Slashdot Mirror
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!
Fetch the man his coffee, post haste!
Some Americans have yet to receive their forty acres and mules.
1. Anger most of the population
2. Attempt to win them over with cheap internet
3. ???
4. Pro...Re-election!
Bush will have broadband in everyone's home about the same time he lands humans on Mars.
Rank Presidents by th
Presidential candidates say absolutely anything to get themselves elected. More on this at 10:00pm...
Is this anything like a certain other organization stating that everyone "ought to have" universal health care, without saying how, or who's going to pay for it, etc? This is a normal function of politicians, folks, nothing to see here.
But hey, wouldn't universal broadband be kewl!!!!????
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
If we're going to have "Universial Service" for Internet access, we first need to determine what level of service is going to be considered the universial level.
For example, lets consider phones... The USF for telephone service assures that everybody can get access to POTS. But, it's exactly Plain Old Telephone Service, a dialtone. Any advanced services are not included in the subsidized rates, so customers are on their own if they want Caller ID, Call Waiting, or Three Way Calling to work. Cellular customers have to pay into the USF fund because they are connecting to the phone network, but they get no subsidies out because cell service is most definitely above the universial level of service. However, this also means that cell network operators are not responsible for getting their networks extended into areas where they don't think it would be profitable to operate.
The other key thing about phone service is that it only costs about $5 to get the hardware you need to fully enjoy all of the features of Plain Old Telephone Service. Sure, there are more expensive telephones are the market, but those all ofter additional features beyond what it takes to interface with the telephone network. It's not an unfair burden to expect somebody to be able to afford to buy their own phone hardware. But, just what is the minimum feature set of a computer to enjoy the Internet? Is Lynx a good enough browser, or do we have to assure that the subsidized level of service can deliver Mozilla?
And, just what technical definition of "broadband" will the subsidized service use? Afterall, DSL and Cable Models come in various speeds of upload and download last-mile links, and how congested the network is after you get off the last mile is also variable and hard-to-quantify. The debate as to what would be defined as "Plain Old Broadband Internet Service" is far from settled.
Bush is giving off a nice thought for an election year proposal... but it seems like this is so lacking in details it can't exactly be taken seriously yet.
I advise all slashdot readers to vote for this patriot on the upcoming election!
Bush is all about freedom, has been and always will be.
This man knows every american has a universal right; and that is to download pornography at high speeds.
the reason the Justice department is arguing against co-op broadband systems is then his big business buddies in the telecom and cable industry don't get paid....see, he wants to get a spending bill passed that will subsidize the expansion of DSL and Cable, but if co-ops form, that means less money for his porky friends.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
...has been replaced by a bold new "don't tax, and spend" policy.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
What he meant is that he wants broads banned, universally.
What a sexist pig!
Atheism is a non-prophet organisation
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.
Has there ever been a stronger cause for Americans to unite behind?
Who needs broadband when you have AOL with TOPSPEED technology?
oh wait...
I agree. All Americans ought to have it.
When GWB proposes spending government money on this, please get back to me.
Ok, great. so he's proposing all these programs, like hte Mars mission, ubiquitous broadband-- the thing is, he doesn't actually plan on coming through on any of them. It's called "starving the beast".
In bold print on the first page of the long-term conservative playbook is a tactic called "Starving The Beast". It goes like this:
* lower taxes (especially for your friends) to the point where a fiscal train wreck finally ensues.
*declare that "raising" taxes (returning them to a prior level) would destroy the economy, and that the only solution is to gut Social Security and other unwanted New Deal programs.
"Starving the beast" is no longer a hypothetical scenario -- it's happening as we speak. For decades, conservatives have sought tax cuts, not because they're affordable, but because they aren't. Tax cuts lead to budget deficits, and deficits offer an excuse to squeeze government spending.
Second, squeezing spending doesn't mean cutting back on wasteful programs nobody wants, like missile defense.
Finally, the right-wing corruption of our government system -- the partisan takeover of institutions that are supposed to be nonpolitical -- continues, and even extends to the Federal Reserve.
But yeah, ubiquitous broadband is a great idea, if he actually meant it.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
I am sorry, but broadband in the household is not like FDR's Public Works Proejcts of the 1930's. Roosevelt used such initiatives to give work to those hammered by the Great Depression while simultaneously modernizing the US infrastructure - electricity for rural communities and the like.
I agree people should have broadband, but Bush needs to let ECONOMICS drive that, not legislation. When demand is high enough, providers will answer. Until then, there are plenty of other issues our government needs to take a look at.
Here's a hint, turn your head East.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Before we get all excited about universal broadband, we should consider parts of the country that haven't even received narrow-band telephone lines.
massmailing free AOL for Broadband CDs to every known address in the US.
AOL for broadband - It's faster! It's smarter! It's included!
