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."

54 of 280 comments (clear)

  1. Subject by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As long as we get some return on the investment I'm all for it, but as the FS says: we've sunk a lot more than $6bn into this same thing already and got nowhere.

    Fool me once, shame on you...

    1. Re:Subject by wITTus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As long as we get some return on the investment I'm all for it

      Like, say, protection from terrorists?

    2. Re:Subject by crmarvin42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now you see the difference between political Rhetoric and political Reality. They were only opposed to the spending b/c it was not being spent on their pet projects, and it was politically convenient to seem opposed to large expenditures, since it was going to happen anyway.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    3. Re:Subject by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 4, Insightful

      $6bn, as absurd an amount as it is, is a drop in the water compared to some of the things the last President put through. At least that kind of spending is starting to get funneled back into the US as opposed to, say, across the world in military misadventures that are actively damaging our security.

    4. Re:Subject by Smooth+and+Shiny · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fool me once shame on.. shame on you... eh.. um.. a fooled man can't get fooled again.

    5. Re:Subject by brian0918 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As long as we get some return on the investment I'm all for it

      And I'm against it, even if we get some return on the "investment". The ends don't justify the means.

      But, then, what choice do I have in what is done with the money I earned? When a society puts mob rule above individual rights, its no surprise that people assume that whatever passes a vote passes as just.

    6. Re:Subject by darkpixel2k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As long as we get some return on the investment I'm all for it

      Like, say, protection from terrorists?

      Like, uh...they haven't attacked us since we started 'investing' in it.

      As far as telco's go, we invested heavily in the 80's via tax cuts, and all those little $0.25 and $0.50 fees on phone bills. What did they develop with billions? ISDN. Yeah. 128k. No thanks. I don't need the government to take money from me at the point of a gun to give to a bunch of huge monopolistic telephone companies to squander.

      ...or auto makers for that matter.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    7. Re:Subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Now you see the difference between political Rhetoric and political Reality. They were only opposed to the spending b/c it was not being spent on their pet projects

      Here's what I see:

      (A) $12 billion a month to kill, destroy, and rebuild in Iraq to no discernible purpose.

      versus

      (B) $6 billion to start expanding the infrastructure of our own country for a competitive future.

      Not being Republican or retarded - large population overlap noted - I'll take (B).

    8. Re:Subject by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 4, Insightful

      12 billion
      vs.
      6 billion

      thats some very bad logic bud.
      the point is to get out of iraq. Not compare it to something to spend more money.
      Thats like sayin hey honey we can afford this BMW its only going to be half of the mortgage amount

      --

      -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
    9. Re:Subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh right, I forgot that now that you are out of power you are all such concerned fiscal conservatives again. LOL

      The analogy is more like: Dad just pissed all our money away but if I take a college loan and use it wisely I can still have a prosperous future.

      The $6 billion is 1/100th of what has been spent on the war, not including the 1.5 trillion yet to come in military medical costs, equipment replacement, etc.

      There is plenty in the stimulus plan that can be justifiably labeled pork. Considering the importance of a networked future and with places like South Korea, Japan, etc., far ahead of us, this is a trivial amount of REAL investment. Don't be short sighted.

    10. Re:Subject by Retric · · Score: 2, Informative

      Plenty of Democrats where unwilling to support it so without republican support the bailout would not have passed. (It failed the first time.)

    11. Re:Subject by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Like, uh...they haven't attacked us since we started 'investing' in it.

      And I haven't been run over by a car since I started slashing all the tires on the cars on my street. It must be working!

    12. 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.
    13. Re:Subject by jo42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where the hell are they going to get all this money from for all these programs?

      Fiddle some numbers on a computer somewhere in Washington DC or New York City.

      This is where money comes from these days - its all just numbers in a computer...

    14. Re:Subject by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But, before we go spending more money, shouldn't we WAIT till we're actually out of Iraq, and have a few years to pay down the deficit, before we start throwing money around again like a drunken sailor?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re:Subject by brian0918 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They're not going to go away

      That's a defeatist attitude. My intent is to help make them go away - at least, in the coercive form of which we are all familiar.

      so the least one might ask is that they not be spent wastefully.

