Big C said:bear2034 said:In a final middle finger to the USA, President Joe Biden on Saturday named former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and billionaire political activist George Soros recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. pic.twitter.com/yyik7U4uDE
— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) January 4, 2025
Those on the left won't even acknowledge George Soros is a real person.
Just to appear neutral, Biden also awarded Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney medals.
Honest question: George Soros actually is a real person? I figured you guys just made him up, you know, like the pizza parlors. If he's real, why isn't he there to accept the award?
And some guy who is maybe / maybe not real is really getting this award?
I honestly thought Biden was a good POTUS for the first three years, but he seems to have slipped just tiny little bit in the 4th quarter.
There is not an easier job in the universe than being press secretary for a Democrat. And yet somehow y’all still failed.
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) January 4, 2025
I'll give it up to Joe Biden (or whoever is passing him suggestions on what to do) for devoting the last few weeks of his Presidency to trolling the Republicans. Good on you, old man.Big C said:bear2034 said:In a final middle finger to the USA, President Joe Biden on Saturday named former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and billionaire political activist George Soros recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. pic.twitter.com/yyik7U4uDE
— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) January 4, 2025
Those on the left won't even acknowledge George Soros is a real person.
Just to appear neutral, Biden also awarded Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney medals.
Honest question: George Soros actually is a real person? I figured you guys just made him up, you know, like the pizza parlors. If he's real, why isn't he there to accept the award?
And some guy who is maybe / maybe not real is really getting this award?
I honestly thought Biden was a good POTUS for the first three years, but he seems to have slipped just tiny little bit in the 4th quarter.
It's pretty neat, isn't it? This is the way MAGAs want it. Well, they get it.sycasey said:I'll give it up to Joe Biden (or whoever is passing him suggestions on what to do) for devoting the last few weeks of his Presidency to trolling the Republicans. Good on you, old man.Big C said:bear2034 said:In a final middle finger to the USA, President Joe Biden on Saturday named former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and billionaire political activist George Soros recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. pic.twitter.com/yyik7U4uDE
— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) January 4, 2025
Those on the left won't even acknowledge George Soros is a real person.
Just to appear neutral, Biden also awarded Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney medals.
Honest question: George Soros actually is a real person? I figured you guys just made him up, you know, like the pizza parlors. If he's real, why isn't he there to accept the award?
And some guy who is maybe / maybe not real is really getting this award?
I honestly thought Biden was a good POTUS for the first three years, but he seems to have slipped just tiny little bit in the 4th quarter.
The right wing boogeyman, George Soros, is 94 years old. He may not have been up to traveling.Big C said:bear2034 said:In a final middle finger to the USA, President Joe Biden on Saturday named former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and billionaire political activist George Soros recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. pic.twitter.com/yyik7U4uDE
— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) January 4, 2025
Those on the left won't even acknowledge George Soros is a real person.
Just to appear neutral, Biden also awarded Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney medals.
Honest question: George Soros actually is a real person? I figured you guys just made him up, you know, like the pizza parlors. If he's real, why isn't he there to accept the award?
And some guy who is maybe / maybe not real is really getting this award?
I honestly thought Biden was a good POTUS for the first three years, but he seems to have slipped just tiny little bit in the 4th quarter.
🚨🇺🇸ELON: GEORGE SOROS FUNDAMENTALLY HATES HUMANITY
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) January 4, 2025
“He's doing things that erode the fabric of civilization. You know, getting DAs elected who refuse to prosecute crime.”pic.twitter.com/2s59KsQ3WJ https://t.co/mUKQjLxXE4
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION: The UK is the second Islamic country to get the bomb. pic.twitter.com/tsanqIsylr
— @amuse (@amuse) January 5, 2025
Anarchistbear said:
The old time bogeymen- Soros and the Koch Brothers seem quaint compared to our new tech mobsters
movielover said:
Musk supposedly already talking about a new defacto social score algorithm on X based around positivity / negativity comments.
