Slashdot Mirror
Universal Broadband Plan Calls For $44 Billion
Andy King writes "The new Obama administration has pledged to deploy next-generation broadband to every community in America, but have offered few specifics. The Free Press have published a specific plan to accomplish broadband for all." I'm not sure which will be the bigger headache when my internet breaks: waiting in line at the new government internet office, or waiting on hold for cable tech support.
The RIAA is not going to like this.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
So far Obama is very good at promises, they don't cost a dime. Let's see how many he can pull through in real.
It sounds like that as long as you have something to bitch about, you'll be happy enough.
the year of the linu .... um ...
wimax?
You speak London? I speak London very best.
Comca$t already plans to raise rates by $44 billion when the $44 billion in broadband vouchers is awarded to qualifying households. Being paid by Comca$t, we say the more broadband entitlements, the better.
Is there some ambiguity here that I'm missing?
Many of us here would agree that allowing municipalities/communities to create their own ISPs and lay their own fiber is a better solution than allowing the 800lb gorillas to maintain their monopolies by burying any homegrown networks under a flurry of lawsuits.
The Fix: States need to pass laws that explicitly allow for those municipal/community network infrastructure and ISPs that comcast/verizon/at&t/etc are fighting.
How: Have the Feds blackmail the States by tying some important Federal Funding to the passage of such law.
But: Blackmail is bad. I agree. But telecoms have a stranglehold on State legislatures and any other solution is just going to increase the stranglehold that telecoms have on State/Federal legislative bodies.
Obama doesn't need to twist arms, he needs to kick the States where it hurts: their pocketbook.
why does Australia have the " National Broadband Network "
and the USofA has the "Universal Broadband Network" ?
or will it be owned by a hollywood studio ??
these spin doctors need a good kick in the nuts - a polished turd is still a turd , no matter what moniker it has been given.
...I obey the laws of physics....
That being out of the way: This sounds lovely on paper, but I don't think it's going to work out the way he thinks it will; much easier said than done. Telecoms all over the country have been resistant (to say the least!) of "free" broadband, and they sure as hell haven't been trying to reduce the costs of broadband OR going out of their way to increase the size (OR the capacity!) of their networks. My $0.02 worth on the subject is that throwing money at this subject likely won't do much of anything other than line the already well-lined pockets of the telecoms, there needs to be some sort of reform(s) to go along with it (read as: strings attached to the money, SERIOUS strings). Even then.. not so sure I want the gov'ment mucking about with the Internet any more than they already do.
so what is the carbon footprint of a $44B dollar broadband system - or are you going to tell me its solar powered....
Can someone read the article in depth? It doesn't sound like free Internet. It sounds like a bunch of things working together to provide broadband access everywhere. Some people have dial-up in America still, don't they? Some people don't have choices. Isn't this about bringing reasonably-priced broadband to all areas?
The Constitution gives the Federal Government power to regulate interstate commerce. That's the same reason they were able to build the interstate highway system. Given how popular web shopping has become (as well as web based services), I don't think any constitutional roadblocks will present themselves.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
44 Billion Dollars / Area of US = 4,477.63 U.S. dollars per Square Kilometer
I can build a wireless transceiver for well under $1000 that can provide 100 Mbps coverage to 1 square kilometer (564 meter radius). It will cost more like $100 each if we're making 10M.
The real hurdle isn't technical, but political: we need to stop licensing bandwidth to private corporations and start sharing the entire spectrum.
Uhhh...the commerce clause. Not that I agree with it though.
I don't mind the government promoting the spread of broadband, but I hope that in the process it steers clear of content filtering and content monitoring. This is potentially one of those "deal with the devil" situations, so let's make sure it's done right. Let's make sure free-speech and privacy rights are well protected from the very beginning. Let's avoid a situation similar to that currently faced by public broadcasters who, due to the public nature of the airwaves, are forced to accept what would in any other context constitute unconstitutional restraint on speech.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
I don't think the Constitution has really had all that much to do with the government since the New Deal. When I read the Constitution, the government it brings to mind isn't much like what we have now. That said, I do think the voters are getting what we want on average, and the country has made vast progress in the last 80 years. I guess it would be better if we ammended the Constitution instead of just ignoring or re-interpreting it, but I doubt the end result is much different either way.
already. universal healthcare, other public services, or other services that are held by private sector in other countries work very well in europe, but SOMEHOW, goverment is always 'inefficient' in united states.
or, rather, you people are WAY too brainwashed with the private sector propaganda and lobbying there. for example, the concept of 'lobbying corporation' is an abomination that exists mainly in united states. remember how they spent 100 million on advertisements on how network neutrality was 'sabotaging jobs' back 2 years ago in the blink of an eye over a month, in order to push laws to turn internet into cable tv ? if you dont, you should.
i have to say this here - if, you are unable to make your government work more efficiently than european countries, its YOUR fault. its your country, government is YOUR corporation, you are the inalienable shareholder, you should f@cking stand up and demand your rights, and your rights to be protected from private interests, yourself. someone is not going to come and do it for you.
and no, blabbering 'government is inefficient' and selling your butt to private sector WONT help, just like we saw what happened with healthcare, and credit crisis.
Read radical news here
This free market fundamentalism american exceptionalism shit sickens me to no end. Most of the time the people espousing it are embarassingly ignorant about basic civics and use their vitriol as a cover for the fact that they have no relevant ideas.
Please point out where the Constitution restricts the ability of the federal government to spend money. Where it speaks of "powers," such as those reserved for the states, that's not generally understood as spending power, but as the power to, for instance, arrest you for growing pot to deal with your migraines. Clearly the founders did not intend for the federal government to have vast powers over what people could legally do, except when they entered into interstate commerce, in which case a federal role is necessary since states don't have power in each other's territory.
But to say that the Constitution requires the federal government to avoid spending money on Internets, or interstates, or elaborate embassies on the Moon ... what's your basis for that?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
The "taxing and spending" clause. Atleast that is the simplest one to choose from as it gives the federal goverment near unlimited power in taxing/spending because of the subjective "general welfare" part.
Really, the US constitution is so full of loopholes and interpetations that I am amazed at how much otherwise reasonable people swear by it. Swearing at it is more appropriate at times.
Never mind that the goverment can make an unconstitutional law and it can still take years for the law to get repelled with no consequences to those who made the law. For something that involves spending the money will be used up by then so it is a total win for goverment power in any case.
I am really tired of the recent "pork" bashing in the latest election cycles. We need infrastructure spending. I suppose you'd say that money to build roads is also "pork". Like fixing that bridge that fell down in Minnesota a few years ago because of attitudes like yours. I for one am sick of this Reaganesque attitude towards spending we've had for the last 28 years, and I'm glad we'll have people who aren't afraid to invest in the future.
