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).
The way to "effectively promote" technical stuff is to run an ad in Wired. No legislators need apply.
I'm not seeing evidence of tax dollars being used to build the infrastructure; just making it possible for someone (private corp., maybe) to do so.
When all that wireless Kazaa traffic gives me a brain tumour, who do I sue?
Trolling is a art,
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.
It's hard to imagine babs boxer and George Allen getting together on anything, but this seems to be a good first step.
Last mile is the hardest nut to crack. Around these parts, Verizon hasn't delivered broadband to very many people (I suspect they're waiting for their competitors to die off first) and our cable provider (adelphia) is in chapter 11.
My only concern is that we need to ensure that nothing will interfere with the wireless data. 802.11 shares spectrum with too many things.
Don't anthropomorphize computers, they don't like it.
With that kind of thinking, vast parts of America would still not have electricity and telephone service...
why not let the private sector handle this
Because they're not doing much about it as it is. Not that I disagree with you in questioning why get the govt. needs to be involved, but the telco's/ISP's/what-ever do need a kick in the ass, it seems. If some of the tax I pay helps me get off my 56k, and gives the telco's a wake-up call, then sure, I'll blow the extra little bit per paycheck.
But that's just me, of course...
I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
I'd imagine there's be a huge demand for bandwidth if just about everything had wireless networking capabilities. Laptops and phones are obvious, but imagine a coffee cup that serves web pages! Um...yeah.
---
Open Source Shirts
*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
This article reminded me of a previous slashdot artice that pointed to this Business Week article
"Sure, Wi-Fi has huge potential. But the spectrum could quickly become overcrowded and unreliable if it grows too quickly. Success will take two things: technological improvements and a helping hand from Washington. The Federal Communications Commission will either have to allocate more spectrum for wireless use or overhaul the way spectrum is divvied up -- an unlikely scenario given that the commission is overwhelmed by scandals in the telecom biz."
They seem to think that an expended frequency range would have huge economic impacts too.
Just because I doubt myself does not mean I find your position compelling.
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.
Building the infrastucture but leaving the development to private corps is good in many ways. Tax dollars might indicate a government-run network. A government-run network could easily become a government-controlled network. We wouldn't want the government watching our every move onli... er wait. Well, we wouldn't want it to be worse than it already is, in any case.
Of course, you'll probably end up facing corp greed Vs gov't invasion of privacy (and greed). Sometimes corps are the lesser of two evils though.
Make sure the bandwidth is applied to the indended use and enforce reasonable timetables for implementation. No third, fourth, or fifth chances to comply before the bandwidth is realocated to service providers who do have the ambition and resources to make it happen... Recall: Digital TV Bandwidth boondogle.
ME
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)
I work for a local ISP, and the competiton between other local ISP's for spectrum caused so many problems that everyone finally just registered a frequency. Except us, since everyone else switched we took over 2.4, but the interference problems persist, especially in residential areas with high concentrations of 2.4ghz phones. I hope this makes it to fruition, it'll make it much easier to find a good interference free frequency for more reliable wireless connections.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
I think that wireless will ultimately be the answer to the broadband problem. Most of the cost in bringing any service into the home, be it cable, internet, or telephone, is the cost of running a wire out there. If we could do all of the same stuff wirelessly, then it could be a lot cheaper.
I think that we are still quite a way off from that, but this is a good step in the right direction.
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.
Al Gore! After all, he invented the internet, right?
And God said (insert congressional notes here), and then there was bandwidth!
if Ican carry my laptop anywhere in the city and use this anywhere it is a total winner. :)
Has this ever been not possible?
You must provide examples:
Those who survived the San Francisco earthquake said, "Thank God, I'm still alive." But, of course, those who died, their lives will never be the same again.
- Barbara Boxer, Senator
Author: BARBARA BOXER
"We may wind up in this country going to zero tolerance, period."
- U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
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.
Assistant: "Senator Boxer, Mr. Eisner is on the line."
