Slashdot Mirror
FCC Wants More Time To Craft Broadband Plan
adeelarshad82 writes "Julius Genachowski, Federal Communications Commission Chairman, has sent out a letter to Congress requesting more time for the commission to deliver its national broadband plan. According to the stimulus bill passed in early 2009, the FCC was to come up with a plan to provide all citizens with access to broadband services and deliver it to the committee by February 17, 2010. Even though an outline of the plan was released last month, FCC is requesting till March 17, 2010 to finalize the plan."
The FCC is still using a 56k modem and it will take them a month to upload the plan.
This is the government. They will start shooting for 100%, budget cuts will cut it to 85%, lobbyists will cut it to 80%, and by the end of the program only 65% will be helped.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Why should the government subsidize Internet access for somebody that lives an an "exceptionally remote area"? When I bought my house, I checked first to make sure the Internet access I wanted was available. If you choose to live in an area that doesn't have certain services available, why should you be able to demand taxpayers provide it to you later?
You assume that there is some theoretical amount of time that will allow a government agency to "get it right". IMHO, the more time a government agency has to complete a task, the worse the result will be.
I'm asking this seriously, not rhetorically.
They have a budget of $7.2 billion for grants. It seems like they could wi-max a bunch of major cities, but not the whole US. Or maybe they just want to make the internet "affordable"--not necessarily free. Subsidize people's ISP service? Ugh. I don't want to pay for my neighbor to download Zombie Strippers off the internet.
I do like the emphasis on making things competitive. There are a lot of us that have just one practical choice for broadband, either the phone or cable company. And then there is maybe some not-really-high-speed 3G/GPRS solution available. But without knowing details, I don't see how they encourage competition when there is a monopoly on wired or wireless access.
Seriously, what useful thing can the FCC do here?
Here is my plan: Make sure all the schools and libraries have got broadband-equipped computers to match demand. Let people that can't afford home internet ride the bus down to the library or stay after school. This is probably 90% covered already. It's too boring and unambitious of a plan to be very interesting, but it would do just fine. You'd have plenty of change left over from that $7.2 billion--go stimulate something else more useful with it, i.e. education, mass transit. We don't need to make sure every person is connected to a high-speed multimedia wonderland all the time for free. The emphasis should be on education and basic needs like typing up resumes, checking your e-mail, etc.
Right on! And all those major cities that can't supply their own food, water, power and waste management locally shouldn't see one dime from anyone outside of the city nor should they get any sort of discounts or subsidies!
Just because something doesn't benefit you directly doesn't mean that it isn't benefitting society as a whole.
I agree, it's a rip. And why should the government provide subsidized access to provide much cheaper food, water delivery, electricity delivery and natural gas deliveries to those remote densely packed areas where none of those valuable resources occur naturally in the quantities those densely packed areas demand and use now? Why should they be allowed to "vote" to take from other people far away in the rural areas, or to use any public tax monies collected to help provide these goods and services?
Should go to a pure profit, supply and demand based model, no government interference? All private roads, no more government mandated free "right of ways" for pipelines or electrical towers. Let private corporations negotiate with each individual landowner for transit fees and access fees, etc. If they want to move products to these "broadband rich" densely populated areas, those people there should also pay what it is really worth. Then all of our goods and services will be more fairly priced.
Works both ways, man, so do you want that trade? That's what you indicate you want, so are you willing to pay the real free market no government interference/ no tax payer ripoff price of your existence, or do you want to keep the government tax payer help in setting some "commons" that you get now?
No they hit there download / upload cap and need to wait for next month.
...But if no one is living there, do the "crimes" committed there really harm anyone? Really, if someone was, say, 5 miles from anyone and it was all their own property and they got high, publicly drunk, did every type of drug imaginable, discharged low-power rifles with a range of less than 5 miles, set off fireworks, played music cursing at a very high volume, and did just about every type of crime able to be committed in that time, would it harm anyone other than themselves? No.
Slave Trading, Drug Smuggling, Drug Manufacture, Terrorist Training Facilities, Anti-Government Organization Headquarters; these are actual examples of things going on in otherwise developed countries that can't patrol their entire area.
How do you kill that which has no life?
The telcos have already been subsidized via tarrifs and tax breaks to the tune of 300 billion. The FCC has some control over what the telcos charge, even if they are a legislated monopoly. In exchange the telcos were supposed to rewire most of the country. This wasn't just large cities, this was rural, suburban and city. This used to be called the 200 billion broadband scandal. It's now up to 300 billion.
This is a good read, a free ebook. The authors even sat on the FCC board. This is well worth sending an email to your congress critter. Sure most don't care or are in the pockets of lobbyists, but it can't hurt. (For example my rep Upton was the chair of the subcomittee on telecommunications. Biggest political donors were all telephone companies which he backed on everything - go figure)
As debated in this slashdot thread.