They’re now openly admitting it. The $42 billion high speed internet program money was laundered and used for programs it wasn’t intended for
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) January 6, 2025
How they did it: The FCC awarded Elon Musk’s Starlink $885 million to serve 642,925 homes
Joe Biden targeted Elon Musk, revoked the… pic.twitter.com/G9tt7Z7CGw
movielover said:
"Musk on Friday announced X's algorithm would be changed to promote more "informational/entertaining content" and limit replies to his posts to only paying "verified" users."
https://www.infowars.com/posts/bannon-slams-musk-for-algorithm-changes-on-x-this-is-a-social-credit-score
Hawaii, I don't want to knitpick here but, that's not the definition of money laundering. The $42 million that you're talking about would need to have been raised by illegal means. It wasn't.HawaiiBear33 said:They’re now openly admitting it. The $42 billion high speed internet program money was laundered and used for programs it wasn’t intended for
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) January 6, 2025
How they did it: The FCC awarded Elon Musk’s Starlink $885 million to serve 642,925 homes
Joe Biden targeted Elon Musk, revoked the… pic.twitter.com/G9tt7Z7CGw
Remember the 40+ billion that got zero Americans on the internet?
Just another clear instance of corruption that radical lefties choose to ignore. Yes they do run almost all sources of information and that's why they fool you so easily
movielover said:
Will he pardon Gavin Newsom?
movielover said:
Is Gavin Newsom's lifelong pursuit of the White House over?
Delta Smelt Fish Association Reiterates Support For Gavin Newsom https://t.co/LeBnKqzY26 pic.twitter.com/l7oD9NdoPz
— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) January 11, 2025
Thank you for providing such a clear explanation of why this program has been both a grift and a failure. You have perfectly described the emphasis on regulatory over reach, union spending, climate change (for broadband?) and other irrelevant factors rather than finding the cheapest and fasted way to deploy internet. This is the same type of defective thinking and prioritization that has afflicted California's wildfire policy.philly1121 said:Hawaii, I don't want to knitpick here but, that's not the definition of money laundering. The $42 million that you're talking about would need to have been raised by illegal means. It wasn't.HawaiiBear33 said:They’re now openly admitting it. The $42 billion high speed internet program money was laundered and used for programs it wasn’t intended for
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) January 6, 2025
How they did it: The FCC awarded Elon Musk’s Starlink $885 million to serve 642,925 homes
Joe Biden targeted Elon Musk, revoked the… pic.twitter.com/G9tt7Z7CGw
Remember the 40+ billion that got zero Americans on the internet?
Just another clear instance of corruption that radical lefties choose to ignore. Yes they do run almost all sources of information and that's why they fool you so easily
Also, states are receiving the money from the Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program. The snag in receiving money, for example in Virgina, has to do with the programs requirements that a provider receiving the funding must provide a low cost option. The rules also require states accepting the money to make sure providers plan for climate change, reach out to unionized workforces and hire locally. One broad provision requires low-cost options and fast connections for "middle class families" at "reasonable prices."
So let me ask you, given the inroads Repubs have made with union households and minority groups, why would they be against such provisions? Well, because MAGA loves effing themselves in their own ears.
Ultimately, Virgina got $1.5 billion in funds. And the low cost plans that were finally created were very telecom friendly. But since, as in the Virgina example, most of the deployment of broadband was to be done in the rural areas, it would no doubt favor Republicans. In short, this is much ado about nothing.
This program was probably one of the few components of the Infrastructure deal that had bipartisan support, particularly in Virginia. Because they were already a hub for broadband and wanted to expand to the rural areas of the state. And honestly, do you think government is going to give this money for nothing? As I wrote in the Virginia example, the delays were caused by broadband providers not wanting to provide low cost options for broadband. Simply offering broadband internet at $125 per month is not a solution. Why would the government accept that when that's exactly the root cause of the access issue? Cost.BearGoggles said:Thank you for providing such a clear explanation of why this program has been both a grift and a failure. You have perfectly described the emphasis on regulatory over reach, union spending, climate change (for broadband?) and other irrelevant factors rather than finding the cheapest and fasted way to deploy internet. This is the same type of defective thinking and prioritization that has afflicted California's wildfire policy.philly1121 said:Hawaii, I don't want to knitpick here but, that's not the definition of money laundering. The $42 million that you're talking about would need to have been raised by illegal means. It wasn't.HawaiiBear33 said:They’re now openly admitting it. The $42 billion high speed internet program money was laundered and used for programs it wasn’t intended for
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) January 6, 2025
How they did it: The FCC awarded Elon Musk’s Starlink $885 million to serve 642,925 homes
Joe Biden targeted Elon Musk, revoked the… pic.twitter.com/G9tt7Z7CGw
Remember the 40+ billion that got zero Americans on the internet?
