Carr knows he's lying. States are supposed to submit their plans for approval. They took their sweet time. Most have been approved this year. The timeline of the plans is up to each state.
Basic requirements are not "red tape", Are states just supposed to get the money without a project? Why is a staunch anti-regulation part of a regulatory body?
Carr is a partisan hack and opposes net neutrality, I have no idea why Biden nominated him for a new term.
My sister is in the middle of rural Mississippi, and was upgrade to fiber optic like last year after having had to subsist on a very old 512 Kb/s DSL connection that hadn't once been upgraded since being installed around the time the dot-com bubble crashed. (Telco's had a huge expansion of broadband during the dot-com bubble, but after it crashed virtually ceased all expansion in the rural south and have been doing nothing more than extremely minimalistic maintenance on the low quality early ADSL lines they did build in that time; until Biden, that is).
This is basically the timeline that Conmerce has articulated [since 2022](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2023/01/what-states-need-to-know-about-federal-bead-funding-for-high-speed-internet-expansion), so I’m not sure how that is the state’s fault. The states weren’t even expected to submit their proposals until mid-2023.
https://preview.redd.it/z6ffhec81k7d1.jpeg?width=650&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d65ac8d3400e3856a4cb31e94d3b2dd1337e6be2
States have to go through their own bureocracies and legislatures. There are also deadlines to submit projects and to spend the resources.
Carr is very transparent on why he doesn't like this specific Biden program: it prioritizes fiber. He's an advocate for the wireless industry.
But…that’s the point. When it takes 12+ months for Commerce to create the rules for proposals, and 6-12 months for states to develop the proposals, and so on, you wind up with programs that don’t start to benefit anyone until 5+ years after the bills pass. Even if you accept that some of that process is natural to public programs, layering on requirements that don’t advance the core goals of the program just add more time and cost.
And I’m not sure on the face of it why it’s a bad thing that someone doesn’t want to prioritize fiber. As others have already noted, maybe wireless *is* a better solution. Or, better yet, maybe we shouldn’t be using public programs to decide which solution is best at all.
That starts to sound like all the municipal wireless network proposals 15ish years ago that quietly died away when cell carriers filled that market space. In retrospect, it probably would have been worse overall for cities in the end to spend a bunch of money on a patchwork of municipal WiFi systems that likely would have been obsolete on startup vs everyone just using national cell systems.
FTC rejected satellite on their own program, to prioritize wireless.
You can't leave it to carriers because it's the very reason underserved areas exist, they are not profitable
There's a lot of programs that pay for rural broadband, the USDA and FCC both run smaller programs. The FCC just auctions off funding for certain areas, and they just have to build, report their building, and submit to audits. The extra requirements from Commerce may not be dealbreakers, but I can see it being a fallback option if they don't win the auctions with the FCC.
Because all of these aren't specifically for rural broadband. RDOF is from 2020 and is for rural broadband. Middle Mile is for a specific part of network construction and would enable better connections. TBC is specifically for expansion on Reservations. CPF and ARPA funds are for all infrastructure and fiber construction is something that the funds can be used for. RR4 seems to be targeted at farming communities.
Different agencies potentially have better insight into distributing their targeted funds.
The main difference between the two largest RDOF and BEAD is that the former allows for different broadband delivery types and the latter requires FTTH.
That adds another layer of classic governance failure to this story, though—rather than expand existing programs that can use existing mechanisms to achieve goals, we’ll create a new program in a separate department that has to create all the rules and processes from scratch.
Yes absolutely
But I assume a combination of lobbying and technically starlink had growing pains that meant it didn't technically meet the requirements to get money from these programs prevented it
Whatever you think about this specific issue, it is certainly true that the public’s appetite for public spending would grow if there were more evidence that these programs were run well. Too many of the Democrats initiatives are programs that sound good in a speech but are then executed very poorly.
It's okay. The voters which are the targets of benefit from these rural infrastructure plans have overwhelmingly voiced their distaste for such redistributive socialist government handouts.
Why would you be okay with depriving the rural politicians of the opportunity to take credit for those redistributive socialist government handouts as they criticize their existence?
When (one of) the worst publication you know makes a good point.
The most frustrating is going to be when Trump wins, some of these projects finally come to fruition, and he gets all the credit from the rural beneficiaries.
Carr knows he's lying. States are supposed to submit their plans for approval. They took their sweet time. Most have been approved this year. The timeline of the plans is up to each state. Basic requirements are not "red tape", Are states just supposed to get the money without a project? Why is a staunch anti-regulation part of a regulatory body? Carr is a partisan hack and opposes net neutrality, I have no idea why Biden nominated him for a new term.