On dial-up surf the web upto 5x times faster than a standard dial-up connection with AOL TopSpeed(TM) technology all through your existing phone jack at no additional charge!
That could work.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
I mean, this is a news site, right? We just wouldn't make things up out of thin air to push our agenda here, would we?
I ask this because the Pony part seems unbelievable to me.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
Howard Dean had proposed this, we'd be seeing tons of posts on how visionary it was.
I loved "independent" thinkers.
This is just nuts, both technologically, and unprofitable wise, as going to Mars by 2020.
The amount of switches needed to put everyone on ground based broadband is nuts. I live out in an area where there is no cable TV, and a sparse population, so there is no highspeed option. And you can't consider Satellite an option yet, because 2 way is too expensive for a single household, and one way you still need the expensive dialup account.
Canada promised to give highspeed access to everyone by about this time, and the project just needs technology to catch up with consumer will.
I also don't think it is a good idea to give everyone and their dog access to highspeed Internet. With the inherent insecurities in the Internet's design, it is stupid to give attack capabilities to people who are unable and unwilling to keep their computers free of worms and trojans. The very safety of the Internet relies on some people not having quick service to the net.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
See how life is unfair: Al Gore invents the Internet, now Dubbya profit from it. The system should have some kind of protection to prevent people from stealing each other's ideas...
You made a mistake. The mistake is you made the assumption that Bush is a conservative. He says he is, but his actions prove otherwise. (But he sure has fooled a bunch of people)
He just wishes to be stay in power and will damn near say anyting to stay in the whitehouse.
Broadband for everyone probably means broadband taxes for everyone.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
5.6% unemployment: Low for Clinton, High for Bush.
The Bureau of Labour Statistics doesn't agree with you.
During Clinton's term in office, the unemployment rate dropped from 7.5% to 4.0%. During the first three years of Bush's term, it rose from 4.0% to 6.0%.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
The economy was already getting weak when Bush took office.
I sure as hell don't support the republicans (or the democrats for that matter), but implying that the president has anything but a minor role in the immediate economy (especially during thier first term in office) is silly.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Even though this is from 1994 let me guess that the survey asked for landlines and the increase is due to switch to mobile. Second I did a little googeling and it seems the the Phone question was one of the ones targeted as a NOSY question and a few groups were advocating "Just say no" to that one.
Young men even in the lower income bracket is the one with the most discretionary money.
Meaning most likely wrong and the portion that is "right" it is of Choice not Necessity
Help fight continental drift.
I thought most communities don't allow ponies for pets these days. Couldn't imagine what all those apartment dwellers with ponies anyways.
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
the reason the Justice department is arguing against co-op broadband systems is then his big business buddies in the telecom and cable industry don't get paid...
That's an interesting interpretation.
Especially given that they're NOT arguing aginst broadband operated by co-ops. (Which, by the way, the explicitly support, along with broadband supplied by other little companies, even if it competes with their "big business buddies".)
They're arguing against broadband companies run by county and local GOVERNMENTS. And even then they're only arguing against them when they're implemented in violation of the objections of the STATE governments from which the smaller governments derive their powers and mandates.
The issue was STRICTLY whether an FCC regulation allowing "any entity" to operate a broadband company free of state regulation could be used by cities, counties, and the like, as arms of their state, to escape control by their state legislatures and constitutions.
But of course certain rabid Bush-haters just LOVE to lie about it, claiming that the Bush administration is trying to block small broadband carriers, rather than to block governments from squeezing them out, with tax-subsidized unfair competition and conflict-of-interest driven regulatory roadblocks against any little guy that wants to compete with THEIR operation.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Politics blows. I really wish we could evolve beyond it, but some structure (read: flaw) in the human mind just won't allow it.
Damn these simian brains!
--- Ban humanity.
"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
You cannot deny that the economy did much better during Clinton than during Bush.
First term or not, it is hard to deny that the US economy would have looked very different if the country had continued Clinton's policies than Bush's. For one thing, the huge tax cuts for the rich would not have had happened. If these tax cuts are good or bad, we can discuss, but to say that Bush has had no influence on the current economy is plainly wrong.
bring it on! --- JFK
Carter was a quite good person, and did as good a job at being president as the circumstances were likely to permit. Painting him as a bad president is misleading at best. On the other hand, I wont dispute that he's commonly *believed* to be the worst president. It's just that I don't rank a failure to bring around the economy and the lack of any spectacular public events during his term are quite as bad as treason, which is what King Gorge II is guilty of twice over.
It's all in how you define "bad."
I want my Cowboyneal
first, you sound like someone who is going to believe Bush is the best, no matter what, and not bother to think about it.
Second, it's not flaimbait, bacasue the JD did argue against people owning their own broadband service.
"But by that same token: why on earth should we simply to assume that the government is totally free of corruption?"
we never should. However you say it like it's perfectly OK for Bush to be corrupt.
