are done. Get caught accepting a bribe put em in Guantanamo or your countries equivalent, try to shirk your duty same penalty. Act like an asshole in session same penalty.
We would still need the government workers but the whole budget and approval would have to be based on real needs and what is best for the people. Its not like we don't have experts that can figure this stuff out and make recommendations.
No more partisan bullshit and no lobbyists (just shoot the fuckers) just everyone coming together to make the world a better place.
I bet if we implemented this and actually kept it pure it would make the world a hell of a lot better place.
Re: Not sure how to respond (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not sure how to respond (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it's just coincidence that Musk had turned on the Democrats by the time the bill was passed.
Re: Not sure how to respond (Score:5, Insightful)
You are only seeing what you want to see. The grant didn't require fiber, it only preferred it. It should prefer it since as you said fiber is by far the best networking tech. Why would you waste government funds by not putting in the best when it doesn't cost significantly more to do so? If choosing the best would be excessively expensive then it's recommended against it. If it's only slightly more expensive then it's worth putting in the best now rather than doing a poor job and having to upgrade again later.
Starlink doesn't need infrastructure grants to install satellites on people's homes. People can choose to do that themselves. People can't choose to run miles of wiring across multiple properties and government land.
Any property that has wired power should be able to get some form of wired internet. As a civilization, we want people to have a certain minimum standard of living. You can choose to go below that, but if you're already getting one utility then you should be able to get most of the others as well.
Re: Not sure how to respond (Score:2)
Satellite = expensive for customers
As always, Trump wants to heap all the cost and risk on the little guy
Re: Not sure how to respond (Score:3)
If it was a publicly traded corporation, I likely would agree with you. As an info pipe wholly subject to one man's whims, regardless of who he is, there is no way we should be funding that as a society. I argued against that long before Elon became MAGA.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Much better to give money to fake ISPs that build nothing, vanish overnight and launder the proceeds into (D) non-profits. Also, make sure all the regional monopolies get their cuts so they can pad out their executive bonuses, because they're talented people who know how to guide the FCC at gaslighting about big build-outs. Whatever you do, don't consider funding anyone with the temerity to actually deliver anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Citations please. Where are you getting your nonsense from?
Re: Not sure how to respond (Score:3)
I know a couple of communities served by fiber that was run out to them by federal and state dollars. Itâ(TM)s expensive but providing equal access to such a critical resource as the Internet seems to me like a reasonable community expense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mods: Parent is not flamebait.
Does it look and is it actually corrupt? Probably.
Does starlink actually offer service to people in the middle of nowhere ... already ... unlike the jackasses that have been taking billions and not laying cable?
Yeah. Yeah they do offer service. This is 100% legitimate monetary award for the intended service.
Gentrification (Score:5, Interesting)
this program, regardless of the administration, has always been about gentrification of rural areas, which will come at the expense of, not to the benefit of, the existing rural populations. This is about not just directing US federal government spend toward favored companies, but also about providing subsidies that make living in a rural place more affordable than it otherwise would be, for the wealthy people to swoop in, buy land, build houses with gates that can be safely isolated from the rabble occupying cities.
Re: (Score:2)
this program, regardless of the administration, has always been about gentrification of rural areas, which will come at the expense of, not to the benefit of, the existing rural populations. This is about not just directing US federal government spend toward favored companies, but also about providing subsidies that make living in a rural place more affordable than it otherwise would be, for the wealthy people to swoop in, buy land, build houses with gates that can be safely isolated from the rabble occupying cities.
Well, yeah. Sometimes improving the lives of your constituents involves improving the quality of the places they live. What aspects of your argument couldn't be said about building roads, or sewers, or good schools, or healthcare infrastructure?
Re: (Score:2)
If you want people to live in rural areas you have to give them reasons to go and stay there. You need businesses so you have jobs. If you want to have remote workers then you need solid internet connections available. You need not just affordable housing but attractive housing to these workers. You need solid education resources if you want to raise a family. A town with no jobs and no culture is a dead town, rural or not.
Cities have all these things, that's kinda why cities have been the literal cent
Re: Gentrification (Score:2)
You kid but urbanization is a key way we can preserve the environment, reduce infrastructure costs, and reduce inequality. Of course, youâ(TM)re probably opposed to all of that.
Optics aren't great (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah your reich definitely isn't normal. In the US, broadband runs about 6 cents per megabit. In your Doucheland reich it's a whopping $1.04 per megabit, basically 17x the price.
https://worldpopulationreview.... [worldpopul...review.com]
<unpleasantness snipped>
I'm not going to deny that those figures are on the page you linked to, but I have to ask: "What do they mean; Where do they come from?"