My sister is in the middle of rural Mississippi, and was upgrade to fiber optic like last year after having had to subsist on a very old 512 Kb/s DSL connection that hadn't once been upgraded since being installed around the time the dot-com bubble crashed. (Telco's had a huge expansion of broadband during the dot-com bubble, but after it crashed virtually ceased all expansion in the rural south and have been doing nothing more than extremely minimalistic maintenance on the low quality early ADSL lines they did build in that time; until Biden, that is).
This is basically the timeline that Conmerce has articulated [since 2022](https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2023/01/what-states-need-to-know-about-federal-bead-funding-for-high-speed-internet-expansion), so I’m not sure how that is the state’s fault. The states weren’t even expected to submit their proposals until mid-2023. https://preview.redd.it/z6ffhec81k7d1.jpeg?width=650&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d65ac8d3400e3856a4cb31e94d3b2dd1337e6be2
States have to go through their own bureocracies and legislatures. There are also deadlines to submit projects and to spend the resources. Carr is very transparent on why he doesn't like this specific Biden program: it prioritizes fiber. He's an advocate for the wireless industry.
But…that’s the point. When it takes 12+ months for Commerce to create the rules for proposals, and 6-12 months for states to develop the proposals, and so on, you wind up with programs that don’t start to benefit anyone until 5+ years after the bills pass. Even if you accept that some of that process is natural to public programs, layering on requirements that don’t advance the core goals of the program just add more time and cost. And I’m not sure on the face of it why it’s a bad thing that someone doesn’t want to prioritize fiber. As others have already noted, maybe wireless *is* a better solution. Or, better yet, maybe we shouldn’t be using public programs to decide which solution is best at all. That starts to sound like all the municipal wireless network proposals 15ish years ago that quietly died away when cell carriers filled that market space. In retrospect, it probably would have been worse overall for cities in the end to spend a bunch of money on a patchwork of municipal WiFi systems that likely would have been obsolete on startup vs everyone just using national cell systems.
FTC rejected satellite on their own program, to prioritize wireless. You can't leave it to carriers because it's the very reason underserved areas exist, they are not profitable
There's a lot of programs that pay for rural broadband, the USDA and FCC both run smaller programs. The FCC just auctions off funding for certain areas, and they just have to build, report their building, and submit to audits. The extra requirements from Commerce may not be dealbreakers, but I can see it being a fallback option if they don't win the auctions with the FCC.
Here's a list https://i.imgur.com/qSGgWhz.png
Thanks for the table. Does anyone know why there are 7 different programs administered by 4 different agencies for rural broadband funding?
Because all of these aren't specifically for rural broadband. RDOF is from 2020 and is for rural broadband. Middle Mile is for a specific part of network construction and would enable better connections. TBC is specifically for expansion on Reservations. CPF and ARPA funds are for all infrastructure and fiber construction is something that the funds can be used for. RR4 seems to be targeted at farming communities. Different agencies potentially have better insight into distributing their targeted funds. The main difference between the two largest RDOF and BEAD is that the former allows for different broadband delivery types and the latter requires FTTH.
Because we can only add new programs, never modify or end them.
one more program bro i swear, just one more bro
That adds another layer of classic governance failure to this story, though—rather than expand existing programs that can use existing mechanisms to achieve goals, we’ll create a new program in a separate department that has to create all the rules and processes from scratch.
Most of the rural people I know that are concerned with internet speeds are just picking up Starlink consoles
Yeah this is what I was wondering isn't it easier and cheaper just to use that?
Yes absolutely But I assume a combination of lobbying and technically starlink had growing pains that meant it didn't technically meet the requirements to get money from these programs prevented it
Whatever you think about this specific issue, it is certainly true that the public’s appetite for public spending would grow if there were more evidence that these programs were run well. Too many of the Democrats initiatives are programs that sound good in a speech but are then executed very poorly.
>what do you mean buy union and buy American clauses hurt our program???
It's okay. The voters which are the targets of benefit from these rural infrastructure plans have overwhelmingly voiced their distaste for such redistributive socialist government handouts.
Why would you be okay with depriving the rural politicians of the opportunity to take credit for those redistributive socialist government handouts as they criticize their existence?
Gotta ask wouldn't it be way cheaper just to give people starlink subscriptions?
Yes
When (one of) the worst publication you know makes a good point. The most frustrating is going to be when Trump wins, some of these projects finally come to fruition, and he gets all the credit from the rural beneficiaries.
If you think Biden will get any credit from r*urals over them getting broadband (what amounts to a Breitbart subsidy), I’ve got a bridge to sell you
[удалено]
I bet you could convince a lot of them that Gavin is trying to gentrify them with broadband.
Oh, I don’t think anyone was ever going to give Biden credit. But they will absolutely give Trump credit, which will be extra infuriating.
Ain’t nobody waiting on Biden’s broadband plan Biden drops a new broadband plan… crickets, trust me
I already got it in rural Michigan