Universal Broadband Plan Calls For $44 Billion 414
Andy King writes "The new Obama administration has pledged to deploy next-generation broadband to every community in America, but have offered few specifics. The Free Press have published a specific plan to accomplish broadband for all." I'm not sure which will be the bigger headache when my internet breaks: waiting in line at the new government internet office, or waiting on hold for cable tech support.
Promises doesn't cost much (Score:2, Insightful)
So far Obama is very good at promises, they don't cost a dime. Let's see how many he can pull through in real.
Re:Promises doesn't cost much (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, the man's been president for OVER NEGATIVE TWENTY DAYS already, when's he going to start running the country!?
Jeez.
Bigger headache? (Score:5, Funny)
It sounds like that as long as you have something to bitch about, you'll be happy enough.
Comca$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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
So use your own router and build your own storage unit. You don't have to buy Apple products if you don't want to, and iTunes on Windows or Mac will stream just fine through a regular router and external drive. I do exactly that.
As for the actual topic of this article...I'd prefer not to have 100% of my internet traffic routed through government filters. I know a lot of it is watched at present, and I have nothing to hide except maybe my credit card numbers when I buy from newegg and amazon. It's just sort
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Doesn't the post office use sniffers for things like Anthrax? Someone will always find a way to justify the searches.
The introduction of a federal government monopoly is not a good thing and in the long run could cripple our Internet infrastructure due to the disappearance what little competition and innovation there currently is.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind the government promoting the spread of broadband, but I hope... This is potentially one of those "deal with the devil" situations, so let's make sure it's done right.
There is no such thing as a deal with the devil, done right. It's the whole damned point of the analogy.
Let's make sure free-speech and privacy rights are well protected from the very beginning.
Good idea. We ought to put them in the Constitution somewhere, to ensure they're never violated.
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Today, we have the government making laws on things that they have no business doing, such as maintaining a strong cop
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately there are a whole lot more lazy citizens than responsible citizens. This means that the majority wants the government to step up and do all those things you and I feel are unnecessary so they don't have to think and do for themselves as often.
For example: A responsible citizen picks up the remote, programs the V-chip or its equivalent and prevents his kids from seeing something he objects to on television. A lazy citizen feels it is the government's responsibility to use its heavy hand to cens
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So all companies start omitting the word "safe" from their ads in order to avoid any lawsuits over safety ever. You might think that a single company advertising safe products might have an advantage, but it would likely be bought / merged with the existing ones.
Your ultra-free market in action.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ideally, the government should only do four things, A) Protect citizens from foreign invasion B) Protect citizens from fraud C) Printing a stable currency *preferably backed by something other than "the full faith of the government"* and D) Protecting citizens from harm from other citizens.
My apologies for being blunt, but you are completely mistaken, for one simple reason: your ideal government is not ideal for others, such as those who support the entirety of the UDHR (which includes stuff like access to medical care, and had it been written in the light of current technology, would probably have a clause relating to the freedom to access the web).
In my opinion - and it is of course only an opinion - the only way to get close to some kind of utopia politically is a system which recognises a
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
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, over 80% of these crap loans were made by private companies. Freddie and Fannie were basically railroaded into participating in this twisted market because of pressure to be profitable. It's hard to compete when all your private sector brethren are bending the rules beyond all reasonable standards of ethics.
This canard of blaming the current crisis on poor minorities and the CRA is hilariously ignorant and borders on bigoted. I'll be charitable and assume you're just repeating what you read in the
Re: (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.
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: (Score:2)
Without going into what defines "religion", it is certainly true that the USA founded on the beleif that government was a regrettably necessary evil that was to be tolerated but only barely, and to be chained down and robbed of power by default.
The powers of the government were enumerated, not open ended, and it was held that by default individuals had power.
So you might say that the people who founded the USA beleived government to be evil, and designed ours to be inefficient on purpose, to slow the growth
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:2)
That's very well said. I too find it hilarious how the people in the US are so cynical about their own government.
Of course the other extreme is naive too, trusting that the government always knows what's best for us so we don't need to question their authority.