Does anyone still actually pay for metered data? That's not been a thing (here) for wired broadband connections for years now, well decades actually. So, when it says that those in the US pays $66.53 / month for a broadband connection, and $0.08 / Megabit / month, whereas those of us in the UK pay only $38.79 / month but $0.36 / Megabit / month, and those in Germany pay $36
Re: Optics aren't great (Score:2)
I'm not going to deny that those figures are on the page you linked to, but I have to ask: "What do they mean; Where do they come from?"
Does anyone still actually pay for metered data? That's not been a thing (here) for wired broadband connections for years now, well decades actually. So, when it says that those in the US pays $66.53 / month for a broadband connection, and $0.08 / Megabit / month, whereas those of us in the UK pay only $38.79 / month but $0.36 / Megabit / month, and those in Germany pay $36.14 / month, but $1.04 / Megabit / month what are we to make of these figures?
Well that page lists its sources, so there's that. But no, this isn't about metering. It's dollars per megabit per second.
There's your crowing interpretation, which is that those in the US pay less and get a better deal - yet that's clearly not true, as you're paying nearly twice as much per month...
Or there's an interpretation that suggests that people in the US up or download considerably more data than people in other countries. But, really? People in the US use 8 times as much data as people in the UK, and 24 times as much data as those in Germany? Colour me sceptical!
In a word? No.
Probably the only certain thing I can say, based on these numbers, is that your 'triumphant attitude' is unwarranted, not to mention borderline disingenuous, and your conclusion dubious.
And you're making all kinds of premature judgements. For one thing, go read angle o spheres post history. For another thing, everything you're asking about is mentioned in the sources.
Do Americans pay a higher monthly rate? Yep. But we also get a lot more in return in terms of raw throughput. There are lower priced tiers available, but most of us don't subscribe to them. Th
We Need to Talk About Wireless (Score:5, Insightful)
A friend of mine said it best: if Starlink was the best option for internet service, it would be eating Verizon's and Comcast's lunch. And if it's not good enough to be the preferred method of playing Call of Duty, then why should we be trusting it with our country's most sensitive communications?
Of course, none of this matters since oligarchs are only interested in funneling tax dollars to the companies they own, which is the exact thing they claim they're trying to prevent.
Re: (Score:3)
A friend of mine said it best: if Starlink was the best option for internet service, it would be eating Verizon's and Comcast's lunch. And if it's not good enough to be the preferred method of playing Call of Duty, then why should we be trusting it with our country's most sensitive communications?
My father has it at his place up in the mountains of NC. It's fine for most online tasks that the average person would be using broadband for. The issue is mostly that the price sucks unless Starlink really is your only option (of course, even then the price still sucks, but what choice do you have?). Never thought I'd be saying that the evil ol' cable companies actually have the best deal, but there it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By your "logic" if they charged a million dollars a month it would still be a good deal if it was the only option.
Obviously what you're saying is silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Wired does have advantages, but when the government is pushing for broadband in places where it was never economical to run wired service, then using the existing, economical, satellite solution is... sane. Right? For the price of running fiber to your dad's cabin, he could have Starlink for the rest of his life.
Biden made a bad decision. Trump fixed it.
Re: We Need to Talk About Wireless (Score:3)
> Underground wired service can't be easily blocked, intercepted, jammed, or destroyed by missiles (without causing a war) while satellites are vulnerable to all of those issues.
Not to be that guy, but I have seen plenty of vehicles over the years take out cable and fiber service with incredible ease. I have yet to see a normal person down an orbiting satellite using conventional tools.
Re: (Score:2)
A friend of mine said it best: if Starlink was the best option for internet service, it would be eating Verizon's and Comcast's lunch.
Starlink absolutely eats their lunch in sparsely populated areas, which is where this bill is mostly trying to extend service.
The project manager I work with has a "camp" (small lake cabin) in Maine. He uses Starlink there, and it drops out for multiple seconds when satellites go behind one particular tree. But that's still a lot better than the non-existent terrestrial service there.
Re: (Score:2)
If you live in an area where you can get fixed line internet (or a decent wireless link), sure, Starlink isn't the best option.
But if satellite internet is your only choice, Starlink is far better than previous satellite internet options.
Re: (Score:3)
if Starlink was the best option for internet service, it would be eating Verizon's and Comcast's lunch.
It depends. Right now I can pull 1-2Gbps+ symmetrical from my phone on Verizon on 5GUW. It's faster than the 1Gbps I get from Spectrum and both are faster, less latent and cheaper than Starlink. (with spectrum being the cheapest and not throttled for usage, although not symmetrical.) It doesn't make sense for me to get Starlink here.