Just another clear instance of corruption that radical lefties choose to ignore. Yes they do run almost all sources of information and that's why they fool you so easily
Also, states are receiving the money from the Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program. The snag in receiving money, for example in Virgina, has to do with the programs requirements that a provider receiving the funding must provide a low cost option. The rules also require states accepting the money to make sure providers plan for climate change, reach out to unionized workforces and hire locally. One broad provision requires low-cost options and fast connections for "middle class families" at "reasonable prices."
So let me ask you, given the inroads Repubs have made with union households and minority groups, why would they be against such provisions? Well, because MAGA loves effing themselves in their own ears.
Ultimately, Virgina got $1.5 billion in funds. And the low cost plans that were finally created were very telecom friendly. But since, as in the Virgina example, most of the deployment of broadband was to be done in the rural areas, it would no doubt favor Republicans. In short, this is much ado about nothing.
You also conveniently ignore and do not engage with the notion Musk's solution would have been much cheaper and faster - and that he was rejected for political reasons. Starlink is amazing and can be set up in about 30 minutes in rural areas.
Wasting $42 billion (not million) dollars is not "much ado about nothing."
The delays in Virginia were caused, in part, by affordability concerns. Imagine that - the government designed a program with price mandates where no telecom companies wanted to provide the services. Shocker. How have government price mandates/controls worked historically?philly1121 said:This program was probably one of the few components of the Infrastructure deal that had bipartisan support, particularly in Virginia. Because they were already a hub for broadband and wanted to expand to the rural areas of the state. And honestly, do you think government is going to give this money for nothing? As I wrote in the Virginia example, the delays were caused by broadband providers not wanting to provide low cost options for broadband. Simply offering broadband internet at $125 per month is not a solution. Why would the government accept that when that's exactly the root cause of the access issue? Cost.BearGoggles said:Thank you for providing such a clear explanation of why this program has been both a grift and a failure. You have perfectly described the emphasis on regulatory over reach, union spending, climate change (for broadband?) and other irrelevant factors rather than finding the cheapest and fasted way to deploy internet. This is the same type of defective thinking and prioritization that has afflicted California's wildfire policy.philly1121 said:Hawaii, I don't want to knitpick here but, that's not the definition of money laundering. The $42 million that you're talking about would need to have been raised by illegal means. It wasn't.HawaiiBear33 said:They’re now openly admitting it. The $42 billion high speed internet program money was laundered and used for programs it wasn’t intended for
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) January 6, 2025
How they did it: The FCC awarded Elon Musk’s Starlink $885 million to serve 642,925 homes
Joe Biden targeted Elon Musk, revoked the… pic.twitter.com/G9tt7Z7CGw
Remember the 40+ billion that got zero Americans on the internet?
Just another clear instance of corruption that radical lefties choose to ignore. Yes they do run almost all sources of information and that's why they fool you so easily
Also, states are receiving the money from the Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program. The snag in receiving money, for example in Virgina, has to do with the programs requirements that a provider receiving the funding must provide a low cost option. The rules also require states accepting the money to make sure providers plan for climate change, reach out to unionized workforces and hire locally. One broad provision requires low-cost options and fast connections for "middle class families" at "reasonable prices."
So let me ask you, given the inroads Repubs have made with union households and minority groups, why would they be against such provisions? Well, because MAGA loves effing themselves in their own ears.
Ultimately, Virgina got $1.5 billion in funds. And the low cost plans that were finally created were very telecom friendly. But since, as in the Virgina example, most of the deployment of broadband was to be done in the rural areas, it would no doubt favor Republicans. In short, this is much ado about nothing.
You also conveniently ignore and do not engage with the notion Musk's solution would have been much cheaper and faster - and that he was rejected for political reasons. Starlink is amazing and can be set up in about 30 minutes in rural areas.
Wasting $42 billion (not million) dollars is not "much ado about nothing."
The program is not a waste. Money is being dispersed to the States. The fact that you deem it a waste is one of those numerous instances of biting off your nose to spite your face. The potential payoffs for Republicans in red districts is huge. And Starlink? A program from Co-President Musk that he could turn off as easily as he could turn on to spite people. And at $120 per month for residential service - that's no bargain and certainly not reachable for the communities BEAD is trying to serve.
Your comparison with the wildfire policy is nonsensical.
