Bush Says Americans 'Ought to Have' Broadband and a Pony by 2007
wrttnwrd writes "George Bush is calling for universal broadband by 2007. He doesn't say how, or who's going to pay for it, or who's going to build it, but hey, isn't almost good enough? (for all of you Boondocks readers out there)" First step to universal broadband: don't have your Justice Department argue against communities providing their own broadband service. And don't forget the pony!
Although I am in favor of broader adoption of broadband, I do see a couple of downsides:
1. More telecom taxes to support universal service (including taxes on VoIP)
2. more zombie boxen and virus datastorms from clueless broadband users
We shall see if universal service improves the economies of scale enough to cover the increased costs of taxes and AV/firewall.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
What they were keen to show pictures of was Bush playing dress up on an aircraft carrier, at least until Democrats said that playing soldier made the issue of his being AWOL during his national guard service fair game. After that story finaly made the mainstream media the footage looked more like 'Dukakis in tank' than 'Top Gun'.
Except the AWOL aligations were false, and the White House proved otherwise. This was a blatent attempt of the Democrats to portray John Kerry as the "war hero" while Bush as a deserter. The attempt failed miserably. In fact, Bush spent more time training to be a pilot than Kerry spent in Vietnam.
Another picture we were allowed to see was Bush presenting a fake turkey to adoring troops. The fact that the photo-op meant that most of the troops on the base were required to have 'meals ready to eat' for their christmas dinner must have gone down really well. Visiting the troops might have appeared more sincere if Bush had taken the time to attend just one funeral of one of the soldiers killed in his war.
If you had actually paid more attention, the use of the 'plastic turkey' was just a joke... of course, the picture was taken out of context and you liberal fools picked up on it. Secondly, Bush has attempted the funerals of many soldiers, but he cannot attend them all. He has also visited injured troops in hospitals, and actually went to Iraq to visit them (remember the turkey incident?)
I hope that the GOP keeps on hammering Dick Clarke for several more weeks. The troops in Iraq must love hearing why they are stuck there rather than finishing the job they wanted to finish in Afghanistan.
Actually, most of the troops within Iraq understand and agree with the mission given to them. I know, personally, many marines who see that rescuing 25 million as a worthy cause, and one to risk their life for. It's too bad that you, sitting at home in front of your computer afforded to you by men who have died for their country to keep you from having to deal with such people as Saddam Hussein, can criticize and "assume" the thoughts of the troops in Iraq.
And yes, the troops love hearing how Bill Clinton and Dick Clarke failed to deal with Iraq in 1997 as Clinton had planned. Clinton had his finger on the trigger in 97, but felt he needed to please the French who had billions invested in Iraq already. The failure in Iraq is Clinton's fault and the troops know this.
Remember also, under Mr. Clarke, 5 seperate terrorist attacks took place, most of them under Clinton. Also, Clarke never criticized Iraq, only 9/11 and the actions of the administration before 9/11. However, the White House has also released several documents, recordings and emails showing how Clarke said otherwise.
Here's the fact: Clarke has a book to sell, he did not get the job he wanted within the Bush White House, and his career was ruined by his inability to do his job during the Clinton White House. So, you keep believing his side of the story, because it's a real novel.
Oh and I am sure that every member of the US armed services just loves the way that Halliburton has been granted multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts by Halliburton ex-CEO Cheney.
Halliburton is chosen for most of these kinds of things because they are the only company large enough, with enough people in the Middle East, who could do it quickly and efficiently. These "contracts" were also signed by the Army, not Mr. Cheney. And then Halliburton screwed up, the U.S. gov't kicked them off the contract and got someone else. Your tin foil hat theory doesn't hold ground.
The problem with unemployment stats is that they only tell the story of how many people applied and how many are still on unemployment rolls. The do not reflect those who have run out of unemployment, or took shit jobs asking if you want fries with that. The fact is, good jobs that pay a living wage are growing more and more scarce. Except, of course, unless you happen to be a CEO, in which case you are making more than ever!
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
"He doesn't say how, or who's going to pay for it, or who's going to build it, but hey, isn't almost good enough?"
I'm noticing a lot of people don't seem to have a problem believing we'll all be watching hi-def TV's by 2005, but somehow this is beyond the realm of possibility. Not that buying a new hi-def TV will cost you any, right? Ask yourself the same damn questions posed here about Hi-def and you'll probably get answers that can easily be applied to braodband here. I mean, is it really such a leap, or does somebody bare a political grudge???
Yeah, thought so.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Obviously we can count cable modems out. Cable television isn't generally availible to those people in the fringes that receive service subsidized by the USF.
The biggest issue is those customers that are "on fiber." DSL works by transporting the data signals alongside the analog phone calls. In rural areas, they use multiplexors to provide service. This means there is no way to colocate the DSL equipment at the central office and extend service, since the layout is more distributed and connected by fiber.
If the multiplexors were upgraded, or new cards developed there shouldn't be much of a problem pushing the speed of the fiber up and then using that excess bandwidth to provide DSL service. In the remote multiplexor you could house new circuit cards that provide DSL + Analog capability.
There are plenty of companies out there working in this market, and this type of solution probably already exists. If nothing else, they could buy DSLAMS from eBay and rack them out remotely.
It might even be possible to exted ISDN (64k channels) off of the multiplexors.
Phone companies don't seem to want to do things until shoved. Bell Atlantic (now Verizon) kept the prices of ISDN at $250 a month well into the day of cable modem deployment.
My parents retired to an area that lacks broadband. It isn't that it would be hard to do, it is just the telcos don't seem to care. And there would easily be enough subscribers to support racking out a DSLAM in a cabinet next to the fiber mux that is servicing the community. If I lived closer, I would probably try to do it.
Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
1: The Bush admin states that the US economy is doing great, and has been for 12-18 months.
2: They have also issued reports stating that offshoring of our tech business will be a 'good thing'. Please explain why China will need us after they get all the tech from the USA they can.
3: Appalachia is still one of the poorest areas in the US so you may want to rethink using that area as an example.
To be honest, the way the parent jumps on anyone ignorant of the actual situation is troll worthy. But the link is dead on as far as what actually was claimed.
He was a senator that was taking credit for an initiative he funded while in office. How stupid could he be? No other senator would EVER take credit for something they had even the smallest part in.
When Bush first ran for government in Texas, he ran as an educated person from a top notch school. He talked smart and he lost the election for being an "egg head".
Subsequently Bush ran as an average Southerner of an average intelligence who "knows what's best". He's done pretty well since then.
His persona of being a Southerner of average intelligence, average mannerisms, and average speaking has been a core part of getting him this far. I think it's because those are traits that people of average intelligence don't see as being the most important traits to have.
Instead of intelligence, he has "know how", he "gets things done". Those are the ideals of the common man.
I honestly have no idea how much of this is natural and how much of this is a show. I would guess that his true person is somewhere between the egghead and the arrogant ignoramus.
A Usenet Troll Triumphs on Slashdot