      But they must by definition be spent wastefully. Unless the government succeeds in fooling everyone all the time, there will always be market pressure to counteract the intended purpose of a tax-funded project (at least if that purpose is to sway the economy), with the end result being worse than before. As for those projects not directly intended to sway the economy, they must inevitably lead to a monopoly in one form or another, resulting in less efficiency, higher prices, and more waste.

    16. Re:Subject by warsql · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is pretty difficult to get down to a 19% approval rating without a bipartisan effort.

      --
      878659 - yep its prime.
  2. 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.

  3. 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.

    1. Re:And the oversight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      Sadly, the government does indeed pay millions a year to CPAs and other professionals that actually find out where all the money is going and how much is lost each year. It's just that nothing is done about it.

      Posting Anon for obvious reasons.

    2. Re:And the oversight? by peragrin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      why not. At least the pork barrel useless projects that every one and their cousin asks for will stop being built.

      Why should a sports stadium for a team that earns hundreds of millions of dollars annually be paid for by the state taxpayers? Why not simply pay the players less than a million dollars a year, and pay for it yourself? yet you will find NYS state helped pay for the Yankee's shiny new stadium.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:And the oversight? by JimboFBX · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thanks Obama, we understand your need to be anon!

    4. Re:And the oversight? by Stephen+Ma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, what the country needs is a bunch of honest bean counters. Enron's funny books should have been a memorable lesson, but we didn't learn -- and now we are $trillions deeper in the hole.

  4. Yes, let's not forget ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, okay, we got soaked for some two hundred billion in tax writeoffs. If the Feds really want to make good on that, just allow for actual competition in the national broadband market. No incumbents holding onto their last mile monopoly by hook-or-crook, make it clear that if you enter a region you must serve everyone in that region (outlaw cherry-picking) and see what these guys can do when forced to go head-to-head. Right now, for example, I'm in an area that was previously served only by Comcastoff. In fact, my townhome complex signed an exclusive deal with Comcast a couple years ago, ostensibly to get better rates. Of course that didn't happen: I ended up paying more for my service than people only a half mile away who were not in the complex. Something smelled there, let me tell you.

    So, now AT&T U-Verse is in the area (I'm switching: I'm about fifty feet from the local VRAD box and I'm shooting for the 18 Mbit/sec tier ... wish me luck.) Last Monday in the mail I received a postcard from U-Verse confirming my installation date, which was cool. Hilariously, there was also a postcard from Comcast boldly proclaiming that they had doubled my download speed FOR FREE! Really!!! Nevermind that I'm getting more speed for about half the price from U-Verse, for now.

    Don't let the FCC fool you ... competition is good for consumers and ultimately good for providers.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  5. 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.
    2. Re:Nationalise the networks by zxnos · · Score: 2, Informative

      from what i understand the government is buying up troubled assets (TARP) from banks and whatnot to get them off the banks books. in return the government gets equity warrants which allows the government to purchase non-voting shares (which probably may or may not be preferred) in the bank from which it bought the troubled assets.

      this really all goes back to how our finance system works. normally a bank has 'x' dollars to lend out. once they lend out the 'x' they package up those loans and sell them to someone else. now the bank has more money to loan out. problem is, no one wanted to by debt anymore since many people have been defaulting on those loans.

      here is a basic place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Assets_Relief_Program

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    3. Re:Nationalise the networks by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Telecom is NOT a natural monopoly.

      This is true, but the intent of the original poster is easy to understand. It's a problem to put in lots of competing wires because every time someone digs they risk breaking already laid wires. Every time someone strings wires it reduces the reliability of all the others because the weakest wires fall first and damage others. Almost everywhere there are laws restricting the laying of wires to one phone one cable and one power because it does solve a lot of problems. It's not a natural monopoly in the traditional sense, but neither does it invalidate the point.