Yes, the government designed a program where broadband could be built. So, if what you're saying is true, why haven't broadband/internet providers already produced a low cost option? Of course. They haven't. Because they don't want to. Which is why the BEAD program was created to begin with. You're proceeding on the false assumption that if you let corporations do what they want, the benefits will be seen by the consumer. But that hasn't been the case, not the least of which in broadband introductions. And why would the government subsidize internet access when they are spcifically asking for companies to lower prices in exchange for BEAD money? That makes no sense at all. I thought you were anti-government?BearGoggles said:The delays in Virginia were caused, in part, by affordability concerns. Imagine that - the government designed a program with price mandates where no telecom companies wanted to provide the services. Shocker. How have government price mandates/controls worked historically?philly1121 said:This program was probably one of the few components of the Infrastructure deal that had bipartisan support, particularly in Virginia. Because they were already a hub for broadband and wanted to expand to the rural areas of the state. And honestly, do you think government is going to give this money for nothing? As I wrote in the Virginia example, the delays were caused by broadband providers not wanting to provide low cost options for broadband. Simply offering broadband internet at $125 per month is not a solution. Why would the government accept that when that's exactly the root cause of the access issue? Cost.BearGoggles said:Thank you for providing such a clear explanation of why this program has been both a grift and a failure. You have perfectly described the emphasis on regulatory over reach, union spending, climate change (for broadband?) and other irrelevant factors rather than finding the cheapest and fasted way to deploy internet. This is the same type of defective thinking and prioritization that has afflicted California's wildfire policy.philly1121 said:Hawaii, I don't want to knitpick here but, that's not the definition of money laundering. The $42 million that you're talking about would need to have been raised by illegal means. It wasn't.HawaiiBear33 said:They’re now openly admitting it. The $42 billion high speed internet program money was laundered and used for programs it wasn’t intended for
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) January 6, 2025
How they did it: The FCC awarded Elon Musk’s Starlink $885 million to serve 642,925 homes
Joe Biden targeted Elon Musk, revoked the… pic.twitter.com/G9tt7Z7CGw
Remember the 40+ billion that got zero Americans on the internet?
Just another clear instance of corruption that radical lefties choose to ignore. Yes they do run almost all sources of information and that's why they fool you so easily
Also, states are receiving the money from the Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program. The snag in receiving money, for example in Virgina, has to do with the programs requirements that a provider receiving the funding must provide a low cost option. The rules also require states accepting the money to make sure providers plan for climate change, reach out to unionized workforces and hire locally. One broad provision requires low-cost options and fast connections for "middle class families" at "reasonable prices."
So let me ask you, given the inroads Repubs have made with union households and minority groups, why would they be against such provisions? Well, because MAGA loves effing themselves in their own ears.
Ultimately, Virgina got $1.5 billion in funds. And the low cost plans that were finally created were very telecom friendly. But since, as in the Virgina example, most of the deployment of broadband was to be done in the rural areas, it would no doubt favor Republicans. In short, this is much ado about nothing.
You also conveniently ignore and do not engage with the notion Musk's solution would have been much cheaper and faster - and that he was rejected for political reasons. Starlink is amazing and can be set up in about 30 minutes in rural areas.
Wasting $42 billion (not million) dollars is not "much ado about nothing."
The program is not a waste. Money is being dispersed to the States. The fact that you deem it a waste is one of those numerous instances of biting off your nose to spite your face. The potential payoffs for Republicans in red districts is huge. And Starlink? A program from Co-President Musk that he could turn off as easily as he could turn on to spite people. And at $120 per month for residential service - that's no bargain and certainly not reachable for the communities BEAD is trying to serve.
Your comparison with the wildfire policy is nonsensical.
You can get a basic starlink plan for $50 (limited data). Even at $125, that is pretty much the going rate. Had the government contracted with starlink, they would have saved literally billions of dollars on infrastructure and could have used the spending savings to subsidize service for low income individuals. They also could have negotiated a better "bulk" rate. But instead they wanted to route $$ to the unions and pursue goals like climate change.
My comparison with the wildfire policy is spot on. The goals of each program - providing universal broadband or fire protection) - were distorted by/subordinated to extraneous concerns that didn't advance the stated goals, like DEI, climate change, union payoffs, etc.
