USDA Revamps Rural Broadband Program After Congressional scolding... The USDA's $1.2 billion Rural Utilities Service program, which is tasked with funding rural broadband deployment, was attacked earlier this month by Congress for not doing anything of the sort. A study found more than half the funds instead went to urban broadband deployment, and just one out of sixty-nine loans went to wiring a region without any broadband service whatsoever. The USDA has responded by issuing a new set of proposed rules aimed at making sure the fund is doing what it was originally designed for. The USDA is also pushing to have the program extended until 2012 as part of the 2007 Farm Bill.
|
  ronpinImagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
1 edit | Silly Whiners Don't they know that only if the Rich get rich-enough -- will the rest of us eventually get the things we need? (or pay for)
--
Give up all hope for a better past. | |
|  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Useless Congress If the Rural Broadband Program is not doing its job, then why is it still being funded? Congress could easily resolve the problem of money being wasted by cutting the funding.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
|  | | | Re: Useless Congress Exactly ...cut there lifeline | |
| | |  MikePremium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: Useless Congress Misappropriation of government funds.
Isn't that like 10 years in federal PMITA? Well... technically... | |
|
|  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by pnh102:If the Rural Broadband Program is not doing its job, then why is it still being funded? Congress could easily resolve the problem of money being wasted by cutting the funding. It is still being funded because the Congresscritters from suburban and city areas want their piece of the pie and want to make sure USDA money is being funneled in to their districts no matter what the rule is. This is std pork politics at its worst.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | |  firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
 ·Frontier Communi..
| Re: Useless Congress said by Romney2012:It is still being funded because the Congresscritters from suburban and city areas want their piece of the pie and want to make sure USDA money is being funneled in to their districts no matter what the rule is. This is std pork politics at its worst. No kidding, we should be funding HMMV parts and ammunition manufacturing and paying contractors to rebuild Iraq. That's where are money is best spent for this country to prosper.
--
Location: +48° 5' 23.40", -119° 48' 30.00" | |
| | | Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | said by Romney2012:...This is std pork politics at its worst. Ah...according to the story, it was the USDA, not Congress that was misspending the money. In fact it was Congress that caught them. | |
|
| Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | said by pnh102:If the Rural Broadband Program is not doing its job, then why is it still being funded? Congress could easily resolve the problem of money being wasted by cutting the funding. Looks good on paper, but...
1. It still doesn't recover the already misspent money.
2. It still leaves rural citizens out in the cold.
Normally I'd say that it's time to give it to the DOJ, so they can start taking names, freezing bank accounts and handing down indictments. But I hear that they're too busy separating the "loyal Bushies" from the chaff to bother with their sworn duties Maybe the states can do something using local fraud statutes to seize the bogus loan money. MOF, they can just call it "drug money" and avoid due process altogether. Kind of ironic, though--using an illegal law to do Good. LOL | |
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Useless Congress said by Time4aNAP:1. It still doesn't recover the already misspent money. 2. It still leaves rural citizens out in the cold. So basically, you are proposing that we do more of the same with this program and hope for a different outcome?
Whatever happened to people who want something investing their own money in a private venture to make it happen? Isn't that how things used to get done in this country?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | Re: Useless Congress said by pnh102:So basically, you are proposing that we do more of the same with this program and hope for a different outcome? Did I write anything like that? Please read what I wrote.
Whatever happened to people who want something investing their own money in a private venture to make it happen? Isn't that how things used to get done in this country? What happened was Big Business and corporate welfare, but that's OT. Do you have an on-topic point here? | |
|
1 edit | Get a clue already! Ok, so nobody figured out yet that it was the new Congress that got the USDA off of it's a**, instead of the last 6 years of Administration sponsored pork, and ensuring it goes to their buddies? Nobody recalls 6 years of calls for a 'permanent Republican majority', and that pork was authorized, no, ENCOURAGED in order to maintain it, even though it goes against their 'principles'? Come on folks, even I can figure that out! | |
| | dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Get a clue already! ROFLMAO... dude, you're living in a fantasy land. The Dems won't curtail pork-barrel spending anymore than the Republicans did- just what happened to the reform bill that they promised to pass? For a hint of things to come, just take a look at who they appointed chair of the Appropriations Committee. Hint: he's been dubbed "King of Pork" many years ago.