Do you think Europe and Asia is afraid of using public money for these purposes? Maybe the answer to that has something to do with why we're losing ground and they are gaining.
We do need to have some harsh regulations so that assholes like Comcast and the telecom cartels don't abuse us. But that is another story...
Yeah right The reptilian race is on the move again now with universal broadband.
You NWO conspiracy theorists really crack me up, lizard people who can shape shift to look like human beings are behind the New World Order and they live in Hollow Earth.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
This is precisely what I was thinking. Are we really to believe that the government won't do some type of censorship in the name of children, etc...? And if it's not censorship, it will be snooping, which they do illegally anyway and get away with. I don't want them having MORE avenues. I'm not being a naysayer because I'm a paranoid twat with a tinfoil hat. I'm being a naysayer because the government already does these type of actions elsewhere. Do we need it in more places that take up our daily lives?
So does this mean Obama just became a target for Sarah Conner and company? Whose side is Arnold going to be on this time?
Clearly the solution is to not attempt to regulate anything. After all, if there's anything we have learned from free market fundamentalists it's that businesses will never risk wrongdoing because the market won't allow it!
If for some reason a business turns out to have completely betrayed the public trust, then government is always at fault.
Could it just be possible that it isn't whether it's "government" or "a corporation" or a "public-private partnership" that makes the difference between well-done and corrupt, but the vision and integrity of the people carrying out the project? If Obama's people have the integrity to go with their vision, and if their vision is better than the crippled mess that private industry has largely made of the Internet - which after all started as a government project - then let them have it. Yet Obama himself has stated that in the longer term he thinks private industry can provide better management of most enterprises than government can. That may be true, if we first jail many of the crooks who have controlled private industry over the last decade, confiscate their ill-gotten fortunes, and bring in a fresh, ethically-educated generation to run our businesses.
It's the quality of the people who make the quality of the world. Whether they organize themselves into "governments" or "corporations" or "anarcho-syndicates" to pursue their goals is totally secondary to the essential matter of who's doing it. It's like arguing whether four-piece rock bands or small jazz orchestras make the better music. It's not the size or shape of the organization that determines quality, but who the people are, whether they share the right feeling, and have drive and competence.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
The Commerce Clause, given its widest interpretation, would only allow for national regulation of the internet (I'm guessing this is how the ban on an internet tax got done), not building out the network.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Per above, the Commerce Clause cannot, at its most liberal reading, authorize any expenditures on the creation of infrastructure.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
How about instead of spending new tax dollars he makes the telcos own up to the favors they were already handed??
No sig for you!!
You're reading the Constitution backwards. It was not written to be a comprehensive listing of what the Federal government could not do. All of its limited powers were exclusively those enumerated within the Constitution. If it was not written, the Federal government had no authority in that area, absent an amendment. This was the Federalists (anti-federalists) argument for the ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists (federalists), when pushing for a Bill of Rights, were told that no such amendments were needed, as where the Constitution was silent, the Federal government would lack all power. The Constitution itself forbids the Federal government from expending funds on the Internet and the interstate, although not embassies on the Moon, if this was required for foreign relations between the Federal government of the US and one or more foreign powers. Even if this wasn't enough, the 9th and 10th Amendments make it doubly clear that the Federal government lacks such authority.
And yes, I know the current Federal government almost completely ignores the Constitution, but both this and the lack of fidelity of the people of the several States was foreseen by the Constitution's opponents before it was even ratified, and reality should not lead one to blind themselves to violation of principle.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
government is YOURS.
DEMAND otherwise.
Read radical news here
thats what WE think.
to an ordinary occasional internet subscriber, and they are in the majority, such a post that is not responded to may seem like an uncontested opinion, when reached through a random google result.
Read radical news here
If Obama's people have the integrity to go with their vision, and if their vision is better than the crippled mess that private industry has largely made of the Internet - which after all started as a government project - then let them have it.
But if you look at the US Government in the past, they never have the integrity to go with their vision. If the *AA decides to give say, 1.5 million dollars to whatever politicians will support mandatory BT filtering to look for "infringing" content to give to the *AA, most politicians will join on the bandwagon and go for that, regardless of what Obama/McCain/The public/China/whoever wants.
It's the quality of the people who make the quality of the world. Whether they organize themselves into "governments" or "corporations" or "anarcho-syndicates" to pursue their goals is totally secondary to the essential matter of who's doing it
Sure, Obama wants change. But in a 2 party system, you are never going to get real change. Congress is largely made up of older people who oppose any form of change, a president who wants change will not get it unless congress wants change. If a president doesn't want change but congress does, change will happen. Obama is basically powerless, he has to bend to the wishes of the democratic party, lobbyists, congress and many more people before he listens to his own ideas or the ideas of the citizens of the USA.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Yeah, Europe's in such great shape that plenty of them still come here for good and timely medical care.
I guess I'm not quite sure how you're blaming the private sector entirely for "healthcare" and "credit crisis". I'll put the blame squarely on government intervention for both. Government for pushing HMOs, mandating insurance that operates as collectivism rather than insurance, allowing lawyers to run roughshod over the medical industry, and empowering bureacrats over doctors. As for the credit crisis, I don't look much farther than the Federal Reserve manipulating the money supply to encourage speculative and risky investments.
The free market works great, we just wouldn't know, we don't have one. We're regulated to death, but people are so blind, they call for MORE regulation by the very idiots that caused these problems.
Wow. Because the market does not already drive demand for internet? Reallocate the wealth?
You Americans are turning into card-carrying-commies faster than you realise.
Be sure to forfeit your guns for food vouchers somewhere.
Is (service provider of choice) doing a better job? At least with government we might have a chance to find out where that $200b went to.
After all, would we be even having this conversation at all if private industry held up their end of the deal?
Is YOUR broadband cheap, fast, and available everywhere (compared globally)? I know mine is not.
- Toast
P.S. I look at the way water and roads are handled. And I fail to see a system worse off now compared to when private industry would have controlled it.
The BPL folks and other hucksters will be all over this...maybe the recent scathing report from congress on the FCC will help keep them at bay.
Is your point that broandband is fundamentally distinct in this regard from interstates, or that the interstate system is unconstitutional?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Dumbasses, the whole lot of you.
The US Government isn't going to go into the ISP business. What they WILL do is help finance and give tax incentives to actual commercial ISP's in order to get them to run lines to everywhere people live.
Right now, it's too expensive to run high speed fiber optic lines to small towns in the mid west. With incentives, Verizon could subsidize some of this initial investment with the government and run those lines. The system will be owned and operated by Verizon, not the US government.
I use Verizon as an example; it could be any business.