Don't forget the constant whining about how unfair the mainstream media is to conservatives and/or Republicans!philly1121 said:
But this is the new normal for America. A hurricane strikes - blame DEI. A fire? Blame the unions. Blame wokeness. And offer no offers of gratitude for people fighting the fires. Offer no words of comfort to victims. Just blame. Throw insults. Set the narrative. That's the goal. A winning strategy. But still, no decency from you lot.
Where are you and what speed do you recived?Eastern Oregon Bear said:
After seeing the prices being tossed around, I feel fortunate to be getting unlimited internet via fiber optic cable for $48 per month. No bundling too. If a rural mom and pop operation can keep costs this low, why should we pay so much more for satellite internet? It might be cheaper to bring wiring to the remote areas rather than launching hundreds of satellites. We have electricity and phone lines to most remote locations.
Do you really think Musk can or would "turn off' service because he got mad. Has he done that with SpaceX or twitter? Please. Why don't you fear the same thing for Amazon, Facebook, or Youtube? It is just silliness. If you really believe that, you are insane. And if you don't, your arguing in bad faith. Which is it?philly1121 said:Yes, the government designed a program where broadband could be built. So, if what you're saying is true, why haven't broadband/internet providers already produced a low cost option? Of course. They haven't. Because they don't want to. Which is why the BEAD program was created to begin with. You're proceeding on the false assumption that if you let corporations do what they want, the benefits will be seen by the consumer. But that hasn't been the case, not the least of which in broadband introductions. And why would the government subsidize internet access when they are spcifically asking for companies to lower prices in exchange for BEAD money? That makes no sense at all. I thought you were anti-government?BearGoggles said:The delays in Virginia were caused, in part, by affordability concerns. Imagine that - the government designed a program with price mandates where no telecom companies wanted to provide the services. Shocker. How have government price mandates/controls worked historically?philly1121 said:This program was probably one of the few components of the Infrastructure deal that had bipartisan support, particularly in Virginia. Because they were already a hub for broadband and wanted to expand to the rural areas of the state. And honestly, do you think government is going to give this money for nothing? As I wrote in the Virginia example, the delays were caused by broadband providers not wanting to provide low cost options for broadband. Simply offering broadband internet at $125 per month is not a solution. Why would the government accept that when that's exactly the root cause of the access issue? Cost.BearGoggles said:Thank you for providing such a clear explanation of why this program has been both a grift and a failure. You have perfectly described the emphasis on regulatory over reach, union spending, climate change (for broadband?) and other irrelevant factors rather than finding the cheapest and fasted way to deploy internet. This is the same type of defective thinking and prioritization that has afflicted California's wildfire policy.philly1121 said:Hawaii, I don't want to knitpick here but, that's not the definition of money laundering. The $42 million that you're talking about would need to have been raised by illegal means. It wasn't.HawaiiBear33 said:They’re now openly admitting it. The $42 billion high speed internet program money was laundered and used for programs it wasn’t intended for
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) January 6, 2025
How they did it: The FCC awarded Elon Musk’s Starlink $885 million to serve 642,925 homes
Joe Biden targeted Elon Musk, revoked the… pic.twitter.com/G9tt7Z7CGw
Remember the 40+ billion that got zero Americans on the internet?
Just another clear instance of corruption that radical lefties choose to ignore. Yes they do run almost all sources of information and that's why they fool you so easily
Also, states are receiving the money from the Broadband, Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program. The snag in receiving money, for example in Virgina, has to do with the programs requirements that a provider receiving the funding must provide a low cost option. The rules also require states accepting the money to make sure providers plan for climate change, reach out to unionized workforces and hire locally. One broad provision requires low-cost options and fast connections for "middle class families" at "reasonable prices."
So let me ask you, given the inroads Repubs have made with union households and minority groups, why would they be against such provisions? Well, because MAGA loves effing themselves in their own ears.
Ultimately, Virgina got $1.5 billion in funds. And the low cost plans that were finally created were very telecom friendly. But since, as in the Virgina example, most of the deployment of broadband was to be done in the rural areas, it would no doubt favor Republicans. In short, this is much ado about nothing.
You also conveniently ignore and do not engage with the notion Musk's solution would have been much cheaper and faster - and that he was rejected for political reasons. Starlink is amazing and can be set up in about 30 minutes in rural areas.
Wasting $42 billion (not million) dollars is not "much ado about nothing."