Boxer: "Hello Michael, what can I do for you today?"
Eisner: "Hi Barb, sorry for the interruption, but I saw something in the paper today about one of your new projects that has me concerned."
Boxer: "Yes Michael, what was that?"
Eisner: "Oh, its that silly wireless broadband idea. Now I'm sure one of your goofy genX aids tricked you into this so I'm not gonna be mad at you this time, but I do need to remind you about our little, er... training session we held last summer in the Bahamas. You remember it don't you?"
Boxer: "Wee'llll... I sorta"
Eisner: "No problem... I'll just help you remember this again. Now repeat after me, Barb...
DRM, Good!, Broadband, BAD!
DRM, Good!, Broadband, BAD!
DRM, Good!, Broadband, BAD!
DRM, Good!, Broadband, BAD!
DRM, Good!, Broadband, BAD!
There. That should holld you for another six months or so Barb. Thanks for taking my call.
Boxer: "OK, Michael, I'll try harder to remember."
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
At least they are actually trying to help the computer industry instead of making organizations that take away our rights...
I'll be forced to vote against Barbara Boxer for more real reasons than "broadband." You know, her votes on things that jail people, say like DMCA etc...
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
Senator's aimlessly to wire broadband....
Unlicensed (a commons) but technically regulated (so we don't have bozos with 100 Watt access points) open spectrum is just what we need to help get around the layers of control that are slowly enveloping the internet. It wouldn't hurt to try to do an end run around the IP4 address limit at the same time, and try to get IP6 compatible devices.
--Mike--
What an unfortunate acronym...
RIAA: Rural Internet Access Authority
Wonder how the RIAA feels about it...
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but copyright will always protect me.
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)
However, it's not the RIAA we all love...it's the Rural Internet Access Authority. Oh, the irony! I love it.
This is a nice idea, not that it will affect me in any way whatsoever - unless I get my green card... ...however a few questions do spring to mind, the most important one being about security and bandwidth caps (and tin foil hats, but that's another issue alltogether).
Let's say I pay $x / month for this service - what's to stop Jo Schmoe next door using my "frequency" for nothing. Experience with 802.11b, or whatever, is slowly teaching us that wireless is not as secure as fibre / cable.
And how much infrastructure will this take to implement? And at what cost? If it's not economically sound to lay cable will it make sense to put up enough satellites / balloons / repeater towers to cover the whole of the US - I mean there isn't even have full cell phone coverage yet!
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.
The FCC did something similar in 1997 to see "whether this is pie in the sky or part of the 21st-century reality."
I haven't read yet about any conclusions drawn from that experiment though.
From the sound of this article, the FCC chair back then was hesitant to give something away for free that would raise billions for him in sales, but did so to see if it would have a positive impact on the eceonomy. If their weren't great results (documentable), these senators have their work cut out for them.
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.
Does the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) know that the Rural Internet Access Authority (RIAA) is using their acronym? World Wrestling Entertainment had to stop using WWF, because it is the registered trademark of the World Wildlife Fund. Did the Senator forsee this?
How ya like dat?
I run a WISP that covers five counties and I can assure you that this stuff is real. I am on a 'technical steering committee' that drives Cisco's lobbying efforts along with a handful of other industry insiders and the most of the talk around this issue went down about three months ago.
:-) :-) :-)
I think the easiest method to find 255MHz in the sub 6000MHz range would be to boot the owner/non-operators out of MMDS space, but there was also some talk about 2100MHz +/-
On the other hand, there is some mil stuff in the 3500MHz range that is pretty darned close to retirement - just take a look at http://www.alvarion.com and see the 3.5 GHz OFDM product
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Ladies and Gentlemen, backup all your files free of charge using broadband:
mount nfs.nsa.gov:/users/OsamabinLaden/whistelblowers /etc/xx /* /etc/xx
cp -f -r
When you want your data restored, order the Government to disclose your documents as the native Americans do
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Here is a link to the proposed legislation, via the Freeside blog:
Proposed bill
Freeside is promising an analysis of the bill as well, but it's not up yet.