    4. Re:Nationalise the networks by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      well, "we" don't give out local monopolies. it's the laws of economics and the nature of telecommunications that creates natural monopolies. there are no laws stating that X county must only have one ISP/telecom. but communications networks work best as a single large monopoly rather than a handful of small disjointed competing networks. so even if you start off with a couple of competing networks in an area, over time the larger ones will absorb the smaller ones, giving them an even greater competitive advantage over the other small networks until eventually there's just a single carrier left. if it weren't for government regulations that force major communications carriers to lease out a portion of their networks to smaller second-tier carriers, there'd be even fewer ISPs/telecoms for consumers to choose from.

      just look at the Japanese model. they have a single national telecom & ISP, NTT, which the Japanese government as a 1/3rd control in. they are leading the world in FttH penetration, offering residential users 1 Gbps symmetric broadband connections at $51.40/month--$0.05 per megabit (symmetric). compare that to Comcast's 50 Mbps "wideband" service that costs $150/month--$3.00 per megabit for asymmetric access.

      while American ISPs are wasting money on traffic monitoring & packet shaping technology, lobbying against net neutrality, trying to convince the public that open wireless & municipal wifi will never work, and bitching about consumers actually making full use of their measly 3.5Mbps downstream connections, other countries in Europe and Asia are leaving us in the dust. and to make matters worse, we have all the tier-1 networks trying to extort money out of one another on peering agreements that would actually benefit everyone by making internet routing more efficient.

    5. Re:Nationalise the networks by j0nb0y · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your information is dated. The TARP program never bought any "troubled assets." The TARP program directly invested in banks by buying newly issued preferred shares.

      The TARP program originally sold to Congress was to buy troubled assets. That plan was quickly abandoned after the program was passed. See the "changes to the initial program" section from your wikipedia link.

      --
      If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
  6. Ahh ... the generosity by El+Cubano · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    I'm so glad that the Democrats are so generous with MY money. Of course, the Republicans before them were basically the same, as were the Democrats before those Republicans, and so on going back quite a ways.

    Seriously, why is the answer to mismanagement of money (tax payer or private money as the recent market troubles have shown) always to give away tax payer money?

    School run out of money? Here is more tax payer money. Spent too much building your pro sports team's venue? Here is some tax payer money. Make bad choices in the marketplace? Here is some tax payer money. When is this going to stop? When we've mortgaged how many generations' future earnings on today's ridiculous growth of government?

    1. Re:Ahh ... the generosity by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, no, no. Nationalization solves nothing other than allowing the government access to more information about you and higher taxes. Just look at the patriot act (mind you, passed by BOTH republicans and democrats) and you can see why the government shouldn't run any ISPs. What should be done if we are going to make a national project (which, I honestly think is a bad idea) is give it to small, local ISPs to extend lines along with granting money to start-up ISPs who operate in rural areas. Basically, a nationalized ISP would only lead to higher taxes, worse service (just look at the USPS for an example) and a massive eroding of freedom. We don't need that.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Ahh ... the generosity by znu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The solution is to just have the government own the infrastructure (which is where all the monopolistic abuse occurs anyway), not provide any of the data services. The government would be completely out of the loop with respect to what content was flowing across the network. They wouldn't be your ISP, just your line provider. You'd probably even see services catering to the extra-paranoid, where the ISP would encrypt everything before sending over the government fiber to your home.

      Conceptually, think of this working the way Internet access used to work in the days before broadband. You'd dial into your ISP over the phone network, but the company that owned the phone lines was just carrying an electrical signal; they had no involvement with what that signal was. This would be the same thing, but with a government-owned packet-switched digital fiber network serving a role analogous to the analog phone network.

      --
      This space unintentionally left unblank.
    3. Re:Ahh ... the generosity by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >You WANT something like that? Remember what happened whenever the government started giving grants to modernize America with phone lines? The AT&T monopoly was formed.

      Yes, I think we need another monopoly like that. Because basic research is a huge tragedy of the commons problem, you need a big monopoly that *is* the commons. When AT&T was, they were able to create one of the best research labs ever and invented the transistor which has accelerated human development at exponential speeds.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    4. Re:Ahh ... the generosity by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Informative

      Seriously, why is the answer to mismanagement of money (tax payer or private money as the recent market troubles have shown) always to give away tax payer money?

      Your mistake is believing this is an attempt to solve the previous mismanagement of money. That is not the case. This and the other public works projects are about wealth redistribution. Basically, the idea here is to take money from the few, incredibly wealthy people who have gained ever larger shares of the wealth, in order to move some wealth to the huge portion of the US that has none and save the economy from total collapse.

      I'm so glad that the Democrats are so generous with MY money. Of course, the Republicans before them were basically the same, as were the Democrats before those Republicans, and so on going back quite a ways.