I think this is a necessary evil to get all of our citizens connected to the Internet. I don't love the idea completely but we will be left in the dust by other competing markets because these other governments ARE doing this, and their people are benefiting with very fast Internet connections, whereas a lot of the people in the US are still on Dial-up.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
One could make an argument that broadband networks and the interstate are fundamentally different, but yes, the interstate in its current form is overtly unconstitutional.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
...your needs. I will be east European, um, professionals exporting, that your needs very well be meeting.
universal healthcare,
Yes, as you "Around the World" call.
other pubic services,
All already shaved.
or other services that are held by private sector in other countries work very well in europe,
No roughie stuffie, ok?
but SOMEHOW, goverment is always 'inefficient' in united states.
Our sales associates can be if needed Viagra providing. None 'ineficientiousness' no more; use only as directed.
i have to say this here - if, you are unable to make your government work more efficiently than european countries, its YOUR fault. its your country, government is YOUR corporation, you are the inalienable shareholder, you should f@cking stand up and demand your rights, and your rights to be protected from private interests, yourself. someone is not going to come and do it for you.
Yes, thank-you, thank-you very much, as our dear Elvis would have said. He was never for a bailout asking.
Sorry to poke fun at a serious post, but it's the Holiday Season, and as Kinky Friedman says, "Why not?"
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Putting aside debate on whether government has integrity, we do know private industry tends to not have integrity. Integrity in and of itself isn't a profit driving concept. Vision can be rewarding, but not always.
In terms on current failings of private industry and the internet, no one will provide significant throughput to some people I know. They can get electricity and phone (and dial-up) because of government interference, but the CO is too far for DSL and cable companies aren't going to bother with this area. The cellular providers that in theory could provide coverage won't do so without limits that make it impractical.
Now this isn't exactly life and death, but it does preclude them from participating in a number of internet based industries, as consumers and as potential entrepreneurs. If fast internet connectivity is a significant prerequisite for enabling more of the constituents to participate and compete in the global market, I could see it as being worth taxpayer dollar to some extent given the precedent of the Interstate system. The 2009 budget for that seems to be about 35 billion for maintenance and development. 44 billion depending on the scope and duration of the spending may be a realistic number.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I'm not sure which will be the bigger headache when my internet breaks: waiting in line at the new government internet office, or waiting on hold for cable tech support.
At least you will have a CHOICE. What a concept eh?
Right now I have to go with Cox Cable. That's it. No DSL, no other cable companies, nothing. And it still costs $40/mo for basic cablemodem at the same speed as what I used to pay 10 years ago when I was one of the first customers in my area. In the meantime I have an order of magnitude more RAM, disk, cpu, etc. for a much lower price hooked up to that cablemodem connection.
OK, but the government passed laws that were supposed to regulate these industries. For political reasons, the government stopped regulating. However, they also gutted the court system, destroying the only recourse people who have been wronged by another.
People (you and me) fail to understand on a gut level that in a laissez faire environment, they don't have government regulators protecting them, so they tend to be overly trusting of a pitch. Then, when caveat emptier rules kick in, they wonder why "no one" was watching out for them and cry foul.
Now imagine business integrity enforced by contract law between two parties, not a government regulator. If company X isn't delivering what is stated in the contract, you can break the contract, or take them to court to attempt to make them hold up their end. If there was real contract negotiation, you could cross out the parts of the contract you don't agree with (like the clause that states the company can change the contract at any time for any reason), or negotiate a better deal. That isn't going to happen in the case of the government running a broadband network. You're going to get whatever they feel like giving you, it will continue to get more expensive for no reason (even though technological advances should make it cheaper), and every time the budget season comes up, the department of broadband access will cry about not having enough money in the budget to complete the network.
Oh, and forget about porn, Jesus or anything like what I just wrote traveling over the government's network.
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
"Who's doing it" matters to me because it says a lot about their motivation and risks. The people behind the corporate version are doing it because they think it will be a profitable business venture that people will want to buy into, and it needs investors who think it's a sound idea and are willing to stake a lot of money on that. Furthermore, I lose no money until I choose to buy the service. The people behind the government version are voters who approve of the idea based on their best intuition, and any economists who have wagered that the project will benefit the public welfare. Even if they hire the best team with all the vision and integrity in the world, if the project wasn't a good idea to start with, then the impact is negative. And regardless of what happens, I have to help pay for it. $44 billion is about $150 from each of us.
Additionally, the constitution gives the federal government the right to create a postal mail service. You can take the mail definition and give it an internet meaning for the 21st century. Same thing.
BTW I'd much rather have a socialist government run internet, instead of private corporations. A socialist internet provider would be MUCH cheaper than any private corporate ISP. Think $1/month or so. Don't believe me? How much do you spend mailing a letter via USPS? 42 cents?
Now, how much would the same letter cost to deliver privately via UPS or FedEx? $10? $20?
There you go.
If you use the postal system, or the interstates, you are a socialist. Welcome comrade.
How exactly would this be adding to the scope of their actions in your daily life? I would like to think that the majority of the /. readers out there have broadband already...broadband that is already monitored both by their ISP *and* the government.
I mean, I am personally opposed to the amount of regulation already present on the internet, but I doubt this would cause that to increase in any significant manner...
I don't see how it's unconstitutional, since it's part of the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce.
The first amendment guarantees a federal ISP is censorship free.
What's funny is that a private company DOESN'T have to give you your first amendment rights, whereas, a government does.
which explains what has exactly happened, as per international economist's view ?
boy. the tendency to blame government STILL in there, even in slashdot. unbelievable. its as if it became something like a religion in your country - 'believe' government is inefficient, and IT should be blamed for EVERYthing bad that happens and private sector comes up all roses.
some people need a thick stick to get sense beaten into their thick skull.
Read radical news here
The internet can deliver Turducken to my door? Awesome!
bring it on Internet!
Wait, only physical delivery companies can do that, not the internet. Internet Mail Office == Fail.
thats just another excuse you americans use to excuse your inaction. 'neither democrats nor republicans are any good' -> nonsense. upon any given two groups, there is always one that is more suitable for the purpose at hand.
sue your senators, demand from your senators. choose whichever is more accommodating for people's wishes. start from somewhere. 'hey a third party is gonna co...' -> HOW do you know that third party is not going to be 'the 3rd party', if you are SO sure that the first two are totally useless ? what if it happens to be just another ?
make use of what you have. push forward.
Read radical news here
first, government is YOUR corporation. you have every right to it. if, they dont give out information to you, you change your senator, demand it, have him put out laws, and get it.