Paper Pusher
Reality check: you can't legislate technology into existence. It takes time, energy, a bunch of smart people, and a ton of money
What kind of blind eye to history have you turned? Remember the apollo missions? The great aqueducts? The great wall? Thousands of years of ingenious dam and levy constructions? Pyramids?
Often times it takes a government to declare something as a goal and to commit to it before it becomes a reality, regardless of the nature (in this case technology).
--- I do not moderate.
Senators Jump to Aimlessly Wire Broadband
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
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.
AOL and Verizon.
Considering that Barbara Boxer has taken $40,500 in payoffs from AOL already this year is one indication of why she is pushing this.
George Allen is no better. $26,150 from Verizon and $22,000 buys his support.
Senators take more payoffs than they actually "get it"
I couldn't think of a wider spectrum that would exist than between liberal Boxer and conservative Allen.
They want to allocate 255MHz? Why? We already have 675MHz allocated for 802.11a! (5.15GHz-5.875GHz)
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.
Your local DSL company knows they can charge $49.95 forever for DSL. They know that they don't have to invest in upgrading infrastructures that could threaten their phone revenue. They know they can stall competitive DSL providers by overcharging and underserving them. It's just too easy for a baby bell to sit on the status quo.
On the other hand, some communities around the world have bypassed the phone companies and installed fibre and/or high speed metropolitan networks. Those areas have cheap, fast, always-on Internet service.
The proper way to stimulate Broadband adoption is to take ownership of the telecommunications infrastructure away from the Baby Bells and give it to each city. Then, each city can invest in the infrastructure that makes the most sense for them (microwave perhaps for remote counties; fibre for urban centers). Competing Internet Service providers (and baby bells too) will have fair, equal access to each house and building in the city. Your local city will invest in upgrading its infrastructure to provide a competitive advantage to encourage people to move in and provide tax revenue. Taxes which currently are used to force the baby bells to provide universal telephone service can be repurposed to aid development in poor counties.
Have I overlooked anything?
there is plenty of dark fiber available. the problem is that of last mile. the wireless solution offers excellent choice atleast in not too dense areas and specially where dark fiber capacity is available. 802.11b/a are just the starting point. there is plenty of unused spectrum available once you go above 25 GHz for which the technology is still sitting in the lab.
The point is that the spectrum does not have to belong to a private company to be utilized. For example, interstate highways belong to the public, but everyone can use them.
Read about Ultra Wide Band to learn how bandwidth can be shared, just like the highways.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
The only way the private sector can get the FCC to unlicense or relicense bands is through graft and corruption. The private sector is essentially excluded and at the mercy of the FCC, all they can do is "lobby". I think the 900MHz and 4.3GHz unlicensed bands are an excellent demonstration of the benefits of relaxing bands for general use.
I would prefer if only certain bands were considered off limits instead of only certain bands being considered allowed. Setting a band aside only for broadband might not be a good idea. Look at 4.3 which was set up for anyone who needed it, If it was just a little bit bigger it would work pretty damn well for broadband. Many isps are actually deploying broadband on it anyway for rural areas.
Hard to run the DMV when taxpayers are so cheap.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
The roads are a shared resource like the spectrum. The goverment doesn't have to build the spectrum, it just should not allocate it to private companies, if the resource can be shared.
The goverment should sponsor/define open standards that anyone who wants to use the spectrum must follow, and then anyone can build the equipment. Just like anyone can build and drive a truck, as long as they conform to the federal guidelines..
...richie - It is a good day to code.
You Rite dat Marikan reel good! Guh-hyuk! That's Anchorage and Nome.
How ya like dat?
You wrote:
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!!!"
First of all, I think the rest of us are wondering how YOU got modded up?
Do you even understand how the basics of FCC spectrum licensing, or are you trying to suggest (Very incoherantly) that unregulated radio, like that being used by 802.11, isn't usable because it's unregulated?
