Slashdot Log In
Universal Broadband Plan Calls For $44 Billion
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Dec 24, 2008 07:07 PM
from the let-them-download dept.
from the let-them-download dept.
Andy King writes "The new Obama administration has pledged to deploy next-generation broadband to every community in America, but have offered few specifics. The Free Press have published a specific plan to accomplish broadband for all." I'm not sure which will be the bigger headache when my internet breaks: waiting in line at the new government internet office, or waiting on hold for cable tech support.
Related Stories
Submission: Universal Broadband Plan Calls for $44 billion by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Promises doesn't cost much (Score:2, Insightful)
So far Obama is very good at promises, they don't cost a dime. Let's see how many he can pull through in real.
Re:Promises doesn't cost much (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, the man's been president for OVER NEGATIVE TWENTY DAYS already, when's he going to start running the country!?
Jeez.
Parent
Bigger headache? (Score:5, Funny)
It sounds like that as long as you have something to bitch about, you'll be happy enough.
Comca$t to raise rates by $44 billion (Score:2)
Comca$t already plans to raise rates by $44 billion when the $44 billion in broadband vouchers is awarded to qualifying households. Being paid by Comca$t, we say the more broadband entitlements, the better.
Re:Comca$t to raise rates by $44 billion (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, comcast has about 14.7 million broadband subscribers so expect a rate hike of about 250 a month or 2900 a year in order to increase to another 44 billion.
Amendment X (Score:2)
Is there some ambiguity here that I'm missing?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
Interstate and foreign commercial enterprise is very literally what the internet is now meant to achieve. These days, people purchase so many products and conduct so many transactions across state lines through the web that any specific area without the infrastructure to get broadband access becomes handicapped, as they are without the ability to effectively move their services online. I will admit this is not a perfect fit in a grammatical sense, BUT the internet did not exist when the constitution was w
Stop assuming (Score:2, Interesting)
Can someone read the article in depth? It doesn't sound like free Internet. It sounds like a bunch of things working together to provide broadband access everywhere. Some people have dial-up in America still, don't they? Some people don't have choices. Isn't this about bringing reasonably-priced broadband to all areas?
A deal with the devil? I hope not. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mind the government promoting the spread of broadband, but I hope that in the process it steers clear of content filtering and content monitoring. This is potentially one of those "deal with the devil" situations, so let's make sure it's done right. Let's make sure free-speech and privacy rights are well protected from the very beginning. Let's avoid a situation similar to that currently faced by public broadcasters who, due to the public nature of the airwaves, are forced to accept what would in any other context constitute unconstitutional restraint on speech.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But don't get me wrong, this could easily (probably?) break the wrong way when people start talking about "your tax dollars paying to deliver ."
Re:A deal with the devil? I hope not. (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you propose the society function if taxation is a violation of a person's rights?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no "if" - it IS a violation of a person's rights. It's taking something that belongs to someone by force. If you or I were to try that we'd go to jail.
One way to fix it would be to make taxes voluntary.
If you pay the tax for $SERVICE, you get to use $SERVICE. Make every tax a little higher than necessary, with the extra money going for things like the military, police service and fire protection, which absolutely have to be provided to everybody for safety reasons.
Make it so that you can't
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, in the case of the united states, the way it did for the majority of its existance -- with no federal income tax.
The history of revenue of the US federal government may surprise you.
Remember the clinton years? Just 10 years ago? If we shrunk federal spending to what it was during the Clinton administration, the personal income tax could be eliminated _entirely_.
Life wasn't so primitive or bad 10 years ago was it? Wouldn't it be nice to not pay personal income tax?
Did you realize that in most 2-inco
Re:A deal with the devil? I hope not. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with a libertarian government is that it can generally only react after the fact-- The free market can only punish after damage is done. A libertarian modern society will rapidly fall victim to millions of melamine and lead poisoned products, an under-educated populace who can never escape their parents' limitations, and/or have no way to damp wild economic fluctuation. Basically, I don't feel like libertarianism can form a properly damped, self-propagating system. I don't think it's coincidence that the 20th century belonged to the United States mostly after the government became a major consumer of goods and services.
