The idea here behind spreading broadband to America`s rural areas is the same one behind the rural electrification program from the 1930s. The idea that even if it`s not profitable for private industry to extend the basics of modern economic life, electric light then and the Internet now, even if it`s never going to be profitable to some private company to extend those things to every last home down every long dirt road in America, it is worth it to America, worth it to us, that everybody has access to those things. That we`re all plugged in. It is the right kind of jobs investment for the country to put people to work laying those lines and connecting those Americans to the grid and it is the right things to do for the rural parts of the country so that people and businesses in every part of the country can compete economically.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The idea here behind spreading broadband to America`s rural areas is the same one behind the rural electrification program from the 1930s. The idea that even if it`s not profitable for private industry to extend the basics of modern economic life, electric light then and the Internet now, even if it`s never going to be profitable to some private company to extend those things to every last home down every long dirt road in America, it is worth it to America, worth it to us, that everybody has access to those things. That we`re all plugged in. It is the right kind of jobs investment for the country to put people to work laying those lines and connecting those Americans to the grid and it is the right things to do for the rural parts of the country so that people and businesses in every part of the country can compete economically.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The idea here behind spreading broadband to America`s rural areas is the same one behind the rural electrification program from the 1930s. The idea that even if it`s not profitable for private industry to extend the basics of modern economic life, electric light then and the Internet now, even if it`s never going to be profitable to some private company to extend those things to every last home down every long dirt road in America, it is worth it to America, worth it to us, that everybody has access to those things. That we`re all plugged in. It is the right kind of jobs investment for the country to put people to work laying those lines and connecting those Americans to the grid and it is the right things to do for the rural parts of the country so that people and businesses in every part of the country can compete economically.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

We are noted critics of federal policies that prioritize subsidies and support for private companies over the public sector (broadly defined to include local government, nonprofits, and cooperatives).  When we analyzed the stimulus rules, we were horrified at the reversal of Congressional Intent, which was clearly to prioritize publicly accountable entities over private entities.

Telecompetitor brings our attention to an RUS report summarizing awards from the BIP stimulus program.  Download the report here [pdf].

As we feared (and previously wrote here), the private sector was heavily prioritized by the Rural Utility Service.  For-profit companies won more awards and received more funds than entities that are structurally accountable to the community.  While we are not opposed to profits per se (we are strong allies with local businesses in the many aspects of our work), the history of private companies owning infrastructure (thereby making the rules) has taught us that communities do best when they have a strong voice over essential infrastructure.

Further, in the rural areas that RUS oversees, networks that are focused on profit have refused to upgrade to modern networks and often offer poor customer service.  Throwing more public money at the private sector is a terrible long-term solution that will require ever larger subsidies over time when policy should encourage self-reliance and a lessening need for subsidies over time.

These charts are snipped from the RUS Report linked to above.

We are noted critics of federal policies that prioritize subsidies and support for private companies over the public sector (broadly defined to include local government, nonprofits, and cooperatives).  When we analyzed the stimulus rules, we were horrified at the reversal of Congressional Intent, which was clearly to prioritize publicly accountable entities over private entities.

Telecompetitor brings our attention to an RUS report summarizing awards from the BIP stimulus program.  Download the report here [pdf].

As we feared (and previously wrote here), the private sector was heavily prioritized by the Rural Utility Service.  For-profit companies won more awards and received more funds than entities that are structurally accountable to the community.  While we are not opposed to profits per se (we are strong allies with local businesses in the many aspects of our work), the history of private companies owning infrastructure (thereby making the rules) has taught us that communities do best when they have a strong voice over essential infrastructure.

Further, in the rural areas that RUS oversees, networks that are focused on profit have refused to upgrade to modern networks and often offer poor customer service.  Throwing more public money at the private sector is a terrible long-term solution that will require ever larger subsidies over time when policy should encourage self-reliance and a lessening need for subsidies over time.

These charts are snipped from the RUS Report linked to above.

We are noted critics of federal policies that prioritize subsidies and support for private companies over the public sector (broadly defined to include local government, nonprofits, and cooperatives).  When we analyzed the stimulus rules, we were horrified at the reversal of Congressional Intent, which was clearly to prioritize publicly accountable entities over private entities.

