Slashdot Mirror
President Bush Releases US Broadband Policy
Ars Technica is reporting that while most people wouldn't know we have a national broadband policy in place, the president claims that not only do we have a plan, it's working spectacularly well. "That's the main conclusion of the just-released 'Network Nation: Broadband in America 2007' [PDF] report from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). What's shocking about the report isn't what it covers [...], but what it leaves out: it doesn't contain a single extended discussion of the fact that the US has been slipping in a worldwide broadband rankings throughout the decade."
According to the report, affordable broadband is critical to the productivity of the economy.
Well guess what? I spend over $55 per month for my Internet service. And that includes $0.76 in taxes. Do I pay it? You bet. Hell, I'm an IT guy, so connectivity is important to me. But regular "non-IT" people? Is broadband worth $670 per year to them?
$670 is more than my telephone bill. It is even more than my monthly electric bill. That's right, I spend substantially more on Internet connectivity than on Telephone OR Electricity. Let me tell you, I'd give up broadband way before I gave up electricity or telephone.
So, all-mighty-report-writers, here's a clue: many American families aren't going to be able to pay that kind of price.
have missed something.
The current administration has been fixing numbers for 8 years. No child left behind was about numbers, not education. The death toll in Iraq was about numbers not the war. (Iraqi and mercenary deaths don't count) Just about everything this administration touched was about numbers to show the public. They were not planning on the housing crash catching them before they got out of office. There are miles and miles of dark fiber in the US that were paid for with tax dollars and higher service fees. Are they in use? If they are, it's not for joe bloggs ISP service.
In South Korea, the government mandated the tech revolution. In the US the government will not do so, leaving it to private companies who then leave out the little guys that are not profitable customers. This is the major difference. For some reason, after these guys pay off their government officials here in the US, they don't feel that bragging rights about how they provide the BEST service in the US bar none is necessary. Note, more bars != best service, and advertising should always be viewed with a healthy overdose of cynicism.
The current spin doctors know (at least 4 out of 5 of them) that it's the numbers, not actual service value that counts. Our government has shown them how this works. You can do anything, as long as you have a plausible story and numbers to show you are right. After all, the ONLY intelligence data that the rest of us knew about was that Saddam had WMD, and the NUMBER of concurring agencies and or countries was convincing... but I digress.
It's all about numbers. If you have money with large numbers on it, you can get the fiber to your house from any ISP. The problem is that there is no incentive for private businesses to provide superior service to your home if they can continue to rob your wallet every month for something that it a little better than dial up. Notice how the commercials try to convince you that their service is 'broadband', lightning fast, and other terms that intimate super fast speeds. They never talk about real data rates so again in this case it's about numbers. If they hide the numbers you are lead to believe it's all good. You will not see one US company compare their customers to the top three ranked countries in the world for Internet service. That would be using the numbers fairly and we in the US just won't stand for that kind of non-sense. It's just un-American.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Barak may care, but I'd prefer that whoever becomes the next prez, he and the rest of the federal government keep their grubby mitts off the internet.
Government doesn't need to define "broadband". Defining broadband to be X bits per second doesn't mean we automatically get fatter pipes. It just means that what we get is no longer called "broadband," if it doesn't meet the definition.
The marketplace can define what it considers broadband. Government only needs to ensure there is a marketplace free of monopolies (that's the big reason why things aren't improving). With a free marketplace in operation, people can vote with their wallets for what they consider to be broadband.
When the government comes around to "help" you, it's time to hang on to your wallets.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Yeah, right. You connect via dialup to /. and managed to get a +5 Insightful 4 sentence long first post.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
The ARRL posted a story about this NTIA report. They took a good look at the parts dealing with BPL (broadband over power lines). It is definitely worth reading.
(ARRL is the American Radio Relay League - kind of like a lobbying organization for amateur radio)
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/02/01/101/?nc=1
ARRL has been watching BPL very closely as many of the BPL operations have been polluting the radio spectrum. BPL so far has been a huge failure.
They note that NTIA doesn't seem to know how many BPL customers there are. They estimate there are 200,000. Their projections for future usage are laughable. From the ARRL story, here are the FCC numbers along with an interesting comment.
