Government subsidy makes high-speed Internet free for millions of US households

Neatfeatguy

Posts: 831   +1,445
You can't even begin to compare the previous admin to this Dumpster fire we have now.
Come on, now. You don't enjoy the high gas prices we have?

As for my ISP, I'm waiting to see a price hike for the mediocre speeds and data cap.... Xfinity will spin some PR bullcrap when they do it.
 

Duke9192

Posts: 57   +77
So who eventually paid for Trump's wall? Mexico? And how much did that cost? I lost track...
It wasn't trumps wall, it was America's wall. It was also America's wall when Obama was building it, and Bush, Clinton..... Border wall construction isn't new. In contrast to high speed internet, the defense of our nation is a duty that the federal government must uphold.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,722   +7,665
Actually the ISPs didn't have to abuse any laws, the government set everything up from the get-go to limit the number of providers.
The fed is both simultaneously right and wrong for doing this.

The big telecoms have the manpower to expand service.(**) The fly-by-night startups that have have grabbed their coattails by way of legislation which allowed them to use the networks of "big red" and others, have largely come and gone.

Myself, I pay $45.00 to Verizon @100 meg. Every two years I have to call and "beg" for "my discount" to continue, but the operators, by in large, seem to be sympathetic to my circumstance.

I was "grandfathered" in to FIOS when the existing copper wire became unusable. I was on the phone, (when it worked), frequently, to complain about it So, I evaded the equipment and installation charges. (y) (Y)

As for being "eligible" for "free internet", I am not. It seems you need a few fat, ugly, stupid, unwashed, and illegitimate children to qualify. F*** that, I'll pay

(**) Whether they do or not, is a different conversation altogether
 
Last edited:

Arbie

Posts: 367   +668
It wasn't trumps wall, it was America's wall.
Oh, like the Trumpie Arizona fraudit was "America's Audit". I know about that.

Here's an excerpt from Forbes magazine on this $15 Billion folly:
Trump’s plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border ... came about as a “mnemonic device” thought up by a pair of political consultants to remind Donald Trump to talk about illegal immigration.
Read the whole thing, which like most of Trump's administration could be a screenplay for the tv series "Veep": Forbes - Where Trump's Wall Came From
 
Last edited:

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,576   +2,799
TechSpot Elite
Come on, now. You don't enjoy the high gas prices we have?
Are we the only country in the world that has seen inflation lately? Im curious.

BslX.gif
 
Last edited:

AlaskaGuy

Posts: 348   +272
If this administration is a dumpster fire, then trumps was the Springfield tire fire.
While Trump was President the US saw a 50 year low in unemployment, and an all time unemployment low for blacks & hispanics. The small business confidence index level was at its highest in twenty years as was the consumer confidence index level. Trump reworked NAFTA in our favor so we stopped getting hosed on trade, he had the US energy independent for the first time since the early 1960's (looked at gas prices lately), he pushed our NATO partners to start paying their promised 2% of GDP towards their defense spending, he put sanctions on Nord Stream 2 ... the same Russian pipeline that Biden lifted the sanctions on during his first month in office. Trump was the first President to walk the talk and move our embassy to Jerusalem. Multiple peace treaties were signed under Trump's watch including Israel with multiple Arab nations and Serbia - Kosovo.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,722   +7,665
While Trump was President the US saw a 50 year low in unemployment, and an all time unemployment low for blacks & hispanics. The small business confidence index level was at its highest in twenty years as was the consumer confidence index level. Trump reworked NAFTA in our favor so we stopped getting hosed on trade, he had the US energy independent for the first time since the early 1960's (looked at gas prices lately), he pushed our NATO partners to start paying their promised 2% of GDP towards their defense spending, he put sanctions on Nord Stream 2 ... the same Russian pipeline that Biden lifted the sanctions on during his first month in office. Trump was the first President to walk the talk and move our embassy to Jerusalem. Multiple peace treaties were signed under Trump's watch including Israel with multiple Arab nations and Serbia - Kosovo.
WTF does this have to do with free internet? Chill dude, Musk's "free speech" iteration of the "new Twitter" will be here soon enough, and you can save all your pent up frustration for that.

Will we miss you when you leave? Not bloody likely.

And you really should let that whole, "rigged election" sh!t die. I'm speaking to you as a "friend". Your state of mind will thank you for it. 💋

BTW, tRump brokered a peace deal with the Taliban too, and look how well that worked out. The women are back in their burqas, and all's right with the world. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

waclark

Posts: 347   +236
The fed is both simultaneously right and wrong for doing this.

The big telecoms have the manpower to expand service.(**) The fly-by-night startups that have have grabbed their coattails by way of legislation which allowed them to use the networks of "big red" and others, have largely come and gone.

snip

(**) Whether they do or not, is a different conversation altogether
It may have made sense in the beginning, in order to get things off the ground. But today, there's no reason ISPs can't share infrastructure to give customers a choice. If anything, the government should have owned the "wires/fiber" and allowed service providers to attach and sell their wares, much like we do with phone service (or did when people actually had land line phones).