But really, if you think your government is so bad, how about electing a new government. You seem to call it a democracy still. And if you can't find a few thousand good people in the entire country, your country doesn't deserve to survive.
Another fu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What a load of crap (Score:2)
Yeah, Europe's in such great shape that plenty of them still come here for good and timely medical care.
I guess I'm not quite sure how you're blaming the private sector entirely for "healthcare" and "credit crisis". I'll put the blame squarely on government intervention for both. Government for pushing HMOs, mandating insurance that operates as collectivism rather than insurance, allowing lawyers to run roughshod over the medical industry, and empowering bureacrats over doctors. As for the credit crisis, I
Dear Friend, I am business starting to assuage... (Score:2)
...your needs. I will be east European, um, professionals exporting, that your needs very well be meeting.
universal healthcare,
Yes, as you "Around the World" call.
other pubic services,
All already shaved.
or other services that are held by private sector in other countries work very well in europe,
No roughie stuffie, ok?
but SOMEHOW, goverment is always 'inefficient' in united states.
Our sales associates can be if needed Viagra providing. None 'ineficientiousness' no more; use only as directed.
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.
Yes, thank-you, thank-you very much, as our dear Elvis would have said. He was never for a bailout asking.
Sorry to poke fun at a serious post, but it's the Holiday Season, and as Kinky Friedman says, "Why not?
Re: (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 prov
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is I can choose not to buy a particular corporation's product. I can't choose not to pay my taxes.
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
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not just Europe.
Even in the US, medicare is far more efficient than private insurers, with overhead less than 1/10th the private sector average (despite medicare serving an older population).
Social Security has overhead of less than 1/000th of 1%, while no private pension system can ever come close.
Even the overburdened VA hospitals continue to rank well above the private sector in quality of care and cost.
The Government consistently operates with far lower overhead than their private sector counterpar
On top of the 200 billion (Score:2)
How about instead of spending new tax dollars he makes the telcos own up to the favors they were already handed??
BPL and other hucksters (Score:2)
The BPL folks and other hucksters will be all over this...maybe the recent scathing report [dailyme.com] from congress on the FCC will help keep them at bay.
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:2)
I'd say with Verizon, you're pretty close to the truth.
They ALREADY have a proven, workable system in FiOS. Everyone else at the table would be like "Uh, we think we can do it this way".... Or some other crap like that.
Anywho, I would be happy with Verizon as an ISP if I had FiOS.
--Toll_Free
Re: (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 choo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
At least you will have a CHOICE (Score:2)
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.
At least you will have a CHOICE. What a concept eh?
Right now I have to go with Cox Cable. That's it. No DSL, no other cable companies, nothing. And it still costs $40/mo for basic cablemodem at the same speed as what I used to pay 10 years ago when I was one of the first customers in my area. In the meantime I have an order of magnitude more RAM, disk, cpu, etc. for a much lower price hooked up to that cablemodem connection.
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.
Why not just call it a telecom bribe? (Score:2)
Who are they going to go to, to implement this supposed system.
The same jackasses they did the last time. The major telecoms!
What happened the last time the major telecoms got handed a big fat wad of cash for expanding their broadband infrastructures?
1: The money was taken.
2: The promised broadband (hell, even improvements to their EXISTING networks) didn't happen.
3: The public was butt-fucked out of a broadband system.
What's going to happen this time? Take three guesses from the options below.
1: The mone
Re:I'll sue ya! (Score:5, Interesting)
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 !
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is your point that broandband is fundamentally distinct in this regard from interstates, or that the interstate system is unconstitutional?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how it's unconstitutional, since it's part of the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce.
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)
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:2)
Additionally, the constitution gives the federal government the right to create a postal mail service. You can take the mail definition and give it an internet meaning for the 21st century. Same thing.
BTW I'd much rather have a socialist government run internet, instead of private corporations. A socialist internet provider would be MUCH cheaper than any private corporate ISP. Think $1/month or so. Don't believe me? How much do you spend mailing a letter via USPS? 42 cents?
Now, how much would the sam
Re: (Score:2)
lol.
