Posted on 04/24/2021 6:36:10 AM PDT by conservative98
The discussion originated with Governor Holcomb’s directive in Indiana.
Who is talking about the federal government?
Exactly. Like Governor Holcomb in Indiana did.
Who is talking about this being done at the federal level?
If Facebook and Google can “donate” to “support” state election processes, as they did in the 2020 election, they have plenty of money to underwrite statewide broadband.
As a person who lived in KY for 40 years, I agree 100%.
But were they “third world dumps before anyone heard of the internet”?
No.
Businesses like coal companies — and don’t sneer, the miners made good money on average — have been shut down and pulled out of these areas.
If you had it to do over, would you vote for Dukakis and Gore? Or Clinton and Kerry?
Y'know, for the telescreens.
Thanks for the link. There’s a $550 start up cost, but it sounds better than cable, by far.
In part, you have a point.
However, if you can’t use your phone or a computer to conduct business because you don’t have service, you are pretty much stuck. You try it. The hopelessness in these communities where time has been passed them by is palpable. And then they are exploited by Big Pharma to boot.
Former coal-miners were told to “learn to code.” What a joke.
And, no, the federal government is not necessary. In a civilization where Facebook “donated” $400 million to states to underwrite “election procedures” why can’t they “donate” to help access basic services?
It’s all the same.
One hundred million plus and not one electoral vote?
Guess the people have showed you how we think of your sorry ass there Jebby.
Piss off,
---------------
Everyone from Joe Biden, Jen Psaki. Democrats to Pro government internet "conservatives" like Jeb Bush. It is in the infrastructure plans. Listen to the Mark Levin shows of late. They want the government to interfere with the internet in a massive scale in the private sector. When you start putting money into it, that's when you get internet service like the service you get from the USPS or DMV.
----------
Broadband has to be part of the national strategy to help people rise up. If you can’t access broadband, you’re basically cast aside in the modern economy. This is unacceptable. https://t.co/mhGOz6v0Ui— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) October 29, 2020
"In your Slate essay, you wrote about the history of the interstate highway system, beginning with Dwight Eisenhower, who while serving as an Army major in the years after World War I, discovered how terrible the roads were after trying to drive a convoy across the country. What’s the parallel to broadband infrastructure today?
Dwight Eisenhower gets credit for the highway system because he so clearly saw the need for it. He was figuring out the logistics of how you get military equipment across the country, and he was appalled that the United States was simply not connected. The interstate highway system he envisioned was a big, hairy, audacious goal, just like nationwide broadband.
I think that analogy is pretty powerful if you think about the world we’re in today and how everything has been digitized. We need a digital infrastructure plan that would be similar to what the federal government launched for the highways. It’s not exclusively a federal role. There are state and local funds and public-private partnerships for the infrastructure that allows us to get around, get goods to market, get children to school. Those kinds of partnerships have worked well for a long time when it comes to roads. It’s time to do the same thing for online infrastructure.
There’s a lot of focus on broadband as a necessity for remote schooling, but you’ve argued it’s an even broader issue of equal opportunity.
Broadband has to be part of the national (internet) strategy to help people rise up. If you can’t access broadband, you’re basically cast aside in the modern economy. We have businesses that are thriving because they’re connected to the digital infrastructure, people who are thriving because they can work and access education and health care from home. We’re seeing an explosion in health technologies that require broadband, and education is going to be enhanced by online access long after the coronavirus pandemic is over. If you’re cut off from all of those things, you’re cut off from opportunity. There’s a lot of concern about the haves and have-nots in our society today. Those gaps are real, and providing broadband for rural areas, providing digital devices for families living at or near the poverty level, would help narrow them.
What’s holding us back from fixing this? Is it the cost? We have the resources to do this. That’s what’s frustrating—this should have already been done.
Look, I find it tiring when I hear politicians talk about investment when what they actually mean is spending, a recurring expense. This is a true investment: one-time money that would have long-term benefits. If you took $100 billion [in federal money] and created a means for local communities and states to provide additional support, and you had philanthropies that could provide support, and you have businesses that are anxious to help, you could leverage this money up to a significant number. Some of it is going to be paid for just by businesses and people using it and getting the benefits of the new infrastructure. People at or near the poverty level would receive subsidies, just as we do today with the E-Rate program, which helps schools and libraries afford high-speed internet. You’d use some of the money not just for the backbone infrastructure, but also to train people. A lot of people wouldn’t know what to do if they had the access to high-velocity broadband, so you’d have to provide some support for devices.
- John Ellis Bush
*federal money into it.
Even before “Big Pharma” exploited those folks, they had problems with alcohol.
The difference being, of course, that their alcohol problems weren’t subsidized by Medicaid.
Well, you clearly come from an area where you have no problems with internet connectivity.
Broadband is NOT available everywhere. I’ve only got about 5/8 of a mega-bit per second. Since Trump deep-sixed “net neutrality,” a local company has started running fiber-optic, but it hasn’t made it to my house yet. So, no working from home or learning from home for my town or anyone east of me till you get to St Louis.
Just because JEB! wants this done at the federal level does not mean state governors can’t mobilize tech giants — who, after all, underwrote state election processes to the tune of $400 million — to underwrite the expansion of broadband.
Because, admit it, JEB! is right-— without this access, you are a second class citizen at best, who can’t participate in the cyber economy.
If you are opposing access to the internet, just because you are a “conservative” and you think it can only be done by the feds spending billions, that’s too bad. I disagree. Gov. Holcomb is committed to doing this in Indiana, and for Kentucky to fail to follow suit is sad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.