US broadband grant rules shut out small ISPs and municipalities, advocates say
US broadband grant rules shut out small ISPs and municipalities, advocates say
Upfront grant costs are "too steep for all but the best-funded ISPs," groups claim.
The biggest Internet service providers will dominate a $42.45 billion broadband grant program unless the Biden administration changes a rule requiring grant recipients to obtain a letter of credit from a bank, according to a joint statement from consumer advocacy groups, local government officials, and advocates for small ISPs.
The letter sent today to US government officials argues that "by establishing capital barriers too steep for all but the best-funded ISPs, the LOC [letter-of-credit requirement] shuts out the vast majority of entities the program claims to prioritize: small and community-centered ISPs, minority and women-owned ISPs, nonprofits, and municipalities."
The rule is part of the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program that's being administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
You're viewing a single thread.
This isn't a broadband grant. It's free money for corporations that currently hold an oligopoly on the ISP industry.
Over the years there have been several instances where ISPs like Comcast, received substantial government funding to expand and improve their networks. However, the ISPs largely failed to follow through on the network improvements and instead just pocketed the money.
Isn't this like the third round of fiber money? If I remember correctly, the only company that didn't just pocket basically all of the money was Verizon which rolled out some fiber, no where near the commitment though.
I'm pretty sure this is the third.
They constantly pocket it, in addition to their profits, and refuse to expand their networks because it's expensive to dig holes and lay down wire.
Not sure how we did it before. Not sure how we built roads, or telecommunications, or railroads. Maybe our ancestors were magical or something.
When unions had more power, things actually got done. Unions used to be much more involved in the planning of activities and work direction. That has been eroded, most of our laws and protections have.
Laws and protections that basically hark back to the days after unionization, which wars were fought for.
People take for granted all of the laws and protections that are even still in place, let alone those removed because "there no longer needed and get in the way of growth", or whatever excuse, forgetting we had to basically fight a civil war just to get weekends and a standard 8 hour work day. We were even getting close to unions talking about owning the means of production (socialism) but that obviously never came to fruition as the government/Capitalists quickly realized placating the unions with their wish list would be far better for them in the long run then them getting any funny ideas about actual wealth ownership for the common man or good.
With all the money the government has handed them over the years we could of have government run highspeed internet in most metro areas. Instead we get some of the worst speeds for the highest prices in the western world. Corporate welfare/socialism is just the best. Brutal fuck you capitalism for consumers though. Always.
This is how you wash federal money and turn it into campaign donations. There is no way our politicians will turn off that spigot.
But I thought Biden was against these big corporations!?!?
/s
The plutocracy impacts every candidate, not just the ones you don't like.
I don't think they like that.
That would be Bernie.
Which is why he lost the nominations, twice.