On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 9:43 AM Aaron Burt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Fiber from the local telecom co-op isn't much more here in Eagle Creek, > just west of Sandy. > > It feels like a dam has opened up and flooded rural America with > Universal Service Fee money, in addition to the Infrastructure Act. > Reliance has been begging people to get fiber; they had to bore and run > probably 500-1000m of fiber just to get me hooked up, and I'm sure they > were well reimbursed for it. Anywhere we drive around here, crews are > trenching in orange ducting. > Probably USDA funds ( https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/telecommunications-programs), more than universal service. I *think* universal service funds typically go to subsidize individual subscribers. The IIJA money is not yet flowing. Meanwhile, lobbyists in the state prevented ARPA funds, that were not previously restricted (IIJA/BEAD money was already restricted by the Feds), from going anywhere that would threaten their monopolies. And our bipartisan Industry Stooge legislature went along with the monopoly protection, because suitcases-full-of-cash and/or threats. If you are a voter in the 5th congressional district, let it be known that one of the candidates, as chair of the barely-relevant committee that considered the bill, was carrying water last session for Industry (i.e. the cable and telephone lobby), and her name was Janelle Bynum. If I was a registered voter in that district, and (speaking as a private individual and not as a representative of any non-profit organization that isn't allowed to endorse candidates) I would *not* be voting for her. For what it's worth, 3 out of 4 people without internet in Oregon live in areas that are considered "Served", but 100% of the federal funds you hear about are going to the remaining 1/4 of unconnected people who live in rural areas. And that is specifically and not accidentally to entrench the monopoly power of the existing providers. It is one thing if it is a co-op, that is organized to directly benefit the subscribers, but otherwise, those billions of dollars you have heard about are going to be building *new* unregulated monopolies, that private capital wasn't willing to invest in themselves, and which will *never* get a competing private-capital provider. I think that is an, admittedly normal, but egregious use of the public treasury. The word "affordable" is used a lot, but never defined and widely ignored. The entire 5-year Oregon strategy for affordability was a federal program that is ending this month, called the ACP. The state entity designated to manage the funds is a business development organization with no discernible utility regulation experience or inclination. -- Russell Senior