I do know that since the county has been putting fiber in our community the cable company has been a lot easier to deal with. I think we pay $75 for 500 mbps in WA and around $100 for Gig in AZ. I jettisoned TV/phone years ago and only have Internet. That really helped reduce my monthly. I use YouTubeTV which is great because I can use it in either home, one price.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,493   +1,433
Why would this article fail to mention that the federal government is paying $14,000,000,000 for this program? Or, more accurately, US citizens who pay federal taxes are footing the internet bills for those who don't.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,576   +2,799
TechSpot Elite
Why would this article fail to mention that the federal government is paying $14,000,000,000 for this program? Or, more accurately, US citizens who pay federal taxes are footing the internet bills for those who don't.
When I read this, it reminded me of the Electrification act in the 30s. Electricity was no longer considered a luxury, just like with broadband now.

Anyway, the money is coming from last year's infrastructure act, so it could be spent in worse ways, and has been by some states.

Myself, I think they should just have helped those families pay for satellite internet. And its backbone is already in place.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,694   +6,629
Actually the ISPs didn't have to abuse any laws, the government set everything up from the get-go to limit the number of providers. And even today, the government prevents new investors from coming in and using existing poles and attachments. The cable companies took advantage of it, to be sure, but they didn't rig the game to begin with. Your local governing body did that and is still doing it today.
I guess you missed my other posts. No, my local government, and even my state government is not doing it today. I'm on FTTH after having endured years on Spectrum. The ISP providing the FTTH is building infrastructure in my area and expanding, much to Spectrum's chagrin, I'm sure, because it is disrupting Spectrum's stranglehold in our area.
 

waclark

Posts: 347   +236
I guess you missed my other posts. No, my local government, and even my state government is not doing it today. I'm on FTTH after having endured years on Spectrum. The ISP providing the FTTH is building infrastructure in my area and expanding, much to Spectrum's chagrin, I'm sure, because it is disrupting Spectrum's stranglehold in our area.
Don't know where you live but I'll bet that while one company is building out infrastructure in your area, I doubt that any company could come along and be allowed to do that. It has to do with access to right-of-way and other local regulations that prevent anyone to just drop in infrastructure. Look at Google, they have plenty of money but are not universally available across the US.

It is changing, but my point was that it wasn't the cable companies that rigged the game, it was the government, and they still control the expansion.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,694   +6,629
Don't know where you live but I'll bet that while one company is building out infrastructure in your area, I doubt that any company could come along and be allowed to do that. It has to do with access to right-of-way and other local regulations that prevent anyone to just drop in infrastructure. Look at Google, they have plenty of money but are not universally available across the US.

It is changing, but my point was that it wasn't the cable companies that rigged the game, it was the government, and they still control the expansion.
 

waclark

Posts: 347   +236
that article makes my point. This is a new program, just started this year, and attempts to address the regulation that has been in place for years. We can come back in a year and see what progress has been made. I hope it's successful because until we have true competition and less government regulation we won't have affordable internet.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,493   +1,433
When I read this, it reminded me of the Electrification act in the 30s.
It might vaguely remind you of such, but the two are entirely different. That act helped bootstrap the initial installation of electric lines, for which households would then pay normal electric rates. This act, however, is a straight-up handout to pay certain family's bills. And -- by its very rationale -- it's designed to be a permanent handout. It increases government dependency, rather than reduces it.

Anyway, the money is coming from last year's infrastructure act, so it could be spent in worse ways
Saying "well, it's not the absolute worst possible way they could have spent $14,000,000,000 is hardly a glowing endorsement, is it?
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,576   +2,799
TechSpot Elite
It might vaguely remind you of such, but the two are entirely different. That act helped bootstrap the initial installation of electric lines, for which households would then pay normal electric rates. This act, however, is a straight-up handout to pay certain family's bills. And -- by its very rationale -- it's designed to be a permanent handout. It increases government dependency, rather than reduces it.


Saying "well, it's not the absolute worst possible way they could have spent $14,000,000,000 is hardly a glowing endorsement, is it?
See man THIS is what I missed when you left.
You always had something to say about things people didn't say. AlaskaGuy does the same thing. 😜

You gents don't come in to provide information as much as inject some contrarian views.

So I will slow down. It reminded me ONLY in the way that the Government is stepping in to supply services to poor and rural areas. So far I see this plan is every bit as flawed as the Electrification Act was in so many ways, so as citizens as long as we get what was promised then that is a small win.
 

Bp968

Posts: 252   +180
This act, however, is a straight-up handout to pay certain family's bills. And -- by its very rationale -- it's designed to be a permanent handout. It increases government dependency, rather than reduces it.

As someone who has collected some of these services in the past this take is actually hugely relevant. By using some/most of the same "means" justifications as are used for SNAP/medicaid, etc, you create even more dependence, not less. And it becomes even more expensive to earn money or even save money (because these same services will go "poof" if you have too many "assets"). So what happens is these same people are incentivised to either earn no money at all (because earning too much would cost you far more in benefits then you could possibly replace in earnings) or to earn money in under table (and generally illegal ways) even if "illegal" is as benign as simply untaxed income sources.

And to make it even worse, because these same benefits will check your assets if you store them in traditionally "safe" ways (like a bank) you can't save up any sort of nest egg because to do so would make you ineligible for all of that government assistance.

I have excellent extended family who helped me out of the hole, but the way they work right now almost none of those services are designed in a way to help or incentivise people to grow and leave the services.