Please Consider: If We Want An Informed Citizenry, We'd Better Fix Broadband. It Sucks.

[ancianita]

The U.S. is only #43 in the world in broadband access, use and speed, overall. Even most people with broadband access don't know that or don't pay attention to that.

We have thousands of ISP's in the U.S. but unlike people of other countries, ours don't get to choose which one serves them, or if they get broadband at all.

For lots of reasons, this sucky information infrastructure is still the general outcome of two generations of austerity economics hype, from boardroom to Congress to statehouses.

When at least 20 states hover at 70% broadband access, and most people with two minimum wage jobs can't afford even cheap levels of broadband that exist, while the more affordable talk radio and Fox fill the void with disinformation, who does that benefit?
Not us Democrats, and not the country that calls itself a democratic republic.

Now we face backward senators from those states who benefit, whose seats are relatively safe because of their citizens' lack of information access and affordability. They like to pretend it's because their citizens chose their politics. It their citizens had more information access, these senators would likely face serious voter pressure to do their jobs for their voters.

Our view about Americans' so-called American "anti" ignorance should be tempered by these facts and not the most common view that their information world is their choice. By significant numbers, it's not. All they know is what media that fill the broadband void tell them.
Not cool. Not good for the country.

Partly because our broadband sucks, so might our bipartisan citizens' lack of influence on their representatives. And who knows -- citizen bipartisanship might then pressure their so-called reps to be more bipartisan.


Thankfully, the American Rescue Plan put aside around $7-8 billion for broadband improvement. We might also keep up with who applies for and gets that money, along with who monitors its spending.

...as part of the bill, there is a homeowners assistance fund in the Department of Treasury that will contain $9,961,000,000 that states can tap (until 2025) for payment assistance for "qualified expenses" of individuals, primarily low-income households, who need help due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the fund can be used for everything from mortgage relief to flood insurance, it can also be used for "internet service, including broadband internet access service."

https://www.nexttv.com/news/broadband-billions-to-flow-from-just-passed-american-rescue-plan

People can niggle about rankings (mapped below), but the overall attitude should be that our infrastructure sucks and doesn't have to. That we need to check our statehouses' negligence, since even the richest states lag behind the world in broadband. That we need to stop blaming Americans who have lower information than we, which has resulted from negligence by design.

Most credible, positive map
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/


Most credible, negative map
https://in.pcmag.com/news/131706/npd-31-percent-of-us-households-lack-broadband

[ret5hd]

1. I know this isn't DIRECTLY what you are talking about, but...

mobile is the future (i believe) rather than wired broadband. Good 4G and now 5G are pretty darn good. In some areas of the country I have driven down the interstate and not had a cell signal...not even a single bar.

I propose something like this:

1) Verizon, Sprint, ATT, etc...you wanna keep selling contracts in XX state? OK, by the year 20XX you have 100% 4 bar coverage on the interstates in XX state.

2) By year 20XX + 1 you have 100% 4 bar coverage on the US highways in XX state.

3) By year 20XX + 2 you have 100% 4 bar coverage on the state highways in XX state.

3) By year 20XX + 3 you have 100% 4 bar coverage on the county highways in XX state.

etc etc etc, all the way down to individual households. If they don't substantially meet these goals, they would lose the right to provide service in that state.

Make it a national priority like rural electrification was in the 1930's 1940's.

[IrishAfricanAmerican]

6. Exactly!

[Claire Oh Nette]

27. Make it a national priority ...

"Make it a national priority like rural electrification was in the 1930's 1940's."

This.^^^

The map is telling--the states with the largest economies, the ones that help pay for the rural, backward South, are the most "wired."

Broadband/wireless is a UTILITY. It's not a luxury anymore. Think about how often we are referred to "our website" and how difficult life is with no access to the internet, or spotty access at best.

Just as telephones became de riguer in every household, so is the internet. Just as there were programs for low income households to keep phone costs down, same should go for Internet. We pay way too much as it is. It's a Utility. Treat it like one.

[csziggy]

37. Sometimes the lack of wireless coverage is not because the providers don't want to

At my house, on a north-south ridge, west of the ridge there is great coverage with a cell tower just 1.5 miles South-Southwest of the house. To the east, once you get down below the ridge where the signal from the west is blocked, there is nearly zero coverage. That is because the closest cell tower to the east is ten miles away, direct line.

Most of the land in between is plantation owned. The plantations do not want the intrusion of cell providers into their property. About twenty years ago there was a license granted for a cell tower about three miles to our east at a road intersection, on plantation land. I don't know if negotiations for the lease of the land fell through or what, but that tower was never built.

Aside from land access acquisition problems, there are logistical problems - power and fiber optic is not really available. Most of that area that is not plantation owned, is small plot ownership and the power requirements have been low, so there is no major power grid out that direction. While I know we have fiber optic out to the corner of the highway a third of a mile north of my house, I don't think it run farther out - maybe to the subdivision just east of us but not farther even if there.

