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).
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.
well, I was optimistic but now we might still have the monopolies using the grants to line their pockets off the consumers by using our govt money.
Exactly what will happen and they won’t use to the grant money towards what it meant for.
It big grift and Biden gave it to them. Remember he is a centrist who caters to the rich.
Remember we paid for every home in America to have fiber optic internet in the 90s. They took the money, ran, and faced no consequences.
deleted by creator
On the contrary, I bet they got their dicks sucked real hard while going on an extra-long vacation.
I mean he’s always been considered a moderate. The voting system encouraged him through since we can’t get voting reforms to pass. What I wouldn’t give for ranked elimination style voting or something… I’m so tired of being continually screwed by the system and it encouraging the gerrymandering that happened in my state despite our own laws against it
No different from the last time the government gave them billions of dollars for nothing.
Having been in the broadband delivery business at all levels, I sadly report that small ISPs can’t compete in this marketplace to begin with. Reason being they don’t have the investments needed for last mile delivery. If they had the money needed to install landlines, or buy frequency leases, or fly a global satellite network then they wouldn’t be a small ISP. The best that they can do is develop resell relationships.
Part of the reason they can’t compete is cause of all the bullshit roadblocks the existing players put in their way. This was made readily apparent anywhere Google fiber tried to rollout and all of the crap they had to deal with to just roll out fiber.
It’s not that they don’t have the money to install the infrastructure, it’s that they don’t have enough money to fight all the legal battles just to do their jobs.
Not the existing players, your government. Telephone companies gained right of way from your state because everybody wanted a telephone. Cable companies made a deal with your municipality for right of way by paying for it with a non-compete clauses. Power companies did the same thing. Why would they put millions of dollars worth of infrastructure in the ground for anything less? Your state and local government, and by extension you, sold it to them.
The only ISPs that can compete are ones using existing power line infrastructure, so utility companies and cooperatives.
Tried that. You get a lot of errors in power line delivery.
My grandmother lives in a very rural area and gets gigabit because of her cooperative. They do work in some places at least.
If it worked well at scale, the power companies would be in with both feet. It doesn’t
That wasn’t always the plan?
🎶 Tale as old as time 🎶
Here in Seattle I have two options: Centurylink or Comcast. I would happily purchase a plan from a smaller company, but due to the duopoly we have here, I have no other choice.
There’s also astound (formally wave) offering gigabit+ in Seattle.
Thanks! I’ll check them out. I’ve tried Ziply several times, but my specific location has some unique challenges getting a provider in.
Same. When I moved, we had the option for Ziply 9ver Comcast and finally was able to shake them.
Internet should be a public utility and owned by the local government.
Plenty of smaller ISPs are WISPs, wireless ISPs. Great for rural too, you just need line-of-sight. Look up if any serve your area
You could cut the cable altogether and just go full mobile. That’s what I do, and I’m happy to see an extra $600 in my bank account at the end of the year.
I use Visible for only $25/month. Unlimited data, great coverage, and they even sent me a free 5G phone when I refused to upgrade.
Couldn’t be happier.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
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 rule is part of the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program that’s being administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
One signer is Gigi Sohn, the longtime consumer advocate who was nominated by President Biden to the Federal Communications Commission.
After the US Senate refused to confirm her nomination, Sohn became executive director of the nonprofit American Association for Public Broadband that lobbies for municipal networks.
The letter was signed by advocates from various other broadband-focused groups, including Public Knowledge; Connect Humanity; the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition; the Institute for Local Self-Reliance; Free Press; Next Century Cities; the Multicultural Media, Telecom, and Internet Council; the Coalition for Local Internet Choice; and Consumer Reports.
ISPs that signed the letter include Astound Broadband (owner of Grande, RCN, and Wave) and several smaller providers.
The original article contains 748 words, the summary contains 186 words. Saved 75%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
When the dust settles, it’ll be just like Ma Bell in 1975: There will be the “Internet Company” just like there was the Phone Company, with a probable ‘bonus’ of an extra “National Internet Corporation” modeled on the BBC.
