Analysis of broadband affordability deemed “extraneous” by FCC chair.
The Federal Communications Commission is ditching Biden-era standards for measuring progress toward the goal of universal broadband deployment.
The changes will make it easier for the FCC to give the broadband industry a passing grade in an annual progress report. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s proposal would give the industry a thumbs-up even if it falls short of 100 percent deployment, eliminate a long-term goal of gigabit broadband speeds, and abandon a new effort to track the affordability of broadband.
Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act requires the FCC to determine whether broadband is being deployed “on a reasonable and timely basis” to all Americans. If the answer is no, the US law says the FCC must “take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market.”
How would this branch be structured? How would it interface with the other branches? How would its members be appointed? What does “Infrastructure and Public Welfare” entail? Why are “Infrastructure” and “Public Welfare” grouped together? What powers would it have to carry out its job, and what specifically is that job? Based on those previous answers, how would it solve any existing or foreseeable issues? Why would it be better positioned to solve those issues than a change made within the existing three-branch framework?
And money. Infrastructure is all cost, no profit, no income source, and damn expensive.
A separate branch only solves the political will half of the infrastructure problem, but we also need a consistent, large budget to actually keep up
And personally I’d vote to give it all to Amtrak and transit. Every time we add a highway or more lanes to a highway, we’re increasing infrastructure costs that we already can’t afford to keep up with. Why are we still digging this hole deeper?
Blah blah blah checks and balances that we can pretend exist.