5 Miles north of me is Amish Country. It has very spotty Verizon DSL in some places and can barely hit a Verizon tower at 4G speed at absolute best. Chances are you'll never see
Well, that makes the grift rather obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition to demanding an end to the fiber preference, Cruz wants to kill a requirement that ISPs receiving network-construction subsidies provide cheap broadband to people with low incomes.
If ISPs can charge whatever the hell they want for the service, then why are we giving them government money in the first place? If they want to play the free market game, it's time to get off the government teat.
Re: (Score:3)
100% People necessarily make trade-offs when the move to a rural location. You want less traffic, less people, less civilization...that means paying more for some stuff, less for others. Don't have to pay for parking, but if you want super fast internet you will have to pay. Go ahead and subscribe to Starlink, just not on my dime.
If the republicans were honest brokers this whole program would go into the DOGE dumpster.
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
"... we're replacing it with favoritism of different technologies which benefit the guy who spent $300m to elect the current Administration."
Re: (Score:2)
"... we're replacing it with favoritism of different technologies which benefit the guy who spent $300m to elect the current Administration."
Pretty much. I was wondering how Musk was gonna be okay with the EV tax credit going *poof*. Seems like he's planning to make it up with his fingers in plenty of other pies.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, he'd be happy if the EV credit went *poof* because it already did for him once and they kept selling just fine. It would be a way for him to pull the ladder up behind him to prevent competition.
Re: (Score:3)
Starlink isn’t the only satellite internet option, but they are the cheapest. I dont really like Musk, but credit is due for building yet ano
Re: (Score:2)
How about shovel that money to someone to run the cables / fiber. Not own it. and let there be a co op where many companies can offer the connection service??
Re: (Score:2)
Let's stop repairing their electrical lines too then, that shit costs money.
You can't host anything on Starlink btw, their built-in router does not allow you to forward a port.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of those few cases where the current admin has a valid point. The previous admin shoveled $$$ at the traditional isp’s for rural broadband rollout, and they largely took the money and ran. The task was practically impossible anyways. The US is really frikkin big. Covering it with fiber optic cable is foolish. Satelite is a way smarter option.
"Access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American Dream" - Trump's Treasury Secretary, today
A nationwide fiber network would have strategic value because satellite communications will be an early target in a fight with a near-peer.
But whatever, balk at the cost of that then make an offer to buy Greenland. SMRT!
Starlink isn’t the only satellite internet option, but they are the cheapest. I dont really like Musk, but credit is due for building yet another business that others could have easily done first but apparently everyone else lacked the initiative or the vision. Dislike the man, respect his very real success.
Hughesnet is the cheapest, probably because their satellites are so old, predating Starlink by a million in computer years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"Announced in March 1994 as a satell
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, in Europe... (Score:5, Interesting)
Take a look at Eutelsat stock. They are much smaller company, yes, but look at that stock price. Look at the 1-month graph, not the daily changes (today is down)
https://finance.yahoo.com/quot... [yahoo.com]
That's over 550% gain in one WEEK from 1,20 to 6,91. In a Week.
Market at least is seeing that trustworthiness of US tech is going down.
Same with Rheinmetall https://finance.yahoo.com/quot... [yahoo.com] - YTD up 100% or so.
US has recently shown that they simply cannot be trusted. Frankly, this should have happened years ago, but I guess everyone expected not to be living in the ridiculous timeline.
Dollar is weakening as well (Score:2)
And the USD is weakening.
Use incognito mode:
https://www.marketwatch.com/st... [marketwatch.com]
Here's the DYX chart, that's rather steep since the election (back to 10-24 levels, so not very far, yet).
https://www.investing.com/indi... [investing.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I can see that not too far in the future Trump will pull US out of NATO. I don't have any evidence that Trump is a Russian asset, but he certainly is acting like one with about a dozen or so Russia friendly actions while getting absolutely nothing in return.
Once US is out of NATO, or even before it, Europeans will stop buying American military gear. US can no longer be trusted with just about anything.
Canadians and Mexicans will stop buying way sooner, if they have not done it already.
So much winning by t
Fiber-only was never realistic (Score:3, Insightful)
Fiber was never a great focus as if you can get fiber, you probably already have options at all!
I can't even get fiber where I live (yet), and I live in the middle of a dense city suburb. I only have Comcast as an option, yet even hear we don't really need help.
The places that need help is where everything sucks. My mom lives in a very rural area, and I tried different options for many years - cellular internet, point-to-point to a local tower provider, DSL... it was all TERRIBLE. None of them could support streaming higher than 480p!! And often not even that. It was OK for email and texts.