Parent
shut up with the 'inefficient government' sh@t (Score:4, Insightful)
or, rather, you people are WAY too brainwashed with the private sector propaganda and lobbying there. for example, the concept of 'lobbying corporation' is an abomination that exists mainly in united states. remember how they spent 100 million on advertisements on how network neutrality was 'sabotaging jobs' back 2 years ago in the blink of an eye over a month, in order to push laws to turn internet into cable tv ? if you dont, you should.
i have to say this here - if, you are unable to make your government work more efficiently than european countries, its YOUR fault. its your country, government is YOUR corporation, you are the inalienable shareholder, you should f@cking stand up and demand your rights, and your rights to be protected from private interests, yourself. someone is not going to come and do it for you.
and no, blabbering 'government is inefficient' and selling your butt to private sector WONT help, just like we saw what happened with healthcare, and credit crisis.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod parent up (Score:2, Insightful)
This free market fundamentalism american exceptionalism shit sickens me to no end. Most of the time the people espousing it are embarassingly ignorant about basic civics and use their vitriol as a cover for the fact that they have no relevant ideas.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that our attitude towards public versus private is not terribly rational. But there's no brainwashing involved. It all part of our mythos. We worship individualism and do-it-yourselfism.
Sometimes that attitude works for us — it's an important reason we went from a third-rate agricultural country to the world's leading industrial and military power in just a few decades. Sometimes it doesn't. It's served us really poorly the last quarter century, as our leaders pandered to this myth while basic
Not understanding and lashing out is l33t (Score:4, Interesting)
The US Government isn't going to go into the ISP business. What they WILL do is help finance and give tax incentives to actual commercial ISP's in order to get them to run lines to everywhere people live.
Right now, it's too expensive to run high speed fiber optic lines to small towns in the mid west. With incentives, Verizon could subsidize some of this initial investment with the government and run those lines. The system will be owned and operated by Verizon, not the US government.
I use Verizon as an example; it could be any business.
I think this is a necessary evil to get all of our citizens connected to the Internet. I don't love the idea completely but we will be left in the dust by other competing markets because these other governments ARE doing this, and their people are benefiting with very fast Internet connections, whereas a lot of the people in the US are still on Dial-up.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Free Press plan is awful, a giveaway to Bells (Score:4, Interesting)
I've read the Free Press proposal. I'm in the business, know the economics, have done some detailed studies of the Universal Service Fund (what a joke!), and recognize a mess when I see one.
First off, they're overly impressed by speed. They want 50/5 Mbps all over. You need that for three streams of HDTV via Internet, but not much else. They are out to hurt cable, and probably don't understand the nature of the copyright issues that rule those industries. They also ignore the issues facing rural providers, connecting them to the backbone, where current rules let the big Bells gouge small companies (some of whom pass the bill on to the Universal Service Fund). And where's the cost-benefit analysis? USF finances ridiculous boondoggles today. (They finance over $200k PER HOME to Sandwich Isles Communications.) Do we need more?
In fact they explicitly disclaim telecom competition as opened by the Telecom Act of 1996, favoring instead a massive expenditure on a "third pipe" closed approach, as if a triopoly were all that much better than a duopoly. In other words, it's "f* you" to the ISPs.
They have detailed plans to spend the money, but their details reflect a lack of understanding of what the actual costs and needs are. Too much here, too little there. It's like they're taking random numbers and throwing them out there, because that's how pork barrel politics works.
Their plan is classic inside-the-beltway "I want mine" thinking. It's not a good way to improve Internet access; it's a way to make some rich telephone companies richer, leaving a big bill for us to pay later.
redneck attitude (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure which will be the bigger headache when my internet breaks: waiting in line at the new government internet office, or waiting on hold for cable tech support.
Yeah, because reading is for those smartasses that go to schoo-ools.
Dumb editor. The government isn't going to "run the Internet". More likely, they're going to provide financial incentives to ISPs so that those put broadband where the pure economics wouldn't make it happen. Say, some small remote village where the ISPs in the area figure that putting those people on DSL would cost more for building up the infrastructure than they'd see in revenue over the next years. So that village has no broadband, and won't get any unless the government sweetens the deal for the ISPs.
That kind of shit happens all the time, in all areas. Because, you know, not everyone's a redneck and loves living in a trailer park on illusions of self-sufficiency.
This is the government's job, to step in where the lauded market economics fail and need a little pushing in the right direction.
Re:I'll sue ya! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:I'll sue ya! (Score:5, Informative)
Whew !
I thought they were gonna ask for another 200 billion !
http://www.tispa.org/node/14 [tispa.org]
This is a deal !