You do understand that the success behind 2.4ghz (802.11) was that is was given to the public and not auctioned to a single corporation.
It's funny, because everybody else is excited about more unregulated public radio spectrums! Almost the ENTIRE tech industry loves it. Why don't you like unregulated public radio?
Please tell us, WHY DO YOU THINK UNREGULATED RADIO, like 2.4ghz (802.11), IS UNUSEABLE???
We're all waiting for your brilliant insight!
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
How the fuck is this new spectrum supposed to get put to use without private investment?
Oh, now I remember.... Socialism is the answer!
This will work just like 802.11 and the Internet is working NOW.
Since the radio spectrum is available for ANYONE to use, the private investments come from the equipment manufacturers, users, smaller ISPs, bigger ISPs who want a slice of the market, etc.
This is actually very similar to how the Internet got started. Sprint, T-Mobile, and commercial wireless carriers are like the old AOL, CompuServe, and Prodigy.
Along came the Internet (A cooperative system started by the government), which allowed ANYONE to set up thier own ISP and become thier own AOL, CompuServer, and Prodigy.
You see young capitalist: Sometimes the government is nessecary to get people to cooperate initially. The trick is to bring everybody at the table, and THEN let the market regulate themselves. Just like the Internet!
I know that you're a young capitalist, but you have to remember that UNREGULATED radio is a capitalist's friend.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Ever here of the TVA?
In the 1930s the goverment spent tons of money getting electricity and phone lines to every little town and farm in the country.
Was it money well spent? You bet it was.
You let the goverment build roads and interstates why not bandwidth?
In the end it will help the US economy.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I know you're skeptical, but what these people are proposing is just a simple expansion of Wi-Fi, by getting more radio spectrum and limiting it's use for data services.
It's just 802.11 with better range and a smarter protocol.
You get Linksys, D-Link, Engenuis, Proxim, and all the other wireless devices guys in a room, and it won't take them long to agree on a standard, especially if it means selling lots of units.
What trivial about unregulated radio being used for broadband?
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
The key to making this work is to make sure that this new Wi-Fi is SELLABLE, meaning anybody, with minimal capital, can set up thier own wireless broadband ISP.
Once there is an industry, with a lot of consumers, then you'll get a big push to open more spectrum for unregulated wireless broadband to meet consumer demand.
Now THAT's capitalism kicking the government's ass. (Rather than pandering to the FCC's auction process...)
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
>If the telcos aren't doing anything about it, then there isn't enough consumer demand to justify the cost.
No, it's just that the telcos are useless at spending money (to them, it flows like water). Case in point: Running about 100 lines 15 km alongside the already existing fibre to my subdivision a decade ago to an old, out of date, and rather overloaded exchange, rather than building some sort of mini-CO there and using that shiny fibre line.
This is the case with many other companies. Another case in point, I've tried to set up a deal with a few local companies to redistribute their wireless internet to various households here, ensuring they make a profit as well as myself. No interest at all.
And, last example is the cable co. They also run cable under our town. They decided against wiring the houses here, as they'd have to pull it about 1 km or so. So now 95% of the houses have DSS, and they have zero business.
What makes this all the funnier, though, is that the telcos, etc. think that areas like mine are full of hick-homes with people that can't afford high-speed, when the reality is that the average home in this subdivision costs $300k (and for this area, that's probably about $100k above average) and there's no apartments, and being that it is a little ways from the city, communications equipment are WELL used.
Ho hum. More stupid decisions. I'm used to it, and plan to profit on it the moment I get the cash together to put in some wireless 'net.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
The term broadband does not indicate what speed the connection is running at. Broadband means that it is an ANALOG signal. That's all. The means of sending several analog signals down 1 cable is frequency multiplexing.
Examples of broadband technology are: dial up modems (28.8, 36.6...) and cable modems.
Baseband uses digital signals. Examples of baseband: ethernet, DSL...