"The FCC's data showing fewer than 5000 BPL customers -- a number that dropped in the six-month period covered by the report -- are taken from forms that service providers are required to submit"
In other words, we require you to provide the data. But, we will conveniently forget that if the numbers aren't flattering. Add to that an outdated map of BPL operations in the states. Many no longer exist. The BPL interests must have a heck of a lobby.
We need a real broadband strategy. BPL has no place in it. Neither does this absolutely silly and useless NTIA report.
So why to we have faster and cheaper connections?
* Smaller population (9 million). Although we are do not have a high population density (20/km compared to 31/km for the US), the problem does not scale in a linear fashion.
* Über-centralization. In the US you have states, counties etc, all that have some form of local identity, laws and business. Sweden only has the national level. There are no local ISPs.
* We've paid for it. While it might seem that we are paying less for faster connections, in fact we are not. We are and have been paying it through taxes. Sweden is a very socialist country. Although our ISPs are privately owned they are given enormous subsidies to make sure that every man, woman and reindeer gets a broadband connection no matter where they live. In essence, we in Stockholm are through taxes financing the building of broadbroadband connections up north where it is not economically feasible.
So all in all it's a combination of population, geography and politics.
Why do you think broadband is somehow different from other public utilities? Saying "oh gee we can just break up the monopolies" is all well and good but that's not really a solution as they'll just re-form with time. Companies are not going to go around laying fiber on a whim, there needs to be some sort of financial incentive. Utah has shown this through their UTOPIA program where municipal governments have installed the fiber themselves and then leased it out to a multitude of service providers (with a MANDATED minimum of 100mbps). The free market is great for harnessing existing infrastructure but it really sucks when it comes to building up the basics and that's what we're seeing now. Add in the fact that to lay fiber the companies have to dig up public roads adding another layer of complexity to the mix and the whole lolbertarian "let the market figure it all out" solution just isn't practical.
Obama is the only candidate with an *actual* broadband plan.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/
He supports net neutrality; content filtering conducted by parents, not the state; reforming the universal service fund to help subsidize broadband, and a whole lot more.
That's why Wu supports him, and why I do too.
Republicans have terrible long term memory. Bush did not heed his father's caution about invading Iraq. Likewise, in forging this do-nothing policy, he forgot about another Republican- Dwight D. Eisenhower. One of Eisenhower's greatest achievements was a Interstate Highway System. The highway system was completely funded by the US government and had tremendous impact the economy that lasts till this day. Goods and workers trek across that system everyday creating the life we have the today. The things we take for granted today would not exist without those roads. A national broadband network can have similar impact for the 21st century. Instead of cybertrekking across small roads like we do todays, we can move across superhighways.
The US economy and society would benefit from this system great. Huge broadband pipes makes sending any form of data across that network practical. Advertising, entertainment, and commerce would get more opportunities. For those who don't like DRM, broadband could cut out those media companies behind the RIAA and MPAA that sit between the consumer and the artist. Scientist and student can have access to huge libraries all from their computers. Our economy grows on ides and such network would allow those ideas move efficiently.
With a recession oncoming, private businesses aren't likely to build such a system anytime soon. Banks are still licking their wounds from the housing fiasco. I can imagine that they will be too shell shock to give loans for a broadband network. The US government is the biggest spender in the world and it doesn't matter if it wastes money on a technology that would be obsolete. I believe that governmental investment is the only way to get a broadband system off the ground.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
I apologize for not making myself clear. I was being facetious while attempting a bit of sarcasm. The U.S. auto industry has been pandering to what the people in this country want, which is not necessarily a good thing. We have a history of love for big, gas guzzling machines while our automakers have been operating with only one goal in mind for too long: short term profits. Our government has, for the most part, stayed out of the way while domestic trucks and SUV's have gotten bigger, heavier, and more powerful. A few years back, foreign automakers decided to compete in the guzzlers' market; now huge trucks and SUV's from Nissan and Toyota crowd our highways and pollute our air as well. Government intervention in the auto industry may have precluded a blood-for-oil war that we have been waging since 2003. I know the results of a completely free and open marketplace in internet service will probably not have anywhere near the dramatic results, but I still think unfettered capitalism has shown itself to be potentially very dangerous. Again, sorry for the confusion.