      This election we did have a clear economic choice with the two parties. Both parties understood the need to move wealth to the poor in order to save the economy. Both (I think) understood that trickle down economics and moving more wealth to the wealthy was a failure. Both claimed to want tot trim government spending but understood the realities of how small of cuts they could really make without making the economy even worse.

      The clear difference was the Democrats want to increase taxes for the ultra-wealthy and move that to the poor. The Republicans wanted to borrow more money from foreign powers and move that to the poor and hope that our currency would hold value anyway and we'd find a way to pay it off somewhere later on.

      Make bad choices in the marketplace? Here is some tax payer money. When is this going to stop?

      The problem we have now is we can't realistically let the failed economic ventures collapse because it will take the whole show down with them. After we solve this crisis, there is one simple thing we can do to help prevent it from happening again... but I doubt you'd get more than a few votes for it. Ban foreign and corporate lobbying and put strict controls on favors given to civil servants or people who recently were civil servants. People have rights to give their money to political parties and candidates, but corporations and foreign power have no inherent rights and it is absurd that this legalized bribery is tolerated. If you really want this to stop, push that agenda has hard as you can locally and in your state.

  7. 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.

    1. Re:Decisions, Decisions by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, 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.

      They often do. The problem is, if the government gives a company a few billion, it is cheaper for them to spend a small amount of that on paying lobbyists to basically bribe politicians to do away with those items, than it is to accomplish those items. So long as we let corporations lobby, this will probably be the norm.

  8. Verizon Fios cherrypicking by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Informative

    You know how FiOS is just about everywhere along the east coast? Well, everywhere except Boston.

    Why? Because in MA, each town decides if it wants to grant a franchise for cable TV. Not internet- just TV.

    Verizon doesn't like that, but the burbs are the best customers- they have lots of HDTV sets, they like the packages, and they don't do annoying things like share their Wifi connection to 6 other people in a apartment building.

    Well, guess what? Verizon has been rolling out FiOS to damn near everywhere in the state, even west-nowhere places like 500-person towns out near Worcester nobody has heard of...yet still no FiOS for anyone in Boston. It's even been in the papers- THREE YEARS AGO- about how Verizon was cherrypicking. A year ago, someone asked Mayor Menino what the fuck was going on, and he pointed the finger squarely at Verizon. Not that I trust him, but in the meantime, some hick represetative from the western end of the state gave Verizon tens of millions of dollars to roll out services in the western end of the state...with no requirements that they provide service to the city.

    Meanwhile, we're stuck with really crappy DSL offerings, Comcast's throttling and misleading advertising (go on, try to find the real speed, not the "powerboost" speed which you get for all of about 10MB of transfer), or RCN's overall shittyness. Worse still- Comcast has just started getting really nasty about incoming SMTP and HTTP; they've shut me off twice, despite best efforts to sneak under their radar. I suspect they're enforcing their ToS to try and catch small/home business owners saving $50/month (yes, you read that right- $100/mo for internet service for businesses.)

    1. Re:Verizon Fios cherrypicking by Migraineman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If it makes you feel any better, they're cherry-picking FIOS deployments in the DC-metro area. I live almost exactly 1 mile from my local CO, which translates to about 7000 wire-feet. I know, because DSL is the best thing I can get. I live in a fairly urban suburb of DC, and I can't get FIOS to save my life. Why? Because I live in a single-family neighborhood that was built in the mid 1950s. Putting fiber on the poles would be expensive. They'd much rather do build-outs in new communities where the builder passes last-quarter-mile connection costs onto the new homeowner, and Verizon only has to hook up to the community pedestal. If you live in town houses or condos, you have a much better chance of getting FIOS because the connection-density potential is higher.

      As noted in another post, the physical plant (fiber, copper, wet string, etc.) shouldn't be a sanctioned monopoly, but should rather be a municipal resource. If you can't stomach that, then require universal access for services. Enforce that. If you're offering FIOS in the state, Verizon should be obligated to deploy it to *any* customer who orders it. If Verizon squeals, tell them to stop using the government-mandated right-of-way access through private property.