So to put a cell tower to our east would require major infrastructure to be available, then the tower itself could go up. There is not enough demand to pay for all of that. My friend, who lives in the subdivision to our east has internet, maybe not broadband, but her landline went out and she has not bothered getting it repaired. She has a cell phone, but cannot get a signal in her neighborhood, so most of her calls are made while driving to and from work or while at work. So even the well to do people who live beyond the reach of broadband and cell access are not worried about not having it. They just adjust their lived to do without.

Verizon would love to have the ability to provide wireless out to my east - it is just not feasible right now. And this is just outside the capital of Florida!

[ret5hd]

4. I dunno what the hell just happened...sorry for all the dupes.

[ancianita]

5. Is this double post the result of your using mobile? Because that happens here sometimes.

If you say that mobile is the future, I see it already in African mobile banking and business growth.

But what I don't see is whether it can as broadly access information as computer as ISP broadband does. Can it? I ask because while it might, but from what I've read about mobile use, most mobile users don't think of mobile use that way. They might hit free wifi spots to get google maps or other practical stuff, but not necessarily news apps. Just guessing, and not saying you're wrong at all.

[ret5hd]

9. No, it was at my desktop, just hit "post my reply"...

button and it went to an error page...went “back” and hit the reply button again and it went to error page again.

Was just about to use the Contact Administrators page and everything cleared up!

Now, about your wireless/broadband concerns:
I find that when I’m in the “outback” (camping, etc) if I have good bars, I can watch Netflix, YouTube, or any other high usage app almost as well as at home...but those good bars are hard to find.

[ancianita]

10. Okay.

So are you saying the future of mobile will serve the outback? Because if you're having this problem in good bar territory, that's generally going to be the same problem for millions.

The point is to get us above the world broadband ranking we're at so that we can really try to make our citizenry an informed one. Not just an entertained one.

[ret5hd]

13. This was at my desktop...hard wired...cable...no bars involved.

on edit: and my example of Netflix, etc was to show a high-bandwidth example...do you think New York Times or Washington Post is going to use more bandwidth than funny cat videos?

[ancianita]

14. Okay.

I get it. The issue is browser capabilities across different wifi devices. Bandwidth used in WaPo's or NYT's news depends on the interactivity they include and the cat videos, right? The issue is having broadband width to begin with, isn't it.

Just because you're okay with mobile, doesn't change the facts that this nation is #43.
We can do a helluva lot better. Biden just said so.

[Claire Oh Nette]

28. NO worries

I figured you must have really meant it....
;^)

[jimfields33]

7. I have zero problems with the broadband access

I do think we pay way more then other countries. 68 dollars for a one-person cell phone through Verizon and 203 for cable/internet from Comcast. I suppose the old adage you get what you pay for applies. But I still think it should be cheaper.

[ancianita]

11. Can you link your claims?

Because I'd tend to agree about our costs -- much like our healthcare costs -- but I haven't looked into costs across thousands of ISP's. Perhaps you could link something?

[jimfields33]

16. I don't know what you mean.

[ancianita]

23. The part about "I do think we pay way more then other countries." Just asking.

[jimfields33]

32. Got it.

I lived in Korea and Italy and was impressed with how advanced and affordable both were. Korea specifically is so much more advanced technology wise.

[hunter]

8. My great grandparent's ranch, which is still about as far away as you can get from a paved road...

... in the "lower 48" states, had both electric power and phone service by 1940.

The federal government made that happen, beginning with Rural Electrification Act of 1936.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act

We could do the same with broadband.

The Republicans have turned the U.S.A into a pathetic "can't do" nation.

We need to fix that.

[ancianita]

12. So has BigCorps. It's not in the interests of a corporate governed nation to have informed citizens.

More like malleable inhabitants. Or impoverished, ignorant ones.

Though this works in their favor, this issue isn't all on the republican elected leadership.

[appalachiablue]

15. Improve internet service & reform US media

rules that have been twisted to permit the explosion of RW hate propaganda.

Without the truth reaching people, we haven't a chance for progress.

In 1940, the US census noted whether households had a RADIO.

The same should have been done for the Internet in 2020.

[ancianita]

19. So our improving depends on who runs the Census. Maybe Biden needs to redo the Census

Last edited Thu Mar 18, 2021, 03:49 PM - Edit history (1)

at this point. It's not as if he's not got the logistics and manpower of Census taking available. We're the first quarter into the year after the census and still don't have its new numbers. We know that GA and TX will add House reps, but not much more than that.

Most importantly, though, you can't equate the publicly owned airwaves back then to privately owned Internet services now. The Internet hasn't ever been a public utility, though I think it should be. THEN we can get accurate numbers on it and improve it without the bs cost/benefit standards of for-profit Internet industries.

Biden could get the FCC and the Dept of Commerce to hold hearings to demand info from the entirety of our privatized Internet systems -- backbone system builders, 3,000+ ISP's, search engines, tech industry giants, electrical grid owners -- just to get documented info on the state of our international ranking into broken down numbers, along with what we want our net goal access to be, and finally, what these agencies come up with besides getting private industry pledges and promises. Hearings could inform 1st and 3rd branch decisions to have more closely regulated telecom and internet industries here in the U.S., even if they are multinational.

