• jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I personally think expanding access to high-speed Internet is a good thing, especially if you can lower the barrier to access for individuals who may not be able to afford an Internet plan.

    • krolden@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Except theyre not and it won’t. They’ve been giving telcos billions over the last 30 years for that and all they’ve done is lobby against regulation and raise peoples internet bill. Mine has gone up $20 over the last two years and ive heard nothing about putting price caps on isps.

      • jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not certain how to prove or disprove your statement, so for now I’ll assume it’s true. But, from the article, it seems like this money is going to the states, themselves:

        The amount each state, territory and Washington, D.C., will receive from the $42.5 billion program depends primarily on the number of unserved locations in each jurisdiction or those locations that lack access to internet speeds of at least 25 megabits per second download and 3 Mbps upload.

        and

        States will have until the end of the year to submit initial proposals outlining how they plan to use the money, which won’t begin to be distributed until those plans are approved

        and

        Under the rules of the program, states must prioritize connecting predominantly unserved areas before bolstering service in underserved areas, or those without access to internet speeds of 100 Mbps/20 Mbps, and community anchor institutions, such as schools and libraries.

        So I think it is a little more nuanced than just giving telcos free money.