The lawmakers were right to complain, but it wasn't motivated by so much by a desire to right a wrong, but rather an effort by lawmakers representing rural districts to get the money funnelled to their own districts. Also note that they've been working on reforms since 2005- well before the Democrats took control of Congress. | |
| | | | | Re: Get a clue already! Nothing like a little ridicule to begin the day...
said by dynodb:...just what happened to the reform bill that they promised to pass? I'm not sure which reform bill you are referring to, but you can be sure the Democrats running congress are being pressured to get some reforms done. Are the Republicans in the Senate getting the same pressure? As they own 49 seats, the pressure has to be applied there as well.said by dynodb:For a hint of things to come, just take a look at who they appointed chair of the Appropriations Committee. Hint: he's been dubbed "King of Pork" many years ago. Another well spun Republican talking point. Meaningless.
said by dynodb:The lawmakers were right to complain, but it wasn't motivated by so much by a desire to right a wrong, but rather an effort by lawmakers representing rural districts to get the money funnelled to their own districts. Isn't that the wrong that is trying to be made right? Isn't that the whole point?
said by dynodb:Also note that they've been working on reforms since 2005- well before the Democrats took control of Congress. Again, not sure of what reform you are referring to. If your talking about reforms such as Social Security, trying to reform it so that instead of the government in control, thier buddies on Wall Streat get their hands on all that money, there is reform you should run away from screaming! | |
| | | | dynodbPremium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN | Re: Get a clue already! said by viperlmw:Nothing like a little ridicule to begin the day... said by dynodb:...just what happened to the reform bill that they promised to pass? I'm not sure which reform bill you are referring to, but you can be sure the Democrats running congress are being pressured to get some reforms done. Are the Republicans in the Senate getting the same pressure? As they own 49 seats, the pressure has to be applied there as well. I'm referring to earmark (pork) reform- something that the Dems promised to make a priority upon getting elected. Now they seem to be backing off in favor of "business as usual". I completely agree that Republicans need to be pressured as well; if you spend some time on the right wing blogs, you'll see that there's a lot of anger against the Republicans on this subject. Now the the Democrats hold Congress, they need pressure applied as well.said by dynodb:For a hint of things to come, just take a look at who they appointed chair of the Appropriations Committee. Hint: he's been dubbed "King of Pork" many years ago. Another well spun Republican talking point. Meaningless.
said by dynodb:The lawmakers were right to complain, but it wasn't motivated by so much by a desire to right a wrong, but rather an effort by lawmakers representing rural districts to get the money funnelled to their own districts. Isn't that the wrong that is trying to be made right? Isn't that the whole point? said by dynodb:Also note that they've been working on reforms since 2005- well before the Democrats took control of Congress. Again, not sure of what reform you are referring to. If your talking about reforms such as Social Security, trying to reform it so that instead of the government in control, thier buddies on Wall Streat get their hands on all that money, there is reform you should run away from screaming! | |
| | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Yawn... I wonder how long it is going to take for the Democrat Party to start whining about the constant criticism it is getting for not doing what they promised to do in the elections of last year?
With power comes accountability. Have fun!
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | | | dynodb
As seems to be a typical reaction of those who peruse 'right wing blogs', attack the messenger, not the message. You seem to have completely missed the point of my original post, which was to discuss the coordinated attempt, run out of the White House, to use federal government agencies to ensure Republican control of all levels of government. The Rural Broadband Program is just one more example of this attempt to use Government funds to grease the right palms. Normally, something like this might go to the Department of Justice for investigation and possible criminal indictments. However, they aren't exactly credible at the moment (refer to earlier federal government agencies remark). Hopefully the current congress will be able to dig out this type of activity and put an end to it. As far as relating to the spirit of this forum, this type of oversight might help ensure appropriated funds designed to be spent on rural broadband deployment get spent in a manner more in line with the intent of the legislation authorizing it.
Earmarks are a whole other topic, so...ROFLMAO!!!!!! | |
|
 MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Strong changes "Promoting deployment to rural areas with little or no service; ... Limiting funding in urban areas and areas where a significant share of the market is served by incumbent providers;"
"Promoting" what their purpose is supposed to be, and "limiting" what it's not supposed to be, yep that's some pretty strong rules ... NOT. Let the pork roll on. | |
| injury
join:2007-05-12
Quitman, TX | not sure it addresses the problem anyways From what I gather the rural broadband program is just for extending the infrastructure and running cable.
I don't think it addresses a bigger issue of some of the rural carriers having a virtual monopoly when it comes to wired broadband and charging outlandish prices.
DSL at my house 384kb down $50 a month, if I want to bump it up to the usual (everywhere else) 1.5m down thats $200 a month outrageous. | |
| | | | Re: not sure it addresses the problem anyways The bigger question you need to ask yourself in regards to broadband pricing is "Why is there no competition in my area?". The answer is...you're (probably)in a rural area and it's simply not profitable for anyone else to provide service.