Telecompetitor brings our attention to an RUS report summarizing awards from the BIP stimulus program.  Download the report here [pdf].

As we feared (and previously wrote here), the private sector was heavily prioritized by the Rural Utility Service.  For-profit companies won more awards and received more funds than entities that are structurally accountable to the community.  While we are not opposed to profits per se (we are strong allies with local businesses in the many aspects of our work), the history of private companies owning infrastructure (thereby making the rules) has taught us that communities do best when they have a strong voice over essential infrastructure.

Further, in the rural areas that RUS oversees, networks that are focused on profit have refused to upgrade to modern networks and often offer poor customer service.  Throwing more public money at the private sector is a terrible long-term solution that will require ever larger subsidies over time when policy should encourage self-reliance and a lessening need for subsidies over time.

These charts are snipped from the RUS Report linked to above.

We are noted critics of federal policies that prioritize subsidies and support for private companies over the public sector (broadly defined to include local government, nonprofits, and cooperatives).  When we analyzed the stimulus rules, we were horrified at the reversal of Congressional Intent, which was clearly to prioritize publicly accountable entities over private entities.

Telecompetitor brings our attention to an RUS report summarizing awards from the BIP stimulus program.  Download the report here [pdf].

As we feared (and previously wrote here), the private sector was heavily prioritized by the Rural Utility Service.  For-profit companies won more awards and received more funds than entities that are structurally accountable to the community.  While we are not opposed to profits per se (we are strong allies with local businesses in the many aspects of our work), the history of private companies owning infrastructure (thereby making the rules) has taught us that communities do best when they have a strong voice over essential infrastructure.

Further, in the rural areas that RUS oversees, networks that are focused on profit have refused to upgrade to modern networks and often offer poor customer service.  Throwing more public money at the private sector is a terrible long-term solution that will require ever larger subsidies over time when policy should encourage self-reliance and a lessening need for subsidies over time.

These charts are snipped from the RUS Report linked to above.

We are noted critics of federal policies that prioritize subsidies and support for private companies over the public sector (broadly defined to include local government, nonprofits, and cooperatives).  When we analyzed the stimulus rules, we were horrified at the reversal of Congressional Intent, which was clearly to prioritize publicly accountable entities over private entities.

Telecompetitor brings our attention to an RUS report summarizing awards from the BIP stimulus program.  Download the report here [pdf].

As we feared (and previously wrote here), the private sector was heavily prioritized by the Rural Utility Service.  For-profit companies won more awards and received more funds than entities that are structurally accountable to the community.  While we are not opposed to profits per se (we are strong allies with local businesses in the many aspects of our work), the history of private companies owning infrastructure (thereby making the rules) has taught us that communities do best when they have a strong voice over essential infrastructure.

Further, in the rural areas that RUS oversees, networks that are focused on profit have refused to upgrade to modern networks and often offer poor customer service.  Throwing more public money at the private sector is a terrible long-term solution that will require ever larger subsidies over time when policy should encourage self-reliance and a lessening need for subsidies over time.

These charts are snipped from the RUS Report linked to above.

We are noted critics of federal policies that prioritize subsidies and support for private companies over the public sector (broadly defined to include local government, nonprofits, and cooperatives).  When we analyzed the stimulus rules, we were horrified at the reversal of Congressional Intent, which was clearly to prioritize publicly accountable entities over private entities.

Telecompetitor brings our attention to an RUS report summarizing awards from the BIP stimulus program.  Download the report here [pdf].

As we feared (and previously wrote here), the private sector was heavily prioritized by the Rural Utility Service.  For-profit companies won more awards and received more funds than entities that are structurally accountable to the community.  While we are not opposed to profits per se (we are strong allies with local businesses in the many aspects of our work), the history of private companies owning infrastructure (thereby making the rules) has taught us that communities do best when they have a strong voice over essential infrastructure.

Further, in the rural areas that RUS oversees, networks that are focused on profit have refused to upgrade to modern networks and often offer poor customer service.  Throwing more public money at the private sector is a terrible long-term solution that will require ever larger subsidies over time when policy should encourage self-reliance and a lessening need for subsidies over time.

These charts are snipped from the RUS Report linked to above.