ANYthing that is in private hands, can be hid behind the 'private property' 'privilege' 'trade secrets' rights, and you CANT argue.
these were what were used to hide the financial scam that has been going on in wall street in regard to credits, and these were also the thing that prevented madoff's scheme from being found out.
no, harboring trust for private sector in THAT level you people have, is no different than trusting a divine being with all your faith. there is no 'invisible hand', and there is no free market god to set things right.
Read radical news here
lol.
FedEx and UPS also get my shit there a LOT faster.
I'd rather be able to NOT have to get DSL from the government monopoly.
Let me choose with my wallet, thanks.
--Toll_Free
It's amazing how much of a disappointment Obama has been as President. You'd think that he'd have single-handedly solved at least ONE crisis 3 weeks out from his inauguration.
No.
Government is EVERYONE'S corporation. It is a corporation in which my interests may differ from the will of the majority. It is a corporation that can PUT ME IN PRISON for choosing not to participate.
I can choose to walk away from a private corporation; I can't easily escape my government.
Yeah, Europe's in such great shape that plenty of them still come here for good and timely medical care.
what we see is otherwise. where does that happen ? freerepublic chat rooms ?
Read radical news here
But what if the government gives money to the states to do the building? That way Obama gets his lime light and since it is the states doing the work, it passes constitutional muster.
(By "give" I mean the typical trick of placing string on funding that the federal government uses to force states to do what they want.)
(I don't like the idea of a federal internet (I'm wary of promises of a chicken in every pot/bread and circuses). I'm just posing a theoretically possible way to do it.)
I've read the Free Press proposal. I'm in the business, know the economics, have done some detailed studies of the Universal Service Fund (what a joke!), and recognize a mess when I see one.
First off, they're overly impressed by speed. They want 50/5 Mbps all over. You need that for three streams of HDTV via Internet, but not much else. They are out to hurt cable, and probably don't understand the nature of the copyright issues that rule those industries. They also ignore the issues facing rural providers, connecting them to the backbone, where current rules let the big Bells gouge small companies (some of whom pass the bill on to the Universal Service Fund). And where's the cost-benefit analysis? USF finances ridiculous boondoggles today. (They finance over $200k PER HOME to Sandwich Isles Communications.) Do we need more?
In fact they explicitly disclaim telecom competition as opened by the Telecom Act of 1996, favoring instead a massive expenditure on a "third pipe" closed approach, as if a triopoly were all that much better than a duopoly. In other words, it's "f* you" to the ISPs.
They have detailed plans to spend the money, but their details reflect a lack of understanding of what the actual costs and needs are. Too much here, too little there. It's like they're taking random numbers and throwing them out there, because that's how pork barrel politics works.
Their plan is classic inside-the-beltway "I want mine" thinking. It's not a good way to improve Internet access; it's a way to make some rich telephone companies richer, leaving a big bill for us to pay later.
The Commerce Clause, given its widest interpretation, would only allow for national regulation of the internet (I'm guessing this is how the ban on an internet tax got done), not building out the network.
OK, then how about the clause authorizing federal post offices and post roads? When the US Constitution was written in the 1780s, the framers envisioned post offices to carry both information and parcels. But in the 1830s, electric telegraphy became practical, showing potential to perform some of the functions of a post office, and in 1843, the US Congress authorized a $30,000 pilot project to run a Morse telegraph line from the Capitol building to Baltimore. By the 1980s, technology had advanced to the point where the Internet, a global packet-switched telegraph network, was becoming practical. I would imagine an interpretation of the post office clause that allows for construction of a telegraph network in the same way that the army and navy clauses allow for establishment of an air force.
you know the saying "your freedoms end where another's begins"
society is a give and take situation. its a trade off. you trade in SOME freedom in order to get a lot of perks and freedoms. for, if society wasnt there, you would be also concerned about saving your butt from wolves, or, wondering whether it will rain this month, so you can find water.
instead, you just get to suffer a little in terms of 'freedoms' (Which is basically generally cash - tax complaints), but gain innumerable, invaluable benefits.
that is a good deal.
Read radical news here
I'm not sure which will be the bigger headache when my internet breaks: waiting in line at the new government internet office, or waiting on hold for cable tech support.
Yeah, because reading is for those smartasses that go to schoo-ools.
Dumb editor. The government isn't going to "run the Internet". More likely, they're going to provide financial incentives to ISPs so that those put broadband where the pure economics wouldn't make it happen. Say, some small remote village where the ISPs in the area figure that putting those people on DSL would cost more for building up the infrastructure than they'd see in revenue over the next years. So that village has no broadband, and won't get any unless the government sweetens the deal for the ISPs.
That kind of shit happens all the time, in all areas. Because, you know, not everyone's a redneck and loves living in a trailer park on illusions of self-sufficiency.
This is the government's job, to step in where the lauded market economics fail and need a little pushing in the right direction.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
When it is busy at the post office, they go on break, the line be damned. Employees just wander around behind the counter in full view of the long long lines - there is no urgency at all.
All the big retailers schedule extra help during busy business times. When it is extra busy at any modern store, they call all the employees to the cash registers - even the managers will man the registers when it is busy.
Say what you want about private enterprise, but it is hard to argue that they don't care about taking your money! If the guy down the street is better at taking your money, he will do it and the first guy will improve or go out of business.
With government, there is no guy down the street to push for improvement. It is that simple.
I don't see how it's unconstitutional, since it's part of the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce.
The actual text from the constitution is:
... among the several States"
"To regulate Commerce
This means that the federal government preempts the states on matters of commerce beyond the state level, so (for example) Vermont can't levy a 300% import tax on goods from Virginia. It has fuck-all to do with financing a national road system, or any of the other bullshit crap they've shoehorned behind it.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
The interstate system was built as a military installation, not under the interstate commerce clause. T
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Its good that they want to expand broadband to everywhere but will this lower costs? For a simple broadband connection, its very expensive compared to those 56kers, if cable or dsl can get down to where the 56kers monthly bill is then this would be awesome.
In the Constitution, Article 1, the enumeration of powers, says that Congress has the authority to establish post offices and post roads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_roads
In early America, post offices and post roads where crucial to communication between the states and the new national government.
One can make the argument that the Internet is the 21st century equivalent of post roads, and as such, Congress has authority to build such infrastructure.
and this gives them the leverage to 'tax' the internet on purchases.
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
UPS and FedEx are prohibited by law from offering mail services, or charging less than a certain amount of money for delivery of letters.
USPS actually costs much more to deliver a letter than what you pay for. It is subsidized by Tax dollars. USPS may charge less to deliver a letter, but they charge more to deliver a package. USPS pretty much has a Monopoly on letter delivery. If you want it delivered faster then others also provide that service.
OMFG! It's CmdrTaco!
My blog
Article I, Section 8, first paragraph:
"to ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
Definition of Welfare:
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.