The program is not a waste. Money is being dispersed to the States. The fact that you deem it a waste is one of those numerous instances of biting off your nose to spite your face. The potential payoffs for Republicans in red districts is huge. And Starlink? A program from Co-President Musk that he could turn off as easily as he could turn on to spite people. And at $120 per month for residential service - that's no bargain and certainly not reachable for the communities BEAD is trying to serve.
Your comparison with the wildfire policy is nonsensical.
You can get a basic starlink plan for $50 (limited data). Even at $125, that is pretty much the going rate. Had the government contracted with starlink, they would have saved literally billions of dollars on infrastructure and could have used the spending savings to subsidize service for low income individuals. They also could have negotiated a better "bulk" rate. But instead they wanted to route $$ to the unions and pursue goals like climate change.
My comparison with the wildfire policy is spot on. The goals of each program - providing universal broadband or fire protection) - were distorted by/subordinated to extraneous concerns that didn't advance the stated goals, like DEI, climate change, union payoffs, etc.
And I repeat, I see minimal residential service for Starlink at $120. BEAD aimed to get that amount down to $75-80 per month. So, I repeat once again, why would the government rely on a man who built a system that he could unilaterally turn off if he got a bad twitter response to one of his posts? No. The government isn't going to do that. And since he is so in the bag for Trump, what you're saying makes zero sense.
Once again, even tho union households held steady for Harris, why would you ignore such a constituency when this group is probably ripe for the taking in the next election?
Hmm...let's examine your analogy. BEAD program, broadband access, lower price per monthly cost for low income families. Union companies preferred.
Fire protection. Union firefighters. Are you against that union? Tax dollars to support firefighting/firefighters/ equipment. LAFD received a $58 million budget increase from 23/24. The Santa Ynez Reservoir was emptied back in February 2024 because of a crack in the cover. Should have been done in house but the contracted out the job. This is what happens when you RFP sh*t. And work didn't get done in a timely manner. But that's semantics. The reservoir being full would not have stopped the destruction.
So, you're analogy about unionism or DEI being the problem for both of these issues is, again, nonsensical.
But this is the new normal for America. A hurricane strikes - blame DEI. A fire? Blame the unions. Blame wokeness. And offer no offers of gratitude for people fighting the fires. Offer no words of comfort to victims. Just blame. Throw insults. Set the narrative. That's the goal. A winning strategy. But still, no decency from you lot.
I'm in Pendleton OR. I'm paying $48 per month for 300 mb from a local provider. That's been more than sufficient for our needs. They have higher speed options. 1 gb is $88 per month. 10 gb is $298. Google Fiber isn't available here (or apparently anywhere in the Pacific Northwest except Seattle).BearGoggles said:Where are you and what speed do you recived?Eastern Oregon Bear said:
After seeing the prices being tossed around, I feel fortunate to be getting unlimited internet via fiber optic cable for $48 per month. No bundling too. If a rural mom and pop operation can keep costs this low, why should we pay so much more for satellite internet? It might be cheaper to bring wiring to the remote areas rather than launching hundreds of satellites. We have electricity and phone lines to most remote locations.
Google fiber (if available) is the cheapest option at $70/month for 1gb. But most places don't have Google Fiber. Cable companies are usually closer to $100.
.
Those prices are not offered under the BEAD program, which is what we're discussing. I know that because reportedly NO ONE in the entire country has been connected through the $42B boondoggle BEAD program.philly1121 said:
Virginia actually offers plans ranging from $30 to $75 per month. So, it worked. I'm not demagoging. You are.
We are discussing BEAD - the program that has connected literally no one to this point. So the 3 million "homes and small businesses" connected since Bident "took office (as if he had something to do with hit) is not a result of BEAD. Full stop. The new connections had nothing to do with Biden or Bead.philly1121 said:
Goggles, when has there ever been a posting you've made which tells the truth?
https://broadbandbreakfast.com/the-fight-over-virginias-bead-low-cost-option-appears-over/
Paragraph 5.
Cheap internet? Oh, you mean the Affordable Connectivity Program? Shuttered.
Oh, here's the state allocations below
https://statescoop.com/heres-how-much-every-state-is-getting-from-bead-grant-program/
By mid 2025, BEAD should be fully implemented. Since Biden took office, 3 million unserved homes and small businesses have been connected for the first time through public and private investments.
This is such light work. I can't believe you guys won the election. Through nothing but bluster, lies, cheap narrative building and laziness. A dark day this coming Monday.