Because we can't go on like this -- even with some help from a rescue act -- with crisis response help that arguably might or might get to those it's meant to help.

[appalachiablue]

25. Of course things aren't the same

as in 1940. The current US media landscape is far more complex, the 1949 Fairness Doctrine would need adjusting and updating somehow. I realize that it regulated broadcasts over the airwaves, not private- run cable stations and future internet providers.

From what I know the FCC would need to be involved to try to reform giant US media and telecomm monopolies as well.

[ancianita]

26. Right. And so the publicly owned vs privately owned framing doesn't work.

To me, the only complexity lies in the BigCorps privatizers who would fight any governmental takeover to make the Internet and its hardware a public utility. The electrical grid and its vulnerabilities (recently exemplified by TX) should be included in public utilities. Neither are, and that's our undoing as a huge nation.

The Dept of Commerce should also be involved, since it is the single biggest repository of the nation's databases. The DoC could inform the FCC's hearings and go a long way to inform the FCC's decisions.

[lagomorph777]

17. Please Consider: If We Want An Informed Citizenry, We'd Better Fix Fascistbook. It Sucks.

Same for Twit.

[ancianita]

20. Okay, start your own OP, because while you're right ...

it doesn't answer how we're 43rd in the world with people even knowing about or using privately owned Fascistbook.

[lagomorph777]

22. I didn't mean to criticize your OP!

Just adding another piece to the puzzle. More efficient delivery of bullshit won't solve the problem; we have to do something about efficiency and truthfulness of content.

[ancianita]

24. Oh, I didn't take it that way, no worries. This OP is about the EXISTENCE of delivery, access,

affordability and use. We need to pay attention to Internet delivery so that people can at least get to the point of even having bullshit to examine.

We're 43red worldwide because up to 160 million Americans don't have any broadband,
don't have access to what there is, or
can't afford to access to what there is, or
don't know how to use what there is once they can afford to access whatever broadband finally gets near them.

The worst uses of the Internet -- in efficiency, truthfulness of content -- should never determine whether we help people get broadband at all.

Otherwise, to deny equal access based on the net's worst examples is a cop out that ignores the injustice of freedom and choice. It's kinda anti-modern. No one can discuss what interests you until everyone has access to what you have in order to be on equal discussion footing. (eg, "oh, there's porn on the nets, so let's keep more people from using it, because we know what bullshit they'll be exposed to)

[Claire Oh Nette]

31. Separate issues?

Fixing FB and Twitter is a separate problem from providing rural broadband access.

Tightening slander and libel laws, and applying slander and libel laws would be a start. I'm curious to see how Dominion and SmartMatics voting machines lawsuits against the pillow guy et al plays out. OAN, I think, was johnny on the spot quick to slap disclaimers on election fraud clips once they were hit with a lawsuit. One guy from legal even walked out on an interview.

As we expand broadband, and ideally regulate it as a utility, we need to bring back the fairness doctrine for radio, and include satellite radio and TV in that as well.

I'm seeing pushback on blatant lies and continued gaslighting. I can only hope that the tone set from the top continues to influence all of us for the good and the better, just as, sadly, TFG's tenure at the top set the tone for the last four years.

[ancianita]

34. Well, they can connect when we spread broadband, so for now, I'd say yes.

Yes, "fixing" the content of privatized social media is a separate issue.

"As we expand broadband" is the issue here. What its content is, or how that's regulated, and even whether it would be taken over as a public utility, comes after that, to my thinking. To get caught up in what's wrong with the broadband content that half of us have now as a reason not to expand it for the other half without first "fixing" our half, seems to push the infrastructure problem down the road.

[kimbutgar]

18. In 2018 we stayed at a 100 year old hotel in Venice Italy they had updated their internet

It was faster than what I have at my home in San Francisco!

[ancianita]

21. Cool.

My experience, too. But the idea here is to stay in touch with how broadband does or doesn't expand affordability, access and use. A lot like vaccines, now that I think about it.

[Klaralven]

29. A relative in South Dakota has fiber to the farmyard, but doesn't subscribe to Internet or cable TV

They see no point in either internet or TV.

They are well informed by AM radio and texts on their smartphone.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

30. The Connect America Fund was started during the Obama administration

This has paid for a lot of internet access over the last 12 years. It needs to continue.

A large part of the problem in the US is not everyone lives in an urban area. It's not as cost effective for the ISPs to expand to rural populations.

[ancianita]

33. I'm aware.

But the fact that broadband won't go where the post office goes has all kinds of information problems that have political ramifications, and even vaccine resistance ramifications. The less rural America knows, the more likely rural America is made vulnerable to disinformation. Or none at all.

We're a rich country. Cost effectiveness needn't enter into communications any more than it should enter into health care, housing or education.

We still haven't done enough. It shows, through the shenanigans that Repubs in Congress think they can get away with back home.

[msongs]

35. $60/month for 300 mbps access. that's stand alone internet no tv etc

high speed but excessively high price IMO.

[ancianita]

36. Yes.

And yes. That's because it's run privately and not like a public utility. It's cheaper and better elsewhere in the world, though I haven't looked up the data on that.