• db2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    147
    ·
    4 months ago

    In the early 2000s iirc they were given billions to build out rural broadband. They kept it. Rural broadband still doesn’t exist to speak of.

    • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      78
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      We did the same for urban fiber. It’s never materialized, either. And, the USDA has been providing funding and loans for rural broadband for quite awhile.

      • db2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        44
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s almost like the foxes are running the hen house, as the old saying goes.

      • reddig33@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’ve read there’s lots of “dark” fiber in cities, but I don’t know if it’s true. I do know that AT&T has a fiber line that runs through my neighborhood, yet I can’t get fiber internet. Really stupid.

        • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          “Whats this?”

          “Thats the fiber line.”

          “Oh, cool. Can I get fiber?”

          “No.”

          “Why not?”

          “We’d need some federal grants to run some fiber first.”

          “But the fiber is right here.”

          “We need that for other people to get fiber.”

          “Well, why can’t I access it too?”

          “Ugh! I told you! We need public money to our multibillion dollar company to use this fiber line thats already here!”

          “I don’t understand…”

          “You wouldn’t.”

        • jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          AT&T has a copper wire connected to my house but they refuse to offer me any service at all because they “dOnT oFfEr DsL aNyMoRe.” Shitty DSL is shitty DSL but it’s better than nothing. At least I have access to Cable but I know plenty of people who don’t. That shit should be illegal.

        • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          I do know that AT&T has a fiber line that runs through my neighborhood, yet I can’t get fiber internet

          The local exchange carriers (LECs) typically change from plain olds telephone system (POTS) to fiber at the neighborhood level. Coax carriers also.

          Fiber to the neighborhood is already there. It’s not hard to run a line across a neighborhood to connect whatever on either side.

          The difficult part is getting from a neighborhood connection to each individual home. It’s a flower pot install on each property, all connected together underground, and it can’t fuck with gas, water, sewer, etc.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            It’s also not hard to use that fibre connection to the neighbourhood to provide DSL. That’s precisely what it’s made for: Use that copper last mile and have whatever on the upstream side. And there’s plenty of DSL hardware that doubles as POTS and/or ISDN hardware, you can upgrade the whole neighbourhood to “DSL available” by installing such a thing, connecting all the lines to it, and then remotely activating DSL when people sign up.

            Over here they’re actually moving away from that, opting for voip instead and using DSL over the whole frequency spectrum.

            • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              As soon as those decades old and severely degraded copper lines are replaced in all of those old neighborhoods where fiber is slowest to roll out, DSL can provide a higher cost and subpar service on a deprecated standard. That’s exactly what we need with a surplus of capacity on modern hardware already deployed in the field.

              We’ll all have broadband in no time if they’d just listen to you.

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Earthworks are expensive, doubly so if you need specialised techs because fibre isn’t easy to install much less splice. If you get fibre to within 200-500m of the property G.Fast will deliver 100Mbit to 1Gbit, which is way faster than most people are willing to pay for. And that’s old tech in fact most plans for FTTH are actually FTTF, that is, fibre only reaches the property border, then you get a copper cable from there using XG-FAST, a single-user DSL installation. Expect something on the order of 8Gbit/s. Which is an amount of speed most people’s PCs can’t even deal with, 1Gbit NICs are still the norm with 2.5G making inroads. Gigabit ethernet has been sufficient for the vast, vast, majority of people for a good 20 years now.

                Things might be a bit different in the US because suburbia and those ludicrously sparse neighbourhoods, yep going directly to fibre at least to the property border probably makes sense there. But in the city? Provide fibre to a block, the rest of the infrastructure can be reused. It’s not cheap to run fibre through apartment building hallways, either, and no running Ethernet on those copper lines is a much worse idea, ethernet can’t deal gracefully with interference, crosstalk, and otherwise shoddy copper.

          • reddig33@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Seems like they could connect something wireless to the fiber to provide internet to the home.

            • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              4 months ago

              The entire cellular network, particularly T-Mo 5G unlimited, would put it to shame. If one wants better then Starlink.

              The way to do wireless would be to form a neighborhood ISP, put up a tower, then wireless P2P to each home. I’ve seen it in a few places. More common is citywide wifi.

      • sunzu@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        American taxpayer is always paying for major CapEx for most industries then turn around and price gouge us.

        Most amercians see to be fine with it since they live in a free market economy where private sector funds investment.

        • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          free market economy where private sector funds investment

          If that’s how it actually worked we might accept it. But, today there’s little distinction between public and private: Corporations own our government.

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t think that the United States Department of Agriculture is involved in subsidizing urban fiber.

        • SirDerpy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Yeah. That’s wasn’t very clear. The USDA has been funding and providing loans for rural broadband. About $1b, IIRC.

          Thanks for the pointing that out.

    • seaQueue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yup, they took the 90s era broadband grants and just pocketed them because they knew that the Bush era FCC wouldn’t pursue the matter.

    • Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      And in the late 2000’s. And again a few years later. And as of last year they, the FCC is once again throwing money at them without any real oversight. I worked for a ISP in 2010 and we couldn’t get any of the money because a bank had first lean on the company USDA demanded that before any money could be approved. AT&T got money for our area and their footprint shrank the next year when they cut off dial-up customers in the area.

      • BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Because of the FCC’s hilariously out of date definition, many places have theoretical broadband access (one 10mb pipe shared amongst dozens of households).