Universal Broadband Plan Calls For $44 Billion 414
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.
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.
My Solution: (Score:1, Insightful)
Many of us here would agree that allowing municipalities/communities to create their own ISPs and lay their own fiber is a better solution than allowing the 800lb gorillas to maintain their monopolies by burying any homegrown networks under a flurry of lawsuits.
The Fix: States need to pass laws that explicitly allow for those municipal/community network infrastructure and ISPs that comcast/verizon/at&t/etc are fighting.
How: Have the Feds blackmail the States by tying some important Federal Funding to the passage of such law.
But: Blackmail is bad. I agree. But telecoms have a stranglehold on State legislatures and any other solution is just going to increase the stranglehold that telecoms have on State/Federal legislative bodies.
Obama doesn't need to twist arms, he needs to kick the States where it hurts: their pocketbook.
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.
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:Constitutional basis for the pork? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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.
Re:A deal with the devil? I hope not. (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 ."
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:Constitutional basis for the pork? (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 is necessary since states don't have power in each other's territory.
But to say that the Constitution requires the federal government to avoid spending money on Internets, or interstates, or elaborate embassies on the Moon ... what's your basis for that?
Re:carbon footprint (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...
"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...
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?
Re:Fixed the article (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:shut up with the 'inefficient government' sh@t (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Constitutional basis for the pork? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A deal with the devil? I hope not. (Score:2, Insightful)
Today, we have the government making laws on things that they have no business doing, such as maintaining a strong copyright system (if the government finds it necessary to implement a copyright system, 20 years should be the maximum on copyright), regulating civil affairs (such as marriage, employment, sex, etc) or by censoring the airwaves (regulation is fine if necessary, I'm not sure if I want my cell phone having to compete with a huge signal, but no censorship, at all. Ever.).
The ideal government would be minimal at most, nowhere close to this huge governmental we have today who thinks its their business to deal with day-to-day affairs of people.
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.
Re:"Pork" vs "infrastructure" (Score:3, Insightful)
Until relatively recently, they did. People are quickly corrupted when their neighbor's money is dangled in front of their faces.
Socialism (Score:1, Insightful)
Wow. Because the market does not already drive demand for internet? Reallocate the wealth?
You Americans are turning into card-carrying-commies faster than you realise.
Be sure to forfeit your guns for food vouchers somewhere.
Re:"Pork" vs "infrastructure" (Score:1, Insightful)
Not necessarily. Just tax the the people with higher incomes than I, like we used to.
Re:shut up with the 'inefficient government' sh@t (Score:2, Insightful)
Bask in your ignorance.
A government program that forces its benefits and, more importantly, its costs on all people, regardless of the wants and needs of each individual (social security, public education, etc.) must represent the needs of individuals with sometimes radically divergent agendas. I have not yet seen a "participation mandatory" government program (in the US or elsewhere) that is able to represent those differing needs in anything but a mediocre manner.
In general, if private enterprise can provide a resource, private enterprise should. This empowers the individual to make his or her own decisions.
If the government simply wants to compete and will not force the costs of running broadband out to every remote area in the US on me, then I have no problem with it. If the opposite is true, then this plan is a travesty of freedom.
Re:shut up with the 'inefficient government' sh@t (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 basically selling off the government.
Now we've gone and elected a President who's favorite word is "we". Let's hope he means it.
Re:carbon footprint (Score:2, Insightful)
> delivery trucks have to bring the goods to you - etc
What's more efficient?:
A: 100 private cars drive from my neighborhood to the mall (and back) to pick up a few things
B: a single truck winds its way though my neighborhood dropping off the same items
Also it'd be far cheaper/easier to transition a delivery truck fleet to alternative fuels (bio-fuel, hydrogen, etc). There are far fewer vehicles involved and they don't need to rely on the public gas stations for refueling.
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.
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.
how is parent flamebait ? (Score:2, Insightful)
boy. the tendency to blame government STILL in there, even in slashdot. unbelievable. its as if it became something like a religion in your country - 'believe' government is inefficient, and IT should be blamed for EVERYthing bad that happens and private sector comes up all roses.
some people need a thick stick to get sense beaten into their thick skull.