FedEx and UPS also get my shit there a LOT faster.
I'd rather be able to NOT have to get DSL from the government monopoly.
Let me choose with my wallet, thanks.
--Toll_Free
Re: (Score:2)
That's not actually true. The USPS is the only part of the government which is required to break even over the long term. There may be losses year to year, but they're required to make up for that via cost cutting or rate increases.
You'll have to explain exactly why their required to do that if they're charging less than it costs.
Re: (Score:2)
and this gives them the leverage to 'tax' the internet on purchases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Constitutional basis for the pork? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But what if the government gives money to the states to do the building? That way Obama gets his lime light and since it is the states doing the work, it passes constitutional muster.
(By "give" I mean the typical trick of placing string on funding that the federal government uses to force states to do what they want.)
(I don't like the idea of a federal internet (I'm wary of promises of a chicken in every pot/bread and circuses). I'm just posing a theoretically possible way to do it.)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Pork usually refers to projects that can't even begin to justify themselves on a national-infrastructure basis, like the proverbial "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska that would have served a handful of isolated, specific citizens at a cost to the rest of many millions of dollars.
I don't think anyone considers major interstate highway and bridge maintenance to be pork.
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah and the GP has a bridge in Minnesota to sell you.
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: (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)
... about the biggest impact broadband for the masses will have is to expand the porn industry.
Now, I actually have no problem with that.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
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:2)
Yeah right The reptilian race is on the move again [davidicke.com] now with universal broadband.
You NWO conspiracy theorists really crack me up, lizard people who can shape shift to look like human beings are behind the New World Order and they live in Hollow Earth.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but there is one government, and lots of private companies, so at least you have a choice. Also, I wouldn't say our government is good at adhering to the Constitution.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, but the government passed laws that were supposed to regulate these industries. For political reasons, the government stopped regulating. However, they also gutted the court system, destroying the only recourse people who have been wronged by another.
People (you and me) fail to understand on a gut level that in a laissez faire environment, they don't have government regulators protecting them, so they tend to be overly trusting of a pitch. Then, when caveat emptier rules kick in, they wonder why "no one
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: (Score:2)
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.
But if you look at the US Government in the past, they never have the integrity to go with their vision. If the *AA decides to give say, 1.5 million dollars to whatever politicians will support mandatory BT filtering to look for "infringing" content to give to the *AA, most politicians will join on the bandwagon and go for that, regardless of what Obama/McCain/The public/China/whoever wants.
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
One quick counterpoint.. (Score:2)
Putting aside debate on whether government has integrity, we do know private industry tends to not have integrity. Integrity in and of itself isn't a profit driving concept. Vision can be rewarding, but not always.
In terms on current failings of private industry and the internet, no one will provide significant throughput to some people I know. They can get electricity and phone (and dial-up) because of government interference, but the CO is too far for DSL and cable companies aren't going to bother with
My reason for a negative knee-jerk reaction (Score:2)
"Who's doing it" matters to me because it says a lot about their motivation and risks. The people behind the corporate version are doing it because they think it will be a profitable business venture that people will want to buy into, and it needs investors who think it's a sound idea and are willing to stake a lot of money on that. Furthermore, I lose no money until I choose to buy the service. The people behind the government version are voters who approve of the idea based on their best intuition, and
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, even if Obama's people are great- integrity that rivals the Founding Fathers and what not... they're only in for 4 years... 8, tops. Then, someone else gets control of everything they masterminded. Up goes the great firewall and what not.
This is why government always needs to be limited. We've seen this problem over the last few presidencies with abuse/stretching of executive power. Look at executive orders, pardons, etc. What happens if a present-day Hiter gets democratically elected?
Re: (Score:2)
That's how they raised the drinking age.
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds lovely on paper, but I don't think it's going to work out the way he thinks it will
So you are saying Obama is naive? From up here in Canada, it's not the impression we get. It looks like every move Obama makes is carefully orchestrated to produce exactly the result it gets. Reminds me, in much more than one way, of our own Pierre Trudeau.
Welcome to the rabbit hole.