Slashdot Mirror
Senators Aim to Wirelessly Jumpstart Broadband
JimW writes "Article at Practically Networked...A couple of senators actually have a clue about how broadband might be effectively promoted. Not that I have anything against my tax dollars propping up failing telco's by pushing DSL on areas where it isn't financially viable. Methinks the dark fiber will stay dark." Their plan calls for 255 MHz of spectrum to be allocated for wireless broadband - to compare, the band occupied by 802.11b is 83Mhz wide, with each channel being 22MHz (they overlap).
I'm amazed Barbara Boxer is behind this. If you've never heard her speak, it's -- interesting. I'm convinced that she is literally a moron. I'm serious: this woman is one of the stupidest human beings I've ever heard.
I can only assume that she had a staff member that thought it was a good idea and convinced her to get behind it. I'm really doubtful that she's understands one whit what she's promoting.
It's not my intention for this to be flamebait, by the way, although I'm sure it's sounding that way. You really have to hear the woman try and make off-the-cuff remarks to appreciate how stupid she is.
With that kind of thinking, vast parts of America would still not have electricity and telephone service...
*Jaw drops to floor*
I'm shocked, but the cynic in me says that they are just opening up more real estate to be sold to private interest, rather than be preserved for the public. Does anyone have a more in-depth understanding of what these two senators are trying to pass?
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
Because the value of a network goes up with the square of the users connected, but the revenue goes up linearly. In other words: it may be more valuable to have everyone connected, but it probably wouldn't happen with just the private sector because they wouldn't make money from it.
Not that this has anything to do with the article, which is just about opening up spectrum for use.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
I love headlines like these: "Congress Declares Digital Cable For All!" "President Demands Pollution-Free Energy!" Right.
Reality check: you can't legislate technology into existence. It takes time, energy, a bunch of smart people, and a ton of money. These guys think they can just write up laws and somehow, through some sort of magic, companies will do as they're told. And if they don't what happens? They're penalized with higher taxes, of course, making them even less likely to innovate, and in some cases putting them out of business altogether.
If you look at it this way, it suddenly becomes less surprising that most of the innovative companies like Sun, Microsoft, and Linux do most of their R&D outside the US, in countries like Finland, Pakistan, and Europe that have lower taxes. If we want to revive the foundering American economy, we need to stop coming up with voodoo feel-good laws like this one and start cutting taxes for the companies that generate wealth.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
The senators are probably as technically clueless as average folks (with a couple of exceptions) but many have technically proficient staff members whom they listen to. The gradually declining lameness of Senate member websites is one indication.
Why Congress? Because in some cases, such as limited bandwidth, the federal gov't is well-suited to setting down the infrastructure to jump-start the industry and to avoid the result of the many competing railroad companes in the 19th century, each with its own proprietary guage of track.
Yeah, the vast parts of America where nobody fucking lives. Instead, we all pay higher taxes so that there can be a pay phone in the middle of the tundra in Alaska.
Agreed, by no means do I obsolve the corporatation of all misdeeds in dealing with this sort of thing, but I'd like to see the end of mixing legislation and technology. The more the government is comfortable with this, the less rights and more restrictions we will have.
GetTheJob.com : Nothing but Real Jobs.
At least they are actually trying to help the computer industry instead of making organizations that take away our rights...
If the telcos aren't doing anything about it, then there isn't enough consumer demand to justify the cost. Getting the government involved with this is just wasting more of my hard earned money. I don't want to subsidize the telecommunications industry if they aren't even willing to spend money on it themselves, and if people aren't willing to pay for it.
Imagine the possibilities of distributed computing through this type of network. Then consider that an air gap might not be the same as a good firewall anymore. This about a hacked cluster of wireless zombies knocking content right off the web, it would be worse than being /.ed .
Think about the recent repeal of digital rights and then wonder if you really want to be connected through a transparent network. (anyone can intercept radio waves, I am doing it now)
I certainly wouldn't use this unless I compiled the operating system myself.
It only sounds like a good idea until you think about the complete lack of control you will have over your communications while using it.
Karma: Censored (mostly affected by decency laws)
George Allen did alot to push technology and its funding as governor of Virginia, so I feel like I can actually trust him to push something like this through. It also helps that congressman Rick Boucher D-Va and he see eye to eye alot on technology. Babs Boxer supposedly knows alot about tech as well, but that remains to be seen.
I guess my point here is that maybe people should focus on talking to representative such as Allen, Boucher, and maybe Boxer when it comes to overturning laws such as the DMCA and to defeating the upcoming ones that are far worse.
Dunno, it's just a thought.
Honesty may be the best policy, but apparently by elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
It would be *nice* if they picked bands that didn't have obscene losses when shooting through vegitation.
Hopefully this will be structured to give competition to the telcos and not merely end up being spectrum purchased by the telcos.
People choose where they wish to live. If they want to live out in the middle of no-where they are in essense giving up certain ammendities and perks of city life for the privildge of living unencumbered country living. They should pay the extra for phone/electricity/DSL
If you want something pay for it. Keep your paws out of my wallet.
In rural Colorado
Insightful huh?
Let's take a look:
Ah yes, it would be much better for the government to make that space available and then not sell it to a private corpration. That way, we can all sit around and think to ourselves, "I'm glad that spectrum is open for broadband..... IT'S TOO BAD WE CAN'T USE IT!!!"
Hmm, how about you read the article? It says quite clearly what they are intending to do.
Again, how was this insightful?
Forget the whales - save the babies.
With so many people, universities, and companies already going to 802.11b, would
it really be wise to "open up" the market completely this soon? WEP is a joke at best;
of the few other systems I have ran into in these parts, The university's wireless
(authenticated via VPN) seems to be the most secure. We really can't expect most
sysadmins to set up a VPN, let alone the home users; I really think that this idea,
albeit a good one, needs to wait for better security that's easier to implement for
the average user.