The Dwight D. Eisenhower Interstate Highway system seems to fit into Defence and general Welfare. It was a military expenditure -- it's original purpose was to be able to move troops throughout the United States quickly and easily.
A universal broadband plan seems to fit into 'general Welfare'.
My blog
That's not actually true. The USPS is the only part of the government which is required to break even over the long term. There may be losses year to year, but they're required to make up for that via cost cutting or rate increases.
You'll have to explain exactly why their required to do that if they're charging less than it costs.
Yeah, but there is one government, and lots of private companies, so at least you have a choice. Also, I wouldn't say our government is good at adhering to the Constitution.
Who are they going to go to, to implement this supposed system.
The same jackasses they did the last time. The major telecoms!
What happened the last time the major telecoms got handed a big fat wad of cash for expanding their broadband infrastructures?
1: The money was taken.
2: The promised broadband (hell, even improvements to their EXISTING networks) didn't happen.
3: The public was butt-fucked out of a broadband system.
What's going to happen this time? Take three guesses from the options below.
1: The money will be taken.
2: The promised broadband (hell, even improvements to their EXISTING networks) won't happen.
3: The public will be butt-fucked out of a broadband system.
But look on the bright side!
We'll still have bundled cable internet for $80 a month (or unbundled for $85 a month) for 1.5/768.
We'll still have cheap-ass 768/384 DSL for $20 a month, with the head-end oversubscribed to the point where DIALUP would be faster.
And the phone and cable companies will be bitching because they can't feed umpty-bajillion channels of crappy, compressed digital TV into those tiny "tubes".
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
The problem is, even if Obama's people are great- integrity that rivals the Founding Fathers and what not... they're only in for 4 years... 8, tops. Then, someone else gets control of everything they masterminded. Up goes the great firewall and what not.
This is why government always needs to be limited. We've seen this problem over the last few presidencies with abuse/stretching of executive power. Look at executive orders, pardons, etc. What happens if a present-day Hiter gets democratically elected? Do we trust this kind of guy with the monarchy-style executive powers Jr. and Sr. Bush and Clinton enjoyed?
If the US Constitution is a document of enumerated powers. Which it is. And therefore it explicitly says what the general and state governments can and cant do. Why would it bother to list in Article 1, Section 8 anything? Could they not all be found in "general welfare?" "Defense" and "general Welfare" belong together and refer to the nation as a whole. The defense and welfare of the federation of states. Not of the people. Not to use eminent domain to take people's property from them for the falsity of defense like Eisenhower claimed. In addition the word welfare had a different usage then than it does now.
Besides, regardless of what the Constitution says, theft is not justifiable in any condition.
The first amendment doesn't give rights. It is a specifically enumerated restriction on infringing on your natural right to free speech which is simply derived from the right to property. A private company has their own property rights which allow them to restrict whatever they want just as you can restrict anyone from coming in your home.
Besides... how well has the 1st Amendment worked at keeping me free? McCain/Feingold? The FCC? Protest permits?
Sooo... you've never shit in chamber pot, and tossed your sewage out into the street then?
That whole Government flush toilet system is working pretty well, huh?
When was the last time you fixed the potholes in the streets you drive on. Ahhh.... never. And the last time you built a freeway? Again never.
You need me to continue making you look like an idiot while you are forced to admit over and over and over again the things government provides for you on a daily basis that are there right when you need to used them?
If you believe the government does it better than private companies your a fool. Pick up a history book.
The fact that there is no choice to using the interstate doesnt change that fact.
I do not use the post office, I dont even know when the last time I mailed a letter was. I ship things via carriers with modern tracking systems - UPS and FedEx. Not surprisingly the private companies are light years ahead of the Gov't.
Government run internet ? Get ready to fill out forms du jour, stand inline, get an "internet license", and have content regulated and commercialized to death - just like everything else they got their greedy hands into. (See: TV, Radio etc)
Politicians are (and always have been) far far more greedy than business's -- and they dont even provide you with anything in return.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause for some interesting information on this in layman's terms. Looks like there wasn't an agreement on the reach of this clause by the founding fathers.
But under Supreme Court case law, Congress has pretty broad discretion in using its spending power.
As to your question:
Why would it bother to list in Article 1, Section 8 anything? Could they not all be found in "general welfare?"
No, they can't do anything under the general welfare clause. The Federal Government is bound by the enumerated powers in the Constitution. So while say forcing the states to do something might be beyond its power, it can entice the states to fall in line using the power of the purse strings. Of course there are some restrictions. See South Dakota v. Dole.
"I do think the voters are getting what we want on average"
No, they are not. Thats specifically why things keep failing. The president thats leaving office, the economy, our rights etc etc.
Thankfully we cant easily muck about with the Constitution - now if only people would start paying attention and remember that their trivial needs at this moment are NOT as important as the principle of this country (and by extension the long term health of this country).
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Thats what the supreme court is supposed to be for. Checks and Balances lest we forget. Even if they go that route its not unimaginable for the court to stop them.
I'd go so far as to say that if the politicians in office are going this far to subvert the fundamental principles of this country then we really are screwed - and heading for a Soviet style collapse.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
There's a whole lot of rural areas that are too far from phone company offices to maintain internet connections that are stuck with a choice of paying insane satellite connection fees, or going without.
Internet access has become necessary to function in society on an equal basis with others.
Its called the "We've Got A Bigger Army" philosophy. Look up President Jackson and the Trail of Tears for more info on the Executive branch trumping the Supreme Court. Then look at the current administration, and see how many of these attitudes continue in the office to today. I'm not trying to politicize or anything, but merely demonstrate that power (in any situation) tends to create its own rules, whether legitimized or not.
Unity in Diversity
If you going to blame anyone, blame John Marshall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Marshall). He created that interpretation in McCulloch v. Maryland, which created the broad interpretation of the necessary and proper clause. In addition, Gibbons v. Ogden allowed for a broader interpretation of interstate commerce. Marshall worked to extend the powers of the federal government and these judgments extended those powers significantly.
Let me introduce you to it.
As I have been saying here for years, the Internet is the Post Road of the 21st century. It is both the road to the market and a path for interstate commerce. It is too important to allow private enterprises to decide who is entitled to this road and who is not by virtue of which market can pay the most. It's essential for everybody -- more so since more and more government services are provided through it, including even paying income taxes.
It's high time the federal government told the incumbent providers that "if you won't provide broadband to everybody, we will".
Help stamp out iliturcy.
That clause means what SCOTUS says it means, and it means anything that affects interstate commerce. Unrelated to the commerce clause is the power of the purse. If you want federal money, you have to follow federal rules. Nothing obligates states to follow No Child Left Behind. The same was true of the old national speed limit.