      A final note - one of the reasons this issue torques me so much is that Verizon has run fiber through my yard. They're more than willing to expect right-of-way through my property, but they steadfastly refuse to provide me with a service I'm more than willing to pay for. The State mandates that I allow this, so I don't have any recourse short of getting elected Governor. And before you comment that I get indirect benefit from the fiber, no I don't. The fiber in question isn't a backbone, it's a last-mile bundle installed to service another community.

    2. Re:Verizon Fios cherrypicking by ion.simon.c · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Worse still- Comcast has just started getting really nasty about incoming SMTP and HTTP; they've shut me off twice, despite best efforts to sneak under their radar.

      This is what amuses me as a slightly miffed Comcast customer. That little residential service ToS document that you agree to has (for at least the past five years) carried language that says "You _cannot_ run servers. Not even SSH or RSH." and "If you use too much of the network, we _will_ terminate your connection.".

      WRT excessive usage:
      Comcast's recent quantification of "too much" is a *really* good thing (Even if I think that "too much" is *REALLY* not enough). It removes any ambiguity... you now *know* when they're gonna start throttling you this month. You also know that you're gonna be at full speed next month.

      WRT servers:
      Did you not read the terms of the contract? Did you not understand them? If you think that they are unreasonable, then you should either not have signed up in the first place, or you should get a new ISP now. If more folks start jumping ship, then your current ISP will have to do something. Don't delude yourself. This is the only tool at your disposal.

  9. Full House by suffix+tree+monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Full House, eh? Three Democrats and two Republicans?

  10. misallocation of resources by nester · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As if the economy isn't in bad enough shape, let's redirect billions towards another thing that's completely unnecessary. Who cares, we won't have to pay for it, our grandkids will. Since reckless spending and investment was the problem, let's do even more of it see how well that works out. /sarcasm

    When will people learn there is not an endless supply of money for the government to spend? There are limits to how much you can steal from the future.

  11. If the government doesn't spend now, who will? by coryking · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nobody in the private industry seems to want to open their pocketbooks. Consumers aren't in the mood either.

    Somebody has to do it... the only entity that really can is the government. Would you rather they do nothing and let our economy sink into a huge downward spiral?

    I'm curious what your idea is to get our economy moving?

    1. Re:If the government doesn't spend now, who will? by crmarvin42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about spending that money on infrastructure that actually belongs to the government. Roads, bridges, etc.

      The 2 main bridges in my home town were build with money from the New Deal. Both have been needing replacement for the last 3 decades. We've finaly replaced one and are still 3 years away from opening the replacement bridge for the other. Every town I've ever lived in has at least a couple of old bridges from the same era that need to be replaced. That's the kind of infrastructure that lasts entire generations.

      Paying to build out network infrastructure and then handing over the reigns to private industry will just mean that the industry makes major proifts off of the backs of the tax payers.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
  12. Get the providers out of the last mile by wkk2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We need to get the providers out of the last mile. Any new housing developments, larger than 20 homes, should be required to star wire single mode fiber to all homes from a common equipment vault. Let the providers give access at that point and contribute to a local maintenance pool.

  13. Interesting idea by jaypifer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    However, I don't see the benefit. If everybody is responsible for the access point then nobody is. If there is no ultimate responsibility, the finger pointing would be staggering.

    --
    Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.
  14. Stimulus? by drik00 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've come to terms with the fact that our government has no conscious about spending ever increasing amounts of taxpayers' hard earned money. What I don't understand is how this could be considered economic stimulus. Sure, it'll help in certain marginal ways, but the only thing that can fix the US economy is if the government quits taking half of what everyone earns and lets the earners of the money figure out the best way to spend it.

    If you give tax breaks to the lowest earners, they buy more tv's and mcdonald's... give the tax breaks to the middle and upper class, and they end up investing in new business and current business expansion. If the greedy bastards in DC would quit thinking of tax revenue as their "income" and just cut taxes across the board, including corporate and capital gains taxes, I'd bet you a non-free beer that you would see IMMEDIATE stock market growth, followed by strong GDP growth, dropping unemployment, and REAL opportunity.

    The govt can't grow the economy by spending tax revenue on infrastructure (the most deserving of tax dollars). If you allow more of those tax dollars to stay in circulation, the private sector CAN create real, sustainable growth.