Parent
Re:Constitutional basis for the pork? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Constitution gives the Federal Government power to regulate interstate commerce. That's the same reason they were able to build the interstate highway system. Given how popular web shopping has become (as well as web based services), I don't think any constitutional roadblocks will present themselves.
Parent
Post Roads.... (Score:3, Interesting)
In the Constitution, Article 1, the enumeration of powers, says that Congress has the authority to establish post offices and post roads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_roads [wikipedia.org]
In early America, post offices and post roads where crucial to communication between the states and the new national government.
One can make the argument that the Internet is the 21st century equivalent of post roads, and as such, Congress has authority to build such infrastructure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see how it's unconstitutional, since it's part of the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce.
The actual text from the constitution is:
... among the several States"
"To regulate Commerce
This means that the federal government preempts the states on matters of commerce beyond the state level, so (for example) Vermont can't levy a 300% import tax on goods from Virginia. It has fuck-all to do with financing a national road system, or any of the other bullshit crap they've shoehorned behind it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Constitutional basis for the pork? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
How the post office clause might apply (Score:3, Interesting)
The Commerce Clause, given its widest interpretation, would only allow for national regulation of the internet (I'm guessing this is how the ban on an internet tax got done), not building out the network.
OK, then how about the clause authorizing federal post offices and post roads? When the US Constitution was written in the 1780s, the framers envisioned post offices to carry both information and parcels. But in the 1830s, electric telegraphy became practical, showing potential to perform some of the functions of a post office, and in 1843, the US Congress authorized [about.com] a $30,000 pilot project to run a Morse telegraph line from the Capitol building to Baltimore. By the 1980s, technology had advanced to the poi
Re:Constitutional basis for the pork? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Please point out where the Constitution restricts the ability of the federal government to spend money. Where it speaks of "powers," such as those reserved for the states, that's not generally understood as spending power, but as the power to, for instance, arrest you for growing pot to deal with your migraines. Clearly the founders did not intend for the federal government to have vast powers over what people could legally do, except when they entered into interstate commerce, in which case a federal role
Re:Constitutional basis for the pork? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're reading the Constitution backwards. It was not written to be a comprehensive listing of what the Federal government could not do. All of its limited powers were exclusively those enumerated within the Constitution. If it was not written, the Federal government had no authority in that area, absent an amendment. This was the Federalists (anti-federalists) argument for the ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists (federalists), when pushing for a Bill of Rights, were told that no such amendments were needed, as where the Constitution was silent, the Federal government would lack all power. The Constitution itself forbids the Federal government from expending funds on the Internet and the interstate, although not embassies on the Moon, if this was required for foreign relations between the Federal government of the US and one or more foreign powers. Even if this wasn't enough, the 9th and 10th Amendments make it doubly clear that the Federal government lacks such authority.
And yes, I know the current Federal government almost completely ignores the Constitution, but both this and the lack of fidelity of the people of the several States was foreseen by the Constitution's opponents before it was even ratified, and reality should not lead one to blind themselves to violation of principle.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good thing we elected a Harvard Constitutional Law professor and lawyer for President this time. It's nice to see someone in the job that gives a flying fuck about it.
Re: (Score:2)
The "taxing and spending" clause. Atleast that is the simplest one to choose from as it gives the federal goverment near unlimited power in taxing/spending because of the subjective "general welfare" part.
Really, the US constitution is so full of loopholes and interpetations that I am amazed at how much otherwise reasonable people swear by it. Swearing at it is more appropriate at times.
Never mind that the goverment can make an unconstitutional law and it can still take years for the law to get repelled wit
"Pork" vs "infrastructure" (Score:5, Insightful)
I am really tired of the recent "pork" bashing in the latest election cycles. We need infrastructure spending. I suppose you'd say that money to build roads is also "pork". Like fixing that bridge that fell down in Minnesota a few years ago because of attitudes like yours. I for one am sick of this Reaganesque attitude towards spending we've had for the last 28 years, and I'm glad we'll have people who aren't afraid to invest in the future.
Do you think Europe and Asia is afraid of using public money for these purposes? Maybe the answer to that has something to do with why we're losing ground and they are gaining.
We do need to have some harsh regulations so that assholes like Comcast and the telecom cartels don't abuse us. But that is another story...