Before you start labeling, my opinion is based on action Bush has done, and has nothing to do with my political beliefs.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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!
Besides, every American knows that Jimmy Carter was the worst President ever.
But, do you every wonder why people think that (11th paragraph).
Yeah, it's OT but the parent was modded up, so what the hell.
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.
Bush says Americans 'Ought to Be Working' and the working, homeless 'Ought to buy a House'. Get out your bootstraps and pull man, PULL.
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.
1 -bush-guard-usat_x.htm
In fact, the White House didn't have a leg to stand on. They talked out their asses for a while until they convinced everyone who doesn't pay attention that they had a case. If you paid attention, like I did, you'd have a different view. To give you some documentation, I googled it. Here's a good article on the subject:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-1
It's from USA Today. A relevant excerpt (boldfaces mine):
In an interview that aired Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press, Bush said he fulfilled his Guard commitment and offered to make his records public. Host Tim Russert asked, "Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?" Bush replied, "Yes, absolutely."
Since then, White House officials have released only documents concerning whether Bush fulfilled his service obligations. White House statements have not addressed the release of any papers that could show disciplinary actions, medical exams, legal scrapes and the like.
On Tuesday, the White House released pay records from a military archive in Denver that it said showed Bush was paid for at least the minimum training time he was obligated for in 1972 and 1973.
But the records showed only what days he was paid for, not where he was or what duty he performed. Neither did they address outstanding questions about why Bush missed a required physical in 1972, forcing him to stop flying, or what happened during a five-month gap in 1972 when Bush didn't show up for training.
Here's another article for your perusal (boldfacing mine, again):
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the records "show that he was paid for his service, and you get paid for the days on which you serve."
That's the proof the white house had, BTW. Pay records. I've heard members of the national guard at the time say that they had managed to get paid without even showing up for duty. We'll assume for the sake of argument that GWB was 'getting paid for the days on which he served,' though:
The records indicate that between May 1972 and May 1973, Bush served 14 days -- two days in October, four days in November, six days in January and two days in April. The White House offered no indication of why there was a gap in Bush's service from April to October, 1972.
That's a five month gap. Nobody knows where he was during those five months.
AWOL----absent for 30 days or less.
Desertion-----absent for more than 30 days with evidence of no intent to return to duty.
Five months-----150 days
PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
abolish the FCC.
This
Whats the source on your projections?
NewsMax? Aunt Hilda's Polling service?
"Nimis exaltatus rex sedet in vertice - caveat ruinam!"
Reagan then showed how he dealt with terrorists - in cold hard cash - with the biggest ransom deal ever made. With the later Iran-contra scandal some of that money came back to the USA to buy weapons.
As for the ecomomy under Reagan ...
Good to see you have a solid grasp of personal responsability.
The US is not currently drafting civilians. You do not need to be wealthy to avoid military service, you just have to NOT voluntarily apply.
The military seems pretty straightforward about the "running risks, shooting people" part, they're not lying about it. They may not put it in the harshest light, but I don't see them selling the "Army of One" idea as "cushy job, easy salary". Rather, they try to sell it as heroism.
If you sign up for the military, you do it knowing the risks, regardless of your motivation.
While "I'll never see action" may be a "justifiable assumption", it is still a conscious risk to take based on the odds. You're still signing a contract that says you're willing to risk your life if necessary, and that's your part of the deal, regardless of how unlikely you think that necessity is.
If you wanted to take advantage of the deal and never pay up on your promise, we'll, it was your own bad decision.
Soldier is not the only profession that expects you to potentially risk your life in some undetermined future. We don't normally expect cops to say "well, I never really expected to deal with crime directly anyway" or national guards to neglect duty on the grounds that "I didn't expect to deal with REAL emergencies!".
We don't steal the responsability from their actions by assuming they don't know what they're signing for.
Instead, we expect them to be the proud professionals we need them to be; we're aware they'd rather not deal with the ugly side of things, but we hope they will rise to the needs of the situations they're trained for. We praise their outstanding character and do our best to make sure they can do their work as safely as possible.
In other words, we give them the benefit of the doubt of being decent people who can make their own decisions, good or bad. They can marry, they can have kids, they can join the circus or the military.
But since you, obviously, are wealthy enough to worry about the class issues and make the assumption their social disadvantage makes them defenseless children freeloading on the government, I'd suggest you use some of your ample free time to re-read the articles you link to, which do not support your argument and are actually orthogonal to the whole issue.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
CANADA:
Life expectancy at birth:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
total population: 79.83 years
female: 83.38 years (2003 est.)
male: 76.44 years
(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/g
USA:
Life expectancy at birth:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
total population: 77.14 years
female: 80.05 years (2003 est.)
male: 74.37 years
(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/g
The contract to build the monster has been given to Haliburton.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!