The prices you quoted are likely from an independent telephone company. The vast majority of independent telephone companies are cooperatives. I'm going to say there's a 90% chance it's a co-op your prices are from. Most people really don't understand how they work and where they came from.
Chances are...40 or 50 years ago when telephone service was becoming the norm in large cities, Ma Bell wouldn't come to your area because they knew they couldn't make money off of it. So a handful of people (farmers etc...) or really small telephone companies likely combined together and created a co-op so that they could have telephone service like the large cities had already had for a few (or many) years.
Basically how it works is everyone throws money in a pool, the necessary equipment and overhead are subtracted from the pool of money, and the remainder (dividends or capital credits) is divided back up amongst the members. It's important to note that each person that has service is a member and therefore a part owner of the company.
They're number one stated goal is usually to provide service to their rural customers. Just like SBC, Verizon, Sprint etc... they will be the ILEC for that area (remember that Ma Bell easily could've, but didn't want to cough up the big bucks). Each area they have (township/district) has a board member you elect to represent you. It's basically like a city/county council. Really co-ops operate just like a government entity.
As recently as a decade ago, a co-ops only goal was usually to just provide telephone service. A lot of them only have 500-3000 customers. That's not very many.
As DSL came about, these small co-ops had lots of pressure on them to provide internet access.
Let me give you the real reason your broadband pricing seems to be out of whack.
While I can't quote exact pricing, the following should be at least in the ballpark of what the actual cost is.
We'll start with the DSLAM/cabinet (remote terminal). Let's say they're roughly $30,000. This will serve about a 3 mile radius. In a rural area, let's say this means 100 homes. Of those 100, it's now expected that 5-10% won't even have phone service (cell phones, can't afford it etc...). Of the remaining 90-95, DSL subscription rates should vary from 10-50%.
Now you need fiber from the DSLAM back to the Central Office. Let's say it's 5 miles away, and that fiber costs $10k a mile to run. We're up to $80,000. Now you get into routers and switches. Let's say for a very small ISP with a minimal amount of redundancy, there's easily $100,000 between servers, switches, and routers. $180,000. This C.O. is probably still in a fairly rural area, and most POPs for any kind of halfway decent backbone provider tend to only be in larger cities. Let's pretend you need to run 50 miles of fiber to hit your backbone provider. $130,000+ $500,000=$630,000. Now you get into bandwidth pricing, and I can GUARANTEE you that for a small ISP this will run $100-250 per megabit a month. Let's say $150/1Mbps. You buy at least 25 megs. That's $3,750 a month.
So we're at $630,000 + $3,750/month. You'll need at least two or three additional people to setup and maintain the network. In a small co-op that might have employeed 20 people before for strictly POTS stuff, this is a significant change. Now you need extra cards for your DSLAMS, fiber splicing equipment, and lots of other random things that add up quick. There's easily a million dollars spent to get you DSL. You can count off another million in upgrades down the road.
Let's go back to the customer base...we'll say 1,000 people. Let's say 25% subscribe overall.
Tell me how 250 people are going to subsidize $1 million+ paying >$30 or $40 month? This is something that's not going to last 25 years...it's a technology that'll be almost completely dead within a 10-15 years. Keep in mind you have to pay to replace and make constant upgrades to the equipment too.
Now are you starting to see their "outrageous" pricing?
Co-ops are not intended to be evil...they're intended to provide services to rural areas. As a member who has their service, you can voice your opinions to your board member. All this information should be readily available to you when you sign up.
Keep in mind that the annual meetings for any kind of co-op are going to bring a crowd that'd be more content with a free sample of poli-dent than hearing about DSL. It's likely your board member is no younger than 60. That's the "other" problem, so to speak.
Now here's the important question...Do co-ops get this USDA money? From what I've seen...NO. But that doesn't mean that many don't that I'm not aware of.
I'd google fiber to the igloo before I'd complain about a co-op not providing competitively priced broadband.
And yeah, if it wouldn't be for me being somewhat familiar with the industry, my first reaction to that kind of pricing would be "that's a f-cking ripoff". It is high...I don't think anyone will debate that. If anything, it makes you wonder even more where the ____ this money is going.
The fun part is...it all points back to Ma Bell. | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: not sure it addresses the problem anyways Then how on earth did they wire up POTS in the first place? | |
| | | | | | Re: not sure it addresses the problem anyways To be perfectly honest...I've kind of wondered that myself.
I'm guessing a long term loan and people pitching in when they first started. Keep in mind that if there were enough people wanting phone service that they took the effort to form a co-op, then it's a safe bet that there was a 99% subscription rate. Back then I'm sure it was viewed as a long term investment, and people planned on having the service forever (not switching to XYZ competitor...because there was no competitor and it'd be pretty stupid to support a company that is competing against one you "own").