It was not Starlink came out and covered her location, that I was finally able to get her what I would consider *real* internet. It is the ONLY viable solution if you really want to reach all these almost off grid rural areas. Claiming you are going to run thousands of miles of fiber optic out to all these places is insane.
I know it' fashionable to hate Musk right now but seriously, what else besides StarLink can you even suggest for real right now?
Maybe rural cell coverage can be just good enough for some parts and they could go there when it works but having travelled around the U.S. a lot that is not viable over huge areas. And in case you had not noticed cell companies suck which I very much did notice when I tried an all-cell based solution, even outside of poor technical performance.
Re: (Score:2)
I am no expert, but in the FAQ they seem to have this covered
"Eligible Entities will establish an Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold above which an Eligible Entity may decline to select a proposal if use of an alternative technology meeting the BEAD Program’s technical requirements would be less expensive."
Not trying to ding on anyone's choice to live in a rural location, but why should folks in the suburbs subsidize internet for people in the countryside? These are choices people make to liv
Re: (Score:2)
Not trying to ding on anyone's choice to live in a rural location, but why should folks in the suburbs subsidize internet for people in the countryside?
Because we recognise that by investing in infrastructure we enrich the nation? Why should *my* dollars, pay for building a road to *your* house? I don't even like you and don't want to visit you! - This self centred bullshit ignores the whole purpose of building infrastructure.
Tell me, when no one lives in a rural area, what are you going to eat? Does your bitcoin (or whatever you "produce" in the city) taste better with ketchup or bbq sauce?
Re: Fiber-only was never realistic (Score:2)
"why should folks in the suburbs subsidize internet for people in the countryside?"
Either you want to live in a first world country with competent infrastructure or you don't. I see though that you are part of the own nothing and like it crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember the other part of this. For the last month DOGE shutting down every program and department they can find, crowing over every single dime.
And then there's a $42 billion grant... and instead of getting shut down it's modified to send billions of dollars to one of Elon Musk's company.
Does anyone seriously think this grant would have survived DOGE if Elon Musk didn't suddenly become the beneficiary?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing has been cut that affects people who actually need help.
Except (among others): ...
Food Aid
Vaccination programs
Health care programs
The VA
Intelligence and supplies to Ukraine (albeit that's not down to DOGE)
No surprise you're posting Anon - I'd be ashamed of announcing my ignorance so publicly too.
Yes, BEAD program was screwy and inefficient (Score:2)
But, do you think the current administration will do anything better?
Or will they just do something just as screwy and inefficient, but with different corporate winners and losers?
The big telcos have outplayed the federal government every time a "broadband for all" program has been passed.
The worst in recent memory was the time the big telcos were given hundreds of millions to roll out broadband for all - they lobbied to get the definition of "broadband" at the time changed so ADSL would meet it, spent just
Re: (Score:2)
At worst, this is the correction of a stupid mistake the previous administration made.
Good (Score:2)
Excellent (Score:2)
How many connections happened under President Biden? Very few.
Incumbet telcos will take how long and cost how much? Starlink will work now, everywhere.
Should we care who does it if it's done right away and the price is right?
Rooting for injuries (Score:2)
I would enjoy watching Verizon and ATT whine more if my country weren't being burnt down, but eh, you can't have everything, I guess.
Right Decision Politics Aside (Score:2)
Not all techs are equal (Score:2)
Correct decision (Score:2)
It's factual that Starlink is able to do this better than anyone else (Kuiper is a possibility too, but in the future). Starlink shouldn't be denied from the contract just because it's headed by the evil Elon Musk (who stole the concept from WorldVu when they came to SpaceX for launch services). We gave billions to Verizon and AT&T to do this, and all they built was yachts for their executive staff .. I assume the yachts have cell phone service though, probably from Starlink. Yachts sailing around in th
What Biden spending on fibre :o (Score:2)
“President Biden’s slow rollout of a $42.5 billion rural internet program has increased criticism of the administration’s decision to yank federal funding from Elon Musk’s Starlink broadband service, which proponents say could provide faster, cheaper internet access to areas with little or no connectivity.”
“The Broadband Equity Access and Depl
"Woke mandates" (Score:2)
I see the word "woke" continues its march to mean "anything we don't like". Although I guess fiber does use TRANSceivers.
Whats the problem? (Score:2)
The rules are being re written so they do not prefer fiber over other technologies, ie tech neutrality. They do not mandate Starlink, tho starlink could participate. This means that less capital investment in rural broadband will be required. One could, for example, deploy cellular 5G/4G. Towers are cheaper to install than digging trenches for fiber lines that will support few households.