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
What exactly is "it" that you get when you elect niggers?
I see absolutely nothing wrong with modding that troll.
This is Slashdot. If you're not already encrypting your Internet communications with SSL, if you're not using offshore hosting for your politically or legally ambiguous experiments, you've got no credibility here. The people here know better. Or at least they did once.
You don't really think your private Internet Provider isn't piping an echo to the federal government, do you? I really thought we covered that long ago.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I think a lot of the vitriol comes from people who believe the constitution to be inherently perfect, and beyond criticism. Obviously the United States needs in some ways to be held tighter to the constitution, as the last eight years have shown, but many parts of the constitution describe a United States which no longer exists.
damn I wish I had another load of mod points. I love this remark.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
We then hope that the other 2.5 (fourth estate) branches of the USA government grows a pair. That was how it was designed to work and I'm still trying to figure out WTF happened the last 7 years and what we need to do to fix it. And I don't think some "new boss, same as the old boss" is the answer. Maybe a ban on bible school drop-outs given government administrative positions. At least require them to pass a civil service test or something.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
I've done this topic to death, but apparently some of you still haven't heard the word.
In lovely and bucolic Ephrata, WA you can get fiber to the premises for under $100 installed and $60/month through the local power utility. It's actually gigabit, but your ISP will probably rate limit to a bidirectional 100Mbps. Zoom out on that map and see if you can find a big city nearby. The surrounding farmland is greater than the total area of Japan or England.
In a far more urban setting I'm paying twice that for a 7Mbps down, 1Mbps up from Comcast. In other places rates at greater than dialup are unavailable at any price, and that's just wrong.
The power utility in Ephrata is actually turning an embarrassing profit at these prices. This is not the only area where this is available. For example, you can get this rate in Shelton, Wa. Although the far more urban state capital is barely 20 miles away the installation cost of 100Mbps there starts at $10,000 and if you have to ask the monthly rate, you can't afford it.
The density argument is bunk. It has been bunk for 15 years. Fiber municipal broadband changes everything. That argument is completely dead. Please stop using it.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Have you seen the cameras on the traffic lights? What do you think those are for? Why do you think the government would actually need video cameras on every traffic intersection?
1984 is here, at least in terms of monitoring. It's well known the Internet in the US is thoroughly monitored. If you're up to something embarrassing or fiscal, encrypt your communications. If you're publishing free press type stuff, go offshore. If you're a kiddy diddler, you need to google the relevant links, but make sure you check out the anarchist cookbook and Guns & Ammo as well so you're thoroughly versed in the relevant legal issues. Oh, and if you're prepping an insurrection and using a monitored network to do it, you're doing it wrong .
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Amen, brother! (since I don't have mod points at this moment and /. only allows 20 friends a year if you been around as long as we have.)
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statue nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." - Robert Heinlein, Life-line, 1939
Ah, a few days from now that quote will be 70 years old. Nothing I have ever said will be so timeless.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Good thing we elected a Harvard Constitutional Law professor and lawyer for President this time. It's nice to see someone in the job that gives a flying fuck about it.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
I think they covered that in Greece, ca 700 BCE. The senate met, argued, and decided that in their enlightened society there need be only one law: "If it harm none, do what you will." Unfortunately they forgot to provide for the common defense; even to compel that if the populace were unwilling. Other than that, it was a Golden Age. Because of that, we now don't speak Greek.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
To "deplete the surplus productivity" and so avoid a surfeit of leisure is the purpose of modern government. It's easy enough to argue they do their job too well at some times and not well enough at others. Whenever you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship." - Harry S. Truman
A surplus of efficiency is not to be wished. In the modern era if each person were maximally efficient in his work we would need 1% of the population. What would the rest of us do?
Ok, I'm going to advance a novel economic theory here. We've produced more than we need. We've built more houses, mined more coal, built more cars and produced more food than we must have. Our system has grown too efficient. Now many people must become idle because government has not done its job of depleting the surplus productivity. To compensate for this, our populace must suffer from a surfeit of leisure until our governments compensate for this by expending far more than they previously would have.
I know that sounds sick. Write it down anyway. One day you might be tickled to know you were there when the answer was found.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
It's not a conglomeration of network connections and protocols. It's not the aggregation of carriage agreements.
It's an idea.
It's the disembodied idea of the perfect communication vehicle, that automatically heals damage to its communication network.
Monitoring is damage. Censorship is damage. The important part of realizing the power of the Internet is to realize that it's not automatic by itself. You are part of the Internet, and if you want to communicate you have to help it route around these types of damage. If you're in a hostility free zone, host some desktops. Host a proxy. Help some freedom impaired people get and share information about what's happening in their restricted zone.
They can stop a printing press. They can kill a speaker. They can neither stop nor kill an idea. As long as we resist the limiting of the Internet, we preserve the hope that our favored ideas can escape our hearts and take root elsewhere.
In a sense, You are the Internet.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Could it just be possible that it isn't whether it's "government" or "a corporation" or a "public-private partnership" that makes the difference between well-done and corrupt, but the vision and integrity of the people carrying out the project?
It's the quality of the people who make the quality of the world. Whether they organize themselves into "governments" or "corporations" or "anarcho-syndicates" to pursue their goals is totally secondary to the essential matter of who's doing it.
Well, Yes and No... True, were we ALL angels, the organization model chosen would not matter. Since we aren't ALL like that (and even if you can increase the standards of the average, you are going to end up having a few rotten apples there) some organizations do provide better resilience to corruption than others...
Not to take away from your well cited examples, but...
Some of us have done better. It's possible to do this well and efficiently with a public mandate, but without graning a private subsidy.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I think you probably should stop assuming that everyone opposed to government regulation is in favor of corporatism/mercantilism/fascism. In fact, most of us recognize that government regulations themselves are bought and paid for by incumbent large corporations to create barriers to competition, and those barriers to competition are responsible for the ability of said large corporations to commit abuses with impunity.
[ home ]
I hear there's some internet out in Californy.
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
Comcast recently announced HD bundles that will go for $115 to $180 per month. When you add in what they charge for high speed Internet, you hit $230/month already.
The flaw in parent's math, btw, is that the $44B is mainly one-time investments. The visually stunning, if you like graphs, promote-our-site page is nearly content-free but at least the PDF link (first footnote) reveals that only about $2.2B (over ~3 years) would go to subsidize the on-going costs of end-users (scroll down the PDF to the "Lifeline/linkup..." and "Every child online..." sections. Oh, watch out it is a PDF by the way.
So, Comcast is already hiking their rates, by $60 to $120/month, and in 3 years that works out to $31.75 to $63.5B of variable, not one-time, income. True, the increase is on the TV side of things, but considering their new Internet bandwidth cap it is easy to see them offering an HD/all-you-can-eat Internet upgrade that would be in the same ballpark as their HDTV upgrade.