The good people of Wilson, NC pay $99/month for 10/10 Mbps internet service, 81 TV channels and telephone service. How'd they manage that, you ask? Well, the city-owned and operated cable service called Greenlight came into being when the City of Wilson approached TWC and local DSL provider Embarq and requested faster service for the area. 'TWC refused the request. And so Greenlight was born,' says blogger Peter Smith. 'Now Time Warner Cable and Embarq are upset that they've got competition, and rather than try to go head to head with Greenlight on price and service, they've instead been lobbying the state government of NC to pass laws to put Greenlight out of business.
As I have read about this case local businesses and private citizens lobbied and organized and eventually got the project financed by the issuing of bonds. Quote from their FAQ "The funds for constructing the fiber network come from bonds issued by the City of Wilson. Tax revenues are not being used to fund this project in any way."
With large ISP's fighting local democracy I can understand why public pressure for better broadband infrastructure arises.
The Long Now Foundation
Please don't act like it is just those up on a mountain that can't get broadband. My mom is less than 3 minutes away from a town of 15,000, and can see both the cable and DSL junctions from her back door. Will they run it the block and a half to their house? Nope! In fact here in AR there are plenty of towns where the cable nor the DSL has not moved a single inch in close to a quarter century. Why? Because both Cox and AT&T has "cherry picked" all the nice neighborhoods and refuse to give a shit about anyone else, that's why. The black section of town? No cable, really shitty DSL. The lower end housing districts? No cable, no DSL.
So PLEASE don't act like it is just some poor bastard on a mountain in Montana that can't get broadband. Thanks to the duopolies and cherry picking last time I lived there there was parts of downtown Nashville that had no cable or DSL! The duopolies and allowing them to list a zip code as "covered" even if they only offer it to a single house have left many that are not in large cities with nothing but the short end of the stick. Came down to the south sometime, and see how many decently sized towns have jack squat thanks to the duopolies not caring past cherry picking.
We are gonna have to take back the last mile and open it up to competition if things are ever gonna change. Want a monopoly? We will give you x number of years in any area you run fiber to the neighborhood to, and will add x years for adding fiber to the door. After all we already paid for nationwide broadband once already, and all we got for that was the finger. Either they pay us back with interest or we take the whole thing. Otherwise I predict this will be another taxpayer handout to the megacorps, who will blow smoke and then not do jack shit.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Read the Telecomunications act of 1996, and lo and behold, we're supposed to have had 45mbit symmetrical to every household already.
They have not delivered, I say the people should sue for failing to provide contractual obligations in a timely manner, and we file a lien on their entire infrastructure and provide everyone with free service until they deliver on their obligations?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If you choose to live in an area that doesn't have certain services available, why should you be able to demand taxpayers provide it to you later?
It should be obvious: not everyone decides where they live, and those that do often have much more complicated factors than "will I have broadband." Farmer Bob's son may want to take online classes so he can do something besides farming, or even if he does, some business, ag, veterinary, or numerous other classes might help. Maybe there isn't a physical college for miles. Participating in online video conferences for classes would be something that you'd want broadband for. Downloading the video lectures on dialup might tie up the phone lines for a day.
Hell, it would be worth it in my book if those poor kids were able to get online gaming. I'd shoot myself if I had to live on a farm 3 hours from any real civilization and I wasn't able to game.
"With large ISP's fighting local democracy I can understand why public pressure for better broadband infrastructure arises."
You meant fighting local socialism.
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
You just don't like it when your little insular urban centric "oh so superior" bubble gets burst. You exist at cheap affordable rates for basic life necessities in the larger cities from the government using a LOT of eminent domain seizures and mandated "right of ways" and massive centralized infrastructure building using tax payer dollars over the generations and regulations to keep your costs down. And the government seems to not pay much to the actual rural owners for this transit action, as in zero. Pure taking.
I bet you've never even thought before about how much your life is economically stealth subsidized because of that. Just imagine if all that "commons" action was gone and it was all private, your big city "wall street rules". All private roads, people charging whatever the market would bear, to get food to you..heh. Electric delivery companies having to negotiate transit fees. heh. Municipal water service and pipelines just taking water from the rural areas when this would be private water, where they could charge a sales fee per gallon before it even entered the pipeline, and then have to keep adding to the fees as the pipeline crossed a lot of private land and boundaries, heh. Tons of examples there.
You have no idea *at all* how cheap you have it from that "commons" and subsidized access. Just go back in US history and look what urban costs were before commons access. Every step of the way as the commons developed, starting with such things as the "post roads", your costs for food water and energy have dropped radically as a percentage of your income, and your comfort quality of life has gone up. But now that we would like a little more modern commons access to better communications, wow, what a reaction! See it all the time here. "Oh noes, string some better copper on already existing poles, OMGWTFBBQ, break the bank, we can't afford it, wah, no subsidies, how dare those people want modern communications, as if their chintzy water and food and power is so valuable!!"