Lemme get this straight... (Score:2)
Gummint is rewriting the rules to not give preference to the technology that hasn't been employed by the grifters who said they *would*, and instead giving more preference to the technology that is already deployed, can serve, and has *offered* to do the job.
Yeah, that's evil. Light up some fiber eh?
ps - my neighborhood has conduit buried all through it, but the fiber provider has bailed - no money left. And they will not sell off the rights, so I will be without competitive access for the duration. Or mayb
No, that is a BS framing of the matter. (Score:2)
Starlink should have always been included in the broadband push, and now it is. That's not a corrupt funneling of money to a political ally, it's frikkin common sense. If there was corruption anywhere it was in the decision to ignore Starlink in favor of rolling fiber where it w
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You think there's going to be a next presidential election? I like your optimism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even in the billions is the least of my worries. There is solid evidence that 7 million Americans were prevented from voting last year
So when you get that "Offtopic" mod, you've at least owned it this time.
You also had 7-hour wait times to vote
Uh, nope, my partner and I did the whole early voting thing and it was a literal walk-in.
in swing states
Oh. Yeah, Florida's not really that anymore.
Maybe you agree with the administration right now but if you do you better hope that doesn't change.
Word on the street is people are really not happy about the continuing egg shortage and retailers jacking up prices as a reactionary move towards the tariffs. This is the most often I've ever had people just randomly approach me while I'm out shopping just to express their dissatisfaction with things (ge
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like you've been slipping up a lot lately. In this case, Missouri is 11.4% black https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] which is quite a few miles away from 40%. Did you maybe mean Mississippi? That's at least close to 40%.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes if the government granted approved IDs to everyone without a discriminating fee, and provided free access to the kinds of proof of citizenship that such an id requires, and make it a lot less difficult to do in general. But you see the types of people that can't vote because of this sort of thing are really not the kinds of people we want voting anyway.
And there's the separate problem of jerrymandering. See North Carolina, Missouri, and other places for the formula the GOP has been following with grea
Re: (Score:2)
The signature is on a mail-in ballot, which does not require an ID.
Though the GP is a bit off. Maybe 7 million were disenfranchised, but it was not because of 7 million signature challenges.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh look, and election denier.
Re: (Score:2)
Did we find the stalker?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd love to see where all the money went.
You're on a site where you can do that. Go lookup the Slashdot articles about it and read their comments. Basically the government was working to define a good standard that would work across EV companies, coming up with standards on the best locations to be installed (near highways, near bathrooms, near food shops, etc...), figuring out how to run power lines, finding contractors and supply lines, gaining access to the land, building a few test sites, etc... Now when they've finally got that all figured
Re: (Score:2)
It went to state departments of transportation as block grants, and they are still in process of siting, permitting, and constructing.
That tired talking point has been bullshit since it first spawned months ago, from people that don't understand how department of transportation funding works.
Re: (Score:3)
Musk's companies definitely get shit done, but the end result ends up not being all that affordable. I pay less than half of what Starlink costs for broadband through Spectrum at my home.
As for EV charging, I'll certainly admit the Supercharger network is convenient, but it costs more per mile than just buying gas for an economy ICE car (at least here in Florida, where gas is presently $3.13/gal). If I didn't have charging at home, owning an EV would've been a huge waste of money.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you so against some people's propaganda then open your ass wide up to get rammed to the hilt with someone else's propaganda?
The bullshit around high speed build out is from corporate corruption, corrupt local government members, and corrupt congress critters. That's not unique to Biden. That's not unique to Trump. What is unique to Trump is that he's suppressing the agencies that were trying to halt the corporate corruption.
In terms of the charging stations, look at previous Slashdot articles. B
Re: Fiber Is Great (Score:2)
It really did not. While the provision was there, in practice no wireless provider was going to be awarded any money.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes sense. If you need to cut down trees and maintain that clearing to create line of sight for wireless links then you might as well lay fiber as weather won't impact it. You've got to run wires for power for any wireless stations so you might as well string up fiber along with the electrical.
Satellite doesn't need infrastructure grants since there's no extra infrastructure involved in installing a satellite on your roof. If you can see the sky, chances are you can see a satellite that can also ser
Re: Fiber Is Great (Score:2)
> I'm not hearing any reason why fiber shouldn't be the 1st option to look at.
All for fiber if it is the cheapest option available. But it does not need to be the only option - and in all honesty, 5G and LTE is good enough for the vast majority of needs, and likely will be for some time. LEO satellite can meet the needs for areas without cell service.