That's not to mention that the biggest change in telephony before fiber came about was the switch from mechanical to digital switches. Their infrastructure lasted 20 or 25 years, so the investment had been paid off over the years. The digital switch took them into the early-mid 90's before it really needed big changes again.
So basically...it was probably because things didn't change much and they just provided telephone service.
On a side note...larger co-ops do pretty well. I can think of a handful that are a few years ahead of Verizon and SBC with FTTH/FTTP. The beauty of a co-op is...the more members, the cheaper/better the service. It just works the other way for the smaller ones unfortunately.
I think there are a LOT of rural areas SBC/Verizon/Sprint still wouldn't touch even if a co-op handed them the keys.
If you read some of the history of the various telephone co-ops throughout the U.S., you'll notice a lot of them state that the people had "requested" for Whatever Bell to come to the area for a while before the co-op was formed. It was Ma Bells refusal to provide service in those areas that caused them to originally be formed.
It's still a good system if there's enough people (members) to bring down the cost.
FYI...If you are a member, you can run for the board.
| |
|
| | My thoughts The real problem is there's no back end accounting. You just fill the papers on what you are going to do and then you go spend the money on an aria that can make you better money.
I think it's as simple as having the company's that get the grant or loan to file monthly reports of customers they have added. The customer, mayor, business or who ever they give service to can sign a doc with location information so that the ISP or Clec can be tracked. Make them take pictures and give detailed information on each part of the project. They should know were every penny is going. Then if they check up on company and find that the information is not the same. Make them pay it all back with high interest and fines, and then put them in jail.
I own and have run an ISP/Wisp for 10 years now. And I am going to be applying for a grant to service small town with no broadband service. So it's piss me off to hear that all the money goes to company's that setup in towns that already have service.
I for one would report anyone I hear is miss using the grants.
This whole thing is crazy. If you have the chance to get almost free money to setup in an area with no competition why would you fuck that up? | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: My thoughts said by jober:This whole thing is crazy. If you have the chance to get almost free money to setup in an area with no competition why would you fuck that up? So when the next administration comes you can say you need free money to wire an area with no competition. | |
| | | | | Re: My thoughts If it gets internet to people that don't have it then so be it.
If you were in an unserviced area would you have a problem with some one coming in to give you service?
Oh, and it's not so free! Go read the grant app. and rules. | |
|
schillit
join:2001-12-12
Marine On Saint Croix, MN | here is an example Check out: »www.stonebridgewireless.com
They received a USDA loan at least five years ago or more to expand broadband to rural customers just outside of the St. Paul and Minneapolis areas. However, if you look at their coverage map, they essiently provide services to areas that already are covered by cable and DSL. I should know, I live in May township, an area they claim to service because it is rural, and they do not provide it to my house. I called them once and asked them if they had ANY customers in may township, they would not tell me if they did or not. This is a perfect case in point. Their CEO, Stephen Gowdy, is going to jail for fraud: »twincities.bizjournals.com/twinc···y38.html
And I now have DSL at my house so life is good! | |
| |  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | The USDA We always hear about how much waste and fraud there is in the Pentagon but the Pentagon does not even compare with the waste and fraud in the United States Department of Agriculture. There is all of the talk from the USDA about protecting the family farm, phooey it is more the likes of Con-Agra and what ever else a congressman, or Senator wants to take care to fill his our her war chest. A standard joke about the USDA goes like this....
A USDA official was giving a constituent a guided tour of the Head quarters of the USDA. The where walking down a hall way when they came upon a open office door in whom there was a person with his head on the desk crying his eyes out. When the visitor asked what was wrong the official explained, "oh his farmer died".
--
The older I get the more I prefer the company of my dogs over that of man kind. | |
| | Diddy1
join:2003-07-19
Sidney, NE
1 edit | Re: here is an example said by schillit:They received a USDA loan at least five years ago or more to expand broadband to rural customers just outside of the St. Paul and Minneapolis areas. However, if you look at their coverage map, they essiently provide services to areas that already are covered by cable and DSL. And I now have DSL at my house so life is good! Yes, this has happened here, only legitimately. What happened in our area of the world was related to the last topic on this issue. ISPs getting grants for areas already served  Still it's up to small providers like myself to get to the "real" rural areas, which helps my struggling little business. On the flip side, one provider is offering crummy sattelite specials with excellent installation pricing. Wonder how they can afford that? That does hurt my little business. | |
|
| | slight typo.. uhmmm...my math above, that $630,000 should read $680,000. Heh...whoops.
It's late. | |
|
| |
|
|