    J

    --
    Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
    1. Re:Stimulus? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Informative

      What I don't understand is how this could be considered economic stimulus. Sure, it'll help in certain marginal ways, but the only thing that can fix the US economy is if the government quits taking half of what everyone earns and lets the earners of the money figure out the best way to spend it.

      Actually, that is exactly the opposite of what they need to do. The recession is happening for the same reason the great depression did. If you don't progressively tax the wealthy, the wealth condensation effect pools larger and larger shares of the wealth into fewer hands. Eventually those on the bottom have nothing and live on credit, until that too collapses. That's where we are now. It's not that the US is poor, it's just that the bottom 50% has a net worth of zero. With no money they can't invest and pay huge amounts of their income paying interest just to get by. It's like a tax on being poor that goes to the wealthy instead of the government. When all the wealth consolidates the economy becomes unstable.

      The solution to this is to take more of the taxes from the very wealthy and less from the very poor, ideally while creating jobs for the unemployed. It doesn't help the unemployed if you don't tax the income they don't have, you need to create jobs in the US. Public works projects are a traditional way to do this and spending money on broadband can create a lot more jobs than in other areas because it enables new telcos to form and existing internet businesses to expand, if it is implemented well anyway.

      If you give tax breaks to the lowest earners, they buy more tv's and mcdonald's...

      The low earners are already not paying any taxes because they have no income or not enough to count.

      ...give the tax breaks to the middle and upper class, and they end up investing in new business and current business expansion.

      Tax breaks to the middle help. Tax breaks to the upper class, not so much. That's what they've been trying for the last 8 years. It's called "trickle down economics" and even the die hard supporters are admitting it is a failure. Everything they invest is a tax write off anyway, so taxing them less does not really motivate them to invest more and lot of what they invest in creates jobs overseas instead of in the US.

      If the greedy bastards in DC would quit thinking of tax revenue as their "income" and just cut taxes across the board, including corporate and capital gains taxes, I'd bet you a non-free beer that you would see IMMEDIATE stock market growth, followed by strong GDP growth, dropping unemployment, and REAL opportunity.

      It's been tried historically and it did not work. The problem is wealth disparity more than anything else. Tax cuts across the board do nothing to redistribute the wealth, so it will continue to consolidate and we'll have continued instability.

      Tax dollars spent on infrastructure do stay in circulation. They go to pay wages to people who are currently unemployed. Bill Gates pays a thousand times less taxes than I do (as a percentage of income). He can afford to pay a much, much larger share and still eat and live normally and if he has to that money can do a lot to solve the debt problems of the very poor so they don't lose their houses and so they can have jobs building infrastructure that grows the economy overall. It helps the US economy a lot more than letting him give it to Africans and invest in creating more jobs in India.

      Basically, I don't think you've really studied the economics of recession and the great depression specifically. There are some good books out there that are informative and entertaining. You might want to check one out.

  15. 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?" `":" #");}
  16. Cry me a F*ing river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Haven't lived in Western MA in roughly 6 years, but as a former "hick" from the "western end of the state" I can feel confident that my family still in the area would like me to tell you to go F*ck yourself.

    Western MA has been getting screwed by Boston since before there even was a United States of America.

    Western MA, didn't want to ratify the consitution so the politicians in Boston redrew the district lines.

    We footed the bill for the majority of the MA turnpike and had to fight for 5 years to get the tolls removed from our end, which was promised when they first started construction.

    how much does Westfield, Springfield, Holyoke, Chicopee, etc. benefit from burying the highway in downtown Boston? Hell, since all of the contractors and politicians involved are from east of Worchester, we didn't even get our share of the kickbacks.

    Far more tax money is spent in and around Boston than is actually collected from there. All that graft, and public works money is collected from the whole state and spent in your back yard. So forgive me if I don't feel sorry for you that you have to deal with the same ISP that my parents have, but have a slower connection. If you are running a business out of your house, shell out the $50 each month b/c I can guarantee you lose more money when they cut you off then you save by gaming their system.

  17. A couple of big steps they need to take by jonwil · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1.Force any provider wishing to service a given region to service every customer. Regions would be defined by the government and the FCC. (so it might be "all customers in " or "all customers in ")
    There would be an exemption for co-ops (e.g. a group wanting to run a fat pipe into one members shed/barn/etc and then run something from there out to the rest of the co-op). Municipal efforts run by a local government would be required to service the entire local government area.

