
Ajit Pai wants to cap spending on broadband for poor people and rural areas - onemoresoop
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/03/ajit-pai-wants-to-cap-spending-on-broadband-for-poor-people-and-rural-areas/
======
t3hprofit
Makes sense. I was thinking based on the title of the article that this would
be a good thing for low-income people, as in their spending on broadband would
be capped. but... it's Ajit Pai. Of course it's shit for the public. What a
travesty of a human being.

------
eledumb
Too bad there isn't any accountability on the spending, just like all the tax
credits to entice the telecom's to build out broadband, but they didn't spend
that money.

The telco's will claim to have spent that money, but they won't do anything,
and once the cap is reached the telco's and shut it down again until the
government gives them more incentives which they can use to line their
pockets.

What a racket.

------
pavel_lishin
> _Pai 's plan suggests an $11.4 billion annual cap on the total cost of the
> four programs, which is more than current spending but would put an upper
> bound on what the program could spend in the future._

This isn't as bad as the headline makes it sound to be.

~~~
alwaysanagenda
Agreed. The entire article rests upon the assumption that once the cap is
reached, and the government may not spend anymore money on subsidizing
broadband, all those reliant on those subsidies are now in peril.

It shows a narrow way of thinking, and also assumes quite a few things about
the US Govt / FCC.

After just glossing over the fact of fiscal responsibility, it assumes budget
constraints in this regard are bad, as if a single penny of government money
(taxpayer's money) is never wasted or poorly allocated.

Second, the article's attitude seems to take the position (and certainly the
comments do) that the government is one of the few (if any?) entities capable
of improving access to broadband in these affected areas. I doubt this.

I would also be interested to know if wireless telcos do a better job serving
these apparently under-served communities versus their broadband providers.
For example, what is the ratio of people who have slow broadband but
smartphones with LTE service?

A distant third is that somehow the issue of a budget cap cannot be readjusted
at a later date. Or that there are no programs outside of Universal Service
that can also augment and support rolling out broadband. Or that you cannot
create a new program targeting specific needs, etc...

This is a false dilemma.

It also makes the assumption that broadband equals improved economic
development. I don't discount the idea, but I question just how much of an
impact it has, in order to use this as leverage against the idea of the budget
cap.

Ultimately, we're seeing a lack of imagination to problem solving unless it
includes a blank check from Uncle Sam.

Oh, and we can slam Ajit Pai while we're at it -- let's not pass on that.

~~~
tracker1
While I mostly agree. Most wireless carriers do underserve huge areas of the
country. My vacation times are mostly spent on cross country road trips for
the past decade. About 2 years ago, I switched to Verizon specifically because
it had the best rural coverage. Huge areas of Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Minnesota
etc have no coverage by any other carrier. Where my mom lives in WY, there is
some spotty ATT coverage and meh VZ coverage. Definitely nothing to write home
about.

I also tend to mostly use tethering for my laptop in these areas, and can say,
it's been a crap-shoot for the most part.

I also feel that this spending probably shouldn't target any metro area with
more than say even half a million people in it. Simply because that is
generally enough to create actual market pressure where local solutions are
likely to be better and Federal funding will likely only help incumbents
anyway.

I'm not against a budget cap, that's part of what a "budget" is. I think this
is partially mis-sold, but in a lot of ways, I have almost no trust in current
FCC leadership.

------
tracker1
First, I'm a Libertarian. My opinions are not part of the LP, but my own. I am
not an-cap, but much more pragmatic here.

Second, I think that the Federal government should be in place to provide for
what is considered essential infrastructure. In the late 1700's, essential
infrastructure was enough road maintenance to support interstate commerce.
Through the 1900's that grew to encompass clean water, electricity and
telecommunications and radio. Today, I'd suggest that includes internet
access. IMHO, if you can get electricity, water and a phone line, you should
have access to high speed internet.

I'd rather see spending accountability and a focus on green markets over
admittedly aging infrastructure in urban areas where market pressure should be
forcing upgraded infrastructure and private spending for such measures. Also,
I do feel there should be a spending cap and budgeting in most things. It
isn't bad by itself, but it could be... the real thing comes down to "it
depends." Given the guy in charge, I'm not sure that it's a good thing in any
way.

------
craftinator
And I want Ajit Pai to stand trial for criminal and traitorous wrongdoing
against the United States of America! Hope we all get what we want.