Maybe this time we can learn from our mistakes and nationalize such industries instead of breaking them up and forcing needless competition.
The competition should be for the job. If someone else can do the job better, then you get replaced. It’s a simple concept, lol. But capitalists have convinced people that public ownership is bad. That way, people spend enough to keep the businesses operational, in addition to funneling as much money as possible to the owners.
No shit, it’s the monopoly game all over again. I worked for a local provider for 4 years in engineering. I would personally like to see greater restrictions on ISP M&As, investor ownership of communication providers, and media company owners of communication providers.
At my company, we were purchased by another provider that had mismanaged themselves to the brink of bankruptcy only to be saved by some investors at the last second. Our staff was cut by about half. A year or so after that we were bought by the biggest bunch of soulless monsters I’ve ever worked with. From there the company went growth-by-acquisition crazy, purchasing every Mom and Pop provider they could get their hands on.
Years later I was working an IP address consolidation project when I came across an FCC filing from the late 90s written by former management at my original company asking the FCC to reject the GTE purchases that resulted in Verizon as we know it today. I was amazed, and also saddened. It was all coming true.
Edit: I missed the part where municipalities in certain states are allowed to get LOCs due to state law, so the grant program would exclude ISPs directly owned by the municipality. To me that is a state issue rather than a fed issue, especially as the NTIA says it will waive the requirement on a case-by-case basis
I’m sorry except for the smallest WISPs (which wouldn’t qualify as broadband anyway), how does requiring a letter of credit from a bank represent a barrier? Carrier grade equipment is not cheap, nobody is paying is paying cash for it. So they should have a good relationship with a community bank anyway.
Go out and try to get one as a small ISP then come back and let us know how it went.
I actually worked at a small ISP that served a population of <10,000 a decade ago and we had no problem getting grants the last time Obama was handing them out
Yeah I also don’t understand how it’s a barrier. Unless I’m thinking of the wrong thing I know some people who had to get a letter of credit when getting some service at their new property in order to not have to pay some equipment deposit. As private individuals (although commercial property with no history of income), it took them a phone call, 2 emails and about 30 minutes to get one.
I really can’t see any small ISP that isn’t some scheme having trouble getting one.
Biden has been worse than a do nothing President. He’s a corporate shill.
Neo-liberals are conservatives. They are smarter and have more tact, but they are conservatives.
If we want progress, we need progressives.
If progressives can come up with messaging that wins elections, great. So far the messaging appeals to a fraction of the voting public, and has zero working strategy for how to effectively deal with the right coopting, twisting and ridiculing the progressive agenda. Inequality is growing faster than ever for people of all skin colors, and yet progressives have essentially stopped giving a fuck about labor and switched over to race. I’m not saying that racism isn’t a problem in this country, I’m saying that the research shows that you get a SHIT TON more support if you don’t tie the messaging of a social policy to a particular race. I’m worried that in the (perhaps distant) future, progressives challenging racism, examining race as a social construct, etc. will have the perverse effect of reifying and reinforcing race and othering.
I sure did hear a lot of neo-lib politicians in my area saying that same thing when there was a push for Medicare For All. “It’s confusing and nobody knows what it means” is what some centrist dem congress people kept saying where I’m from. A few years on, now that the steam has been tapped and those same politicians are putting “healthcare for all” in their literature. The co-option against progressive policy is coming from inside the party and old railway Joe (not a progressive) outlawed a strike for… the railway workers.
Also, not seeing this abandoning of labor to focus on race you speak of. People flooding the streets over police murdering POC isn’t a political maneuver. Could you lay out where your seeing this focus on race and not labor from progressives?