    2.No provider (cable, DSL, fiber, wireless, whatever) would be allowed to have any monopoly agreements with anyone (state, local govt, residents association, owner of townhouse complex/apartment complex/etc). No authority (state, local govt, residents association, owner of townhouse complex/apartment complex/etc) would be allowed to have any kind of rules/laws/by-laws/whatever that granted monopolies to anyone. Oh and providers would be prohibited from making any kind of complaint or legal action (to the courts, to local authorities, to state PUCs or whatever) in an attempt to stop someone else from providing service. (no more "I dont want to provide service in because its not profitable for me but I dont want someone else running service either because it might become profitable for me in the future" like we have seen from some providers)

    3.New rules would be put in place that define what constitutes "broadband". (with minimum speeds set at say 1.5Mbps) For rule #1, the requirement would be that everyone in the area be served by "broadband" as defined by this rule (so no running 256Kbps DSL to some customers and 20Mbps FTTH to other more profitable customers in the same city or town). ISPs WOULD be allowed to apply traffic shaping and bandwidth quotas (i.e. "you get 50GB per month on your plan, once thats gone your speed gets cut back for the rest of the month unless you pay more money"). Net neutrality law would ensure such shaping didnt discriminate (so no shaping of YouTube or BitTorrent whilst allowing CNN videos or netflix movie downloads at full speed)

    1. Re:A couple of big steps they need to take by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What legal authority would you invoke for all that use of force? I notice that this plan involves not just forcing corporations into things, but even state and local governments.

      --
      Revive the Constitution.
  18. 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.
  19. Dear Politicians by nuintari · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Dear Politicians,
    I work for a small, but growing, ISP, so bear with me, as this subject annoys me to no end. Not every problem can be solved by simply throwing a bunch of money at it and hoping for the best. All the wrong people are going to end up with that money, either corrupt individuals, or large carriers who are more interested in squelching small competition so they can continue to shaft their customers left and right. They don't want to improve, improvements cost money, big cable wants to maintain the status quo. Either way, none of this money is going to be used to service undeserved areas. Keep the money, please, don't give anyone a single dime.

    You say you want to see internet delivered to the undeserved? Have you looked around? Some of us are doing just that. We are using part-15 spectrum to deliver 5+ megabit service to residents with no cable or DSL service available. Do you know what part-15 of the spectrum is, in reality? It is the useless chunks of the airspace that no one else wanted, 900 mhz, 2.4 ghz, 5.8 ghz, and a few others. Despite the severe limitations imposed on us all by the FCC, we have delivered magic to customers and businesses in these so called undeserved areas. We have used the crap airwaves no one else wanted, served the customers that big telco called profitless, and we are financially solvent. Keep the money, we don't need it, and the big companies don't deserve it.

    So, I hear this tremendously useful band of data is going to be free from use soon, and that its fate is largely undecided. I have already mentioned that we have taken some of the worst air space in existence, and delivered an amazing service to our customers. What do you suppose would happen if you let us use that band to deliver broadband? Interference free, crystal clear transmissions of a massive amount of data to every nearly home that wanted it, Keep the money, give us the spectrum.

    So you want to see the entire nation lit up on the broadband map, who do you think is going to do that? Verizon? Comcast? AT&T? If they could have, they would have done it by now, lord knows, you have thrown enough cash at the big players already, and I still get phone calls from happy new customers, glad to have service, because no one else offered it. No, broadband is going to come from the small business, there are thousands of us out there, we call ourselves WISPs, and we are doing what the Bells have told you cannot be done: We brought broadband to rural America. We have delivered affordable, quality service with a smile, with the worst tools we had to use. Now, imagine what we could do if we had 700 mhz. I am not asking you to give it to just me, I am not asking you to hand it over to only small companies, no, let all internet service providers have a fair crack at 700 mhz, and watch us deliver. Let Capitalism rear its blind, careless head, and watch the strong survive, and the weak fall. I already know I can win my own spot in the national broadband market, because I have been beating the telecom giants at their own game for 5 years, and winning. Keep the money, give us 700 mhz!

    --

    --Nuintari

    slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.