I get it. But as a bridge policy one could spend 8 billion today, and have the underserved population get access to internet much more quickly. Then spend the other 34 billion a bit more judiciously overtime and invest in well-planned hard-wired infrastructure. If covid relief funds are any guide, 42 billion may not be spent wisely, at least not all of it
What happens when Elon Musk says, "if you pass a billionaire tax I'll turn off internet to Alabama?" This is literally what he did in eastern Ukraine. The us government would rather spend more money than be in someone else's debt. That's not the way uncle Sam works.
I haven't read into the policy, but if I'm building a high-speed internet infrastructure, the last thing I would rely on is point-to-point satellite technology. It is inherently less reliable, slower, and more expensive. The architecture choice is pretty easy: landline or local wireless to connect an area to existing infrastructure (the broadband lines already routed). You are welcome to provide an article that lays out satellite technology as a good choice here. Note also that these infrastructure projects are always open to bids. I'm sure Musk can submit his bids if he thinks it makes sense.
Total aside, but I'd like to see the exact opposite. Sure, being out in the country is nice, but our human presence is a disruption to the natural ecosystems there. I'd like to see more concentration of people into cities with more land reserved and reverted to its natural state as farminng becomes more efficient. We could go visit nature, hike, hunt, fish, whatever, but leave most of our environmental damage to the city where it can be managed. That said, I wouldn't try to force urbanization with broadband dollars.
Yeah muni wifi connected by fiberoptic landline probably the most cost effective though ymmv during peak load. I'm not sure if femtocells used by telecoms to boost reception (wifi instead of 4/5G radio) can work here but it’d be a start. Ofc, initial capital cost to get the cable to those undeveloped areas is a showstopper. Internet related services/programming without a subscription model is generally unsustainable or inherently unprofitable
I'm just saying that Starlink has been an option for several years and has been the choice of rural homeowners in that time. A friend of mine runs a snowmobile shop up near Watertown NY near the Canadian border. He is in the absolute boonies, I'm not even sure Biden's money is going to reach him in the next five years. Cuomo's money didn't. He's had Starlink now for 2-3 years and is really happy with it--a game changer. Where I live, it's very rural also but five years ago Cuomo's broadband money made it to our neck of the woods and we got optic cable on our road. That finally allowed me the capability to troll Federalist articles on the internet nearly 24/7. don't get me wrong, I'm happy with fiber optic, but Starlink is a market-based consumer-driven (for the most part) technology that is available immediately.
Majority of the 32k infrastructure projects are going to firms offering prevailing wages aka union jobs mandated by the labor department. That's why the unions are really happy right now cuz business is booming. Elon hates unions so he can't land any of the projects
The problem with sprawl, air and water pollution is that too many people are spreading out. just look at Houston and how long it takes to get past strip malls. With good design we can still live in more density with a high quality of life while leaving more land to nature.
White House touts economic success of 'Bidenomics' White House on Monday released a memo touting economic progress under President Joe Biden, labeling his policies “Bidenomics” and contrasting their success with the “trickle down” economics policies of Republican presidents. It notes that the U.S. economy has recovered from the setback of the COVID-19 pandemic faster than expected and attributes this to Biden’s actions. The memo notes that the economy has added 13 million jobs since Biden took office, the most jobs added under any president in a single term. Biden announces how $40 billion for high-speed internet will be used President Joe Biden on Monday announced how $42.5 billion from the bipartisan infrastructure law he championed will be distributed to expand high-speed internet access across the country. The funding will go to all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and U.S. territories, and is aimed at bolstering internet access particularly for the 7% of people who live in underserved areas, according to the White House, which said all residents and small business could be connected to "reliable, affordable high-speed internet by 2030." In remarks from the White House, Biden called it an "equally historic investment" as the effort under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to bring electricity to rural America. "For today's economy to work for everyone, internet access is just as important as electricity or water or other basic services," he said. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris plan to kick off a three-week pitch aimed at touting their administration's investments across the country -- including the 2021 infrastructure law and a host of other legislation they argue is starting to make concrete improvements in Americans' lives.