Parent
Re:"Pork" vs "infrastructure" (Score:5, Interesting)
It is not the infrastructure that I am worried about, because like you I think rebuilding our failing infrastructure, including broadband is long overdo. What I AM worried about is the bible thumpers will get together with the "big nanny government" types and we'll end up with a great firewall of the USA to keep you from using federal property to look at anything they don't agree with. And considering the amount of crap the big corps, the big nanny government types, and the bible thumpers have managed to shovel through congress into our law books I think it is a legitimate concern.
While I hope it doesn't end up that way, would YOU trust these congress critters who keep passing crap like DMCA and that crazy law where you can get busted for having a jap hentai mag if some prude judge decides the CARTOON is underage(WTF?) to pass responsible and pro individual rights laws with regards to the Internet? I bet the *.A.As and the bible thumpers are drooling all over themselves at the thought of being able to lock everything down at the backbone. After all it'll be paid for with "federal dollars" and shouldn't be used for any illegal and illicit purposes,now should it?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Until relatively recently, they did. People are quickly corrupted when their neighbor's money is dangled in front of their faces.
Re:carbon footprint (Score:5, Insightful)
You tell me, what's the carbon footprint of:
Telecommuting vs. commuting
Watching a streaming video at home vs. driving to blockbuster or a big air-conditioned theater
Shopping online vs. shopping at the mall
scp'ing gigabytes of data instead of fedexing a DVD
Having a video conference instead of flying across the country for a face-to-face.
Pervasive broadband won't eliminate any of those things, but even just a few percent reduction would be a huge payoff.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
my guess is its a complete wash - its just a transfer usage, if people are at home more they are using more electricity at home - delivery trucks have to bring the goods to you - etc. There are some jobs that can be done effectively by telecommuting - many more that cannot - about the biggest impact broadband for the masses will have is to expand the porn industry...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Will you also install it, negotiating with the possible landowners, maintain it, be prepared to fix it, and provide all the necessary support services for it for that price?
Not that I think 44 billion USD is little money. Whether it will be enough will remain to be seen (probably depends largely among other things on how badly the dollar is going to collapse now that it has happened).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is precisely what I was thinking. Are we really to believe that the government won't do some type of censorship in the name of children, etc...? And if it's not censorship, it will be snooping, which they do illegally anyway and get away with. I don't want them having MORE avenues. I'm not being a naysayer because I'm a paranoid twat with a tinfoil hat. I'm being a naysayer because the government already does these type of actions elsewhere. Do we need it in more places that take up our daily lives?
Re:Fixed the article (Score:5, Insightful)
The first amendment guarantees a federal ISP is censorship free.
What's funny is that a private company DOESN'T have to give you your first amendment rights, whereas, a government does.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The first amendment doesn't give rights. It is a specifically enumerated restriction on infringing on your natural right to free speech which is simply derived from the right to property. A private company has their own property rights which allow them to restrict whatever they want just as you can restrict anyone from coming in your home.
Besides... how well has the 1st Amendment worked at keeping me free? McCain/Feingold? The FCC? Protest permits?
Re:Errr... (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly the solution is to not attempt to regulate anything. After all, if there's anything we have learned from free market fundamentalists it's that businesses will never risk wrongdoing because the market won't allow it!
If for some reason a business turns out to have completely betrayed the public trust, then government is always at fault.
Parent
Re:Errr... (Score:5, Insightful)
Could it just be possible that it isn't whether it's "government" or "a corporation" or a "public-private partnership" that makes the difference between well-done and corrupt, but the vision and integrity of the people carrying out the project? If Obama's people have the integrity to go with their vision, and if their vision is better than the crippled mess that private industry has largely made of the Internet - which after all started as a government project - then let them have it. Yet Obama himself has stated that in the longer term he thinks private industry can provide better management of most enterprises than government can. That may be true, if we first jail many of the crooks who have controlled private industry over the last decade, confiscate their ill-gotten fortunes, and bring in a fresh, ethically-educated generation to run our businesses.
It's the quality of the people who make the quality of the world. Whether they organize themselves into "governments" or "corporations" or "anarcho-syndicates" to pursue their goals is totally secondary to the essential matter of who's doing it. It's like arguing whether four-piece rock bands or small jazz orchestras make the better music. It's not the size or shape of the organization that determines quality, but who the people are, whether they share the right feeling, and have drive and competence.
Parent