Slashdot Mirror
Fixing US Broadband Would Cost $100 Billion
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "According to a new report from EDUCASE (pdf), it would cost $100 billion to wire the US with fiber optics and keep our infrastructure from falling behind the rest of the world. Specifically, they recommend what has worked in many other countries — government investment and unbundling — which are often criticized by free market groups, even though those policies have resulted in faster, better connections for smaller total costs. Ars Technica mentions in their analysis of this report that the President will be releasing a report on US broadband today, too."
Sex?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
WTF!!!
We already paid 200 billion for fiber optic to the home, but never received it. Just search for "200 billion dollar broadband scandal". But here's a clip:
Starting in the early 1990's, the Clinton-Gore Administration had aggressive plans to create the "National Infrastructure Initiative" to rewire ALL of America with fiber optic wiring, replacing the 100 year old copper wire. The Bell companies - SBC, Verizon, BellSouth and Qwest, claimed that they would step up to the plate and rewire homes, schools, libraries, government agencies, businesses and hospitals, etc. if they received financial incentives.
Kushnick's "$200 Billion Broadband Scandal" says the government was promised 86 million households with fiber wiring delivering bi-directional 45 Mbps speeds, capable of handling 500 channels by 2006. He calls it a fraud case, with deft omission in the annals of the FCC, that cost households at least $2000 a piece but got nothing in return.
I think there were subsidies to the telcos as well as tax breaks and incentives
BUPKISS! Freaking nothing, zilch, nada, zip, zero, goose egg, F%&KING damn 20th place
And yes I'm going to point out it was the dems who were in the seat when this happened. Only to show that both parties are really different sides of the same coin. Originally posted by :
I'll ignore the billions spent, and the billions we still have to spend in Iraq...
I'll ignore the other major issues that maybe this country needs to spend 100 Billion on first...
And now, baring all of that...
*WHAT THE FUCK*
Any of you know this story?
http://www.teletruth.org/http://www.teletruth.org
http://www.teletruth.org/PennBroadbandfraud.htmlhttp://www.teletruth.org/PennBroadbandfraud.html
http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htmhttp://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm
In short, Verizon, ATT, SBC and the other big TeleComs were supposed to do this, FOR US, in the last 10-15 years.
They got major tax breaks and government handouts to do this.
So where is it?
16th in the World in Broadband
This is one of the largest scandals in American history.
* By 2006, 86 million households should have been rewired with a fiber optic wire, capable of 45 Mbps, in both directions. -- read the promises.
* The public subsidies for infrastructure were pocketed. The phone companies collected over $200 billion in higher phone rates and tax perks, about $2000 per household.
Reports like this piss me off, cause the first thing I think of, knowing the history of How we're already supposed to have fiber to the home, is who paid for the report? and what is it really asking for? Hear hear! I can't believe noone brought this up sooner, or even in the article. There's pretty much no hope at this point for the US to have a globally competitive broadband Internet infrastructure.
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
Copper is not as flexible, has shorter range, and more susceptible to noise than fiber. A copper infrastructure would require more repeaters, hubs and insulation around the entire network and it would be less reliable due to EM interference and require protection against lightning and such. Fiber has none of these problems and is advantageous in every way except (currently) cost. Plastic fiber hopes to solve this last problem.
Nice response.
Seriously, this would have cost 10% of that back in the '90s when we ALREADY PAID FOR THIS as part of the Telecom Act of 1994. The telcos simply have not delivered what they promised for receiving deregulation and all those tax breaks.
Or maybe this is where that imaginary $9B that Worldcom has went.
$100 Billion is an inconceivable sum.
It's also 10 Months in Iraq (and that's 10 months above and beyond the ongoing cost of maintaining the world's most powerful army, so doesn't include the costs the US would incur if all those soldiers/tanks/bombs were sat quietly at home).
Bargain. And remember, most of that money is flowing out of the US public purse, straight into the hands of... Bush's golfing buddies.
It's only the internet I suppose.
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
Yes, it was the biggest rip-off in history. The telecoms took the money, didn't produce anything useful, and were never held to account.
The market can't demand anything that isn't offered. In this case, there is essentially no compitition in most of the USA for internet providers. The way the market would demand something is by having people switch to faster providers, showing they are willing to spend the money for speed. In which case companies would then try to make their networks faster, to attract more customers.
But in the US, there is no one to switch to. So the market can't demand anything.
'Unbundling' as they call it in the article is always painted as anti-capitolistic, and as ending market forces. In fact, it is the opposite: It would allow market forces to work again, by giving people a choice of networks.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Without looking at pr0n? How?
Wait, you mean, you don't have any on your cell phone's micro SD card? Like, you know, emergency porn?
You just got troll'd!
The most important part of the statement is taken from "1984" by George Orwell.
If you have $100 Billion to spend, and you build tanks, bombs and combat jets, you are helping the economy, but only a small amount. Once you use a bomb, it will not add value to the economy. When you build a combat jet, it will not add (much) to the future economy. A bullet shot, is worthless.
If you use that money to build a road, then people will use that road to go to school, work, and shopping. If you use that $100 Billion to build a network, people will read news, buy products, start businesses, and other net related acts. If you use that $100 Billion to build schools and pay for teachers, you get students the get better jobs, pay more taxes, add more to the economy.
I am not saying we should not fund our military. But saying that spending money on war helps the economy, well it does, but in the long run. By using that money to better the countries roads, power lines, water supply, hospitals, whatever, you will get a return on your investment.
If you borrow money to make a bullet, your money is lost forever. If you borrow money to build a road, then you will get your worth.
If you put more currency into circulation, the value of it decreases. As the value decreases, things purchased with it become more expensive (inflation). Printing cash to get us out of the hole would do nothing more than crash the economy (the world's, since so many other countrys' economies are inseparably tied in with the US Dollar).
Economics has a way of biting every "get of debt quickly" scheme in the ass.
That's NOT the correct way to use fibre-optic cable!
Read 1984.
That is the point of having a "war economy". People need to work. They get mad when they are not working. So if you employ people making tanks, bullets and bombs, they are "happy" because they have a job. But a tank is not going to make a person's life better they way a new public transportation system would. Again, I am all for funding the military. But if we don't have to be at war, building a new subway system will do better for the public then a aircraft carrier. Building a 777 is better then a F-22. All will bring an economic gain, when you pay the workers and for the parts, but once finished the 777 or the subway will continue to greatly add value. Yes repairs and spare parts for the military will add to the future economy, but moving thousands of people from point A to point B for work for fun will do better.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
-Dwight D. Eisenhower