Re:A deal with the devil? I hope not. (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 file a lawsuit for contract violations unless you voluntarily pay a 0.1% "contract tax" when you signed the contract. Make every road a toll road. ...
The details would need to be flushed out more than that, but I think it could work.
Re:shut up with the 'inefficient government' sh@t (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, Fannie & Freddie were the most responsible lenders in the industry with the smallest ratio of defaulting mortgages... due to their greater oversight.
CRA loans had nothing to do with the subprime problems. The CRA loans are actually far less likely to fail than the average.
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:Constitutional basis for the pork? (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:A deal with the devil? I hope not. (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-income families, the 2nd earner's entire paycheck goes to cover the families' tax burden? In the average case, that means some poor woman who "cant afford" to stay home with her kids is going off to do some job she does't really like doing, all so she can be treated as a lower-class citizen (and get paid less) with respect to her asshole male co-workers. And when she gets home she'll be pissed off from her long shitty day at work, and see that none of the housekeeping was done to her standards (if at all), that she doesn't know who her children are (because daycare or public school are raising them instead), and that her marraige is empty and meaningless (becuase she doesn't have enough time to know who _she_ is, much less who her husband is).
Tell that woman that all of her toil and suffering goes towards the stupid shit our government wastes our money on. Tell her it isn't theft. Not just of her money, but of a significant measure of her quality of life.
Once upon a time people owned houses outright, everyone in a family didn't need to leave the house to go to work for some faceless master, and politicians were actually accountable to their constituents.
Ok, i made the last one up :)
Re:Not understanding and lashing out is l33t (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a thing in this country that you many not be familiar with, I call it "choice." If you choose to live Nowhereville USA, you may not have broadband or cable TV. Therefore, if you live here and want to start the next IBM, Apple or Microsoft, you can and should pack up and move somewhere like California.
For the uneducated, if you choose to live in FL, you may in fact get hit by a hurricane. If you choose to live on the Big Island of Hawaii, you may find a lava flow in your front yard. If you choose to live in South Dakota, you might find it difficult to find Filipino food. If you live where I live, you won't be able to shop at a Best Buy store.
None of these things are inherently the problem of your fellow Americans.
Re:Fixed the article (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?
Andy, when was last time you shit in chamber pot? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sooo... you've never shit in chamber pot, and tossed your sewage out into the street then?
That whole Government flush toilet system is working pretty well, huh?
When was the last time you fixed the potholes in the streets you drive on. Ahhh.... never. And the last time you built a freeway? Again never.
You need me to continue making you look like an idiot while you are forced to admit over and over and over again the things government provides for you on a daily basis that are there right when you need to used them?
Re:Not understanding and lashing out is l33t (Score:2, Insightful)
That's such crap in so many ways. People shouldn't have to uproot their entire lives for something that should be a utility, like decent Internet access. The Internet has become so ambiguous that it's practically required to get along in the modern world.
Besides that, the kids of these people living in the more remote places don't have a choice. A 10 year old kid can't just up and move to one of the coasts to get decent Internet access.
Why should we leave a pretty big chunk of our population behind when there's some really bright people that could benefit all of us if they could?
That's such an ignorant argument that it's disappointing to see it regurgitated once again. And then you try to make some lame comparison to food? Whatever, it doesn't even make sense.
Use your brains.
Re:Constitutional basis for the pork? (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:A deal with the devil? I hope not. (Score:1, Insightful)
It's always fun to see people speculate about the "impossible" libertarian society or (gasp) the absolute voluntary society (anarchy), when all these people have ever known (and ever will know) is the absurdly rich and powerful superpower government they live under.
Perhaps that has just a little to do with how your beliefs turned out?
Look, nobody is attacking you when they propose that voluntary association is a better means to an end than coercion. They are merely trying to get you to think. Besides, as a proponent of the coercive social model, you have nothing to worry about for at least a few hundred years. In other words, you've already won, and you will continue to win for as long as you live. The ideals of power -- the special right to employ coercion as one's means -- are just too entrenched in our culture that it will take many generations to unlearn it.
Re:A deal with the devil? I hope not. (Score:2, Insightful)