It's a very different calculation for consumers making choices based on what's available today vs a state investing in infrastructure for 8M people (and likely beyond, as enabling a basic necessity in today's environment attracts more people to those areas). Your point is valid - when choosing between cable, optic, or satellite, the decision is straightforward. You likely pay an avg of $30 for basic speed (25Mbps), $50 for 100Mbps, and $75 for 1Gbps without any initial installation fee. Once the new infrastructure is completed, rural consumers should expect similar options. However, Starlink costs $600 for initial startup plus $110/m for basic speed, and $2500 for initial setup plus $500/m for 350Mbps. This is unaffordable for many rural customers. When undertaking an infrastructure project, it's important to consider not just today's technology and needs but also the potential for scalability and cost. Satellite internet technology makes sense for areas with no or very weak internet infrastructure. However, its inherent disadvantages in cost, speed, reliability, and scalability make it an extremely poor choice for building an internet infrastructure to connect all Americans.
6/27/23 update on International view of Biden and US. They are largely positive. It's a huge turnaround from Trump. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/06/27/overall-opinion-of-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/...obe-while-views-of-u-s-stay-mostly-favorable/
Now every republican will celebrate the funds without mentioning biden. Stop playing nice dems for FFS. Why the hell are we giving Texas the most money out of any state
I would still prefer people in red states benefit from policies like this than not. There are people that live in Alabama that probably can't stand the political climate they're in without much opportunity to move out of the state and live elsewhere that are probably ecstatic over this news, at least once they get internet to get this type of news in almost real time. Since it seems like extreme gerrymandering is going to hopefully become more and more of a thing of the past, that should incentivize Democrats to invest more campaign time in states they otherwise wouldn't even bother with. Play the long game and understand that campaigning in heavily red states may not turn the state purple in the next upcoming election cycle but it might very well a few election cycles down the road. If Dems are actually able to deliver on policy that benefits red states and are able to deliver better messaging than the current GOP which shouldn't be hard at this point given the poor character and shitty humor of so many politicians in that party, you might be surprised at the turn out. Even the majority of conservative women are upset over Roe, and if they have a chance to elect government officials that can make it constitutional at a state level to grant access to healthcare options like abortion again, that's an excellent incentive to offer to half the legal adult voting population. I'm telling you, genuinely invest in the people that live in the worst off communities, watch their lives improve, deliver messaging that it was actually Democrat policies that helped with that, and you might be surprised at the outcomes. Because I would think genuinely providing economic opportunity while simultaneously addressing inequality for people that live in your worst off communities would lead to positive side effects like less poverty stemming from inequality (which is what your post is for), less crime, less poor health outcomes as a result of poor healthcare locally available that's affordable to people at or near poverty and probably healthier relationships among people that share a living space in your worst off communities. Even a significant % shift of votes that go blue in a losing election cycle in a state like Alabama or Texas, if it's significant enough, might just be that wake up call to Republicans that they need to clean house and at least deliver on beneficial policies on behalf of their citizens too. I know in reality they can't because they've sold out to lobbyists for their own self interests, but that should give those lobbyists pause too that they're throwing money in a piggy bank that won't be able to deliver the goods because Dem policies and messaging is showing itself to be demonstrably more effective in the short and long term. I'd rather Democrats believe in themselves enough that they can now start making a dent in election cycles in even heavily red states. I would imagine the level of poverty and sub-standard quality of living for the majority of people that live in red states would be motivation enough compared to shitty stale Twitter memes. At some point, all those red state politicians that push dumb **** like crypto to the poor gullible masses that believed in them enough to throw what little they had into some ponzi scheme and lost it all might just be willing to give the other voting option a try, especially if their policies are making a demonstrable positive impact on their everyday life and they message better than shitty crusty stale Twitter memes. That's how low the bar is. I tend to be more optimistic than you and think such goals are achievable in the future. As for more money being thrown at Texas, it is the second largest economy and some heavy hitter companies that were located in California have moved to Texas instead. Even though Republicans in Texas don't like to publicly admit it, they do desperately need all energy sources available, including those from solar and wind, just to meet the needs of those heavy hitter businesses that moved shop here and the rush of people that are moving here too. If ultimately the Presidents goal is to make for a stronger economy for the entire nation as a whole and ensure the ability to be self reliant in the wake of say a potential chip shortage should Taiwan be invaded or any other global issue that could have negative impacts on the U.S. like the Ukraine war, it would make sense to me to invest heavily in the shortcomings of a state with the second largest economy in the nations that's also top 10 globally if Texas was its own nation. Like it or not, a struggling state of Texas would be a detriment to the rest of the United States too especially as tensions in other regions of the world are increasing.
@Os Trigonum take notes on how to respond elegantly and professionally. Well said @London'sBurning and thanks for the insightful post. You are right