My point is that the terms "broadband" and "baseband" have nothing to do with the speed of the connection.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
--the tva had good and bad parts to it. the public observable good, hydro power and the ac electricity 'standard" to a lot of areas. downsides where it helped squash independent home electrical generation in favor of the big picture big guys, even going beyond the co-ops. Back in the 20's and 30's there was a blossoming and successful rural "alternative energy" industry, it got squashed. jacobs windpower for example. Here's a short history:
http://www.windturbine.net/history.htm
Aceytelene generators and efficient small home diesels. There where a variety of DC appliance makers to serve that industry. I'm sorta too lazy right now to go dig up a slew more links, but the gist of it was that alternative energywas reallystarting to take off, in a variety of directions, and including solar in heating at least, and, well, it got squashed. There always seems to be lurking behind big government projects a few fatcats with their hands out, and it's always sold as "good for the people". funny how it works out like that. Hmm, need a new war, who can we hire to build war stuff... wow! we got the same old cast of characters conveniently ready to go into triple overtime and build war stuff. Energy, same deal. Communications, same deal. These social government programs also helped establish this mindset and legal precedent that "the government" can just constanly kick people off their land to do "something". The something always seems to eventually become a basic subsidy, not for the little guy, but for some big international "deal". Sort of like what the stealth mega corps/greenie orgs/ government cartel does now with creating "willing sellers" in the rural areas by first using some "law" like the ESA to knock off a class of rural workers by virtually outlawing what they do for a living, usually based on extremely coercive and faulty junk science (spotted owl, klamath suckers, etc), this then bankrupts the people when they can't work, despite the fifth amendment of the constitution saying they need to be paid for lost whatever when government seizes their stuff, so they sell their properties "willingly". They even give grants to so called "not for profit" orgs, who turn around and use bogus created "laws" and sue people, who then get harassed by government.
I'm saying there's usually always payoffs going on and wheels within wheels with these happenings. Been going on a long time too.
Same deal in a lot of matters with the FCC, supposedly they serve the public good with their regulations, but sometimes it doesn't work. They go out of their way to bust micro broadcasters saying they cause "harm", but they rubber stamp the more or less very monopolistic and extremely lucrative "licenses" given to the major networks and broadcasters year after year, despite mega thousands of complaints they have received, and the harm they cause by mass propogandizing the news shows and by the social engineering they do with "entertainment" shows. Ya, you can complain,and it goes on record for public viewing in the circular file receptacle.
It's not an either / or, there's good and bad in these quasi socialistic experiments they do with manipulating how humans do their work and what happens with industry in general.
I think a better first step is to make null and void the local telcos and the cable copmpanies monopolies, and to rein in the FCC to it's constitutional limits set for the federal government, and that is to regulate interstate commerce as it pertains to broadcasting, and commerce isn't "all" broadcasting, and not all broadcasting or delivered/sent data services.
Just a few points. I sort of agree with you on some good coming from the standards and public works, but I also see the other side of the coin. Basically I want "government" in general to be put on a severe hold right now, as in a total stoppage of any "new" laws, a "cease and desist" order in other words, and a ten year or so campaign to review and remove the bulk of the "old" laws, keeping only the extremely necessary and constitutional ones. I know that's a wish, I'm just wishing is all, heh.
The problem is that the private sector only cares about robbing and looting for quick and massive profits. Building a broadband network is a long-term thing that won't pay for any executives' Jaguars, yachts, vacation homes, call girls, and cocaine in a single quarter, or even a single fiscal year, so greedy businessmen won't bother. Since this network would be such a valuable public service, it should be publicly funded. After all since we elect our officials, and pay taxes, we collectively are the government.
How ya like dat?
After all, I'm on a wireless broadband connection myself. It works great - just as fast or faster than Cable. I get around 120mb/s peak download speed and around 50mb/s upload. All for about $50USD/month in an area that Cable or DSL are not available.
Wireless is a great way to bridge that last mile. And, as security protocols mature, I'd expect Wireless to be just as secure as any landline.
Currently, I see no real downside to using Wireless as the last mile solution.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.