Comcast rate increases alone (without the need for infrastructure improvements, mind you) make the $44B government plan-so-it will-never-happen look like chump change.
I come here for the love
Are you sure? I would love to blame all these problems on subversion of the people's will, but is that the case? I watched with disgust over the last 6 years as Bush/Cheney did stupid things (e.g. grossly inflating the evidence supporting the Iraq war and alienating Europe) and got caught infringing on Americans' rights (e.g. retroactive telecom immunity). I would love to think Americans were outraged with this. But instead, again and again, I saw lots of debate over whether all this was AOK, spoke with relatives who supported Bush, saw him win a second term, etc. What I learned is that the only thing people really care about is money. That's why Bush's approval didn't truly tank until gas skyrocketed and the economy crashed.
The Constitution is a dead letter.
The devil is in the details:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Definition of Promote:
contribute to the progress or growth of
Definition of Provide:
supply: give something useful or necessary to
Paying for universal broadband doesn't promote the general welfare, it provides the general welfare.
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
Have you ever been inside of a post office? Talk about a shining example of government "efficiency". The whole affair is borderline pathetic. You really want to spread that disease? You're either stupid or incredibly naive if you actually believe it would be less expensive or higher quality.
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
You're right that religion would probably want to ban certain pornography but I'm more worried about those who would start censoring things that aren't politically correct. That can really get out of hand when they start censoring certain political beliefs because the line is very vague. Soon you feel like you're living in the Soviet Union.
So then what is the benefit of this plan? If you like to wear a tinfoil hat it appears that this is just a smoke screen to cover the government's takeover of telecommunications and healthcare. Two of the Free Press recommendations hint at the real goal: E-rate@home program (federal government provides and presumably controls your internet connection at home, obviating the need for land line telephones and broadcast television), and Health Care and Public Service Digital Modernization Program (aka the backbone for socialized medicine).
Personally I don't think it's quite that sinister. Obama's big on promising this kind of non-controversial, populist program. Nobody knows how much will actually be delivered once he's in charge.
Braco wytcld, you hit the nail on the head.
All of these people saying that such things aren't "allowed" by the Constitution. They're not expressly forbidden, either.
The US Constitution is amendable, or have we forgotten that the core of what makes the US Constitution so powerful is that it can be changed with time?
Except they can censor your internet and you won't ever know it. But really, censorship doesn't necessarily need the internet these days. In fact, the internet makes it even easier.
At a few clicks of a mouse, you can for example change your CNN homepage to include more "worldly" news or more "local" news. Who's to say that what you see is what is truly happening? I live in Maryland, do I see exactly the same news as someone in California? What about someone in Canada?
Don't think that there's any mitigation at all to censorship simply because people are separated by organizations. After all, people of all socioeconomic statuses can attend similar churches.
I'm not saying the US Government is perfect, but at the very least we have a GUARANTEED right to know what's going on. Our government only hides things because we're too big of pussies to go after them. However, we're not legally bound to submit to their will--they are to ours.
The First Amendment also guarantees public airways to be censorship free, since the Feds can't pass laws abridging the freedom of expression. That doesn't seem to have stopped the FCC from pushing the Moral Agenda, though..
-- Joshua
it never works that way. choice does NOT happen in a market that is let to be entirely 'free'.
its against the societal dynamics of mankind. how ? very simple :
nature doesnt like chaos. it always establishes some kind of order in any environment eventually. societal dynamics are no different. if you let a market be completely free, eventually the corporations which come out stronger will proceed to corner the market through various means. even in an ideal world, that would still happen through excessive competition - bigger ones muscling others out with better products and cheaper prices. it may seem like a good thing at first, but, in the end it evolves to something else. imagine 10 remaining huge corporations who are way too chummy with each other dominate the food market entirely. do you think, you have a choice in such an environment ? do you think, you will be let to choose a corporation's products exclusively than others, to the detriment of all the others ? no. you will NOT be let to. if any corporation tries to break free out of the 'group' at this eventual cartel situation, they will get bashed.
just like the current situation in many of the markets. cd prices, computer prices, movie prices, all kinds of major product prices that are sold on global scale, converge at certain levels in each country, despite a lot of competition. how ? because everyone, without talking to each other, arranges their prices to a point that will not upset other major corporations. else, they would face retaliation in other markets that the corporations are strong. or other regions.
voila - a strongmen's alliance instead of corporations competing for customers like a maniac.
but what i describe here would happen in an IDEAL environment. world is far from ideal.
wealth is economic power. economy is a dog eat dog world. it is NO different than feudal times, in which stronger lords strongarmed lesser lords and kept them in check, keeping their dominion.
in real world wealth is a strategic resource. supplying a nation exclusively with something is a strategic resource. just think how many 'messages' hollywood slips out into movies that are shown to american people. same goes for every other country's movie industry. opinion is herded. just imagine how the telecommunications companies monopolize a nation's communication, and anything that runs on it. just imagine how it would be if a few companies had mega clout on education, finance, and even food.
no buddy, choice is something that can ONLY be ensured when there is strict regulation to ensure that there IS choice, through government. without government's prominence, there is chaos, and eventually a bigger 'old boys' network' that has enough number of megacorporations fill in the void of authority. if there is a prominent government, and YOU practically OWN and run it through your representatives, then noone can strongarm another, and you can actually ensure that you really have a choice.
Read radical news here
Nice idea, one problem is that they have a very big gun that shoots lawyers, and you have only your own financial resources. The courts really aren't fair, for that reason. That's really what the RIAA has been doing, and with a few notable exceptions, they've been making out very well at it - except in the court of public opinion.
Another problem is EULA - really what they represent - companies shooting lawyers at you, in another form. Some time read "Good Omens" by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman and see what they have to say about software licenses/contracts/warranties.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Have you heard of news sites like /., Digg, or Fark? That's one way to find out about news that isn't presented to you by the big news corporations.
it must have been a Stupid Question!
A most appropriate remark, considering that too many seem to make a religion of money, economics, "free market", etc.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The Founders never intended for "General Welfare" to be used as a catch-all for the Feds to do anything they wanted:
"Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust." -- James Madison
While this clause has clearly been misused to justify any number of (sometimes good and useful things), it is not proper to do so.
The highway system was indeed a Defense issue and justly part of that expenditure. A universal broadband plan manifestly would not be.
