Slashdot Mirror


$6 Billion Proposal For High-Speed Internet Grants

witherstaff writes "House Democrats have proposed $6 billion in Internet investmentsas part of a sweeping economic stimulus bill that the full House is expected to vote on next week. The $6 billion is considered a down payment on efforts Obama will make in this area over the next several years. Of course let's not forget the $200 billion broadband scandal that the large telecommunication companies have been paid but never delivered on."

8 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. Public wireless - no other option by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ANYthing you pay to any private telco company, will be pocketed. pockets will be so deep that you wont be even finding a nickel when you plunge your hand in. Remember how did the money given to banks vanished just 1-2 months ago ?

    well. these are telcos. they have numerous times tried to scam/suffocate public in terms of cash and choices and even freedom of information before.

    it would be stupid, stupid to trust them with anything.

  2. And the oversight? by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Any chance we could look to put some REAL oversight into this round of spending?

    If the oversight committee was a total of 5 people with backgrounds in actual accounting that ended up costing $1 million a year, but prevented the "loss" of billions in funding, I'd say it was money well spent.

    Obama, you could prove your salt here by putting some REAL Common Sense behind MY money.

  3. Nationalise the networks by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If the taxpayer is doing the investing then the taxpayers (ie the government) should own the networks. The private telcos are free to compete and provide better services. If the taxpayers invest in private telcos then the taxpayers should have partial ownership of the telcos and profits should go back to the people (ie govermnet).

    After all, the big bank bail out is not by just giving money to the banks. The government has bought loans from the banks.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Nationalise the networks by znu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The most logical structure for telecom networks is to have the government own the physical infrastructure (which is a natural monopoly) and then allow any private company that wants to to provide services (Internet, television, phone, whatever) over that infrastructure. This would create an actual competitive market for telecom services, which is something we're never going to see otherwise.

      Of course the existing telecom companies have lots of lobbyists, give lots of money to both parties, and are quite happy with things just the way they are, so this is unlikely to ever happen.

      --
      This space unintentionally left unblank.
  4. Decisions, Decisions by moniker127 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the government invests X billion into something, they should come up with a list of specific items to be accomplished by the investee, put it into the contract, and send auditors to check up on the progress on a regular basis.
    Anything else is just charity.

  5. Half right by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Telecom *services* are not a natural monopoly. Telecom *wires* are a natural monopoly. What we need to do is separate the service providers from the wire provider.

    --
    main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
  6. TARP Responsibility by namespan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Funny--last time I checked, the President didn't have a f*cking checkbook. It was the liberal senators that took over in the last 2 years that passed the bailouts.

    The poster wasn't talking about TARP, he was talking about our misadventure in nation building known as the Iraq war.

    Although it's worth noting most of congress, including the Democrats, went along.

    Although Bush doesn't get off scot-free--he didn't veto the f*cking thing.

      Not only did he not veto it, his administration (primarily the Treasury folks, headed by Goldman Sachs alumni Paulsen) basically went to Congress and said "The economy will die within weeks (if not days) if you don't give us this program." So, again, you can fault the Democrats for not having the backbone to tell them to go to hell or even that they had better damn well be reporting back weekly for approval, but placing primary responsibility on them is incorrect.

    --
    Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
  7. Re:Subject by SnapShot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, according to Keynsian economics a recession / depression is exactly when you are supposed to run a deficit.

    The unforgivable sin of the Bush administration (or at least, one of the first) was taking the country from surplus to deficit when the economy was relatively strong. Remember, the first round of tax cuts for the rich?

    --
    Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.