I’m not talking about Biden, I’m talking about progressives. I am not talking about people protesting racist corrupt murderous pigs. Literally every progressive I know is using race as the primary critical lens they use for seeing the world. Folks give lip-service to instersectionality, but for the life of me, the discourse is being defined by the right. The right acts racist and persecutes LGBTQI+ folks, so those issues end up taking up all of the air in the room to the expense of everything else. A couple of years ago, I was at a social justice exchange in a poor white area, and the subject was food deserts in the area. I got shut down because I was steadfast in asserting that the reason that there were food deserts in the area had next to nothing to do with race, and everything to do with economic inequality and rural underinvestment.
Oh, I guess I’m just not hearing those same things where I’m at. Are these progressives POC?
I’m in the mid-South. The two leaders were, most everyone else was white. But honestly, it wouldn’t have made a difference. When you’ve got white supremacist groups arguing for socialism (for white people), and progressives arguing for preferential treatment for POC to the extreme that it comes off as punitive to a majority of non-POC folks, sure seems like a centrist position is social protections and support for poor people, regardless of race.
TLDR; if we don’t work toward solutions to racial justice before socioeconomic justice, the power and capital likely won’t exist to follow through with the former
So, I can’t say for sure but what I think you’ve ran into is something that I heard best explained by a podcast once (I think it was one of Robert Evans). My guess is that what you encountered was organizers trying to take account for the systematic imbalance of power that is inherent within the US. Often times it goes unseen by many of us that can’t see it because it doesn’t effect us in the same way. We can see those problems of poverty and lack of support but then what about the added struggle of race, gender, disability? Those things added on top create deeper and different issues that we can’t account for, because we can’t know them. It’s the argument that to rid society of these myriad issues we must take the privilege we have and can’t see and use it to back POC to fight the problems that they see.
I think I know where you’re coming from now, and though I’ve been in spaces where that happened, I’ve never seen issue in it because I believe in the premise. I’ve known multiple persons who did run into situations and feel like their views or voice were being marginalized from it though. I wasn’t there for their experience but I mostly think it was a misunderstanding on their part though and they couldn’t move past their ideas being of less importance/priority. I think this can play out in ways that can be counterproductive from time to time, but also that set backs that come from it are eventually learned from and worthwhile.
It’s hard knowing how you want to organize and feeling like the roadmap is right in front if we could just come together and focus a part of the problem. There’s a risk that we still leave others behind though if we don’t address their issues before our own. People and movements lose interest once their needs and goals are met and if we want to pull off the big move forward we have to do it all together.
Am I closer to talking about what you were now?
Everything you just said is bullshit. The reason progressives don’t do well is corporate media does not want them to.
Stop watching msnbc fox cnn npr and many others and it becomes completely obvious.
I watch precisely zero of my news. I read. More importantly, I am in the orbit of grassroots organizers and social justice folks, and at least in my location, they are great at talking to each other but not so great at connecting their messaging with average people.
That is total BS. Biden has more specifically than any president I have encountered so far and I was quite surprised with it. Besides the inflation reduction act there is the no surprises act is huge for me. The IRS implementing a tax return system which is directly opposed to a large corporate lobbying effort that has been going on for decades. Much like the no surprises came in quietly I noticed it and there has been some others I can’t recall atm but I like what biden has done in his first term.
I don’t know. That dude does know a lot about shills.
Biden was against giving rail workers 1 day per year of sick time.
Get your head out of corporate media’s ass.
yeah if I voted based on a candidate having nothing. nothing at all that I disagreed with. well then I would not vote as no candidate could pass muster. And I will always vote even if the options are limited.
Sad watching you defend this.
where exactly did I defend it? Its just not enough for me to have the next trump/bush/whatevercrazy do way worse.
I’m would be happy with one policy decision I actually agree with. Biden hasn’t done even this.
You are highly misinformed and brainwashed by your media. I know it’s difficult to see but it’s true.
Dude. I have had an anesthia bill this last year that I could point to the law that it has to go through insurnace. I have my own and its a reality that actually effected my life. Throwing out misinformed and brainwashed and media as buzz words does not change reality.
Say “I do not know what I’m talking about” without saying it
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
You said it!