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
There are many problems with the Free Press proposal -- not the least of which is that people wouldn't be able to afford the service they propose to roll out. They propose 7 Mbps, unthrottled, non-oversold pipes to everyone in rural areas, where backbone bandwidth costs as much as $300 per Mbps. Let's see; that's only $2100 per household! They also propose that so-called "network neutrality" regulations apply to the new pipes. ("Network neutrality" is a misnomer, because the policies that are proposed under that label are not neutral; they favor certain big Internet content providers such as Google, which funds Free Press.) These regulations would do several nasty things. They'd prevent bandwidth hogs from soaking up all of that expensive bandwidth; they'd strangle small, local, and independent ISPs with red tape; they'd make it completely infeasible to offer wireless broadband; and they'd destroy competition, so that the cable companies and telephone companies which would be subsidized under Free Press' plan would be the only providers left standing... total duopoly. Robert Atkinson of ITIF has much more sensible ideas; see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-d-atkinson-phd/the-right-broadband-stimu_b_152884.html for his proposal (which really deserves a Slashdot article of its own).
In the posting above, "prevent bandwidth hogs from soaking up all of that expensive bandwidth" should be "permit bandwidth hogs to soak up all of that expensive bandwidth. Gotta learn to edit more carefully.
Did we ever do something similar with electricity development in the US?
For the most part, our electricity services are the best in the world. Granted, 120 volts is a little low; but we have very reliable, inexpensive, and standardized electric service. Any device purchased in any state will work in any other state without an adapter. (The EU has differing standards for 3-prong outlets, and Japan runs both 60 and 50 hz.)
Hopefully we can make American internet work just as easily and reliably as American electricity.
No, I will not work for your startup
I disagree. Knowing "Constitutional" law will only highlight for him more clever ways to circumvent what it actually meant and says. He has given no indication that he would give up powers usurped for the executive by GWB et al. Every one of his Great Society proposals involves expanding the power of federal government. A true respecter of the Constitution, as opposed to a lawyer who's read it, would stand up and say "I delegate these powers to the various states and henceforth to the people."
The Constitution gives the Federal Government power to regulate interstate commerce. That's the same reason they were able to build the interstate highway system. Given how popular web shopping has become (as well as web based services), I don't think any constitutional roadblocks will present themselves.
No, the interstate highway system had fuck-all to do with regulating commerce. It was a military project. It was originally known as the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways .
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
Doesn't McCain/ Fiendgold just limit commercial speech, like what politicking has become?
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
Universal broadband is key to solving the US' current problems. We need an informed citizenry with collaborative ability. This is just as simple as 3G towers and affordable devices/plans to access those towers. It doesn't have to mean we run fiber to every home(but they can run it to mine).
Maybe if you're a middle-aged wealthy business owner you're getting what you want. Try being a student or uninsured cancer patient...
And if you're a total whackjob, post on Slashdot, dude. Dude.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
Works out to approx. $146/person, or around $700 per household. That $44B doesn't just fall from the sky; it comes out of the pockets of people like you and me.
However, that's just the initial cost. As a gov't program, you can expect that once the taxes are in place to initiate the program, they will not only never go away, they will go up over time.
So... this broadband (which some seem to think is "free") will cost around $60/month per household, albeit hidden as a tax hike. And that will be in addition to any monthly connectivity charges, and you will pay it whether you are in range or not.
TANSTAAFL.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
My question to this though is if the Feds didn't build the interstate system, when was the unregulated free market going to get around to it?
In 1776 the population of the Colonies was approx. 2.5 million. The founding fathers were a smart bunch of guys and they wrote a really impressive document. The smartest aspect being the amendment process and granting powers to the states.
It seems we like to ascribe omnipotence to them however. As smart as they were, they could not envision a country of 50 states with 300 million people, covering a very large part of an entire continent.
We love to bandy about the term democracy, but democracy, in it's traditional sense, can only work in smaller environments where the populace can get together and come to a consensus as to what needs to be done and how. Therefore, we have a republic that utilizes principles of democracy to elect the representative leaders.
It also seems like we like to make democracy and capitalism synonymous. They aren't. American style capitalism grew out of the desire to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Again, as the population grew and the size of the country grew, the idea of a true unregulated, free market became unwieldy and borderline impossible. American style capitalism fails as all utopian ideas fail. Human greed and the desire for importance and power corrupt the idea at it's very core.
This country sees everything in such black and white terms. There are two parties. One "liberal", one "conservative", but they both cowtow to the middle where the line blurs. You're either pro-war or anti-war. You're either pro-life or pro-abortion. If you're not a supporter of capitalism, you're a socialist... which everyone here associates with communism. Another fallacy.
This county, this world has gotten so huge and at the same time, so small and interconnected. With such a huge diversity of belief and culture, we need to start thinking differently about our political, social and economic systems. The black and white thought process no longer works.
Democracy as we like to think of it doesn't work. Capitalism as we know it doesn't work. Socialism as we think of it doesn't work. Federalism as we know it doesn't work.
We try to hard to maintain the integrity of these very old concepts which never took into account an interconnected world, a population of 6 billion and a march of technology that simply couldn't be imagined in 1776.
To get back on point, the free market has grown into a beast that is more concerned with short terms profit and shareholder value than it is the public welfare. The romans had the good sense to create aqueduct and roads to aid the growth of their society (albeit for largely military purposes) and I guarantee you that the decisions to build the roads and aqueducts did not come about because every citizen voted on it or that entrepreneurs had anything to do with it.
Now, when the Roman empire grew too large, we all know the outcome.
Unregulated, laissez-faire commerce, in this day and age can't work as originally intended. Shareholder welfare trumps the public's welfare. Investing in safer, forward thinking technology takes a backseat to protecting investments in older business infrastructure in order to prevent large expenditures that would eat into shareholder profits. This is why Detroit is failing. Short term profit trumps long term growth and stability.
The internet has become a dominant tool of communication, entertainment and commerce and it has connected us to the rest of the world in a way that no other technology ever has. The business world is far more concerned with carving out a little section of the internet and it's infrastructure that they can possess and exploit for shareholder profit and have no interest whatsoever in how it can benefit the general populace into the future. Only the feds can really do something about it.
The problem nowadays though is... the feds are owned by special interest.
I don't know what the answer
Pooty tweet
Actually, I have to provide my own chamber pot -- we call the modern incarnation a "septic system" but it came out of my own pocket. All the gov't did was tell me how much money *I* had to spend on building it. (And then they taxed me on it too!)
And I have to fix my own road if I want it done right. If I call the county to fix the potholes, it winds up worse than before, to the point that I can't even drive on it.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Totally agree with you there...
As to what's really wrong with the Constitution... someone above says,
"Please point out where the Constitution restricts the ability of the federal government to spend money."
Ah, now I see... There's where the Framers fucked up -- they failed to restrict gov't spending to no more than gov't income, and also failed to restrict gov't spending to no more than a small fixed percentage of We The People's income.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?