White House Announces $40 Billion in Broadband Funding - Slashdot
source link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/23/06/26/1720257/white-house-announces-40-billion-in-broadband-funding
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
White House Announces $40 Billion in Broadband Funding
White House Announces $40 Billion in Broadband Funding (theverge.com) 97
Posted by msmash
on Monday June 26, 2023 @01:20PM from the moving-forward dept.President Joe Biden is getting closer to distributing more than $40 billion in funding to support broadband expansion nationwide as part of his administration's goal to connect all Americans to high-speed internet by 2030. From a reportL: The funding, authorized in Biden's 2021 bipartisan infrastructure package, will be distributed proportionally to states based on need with each state receiving at least $100 million. Monday's allocations were made using broadband coverage maps that were recently updated to include more than one million new locations. "Just like Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered electricity to every home in America through his Rural Electrification Act, the announcement is part of President Biden's broader effort to deliver investments, jobs, and opportunities directly to working and middle-class families across the country," a White House official said in a statement Monday. States will be expected to submit their plans for using the funding by December. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), housed in the Commerce Department, plans to approve these plans before next spring when it will begin allocating 20 percent of a state's authorized funding and infrastructure deployment can begin. By the end of 2025, at least 80 percent of the funding will be allocated.
›
-
In all seriousness, supplying Ukr. weapons is a military bargain: our #2 enemy is turning itself into #3 without us sending any troops, and spending relatively minor amounts of our military budget.
Perhaps we could have even eventually shrank our general military to match their shrinkage, but China is ascending, making it kind of even out.
-
-
-
-
I get that Armchair General is a thing y'all love to play in Techworld when you're not busy playing Economist or shooting up schools, but some self-reflection and a look at the Wiki page on Dunning-Kruger would do you some good.
-
-
-
The "depleted ammunition" shit is so stupid. We can easily build more ammunition, and it's not as though we have some threat to our country that would necessitate a bunch of ammunition. China isn't going to invade Taiwan any time soon, contra what you tech-brained imbeciles are told by the Elons and David Sackses of the world.
A couple hundred billion to help Ukraine turn Russia's military into oatmeal is both (1) the right thing to do because fuck Russia and (2) an insane bargain from a realpolitik pers
-
-
And what need for the ammunition would arise that would trump this in that timeframe? The timeframe for ramping ammunition stocks is significantly shorter than anything China has in mind.
-
-
-
-
-
So becuase Russia has a low GDP and Putin is a thug we should engage in the act of appeasement and do whatever he wants on the European sub-continent, regardless of how it affects our allies in the region, regional stability and the precedent of "yeah it's the 21st century and Europe has experienced probably the longest period of sustained peace in it's history but enacting wars of aggression for the purpose of conquering land is still A-OK"? Not exactly a good look in my opinion.
This is the complete oppos
-
-
Selling weapons is choosing a side, full stop. We literally have arms embargo rules for that very thing. Only allied countried can buy an F35 from us. No country can buy an F22 from us. You can make that call that we shouldn't have chosen a side but can't also sell weapons to one or both, thats kinda silly.
Well I, the administration, Congress and the state department and much of the US citizenry disagree. There is a ton of strategic and moral case to be made to defend Ukraine as I already laid out.
Becau
-
Lol, sell them F35 or F22? Straw man. We aren't giving them either right now. I'm a bit surprised we sent patriots, Abrams and other heavy non-infantry-portable weapons systems.
I also didn't say sell to only Ukraine or only one side. I said sell to whomever pays in cash up front. If the Russians wanted to buy our extra scrap, shrug. If the Ukrainians wanted to buy the same scrap? Shrug, sure. That is definitely not taking a side. Another strawman.
You did not provide any strategic internet we have in
-
You do know straw man actually means something, it's not just "i don't like your point"
My point about the F35 and F22 is that export laws exist for a reason and the idea that anyone just exports weapons to whomever is willing to pay is assinine, dangerous and counter to whatever idea of "neutrality" you are espousing here. The fact you had to take my general point and re-frame it to shoot it down is acknowledging you missed the point entirely. Thank you?
Selling someone weapons to fight against someone els
-
"Again, Ukraine is not a great democracy but it looks like they are trying and the funny thing is this war has probably united the country in a way normal means could have never."
Agreed.
Along with the growth and reinforcement of NATO, The Pootz is discovering the law of unintended consequences.
-
I know exactly what a straw man is, it's when you put words in my mouth I didn't say then say I'm wrong for saying them. You know, that thing you've been doing all along in this thread.
Omg and there are you straw manning again. I *never* even hinted at selling anyone our top end weapons. Why so you even mention the F35/F22? Just stop. You have no point so you set up a terrible straw man to knock down. Repeatedly.
I'm going to stop reading and replying right there. You are incredibly intellectually di
-
-
Ukraine is only "holding their own" against Russia because of vast amounts of supplies coming from the collective west. And not just the flashy vehicles, large quantities of soviet weapons have been procured from various parties on the promise of US payment or replacement. The US "not picking a side" is effectively picking a side: the Russians would win via attrition. And almost certainly have then conquered all of ukraine, at least half of Moldova, and have a solid land bridge to a bunch more small former
-
Those Soviet states that are now part of NATO are completely safe from Russian attack. It is not our strategic interest to half-ass defend Ukraine to thwart an attack on smaller NATO nations.
There are other democracies under attack from totalitarian regimes. For example, India has been at de facto war with occasional hot fighting with China and Pakistan for decades. Why aren't we sending free shift to India?
Why haven't we helped any of the other places China has attacked?
And I do not understand your poin
-
-
-
-
That was way dumber than shit.
-
Yup, thanks for adding absolutely nothing to this thread. As usual.
Go see what others have written as a counter example to your silliness. You know.. intelligent adults who actually engage.
This isn't dailykos where you "win" by saying nothing but "yer a kkk dumihed!"
-
-
-
-
-
Fair enough, pest is an appropriate description. If they weren't on the UN Security Council I'm not sure we'd care about them at all.
-
-
Uh oh, my view is in opposition to the official government narrative and therefore flamebait.
Only the one true government provided view is legitimate.
-
-
This is just giving more credence to the US policy of proxy wars. It might be needed, but it's not a bargain or a good thing.
-
Democracies are relatively fragile and rare. We should lend a hand to protect them. Putin will keep eating land unless stopped; it's his habit.
-
This is semantic nonsense. If it's needed, and it's cheaper than it would have been to do it some other way, it's a bargain. "Good thing" is more subjective, but then again, it's subjectively a good thing in that compared to not opposing Putin, it's absolutely fantastic.
The best thing would be if it weren't needed, but we live in reality and have to deal with it.
-
-
-
in the 80s. The Ukrainians are doing it for $100b worth of 30 year old military hardware we needed cleared out to make way for the new stuff.
That seems like the single best deal in the history of deals.
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK