FCC's Broadband Plan May Cost You Money

At ten minutes past midnight the FCC released their National Broadband Plan. Judging by the available coverage, few reporters spent the night poring over it. The BBC at least posted something in the morning hours, but it quotes Enderle, so that gives you some idea of its sourcing. Business Week notes the plan's cool (not to say frigid) reception among broadcasters. Dave Burstein of FastNet News did some real digging. His take as of 4:00 am Eastern time is that the plan will cost most Americans money, and won't provide much if any relief to the poor. We'll see many more details and nuances emerge over the day. Update: 03/16 19:53 GMT by KD : The FCC plan (PDF) is here.

Comments

Wow, there's a shock!

[Anonymous Coward]

The government tries to "help" and only ends up costing taxpayers money without really solving the problem they don't have the business solving in the first place.

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[jeillah]

This appears to only help the Telcos... What a shock!!!

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[Anonymous Coward]

In the business of government, as long as the money passes through your hands, you win. It doesn't matter where the money comes from or where it goes -- what matters is that it passes through your hands. The more money passing through your hands, the more you stand to exploit it for personal gain.

You're not in the business of government, are you?

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[dammy]

In aviation, it's a well document phrase of, "I'm hear from the FAA, I'm hear to help" that send shivers down A&Ps and pilots spines alike. Tax and spend is not just a phrase in Washington, it's a way to grow one's empire.

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[fucket]

I hear you.

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope the FAA can spell better than that, Ronnie.

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[mcgrew]

"I'm hear from the public school system, I'm hear to help". Do you here me now?

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[Anonymous Coward]

The government paid for his school, I guess.

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm from Enron, I'm here to help!"

"I'm from the Republican Party, I'm here to help."

"I'm a libertarian, I'm here to help!"

That applies both ways.

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[PinkyGigglebrain]

Here, not hear.

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[mcgrew]

That was the point. Pee pull oar two depend ant own there spill chuckers.

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[Gilmoure]

We should get rid of government and go back to the old days. My grandfather didn't need a dozen code sign offs to build his house and it's still standing 80 years later. Just think what life would be like if there weren't all these people telling everyone what to do!

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[PinkyGigglebrain]

Sorry I missed it, still waking up.

I'll go get another mug of coffee.

Nicely done by the way.

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[Anonymous Coward]

So your parents paid for private? You're obviously a higher paid/better person now.

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[geekoid]

Please, the US government has does ten's of thousands of projects every day, mostly it works fine.

Of course, we have people like you that read a summary of information and a quote from someone who isn't really qualified and you scream the government doesn't work.

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[geekoid]

yes, we should just leave the skies unregulated.
Also, let private industry determine and publish crash data all by themselves.

Tax and spend is the stupidest phrase ever created by the republicans.

Have you even thought about that phrase at all?

If they where Taxing and not spending, then you would have a point.
Or 'don't tax, borrow'; which should now be the republicans motto

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Help" is a government euphemism for corruption.

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[tbannist]

Yeah! I mean, just look at what the lack of building codes has done for Haiti!

Sure, the earthquake that hit Chile was 500 times stronger than the Haiti one, and sure the stricter building codes in Chile meant only 500 people died rather than 300,000, but that's no reason to trade liberty for security.

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[Gilmoure]

Exactly. Once all those damn police and firemen and building inspectors and food inspectors not to mention customs men, border guards, teachers, and librarians are all gone, why, this'll be a paradice on earth!

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[mcgrew]

No, but I had three blessings:

1. Parents who read
2. Parents who read to me when I was very young
3. A high IQ
4. One of the three competent teachers I had was my first grade teacher who taught me to read
5. No spell checkers or internet to corrupt my young brain

I know how abysmal the US public education system is because I suffered through it both when I went to school, and when my now grown children did.

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[johnny0099]

Best handle on the internet. I'm jealous.

Re:Wow, there's a shock!

[jgostling]

Another very important point is that the economic situation in Chile allows for a stricter building code. With a GDP per capita about 10% that of Chile, if housing costs due to regulation were the same in Haiti, most Haitians would be homeless instead of better housed. Not saying this is a good situation, but sometimes reality has an ugly face.

Cheers!

Check your links

[SimonTheSoundMan]

kdawson, the google page link links to a blank google news page.

Re:Check your links

[_PimpDaddy7_]

Looks ok now, the top link is a Reuters article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62E0JU20100315

Re:Check your links

[Anonymous Coward]

And the summary doesn't give me any more information than the headline does.

Am I mistaken or, shouldn't the summary, kinda, ya know, summarize the article instead of restating the headline?

Great summary kdawson - I have no idea what the FCC's plan is, why it may cost me money or how much money it may cost me.

I post A/C, so if you think I'm gonna go so far as to RTFA, kdawson, you're crazy.

You're making it very difficult for me to post a knee-jerk reaction to your sensationalist headline.

Re:Socialist internetz

[conureman]

Democracy has its drawbacks.

Re:Socialist internetz

[Anonymous Coward]

But you love big-government. Which will it be? Big-Gov, or retarded bible thumping rednecks? Decisions decisions....hmmmmm

Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

...and will just add more retards to the internuts causing retardedness to overflow, which will destroy the world, and probably the solar system.

You mean Eternal September?

Governments never reduce costs

[dogmatixpsych]

Of course it will cost us money. Any time the "government" says they can do something at zero net cost, you know they are either lying or unreasonably optimistic. That is one of the rules of government spending - it always costs more than stated. A $750 billion stimulus will not cost $750 billion, it will cost $1 trillion. A $3 million bridge will cost $4 million. A 'brief' war will cost 5X what you think it will.

You may or may not like big businesses but businesses are usually very good at reducing costs, governments are not (the reason that isn't true with ISPs or cable companies is because they don't have any competition - most people live where there is a de facto ISP monopoly). I don't know why so many people - Republicans and Democrats and Independents - want the government to do more and spend more for us.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone missed out on hearing that in economics "cost" is in principle, not monetary. "Cost" includes, but is not solely monetary cost.

It is zero "net cost" from the government's POV since the total (economic) revenues at least cover the total (economic) costs.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[egcagrac0]

I don't know why so many people - Republicans and Democrats and Independents - want the government to do more and spend more for us.

I'd like for someone to do more for us, but I can't seem to get Google (or Apple, or Lenovo, or...) to give a shit about what I want. Since I'd rather have something done than nothing, the government - sucky as it is - is the remaining option, with the all the delightful garbage that accompanies.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[TheKidWho]

Yes, except the entire purpose of a corporation is to turn a profit, social welfare be damned. If hooking up Internet to those 10 people living away from society isn't going to turn us a profit, then we'll be damned if we're going to hook them up! The Federal Government on the other hand has more at stake with regards to the welfare of society and making sure that interstate commerce is working smoothly.

There are certain jobs that only the government can do well, and there are many others that the government should have absolutely no role in. The problem with government spending is that everything goes by a middle of the road scenario when it comes to cost estimation, however these kinds of large scale projects always become more complicated then it initially seems and costs rise.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Attila Dimedici]

Someone missed out on hearing that in economics "cost" is in principle, not monetary. "Cost" includes, but is not solely monetary cost.

It is zero "net cost" from the government's POV since the total (economic) revenues at least cover the total (economic) costs.

Except that isn't true. It is zero "net cost" from the government's POV since the "cost" of voter anger is less than the gain in power. When the government starts justifying some action on the basis of cost, you can be almost certain that it is something the government shouldn't be doing and that the taxpayer is going to get hosed.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Akido37]

The Federal Government on the other hand has more at stake with regards to the welfare of society and making sure that interstate commerce is working smoothly. There are certain jobs that only the government can do well, and there are many others that the government should have absolutely no role in.

Amen. This is why the Federal Government is mandated to run the Post Office. At the dawn of the Republic, no intelligent businessman would operate such a money-losing enterprise. However, it is a necessary and needed service.

Rural electrification and rural broadband, in my opinion, also merit Government intervention.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[HogGeek]

"no intelligent businessman would operate such a money-losing enterprise"

I wouldn't call a $1 Billion profit a loss...

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[imakemusic]

I wouldn't call "the last five years" "the dawn of the republic".

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[mcgrew]

It depends on the government and the business. In a free market, business almost always does save the customer money. In a natural monopoly like utilities, roads, bridges, etc, you're going to pay through the nose if privately owned.

An example is two electric companies, CWLP and Amerin here in Illinois. Amerin's rates are far higher than CWLP's, who provide the cheapest power in the state. Amerin's customer service is abysmal, CWLP's is excellent. When two F-2 (almost F-3) tornados tore through CWLP-served Springfield, we had power restored in our devastated neighborhood in a week; houses that had their roofs impaled by their neighbors' roofs had electricity back long before the roof was fixed, and the electrical infrastructure was completely destroyed, requiring replacement of every pole, wire, and transformer. When a weak F1 passed through Amerin-served Cahokia across the river from St Louis, my friend Jeff was without power for over a month. I visited him a week after his tornado, and the only evidence one had gone through was his lack of electricity.

To paraphrase Lilly Tomlin's "Ernestine", "We're the electric company. We don't HAVE to." Amerin is only beholden to its stockholders, since their customers have no other choice for electricity. OTOH if CWLP's service is bad, the Mayor loses his job; the customers/citizens own CWKP.

CWLP not only doesn't use tax money, it actually turns a profit for the city, keeping taxes lower. Since my experience with the tornados, I've advocated that all utilities be taken over by city and county governments. Keep government out of construction and fast food, but do away with private-owned utilities. A monopoly doesn't follow free market rules.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[cartzworth]

In a natural monopoly like utilities, roads, bridges, etc, you're going to pay through the nose if privately owned.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4213016

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Akido37]

"no intelligent businessman would operate such a money-losing enterprise"

I wouldn't call a $1 Billion profit a loss...

It's profitable NOW - hence UPS, FedEx, etc. It wasn't in 1789.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[ekgringo]

City-owned utilities are great until the city starts to run out of money. Then, in order to pay for their short-sightedness, they sell off the utility and it all goes to hell. Witness Chicago's recent parking meter fiasco.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[I_Voter]

Political competition works better than a two party system. The same principle works in government as in economics.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Abcd1234]

That is one of the rules of government spending - it always costs more than stated.

Yeah, if you think corporations are any different, you need to climb out of your mom's basement and take a look at the real world.

You may or may not like big businesses but businesses are usually very good at reducing costs,

Right, and then pocketing the savings. I mean, look at all the deregulation that's happened over the last 20 years. That's totally saved the consumers money, right?

Yeah, or not.

the reason that isn't true with ISPs or cable companies is because they don't have any competition

No, the reason is because they are natural monopolies with very high barriers of entry.

But don't let sound economic theory get in the way of your blind ideology.

I don't know why so many people - Republicans and Democrats and Independents - want the government to do more and spend more for us.

Because, believe it or not, markets break down sometimes! I know, this might just blow your little libertarian mind, but there does exist such a thing as a "market failure". Such failures occur when distorting forces exist, such as natural barriers of entry and so forth, which result in a breakdown in competition. Broadband is such a market, just as any utility is, thanks to the exhorbitantly high cost of infrastructure deployment (one need only look at FIOS to see why broadband competition in the large is utterly absurd... it's literally cost them *billions* to roll out that program... no small business would ever be able to compete in that market).

But, hey, don't let me get in the way of your little religion, there. I'm sure you have great faith that your god, the invisible hand, will swoop down and save all the true believers. Meanwhile, the rest of us who live in the real world understand that markets aren't perfect, and sometimes government intervention is necessary.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[zorro-z]

A few counterpoints which are of particular relevance in the US today:

1) Medicare is implemented w/a rough overhead of 3%, as compared to 20-30% overhead for private insurers. In other words, the government does medical insurance at a lower cost than private business.

2) The private contractors to whom the Bush administration handed work in Iraq did the job for a much higher cost per-pseudo soldier than the US Military would have done. In other words, the government does war cheaper than private business.

Yes, private industry is probably more aggressive about cutting costs than the government. But that's b/c they have a vested purpose to do so: the profit motive. Every dollar spent on actual health care, or a soldier, or on providing high speed Internet access, is one less dollar in the owners' pockets. Hence, all costs- or corners- shall be cut to maximize profits.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Attila Dimedici]

In a natural monopoly like utilities, roads, bridges, etc, you're going to pay through the nose if privately owned.

As far as I can tell utilities (telephone and electrical service anyway) are not natural monopolies. If you study the history of both, you will discover that in the early days there were many competitors in many areas. The politicians decided to come in and create local monopolies. The most successful local monopolies bought out the less successful local monopolies in other regions until there was only one in the case of telephone service(there is some evidence that there was government interference in deciding who was a "successful" local monopoly and who wasn't).

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[commodore64_love]

You forgot option 3 - do it yourself. In my city there are mostly-empty metal pipes running under the streets, so I'd start my own ISP and run the fiber through those pipes, thereby providing 100 Mbit/s service to any customer who wanted it (about 10 times faster than Comcast or Verzion).

Of course that assumes I care enough to create a corporation.

I don't.

I look around the world and I see that the U.S. average speed is about 1 Mbit/s behind the Russian Federation, but 1 Mbit/s ahead of the EU, 2 Mbit/s ahead of Australia or Canada, and 4 Mbit/s ahead of China. I think we're doing all right. If we were dead last then I'd worry, but compared to other continent-sized federations we are actually in second place. So I don't worry.

(source: speedtest.net)

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[darjen]

You seem to be invoking the myth of the natural monopoly.

http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[mcgrew]

City-owned utilities are great until the city starts to run out of money. Then, in order to pay for their short-sightedness, they sell off the utility and it all goes to hell.

It depends on who you elect. Springfield has a horrible budget problem, like the rest of Illinois, but if they sold CWLP there would be riots on the streets, especially since they just built the new generator. The Mayor and aldermen know they'd all lose their jobs next election.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Underfoot]

Your information is old... The USPS has been losing billions over the last three years, and the loss is only projected to grow:

http://www.usps.com/financials/_pdf/annual_report_2009.pdf

The About.com article you link to refrences 2006 as though that was the future, and is giving a five year average profit. (Couldn't find an actual date for when the article was first published.)

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[osgeek]

People are stupid and too short-sighted to understand the impact of handing government more and more power.

Pretty much as you imply, telecom companies fail at good capitalism virtues of efficiency and rapid increase in value because they're monopolies. Government is the ultimate monopoly... the worst one of all since they're the only entity in the country that can legally come in and use force to make you comply with their policies.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Cytotoxic]

Counter example - Lake Worth Florida - all utilities are city owned. My sister-in-law lives there and has the worst service and prices in the region. I can't say I've been overly impressed with FPL (although they manage disasters that make your scary tornado look piddly), but my experience with Duke power was pretty good, and I was with a small CO-OP in Georgia that was fine. Maybe your anecdotal evidence is just that.... anecdotal.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Anonymous Coward]

It also assumes that there isn't some busybody, be it Comcast or the local bureaucrats, interested in being an obstacle for no other reason than because they can.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[commodore64_love]

>>>When a weak F1 passed through Amerin-served Cahokia across the river from St Louis, my friend Jeff was without power for over a month.
>>>

In my state this Electricity Monopoly would be required to restore electricity to all customers within 2 days, or else be fined 1 million a day. Your situation is a case of government not doing its job to *regulate* the natural monopoly.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Bob9113]

It depends on the government and the business. In a free market, business almost always does save the customer money. In a natural monopoly like utilities, roads, bridges, etc, you're going to pay through the nose if privately owned.

Well said.

Two other factors that make markets susceptible to distortion are elasticity and imperfect information. A great example is health care -- people are very poorly informed and demand is extremely insensitive to price (in addition to the fiat monopolies of patents and trade protectionism, and the natural monopoly of regionally captive audiences).

More on Elasticity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[mpe]

"We're the electric company. We don't HAVE to." Amerin is only beholden to its stockholders, since their customers have no other choice for electricity. OTOH if CWLP's service is bad, the Mayor loses his job; the customers/citizens own CWKP.

In the latter case the "stockholders" and the "customers" are mainly the same people. It's also likely to be rather easier to contact the Mayor than Amerin's CEO.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[mpe]

"no intelligent businessman would operate such a money-losing enterprise"
I wouldn't call a $1 Billion profit a loss...

The point is that it wasn't at the end of the 18th century. Took rather a while to generate any kind of profit. Also considering the size and turnover of the "business" isn't exactly "high profit" over two hundred years later.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[magus_melchior]

I'll be willing to bet that if Amerin starts having problems, they'll blame CWLP and/or the state/muni governments. That argument will stick if they're actually competing in the same market, even if CWLP and the government was only doing what was the most efficient use of resources.

Usually it's a matter of who is running the organization. I'll bet Amerin is run by sociopathic pricks* who care more about their own yachts than Amerin's well-being, and CWLP is run by competent (if possibly boring) managers.

The best argument against privatizing a public service or asset is usually that the private sector will abuse the fact that the public needs that service or asset. There's a reason why fire departments are not privately owned-- just as insurance companies will try anything to avoid reimbursing fire insurance claims, a private fire department will avoid providing their services to those who don't (or can't) pay for them. Unfortunately, with state and municipal governments running out of funds and unable to deficit-spend, they may opt to sell these services/assets to the highest bidder with disastrous results; we're already seeing this in juvenile detention, which has seen a remarkable increase in private ownership. Smarter governments would lease a portion of these with the provision that if the private company fails to deliver, the lease is terminated and the government re-takes ownership. At least that would provide some deterrence from abuse.

* Of course, it's entirely possible to have a successful (as in "makes shit-tons of money") business be run by sociopathic pricks-- how else would I explain Oracle, Apple, and Microsoft? Perhaps the difference is that these jerk bosses have found ways to channel their self-centered behavior into improving their businesses?

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[icebraining]

Why are ISPs natural monopolies? In my country, I can choose at least four different ISPs that serve my house, with multiple offers (ADSL, Cable and now optical fiber). Yes, it's a small country, but don't you have local ISPs too?

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen. This is why the Federal Government is mandated to run the Post Office. At the dawn of the Republic, no intelligent businessman would operate such a money-losing enterprise. However, it is a necessary and needed service.

FYI, This is incorrect. The federal government had to force Lysander Spooner (under threat of imprisonment) to stop competing with the US Postal Service in the 1800s.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[geekoid]

", you know they are either lying or unreasonably optimistic. T"

Actually, most the time they are correct. IN fact I see it at work; of course those projects don't get in the news. Neither do projects that are on time and on budget; which is most projects.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[geekoid]

Except the people that 'own' the backbone won't let you in.

A lot of people have tried just what you suggest.

I'm not concerned, I have 15 Mb and with the industries push to get HD online, I suspect it will be 25Mb next year.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[gad_zuki!]

Yeah, working meters, credit card payment, not out begging for quarters or getting a 100 dollar ticket because you dont have an antiquated little disk on you? What a fiasco!

Heck, I pulled into one that was broken recently. I called the number. It was answered within a couple of rings and I talked to someone who actually spoke english and had customer service skills!

Im not some "privatize everything" loon but the Chicago parking meters are much better than the union no-work pension-sucking fatcat gangster system run by the city previously. All politics are local. In some towns public parking meters works out, in others, it doesnt. It happens that in Chicago, the city had parking meters on a very low priority. Instead of the city providing hundreds of no-work overpaid jobs, a private company is doing it. If they screw up we can go back to public. I dont mind paying extra for working machines and using a credit card.

Its not healthcare, its just meters.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Anonymous Coward]

You may or may not like big businesses but businesses are usually very good at reducing costs, governments are not (the reason that isn't true with ISPs or cable companies is because they don't have any competition - most people live where there is a de facto ISP monopoly). I don't know why so many people - Republicans and Democrats and Independents - want the government to do more and spend more for us.

Yes business and government have different goals, or at least should. Large business' goal at the moment seems to be make as much money in the short term as possible. If business could make money by killing people they will do it (and have done it, frankly) while arguing at the same time that they have a legal responsibility to their share holders to do so. They also don't seem to care about the mid to long term. Anything beyond about a year appears to be long term.

Call me silly, but I don't want my government to have the same goal as business and, generally speaking, I think having government restrict business is a good idea. I want a society that is good to live in 3 months from now, 3 years from now, 3 decades from, and 3 centuries from now. Running government like a business will not provide this for me, or my family, or my friends, or all the other citizens in the country.

Although this is difficult to do properly, the alternative to trying to having a government is child labour, indentured servitude, slavery, Somalia, etc, all things that can be excellent at making a profit but make the society a hell hole to live in.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Abcd1234]

In my country, I can choose at least four different ISPs that serve my house, with multiple offers (ADSL, Cable and now optical fiber).

No, if I had to bet, you have two, or maybe three real ISPs: a telecom with ADSL infrastructure, a cable operator with coaxial infrastructure, and now a fibre operator, who may in fact be one of the other two, unless you're really lucky (like someone who lives in an area where Verizon FiOS is deployed).

See, if you actually wanted to deploy a *real* ISP, you would have to lay out millions if not billions of dollars to lay new cable. And that's an obvious, massive barrier to entry into the market... after all, last I checked, your average local ISP didn't have the money to lay new copper.

Of course, these supposed "ISPs" could lease the network from an existing competitor, but that requires government regulation mandating the operator do so, which isn't very "free-marketey", now is it? Of course, that's because the government needs to step in to correct a market distortion as a result of ISPs being a *natural monopoly* due to those aforementioned barriers to entry.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[mcgrew]

elasticity and imperfect information. A great example is health care

Another example of lack of choice. Unless you're wealthy there's no choice of insurance policies; you take what your employer provides, as everything else is unaffordable.

After I had my vitrectomy I was given eyedrops, and one had to be refilled at a pharmacy. This was back when gasoline was over four bucks a gallon. I decided to shop around for the best price, and the price for this drug varied wildly -- fifty bucks at a pharmacy twenty miles away, eighty at the Walgreens by my house. But it didn't matter where I bought the drug, my co-pay was $26 (two dollars more than the retail price of the same drug in Canada). I opted for the Walgreens, and it saved me a lot of money in gasoline.

There is no free market in health care.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[mcgrew]

I'll bet Amerin is run by sociopathic pricks* who care more about their own yachts than Amerin's well-being, and CWLP is run by competent (if possibly boring) managers.

That's exactly the case; the manager of Springfield's power company is Todd Renfrow, competent but boring manager (who bears a striking resemblance to Mr. Burns; google him sometime).

Competent leaders hire competent staff (Kudos to whoever hired Renfrow), incompetent leaders hire incompetent cronies (Raspberries to Bush and especially former Illinois governors Blago and Ryan, who ran Illinois' economy into the ground).

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[sonicmerlin]

And then...you can vote them out if they do something people really don't like, which you can't do with a corporation. Or did you forget that you can vote?

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got an even better example. I'm on the other side of the Mississippi from you, where we have a mix of Ameren and a co-op called Cuivre River. The same circumstances apply: Ameren service is poor, unreliable, and expensive in comparison. When I lived in an apartment, I had Ameren service. When I moved to a house, I moved into the Cuivre River Electric Cooperative service area. Over here, we had the winter ice storms rip down lines all over the place.... in the Ameren service area. I never lost power, during or after that ice storm. Meanwhile it took Ameren a month to put their lines back up.

The advantage I have over CWLP is I'm an owner of my electric company. It's a coop. Every user of the service is automatically an owning member, and we get to vote once a year on the board members that do the actual week to week management. So if the local government hits a rough patch, they can't raid my coop's operating funds, and they can't sell my coop to Ameren. It's also a good deal harder for interfering state and federal governments to pressure them. All they do is electricity, so it's not possible to hold them hostage by threatening their road improvement budget. I like that a LOT better. The coop DOESN'T turn a profit. It's a non-profit organization. They maintain, by charter, a rolling pool of operating funds. When those funds exceed thresholds set by the charter, I get a check in the mail, paying back the excess.

Of course, it only works as well as it does because we seem to do a pretty good job of picking board members. They're honest, they're earnest, and they're effective. I like to think the charter is rigged to encourage this state of affairs, because only a fraction of the board is elected each year, maintaining continuity and a certain amount of built-in safeguards against a poor choice, but I'd imagine the whole thing could come crashing down if we somehow got fooled by a succession of sociopathic assholes. Fortunately the fact the coop is non-profit tends to keep the sociopaths away - there's nothing in it for them.

Posting anonymously because I've already moderated and because I've said much the same before in other threads.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Anonymous Coward]

And your opinion is wrong. In Nebraska (my state) power lines were not run by the federal government. Rather, people got together, formed Public Power Districts, and did it themselves. If you think the federal Government can solve any problem, I think you need to re-study the issue.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[commodore64_love]

>>>Except the people that 'own' the backbone won't let you in.

First off the METAL pipes belong to my local city/county are owned by the *government* and they would not deny access to running my fiber wire through their pipes, so long as I convince my local politicians that I will not disturb existing phone/cable service.

I don't know what you're talking about in regards to the "backbone"? Unless you're referring to the internet as a whole, but of course that would be illegal to deny service to a new company. Any company who wants to hook into the internet may do so.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Bill_the_Engineer]

If you want broadband data service, you need to move closer to a metropolitan area. Why should the government be in the business of subsidizing people who choose to live in the middle of nowhere, yet feel entitled to enjoy the same benefits of those who live in urban areas?

This is an example of why our debt is so high.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[denmarkw00t]

It isn't just an issue of backbone access - if you have enough $$$ you can get to the backbone (of course, using it commercially is probably harder and obviously more expensive), but in my state and probably others we have (incredibly dumb) laws that say such things as "If you want to enter the market as an ISP, you must be able to bring in a subscriber group large enough to provide good competition." Of course, this isn't easy as most of the target subscriber group is - omg - already taken by the current ISP.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually tried this.

The local municipality refused my permit. The reason?

  I didn't have 2.5 million dollars to put into escrow.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Anpheus]

Where do you live that average "broadband" speeds exceed 1 megabit?

I live in Iowa, and regularly have to deal with people who can't reliably get even that.

Remember that statistics can be deceiving. The average wage in the US has risen for decades (recession years excluded, or better yet, just do a five year average) but no reasonable statistician graphs average wages, they're pointless. As wealth distribution in the US has become more and more skewed, the average wage has risen but the median wage... not so much. So the average in the US might be high, but if you're trying to measure where the average person sits in terms of bandwidth, you need to look for the median bandwidth in the US.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[metaforest]

You may or may not like big businesses but businesses are usually very good at reducing costs, governments are not (the reason that isn't true with ISPs or cable companies is because they don't have any competition - most people live where there is a de facto ISP monopoly).

No. They are really good at EXTERNALIZING costs.

Governments have a much harder time doing that. So we see the full bill up front.

The way big business does it we get the full bill many years later when the Superfund cleanup is costed out.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[TheKidWho]

Great, but I do live in a metropolitan area, if not the largest metropolitan area in the United States and the fastest service I can get is 50/5 for $99/month. It's nice and I do have it, but it's too expensive for the price compared to what's available in other countries.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[osgeek]

Yeah, since voters have such a great track record for understanding what happens on the political landscape, how it affects the future, and then holding them accountable.

No, that doesn't happen. People are too stupid to vote on candidate performance records and issues using logic and some kind of understanding of policy impact. They vote for their political teams, for the guy that's physically attractive, well spoken, is the right color, went to the right church, was a celebrity in hollywood, or had a professional sports career.

Integrity, intelligence, consistency, willingness to put the office and the people and society ahead of their own naked ambitions? Nah, not so important.

Really, we're fucked. It'll take a bloody revolution against an oppressive government somewhere in the world to forge a new society that properly distrusts government like our founding fathers did. Then maybe something besides this socialistic mediocrity that we put up with now will shine for a few centuries until stupid people inevitably pull it down again.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should read up on Lysander Spooner... and the Constitution for that matter. The Constitution allows, not mandates Congress "To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;"

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are saying that if something is "necessary and needed" than people won't pay for it. Isn't that entirely backwards? What is necessary and needed is defined by what people are willing to pay. If a service is so important and demanded why would there be a need to force people to pay for it?

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Danse]

Amen. This is why the Federal Government is mandated to run the Post Office. At the dawn of the Republic, no intelligent businessman would operate such a money-losing enterprise. However, it is a necessary and needed service.

FYI, This is incorrect. The federal government had to force Lysander Spooner (under threat of imprisonment) to stop competing with the US Postal Service in the 1800s.

So who was rushing to offer that service in the 50+ years prior to his founding of the AML when only the US Post Office was doing so? While I think it was pretty crappy that he was basically forced out of business through legal costs, that's a common tactic among businesses even today. That the government did it is admittedly even worse though. I don't think that his competing is an argument against the necessity of the US Post Office though, as there was no other competing service for that first 50 or so years.

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Danse]

In a natural monopoly like utilities, roads, bridges, etc, you're going to pay through the nose if privately owned. http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=4213016

I can't tell if you think you're supporting his claim or not. What, exactly, is that link supposed to prove?

Re:Governments never reduce costs

[Bill_the_Engineer]

the fastest service I can get is 50/5 for $99/month. It's nice and I do have it, but it's too expensive for the price compared to what's available in other countries.

Do you really need 50/5? You can get a slower plan that is still well within your data budget for less. Also $99/month doesn't seem unreasonable to me when compared to what I had to pay for business data services.

What other countries? I think people throw that around without actually researching it. I miss the internet connections that I have access to in the US. I can go to pretty much ANY city in the US and get free WiFi to check my email and such.

In Australia, I'm having to either pay between $4 to $6 and hour for WiFi, or wait until I get to work and use the Telsa connection that is much slower than I have at home and way more expensive.

Re:Socialist internetz

[rcoxdav]

As an atheist who lives in rural Illinois, where there are plenty of bible thumpers, I would be happy to have a much faster internet connection. It would also hopefully educate the uneducated masses here about such evil sites like the pandas thumb which would help them become less thumperish.

Government Services

[Akido37]

The Government provides a service - in this case, asking/forcing someone else to provide a service - and people are shocked that it will cost money? What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government doesn't cost anything?


Everybody wants services (public schools, Medicare, military, etc), nobody wants to pay taxes.

Re:Government Services

[Anonymous Coward]

no no no, you are missing the point. It isn't that there is a *cost* it is that we are being double billed that is the issue. We fund the broadband deployment with taxes and then pay for the "service" they give us.

Re:Government Services

[Anonymous Coward]

All you need is an economic view on government services!

Military won't just liberate foreign countries, but loot them, too - that way, there's not just a cost center "US Army", but a profit center "US Army", too.
Medicare sells organs, and public schools start doing labor days: They provide the kids with some work experience, and at the same time bring in money!

Wait, not a good idea? Hm..

Re:Government Services

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everybody. I don't want public schools or medicare.

Re:Government Services

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government doesn't cost anything?

These people don't live in a 'Communist paradise' but they do call themselves "Democrats."

Re:Government Services

[Krneki]

The Government provides a service - in this case, asking/forcing someone else to provide a service - and people are shocked that it will cost money? What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government doesn't cost anything? Everybody wants services (public schools, Medicare, military, etc), nobody wants to pay taxes.

I have 20/20 MB optic line in my house for 26E a month.

My city has 10.000 inhabitants, so the price for fiber optic in a bigger environment should be even cheaper.

Re:Government Services

[Anonymous Coward]

No, when Democrats do something big, it might waste money, but at least part of the plan works. This is clearly a Republican idea since the money will be going to the broadband providers and no one will see an increase in speed.

Re:Government Services

[commodore64_love]

Actually a communist paradise DOES cost money. You earn it - the government takes it and "serves" you with free grocery stores (with long lines), free housing (with 10 people squeezed inside), free apartments (the size of a dorm room), and on and on. Just see Soviet Union circa 1980.

As for this broaband plan:

I still don't see why it's my responsibility to fund a fiber optic hookup for some farmer living in the middle of noplace (the Wyoming/Idaho border for example). There's a much cheaper way to get broadband out there, and it will be done in typical free market efficiency (read: as cheap as possible), rather than through the corruption of government employees that spend most of their day surfing the net (see my job at the FAA):

- Congress mandates that Verizon/ATT/whoever must provide DSL to any customer that requests it.
- WAIT. If the farmer is happy with dialup, then he keep dialup, but if he requests highspeed then:
- Verizon installs a DSLAM. The phone lines are already there. so it should be a simple 1-2 day job. Like so: Fiber--> DSLAM--> serves neighborhood/rural district

If the local company balks at the expense, remind them they received billions from the 1996 Telecommunications Act, and suggest they use that money to buy those ~$1000 DSLAMs. I think that's a MUCH better solution than some Amtrak-style government program. I certainly can't afford to have my taxes raised (again). And my children/grandchildren can't afford to payoff the soon-to-be ~$200,000 per home government debt*. We need to spend LESS money, not more, else we'll soon endup like Greece or Iceland.
.

>>>Everybody wants services (public schools, Medicare, military, etc),

Not correct. I don't want a government-run school that teaches me kids to sing, "Barack Hussein Obama (or George Dubya Bush). He'll save our land. Mmmm mmmm mmmm". Neither do I want Medisuck or social insecurity that increases healthcare costs (paperwork and labor). In my opinion ALL of this should be eliminated and replaced with private, customer-run services with a "safety net" to help the bottom 2-3% that can't afford to pay the bill. So..... definitely not "everyone" as you claimed.

I'm pro-choice.
Government is anti-choice.
It's monopoly.
:-)

*
* Estimated debt per home in 2020 according to the CBO.

Re:Government Services

[dalesyk]

Everybody wants services? Many people disagree. Many people want a very limited government the provides only the very basics (security, some infrastructure, etc).
Nobody wants to pay taxes? Many people will may reasonable taxes for basic items, but don't want to pay excessively to fund government handouts.

Re:Government Services

[commodore64_love]

>>>my job at the FAA

I thought maybe I should expand on this. I used to work for the FAA... part of a 4 man team. I received a year of pay, but did only 2 months of actual work. The rest of the time I and my colleagues surfed the net, or read magazines, or whatever. On top of that we got expensive boondoggle trips with $115 hotel rooms that had free room service, et cetera.

And as I looked around, I noticed that other FAA workers were doing the same thing: Surfing the net. When my one-year stint was up I asked my boss, "Why did you hire 4 guys when there was so little work?" and he replied, "I had a little over $1 million to spend and didn't want it to go back to Congress, so instead I spent it." I realized this is what a government job entails - waste.

That same kind of waste will be involved in this Uncle Sam-run broadband organization too. And it's inherent in nearly all government-run programs.

Re:Government Services

[colinRTM]

Where do you live? Here in the Netherlands my 16/1 MB DSL costs me 40 Euros a month :(

Re:Government Services

[dkleinsc]

What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government doesn't cost anything?

California. Prop 13 and St Reagan say so.

Re:Government Services

[Anonymous Coward]

"Many people will may reasonable taxes for basic items, but don't want to pay excessively to fund government handouts."

That strongly depends on whether the handouts are to them.

Re:Government Services

[Anonymous Coward]

Where could I get a job like that? I'd go to work, do the little real work, then work on things in my free time. There are plenty of open source apps I want to fix up. There's nothing like getting paid for what you want to do. If you wasted the money by surfing the net, it's your fault for not being more productive with it. I'm not saying one has to do open source stuff, but I'm sure one can figure out a productive, helpful use of one's time.

Re:Government Services

[Anonymous Coward]

The Government provides a service - in this case, asking/forcing someone else to provide a service - and people are shocked that it will cost money? What kind of Communist paradise do these people live in where Government doesn't cost anything?

Everybody wants services (public schools, Medicare, military, etc), nobody wants to pay taxes.

I find your ideas intriguing and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Government Services

[Mostly Harmless]

Personally, I have no problem paying for the services I use (and a little here and there to help those in need is ok, too). The problem is, I pay income tax. Some of that money is going to the ISPs, etc. Then I pay state/local taxes which also partially fund ISPs. Then I pay additional taxes attached to my broadband/cable/telephone bill. Then there's the broadband bill itself. Oh, and my cable/telephone/wireless bills are increased because carriers can't afford broadband on its own. So fine, I'm willing to pay extra taxes if it's going to significantly improve my broadband experience, but somewhere along the line I know I'm going to be [double | triple | quadruple | etc.] charged, and that's not right.

Re:Government Services

[Anonymous Coward]

If it just saves just one bureaucrat from having to change jobs to go to the private sector where pay and benefits are so much lower than from the government, then it's worth it! (Well to them, anyway.)

Re:Government Services

[Anonymous Coward]

military
that's the only service i want from the Federal Government.

Re:Government Services

[Maxmin]

The government has already cost us $200-$300 billion in "telecommunications fees" for this very service, high-speed broadband, during the 1990s.

That plan cost us dearly, but never materialized. We shouldn't be paying for it again, but it sounds like we are about to, without a choice.

Re:Government Services

[citizenr]

Poland Warsaw
Biggest Cable ISP (Aster) - 120/6 Mbit (I know its stupid) = 50 Euro
(No limits, no P2P throttling, great pings all over the world, can saturate WHOLE connection at all times of the day)
direct competitor (UPC) - 120/10 Mbit = 50 Euro
(No limits, sadly they do throttle P2P)

Personally I use 10/1 for 25 Euro. I seed whenever my computer is on at 1Mbit (about 1 TB a month).

Re:Government Services

[commodore64_love]

>>>Where could I get a job like that? I'd go to work, do the little real work, then work on things in my free time. There are plenty of open source apps I want to fix up.
>>>

Yes Anonymous this would be productive, but the taxpayers should not be forced to pay for it. If you want to develop open source apps, then apply for a job with Mozilla or other open-source company, not a Taypayer-funded organization like the FAA, FCC, et cetera.

Re:Government Services

[daid303]

Switch provider. 20/1 MB is 20 euro: http://www.online.nl/alle-producten/internet/

I was paying 28 euro for 4MB at the same ISP, but they called me that I could switch, get more speed and pay less. Only catch is that you are 'stuck' with it for 12 months. Now that's service I would say.

Re:Government Services

[mpe]

The government has already cost us $200-$300 billion in "telecommunications fees" for this very service, high-speed broadband, during the 1990s.
That plan cost us dearly, but never materialized. We shouldn't be paying for it again

Especially if there's no way to be sure that the same thing won't happen again...
Those who really should be paying are the "people" who took the money and didn't deliver the goods in the first place. Either by providing what was paid for themselves or finding whoever is prepared to do the job with the money (including the interest on it for 10 plus years).
This kind of enforcement being exactly the kind of thing governments get paid to do.

Re:Government Services

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody wants services (public schools, Medicare, military, etc), nobody wants to pay taxes.

Speak for yourself. I don't want any of those things.......

Re:Government Services

[s73v3r]

By "free market efficiency", you mean not doing it at all, because there isn't much profit in it?

Re:Government Services

[icebrain]

I had a little over $1 million to spend and didn't want it to go back to Congress, so instead I spent it.

You realize that this general problem isn't just limited to government, right? I'm not a big-government fan by any means, but poor management and budgetary practice is just as widespread in the private sector. When there's no reward for saving money, and budgets are planned based on "what did you get last year" instead of "what do you need to do your job this year", that's what happens. You need to spend all the money you have this year, even if that means buying everyone catered lunch for a month or going to expensive conferences, so that you'll get that much the next year (when you might actually need it all to do your job). Don't spend it, and your budget gets cut... then when you have a big project and ask for more, management says "you got along fine with less last year, so STFU".

I propose an amendment:
Section I. Except during a state of declared war, Congress may not budget or spend more money than was received in tax revenue the previous year.

Section II. Congress shall start anew when writing the budget, rather than just making modifications to the previous one (aka zero-based budgeting).

Section III. Tax money collected for a specific purpose may not be borrowed or spent on other projects. (no borrowing from social security for other things)

Re:Government Services

[CottonThePirate]

Congratulations! We're now in a state of permanent war. There was some "war on something", I think it was after drugs, and a reporter asked the White House press guy if he was going to ask congress for an actual declaration of war on it. The look back was priceless.

Re:Government Services

[commodore64_love]

>>>poor management and budgetary practice is just as widespread in the private sector.

Yes that's true but poorly-managed companies get driven out of business. Look at Circuit City - customers grew tired of the crap and effectively "voted" with their dollars to put CC out of business. - Or if they don't completely go out of business, they get shaken up, as happened when the poorly-run, almost-dead Sears was bought-out by the more efficient Kmart. Private markets are self-correcting and weed out inefficiency.

In contrast poorly-managed government just continues forward, without end, and wasting taxpayer dollars. Plus because government is a monopoly, you're stuck with it. They just keep sucking the money out of your wallet.

At least with a private company, like Circuit City, I can tell them to go "frak off" and stop supporting them. And then they'll either improve or disappear.

Re:Government Services

[Krneki]

Slovenia

Rural areas

[Anonymous Coward]

Consider that wiring urbanized areas is quite straightforward due to the availability of labour as well as the preexisting infrastructure. Wiring rural areas is a tough task, where often services are provided for an outright financial loss. Even in countries such as New Zealand where the enlongated geography and coastal towns mean that in principle there is only a short distance for cable to run, laying infrequently used cable in remote areas makes it unattractive.

In such cases broadcasters ought to accommodate wireless services, and probably a good argument can be made for compulsory acquisition of airwaves.

Re:Rural areas

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why we should give government handouts to rural areas. And, frankly, shouldn't most rural people object to this as well? I mean statistically they will be conservative and against welfare, right?

Right?

Didn't think so.

Re:Rural areas

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, so are you saying that if Verizon doesn't want a particular portion of the airwaves, we should force them to take it and then run a wireless service at a loss?

That's pretty barbaric. Why don't we just tie a rock to their feet and throw them in a lake.

Re:Rural areas

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, so are you saying that if Verizon doesn't want a particular portion of the airwaves, we should force them to take it and then run a wireless service at a loss?

How about we settle for not permitting Verizon to throw a temper tantrum and sue when the government decides to use the airwaves itself, as it has in a number of places where governments wanted to provide wireless service?

Re:Rural areas

[sonicmerlin]

Too bad what you're saying is a complete lie. Wiring rural areas is not a financial loss, but simply a lower return on Investment. Providing broadband is ultra cheap. The real cost is in the initial buildout of the network. That's the difficulty here.

Re:Socialist internetz

[Anonymous Coward]

So does Communism (not the dictator crap), and it is still better.

Re:Socialist internetz

[Pojut]

Or, looking at it from the optimist point of view, they could discover that the country in fact doesn't revolve around them.

Death of broadcasting?

[MacAndrew]

When they talk about the warring parties, there doesn't seem to be enough discussion of the death of free (ad-driven or public, but no access fee) broadcasting. Much of the focus, with some lip service to expanding access to broadband, seems to be on wringing as much profit out of the limited spectrum as possible rather than the maximum benefit to all of us from what is basically a natural resource. I don't like the idea of private industry snapping up control and then renting it back to us. How long before the old rabbit ear antennas are quaint and $50/month service is required? The Internet is a vital alternative for many things, but it is far from cheap or independent itself. I for one am feeling more and more "owned" by the access providers and would like to hear a lot more about ubiquitous free Wifi -- in the cities and the boondocks -- and such, as common and cheap as electricity.

Re:Death of broadcasting?

[Grygus]

When they talk about the warring parties, there doesn't seem to be enough discussion of the death of free (ad-driven or public, but no access fee) broadcasting. Much of the focus, with some lip service to expanding access to broadband, seems to be on wringing as much profit out of the limited spectrum as possible rather than the maximum benefit to all of us from what is basically a natural resource. I don't like the idea of private industry snapping up control and then renting it back to us. How long before the old rabbit ear antennas are quaint and $50/month service is required? The Internet is a vital alternative for many things, but it is far from cheap or independent itself. I for one am feeling more and more "owned" by the access providers and would like to hear a lot more about ubiquitous free Wifi -- in the cities and the boondocks -- and such, as common and cheap as electricity.

"Free" broadcast is alive and well - online. Rabbit ear antennas were quaint fifteen years ago. Internet access in many areas is already as common and nearly as cheap as electricity. Being owned by service providers has been happening your entire life; if the electric company suddenly tripled their rates, what would you do besides complain and pay it?

Re:Death of broadcasting?

[MacAndrew]

Actually I have a generator. :) And the analogy is limited: Electricity is a commodity that you actually consume. The airwaves are more like free speech. Electricity is about quality of life, communication about quality of mind. As for rabbit ears (and rooftop antennas), currently MILLIONS of homes in the US get their signals that way, including HD. I use it here sometimes with an eyeTV adapter. (And millions still have dial-up. Honest.)

Re:Death of broadcasting?

[jedidiah]

If not for the clueless pretense of suburbanite conspicuous consumers and the
nonsense of their assocated HOAs, I could put up a nice rooftop antenna that
would yield me signal & image quality that blow away any other option.

The penny pinching mentality of corporations typically means that any local
signal carried by a cable provider is degraded considerably. What they try
to call HD is kind of sad when compared to the real thing.

When it comes to TV, an antenna is actually the more sophisticated option.

Re:Death of broadcasting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Check the laws--the HOAs (or local jurisdictions) can't prohibit you from putting up an antenna to pick up TV. They may scream, but they will lose in court.

Re:Death of broadcasting?

[commodore64_love]

>>>"Free" broadcast is alive and well - online.

That's NOT free. You have to pay a monthly bill, and if you go over ~250 gigabytes per month (which would be easy to do if internet == television in your home), then you have to pay even more money.

In contrast my broadcast television has NO monthly free and I get all of these channels:
MAIN channels:
2 (BaltimoreTV)
3 (ion)
6 (news)
8 (NBC)
10 (Xena, Hercules, and other 90s classic)
11 (syndicated/independent shows)
12 (PhillyTV)
13 (baseball)
15 (CW)
17 (MyNetworkTV)
21 (ABC)
27 (CBS)
33 (PBS)
35 (MIND)
43 (fox)
45 (sports)
48 (tbn)
49 (family)
51 (ads)
57 (reruns)
61 (ion)
65 (univision)

SUBchannels (X-2, X-3, X-4, X-5)
Wellness
This movie channel
Weather
NBC Sports
PBSkids
PBSinfo
PBSarts
RetroTV
IndiaTV
WorldTV
Megahertz (world news)
FOX News (local 24 hour news)
Smile of a Child (SOAC)
JCTV (music vids)
TBN Spanish
Telemundo

So that's what? About 40 channels? And they are all free-of-charge and takeup very little space on the spectrum (about 0.4 gigahertz). I don't see any reason to kill off broadcast, free TV as some companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple want to do.

Re:Death of broadcasting?

[MBGMorden]

If not for the clueless pretense of suburbanite conspicuous consumers and the
nonsense of their assocated HOAs, I could put up a nice rooftop antenna that
would yield me signal & image quality that blow away any other option.

FCC regulations prevent a HOA from disallowing an exterior television antenna. They can write it into their contract if they like, but it still doesn't trump federal law.

Re:Death of broadcasting?

[commodore64_love]

BTW here's the antenna I use. Nothing big or bulky. In fact it fits inside my apartment behind my TV and receives stations 60 miles away: http://www.electronichouse.com/images/slideshow/AN4228.jpg

Re:Death of broadcasting?

[commodore64_love]

The 1996 Telecommunications Act nullified all housing contracts that ban antennas or satellite dishs. So you can erect either of those on your roof. More info can be found here: http://www.highdefforum.com/local-hdtv-info-reception/2922-discussion-hdtv-ota-reception.html
.

>>>if the electric company suddenly tripled their rates, what would you do besides complain and pay it?

I'd turn off the heat in every room except my main living room and supplement it with portable heaters in the bath or bedroom that can be turned on/off as needed. - As a customer I have the power to control my spending and reduce costs. As a taxpayer that power is in the hands of the 535 men in D.C., and effectively makes me a serf to their whims.

Re:Death of broadcasting?

[mcgrew]

If people weren't so selfish and would open their wifi networks (throttling when needed, or disconnecting those who abuse it), everyone in every metropolis could have free internet.

Re:Death of broadcasting?

[vlm]

I don't see any reason to kill off broadcast, free TV as some companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple want to do.

Who donates to the re-election campaigns, you or your list of companies?

Hmmm. Commodore64_love is happy, vs cold hard cash. I wonder how this is going to turn out?

Re:Death of broadcasting?

[commodore64_love]

Well right now it's a battle between the folks who wants to use TV/FM spectrum for wireless internet (MS, Google, Apple, etc) and the folks who want to keep the spectrum (National Association of Broadcasters, NBC Universal, etc).

I'm not sure who will win. It may end as a tie, so that ultimately it will be letter-writing campaigns that decide. I know which side I'm choosing (free TV). Without free TV I'd be forced to pay ~$65 a month for Comcast Cable which is an inferior choice IMHO.

Re:Death of broadcasting?

[natehoy]

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html

Re:Death of broadcasting?

[Anonymous Coward]

No you wouldn't be "forced." You might make the choice to do so.

I have never paid for TV -- and that includes converter boxes. TV is simply not important enough to pay for -- for me. When they turned off free broadcast of analog signal, my TVs became Netflix monitors.

Other people might make other choices, but I don't really care enough about anything on television to pay actual money for it.

Trolling? Good lord.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen WAY too many posts lately marked as "Troll" when it is obviously not a Troll comment - it's either a comment that is supposed to be funny (like the above) or a comment that is a discussion continuation with an opposing point. Looking through yesterday's main stories, almost every post I saw marked as troll was wrong. For example, this parent.

Troll means that the person is deliberately trying to be a jerk or derail the conversation, or is posting something off-topic and offensive. Typically before you mark the person as a Troll you want to look at their post history and see if they are a current troll, and if not you may want to consider if that person is really being a Troll or not (especially if their previous post history is quite good). If not, then consider "Flamebait", but only if it is a post that is specifically trying to fan the flames rather than make a point. Posts that are trying to make a point are neither Flamebait or Troll.

For that matter, the "Overrated" moderation is used when a post is moderated way up and the content is obviously not that great or wrong. It is not used to drop a "Score:1" down to 0. When I moderate I try not to drop Score:2's to 1 as well, as most people read so anything 3 and above displays, so they still wouldn't see that post.

I understand most stuff gets caught in M2 (meta-moderation for you new people), but it really screws up the conversation when you mod someone that is contributing in the wrong direction, especially to "Troll". It also makes another mod spend their points to correct you, and many mods either filter out 0's or steer clear of Troll comments and moderate good comments. Like the FAQ says, focus on the good, not the bad.

So let's do our homework and use our brains before we start marking everyone as Trolls, okay?

Re:Trolling? Good lord.

[ekgringo]

One person's "Troll" is another person's "Insightful".

Re:Trolling? Good lord.

[Miseph]

You must be new here. Overrated is for when somebody makes a valid point that you disagree with, and you would rather shove them down and hope that nobody else catches it than actually deal with it. It's the fanboy rage mod.

For the record, I support removing over/under-rated altogether, as I don't think they actually contribute anything positive or useful. Posts with high ratings and poor content are rare, and also not that big a problem. The only use I've even seen for underrated is to achieve lulzy comment scores, like "+5, Off-Topic", but I don't think anybody has a serious use for it.

Re:Trolling? Good lord.

[conureman]

One of the thing I like most about Slashdot is the quality of our trolls. When a troll who belongs at one of the other sites shows up, they tend to get bored and go away in a few weeks. Our worst element seems to be poor moderators, but that's a democratic compromise similar to RL. I use the under/over- mods a fair amount, (unless someone's karma needs a hit, but I might research that first) and was of the impression that it was useful throughout the range, as logged-in users can set their browsing to taste. Some times when I'm posting something trollish, I remember to drop the karma bonus, to conserve someone's points.

Re:Trolling? Good lord.

[Sancho]

For that matter, the "Overrated" moderation is used when a post is moderated way up and the content is obviously not that great or wrong. It is not used to drop a "Score:1" down to 0. When I moderate I try not to drop Score:2's to 1 as well, as most people read so anything 3 and above displays, so they still wouldn't see that post.

You know that the score you see and the score I see can be different, right? You can change the value of a moderation in your preferences. For example, I changed Funny mods to be negative, because I can't stand the "funny" one-liner posts that get so much attention on every story. It made Slashdot way more readable.

So I might give a bonus for insightful, upping the score (from my perspective) of a poorly moderated post. I can slap Overrated on it to drop it back DOWN to a 2. But from your perspective, it drops it from a 2 to a 1.

State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Neuticle]

Having lived in and visited countries with largely state-run telecom industry and then come home to the USA, I think it should be painfully obvious to all that government does not do a good job at running telecommunications. I know this isn't an attempt at running a telecom, but it sounds like they are going to screw the pooch just by trying to influence the market. The power of the FCC to f-things up is just that immense.

And I'm going to punch the next person that tells me "Broadband is a right". The hell it is. It is a good, a service that must be paid for, same as healthcare. You can not have a right to something that is non-free. Now I'm open to discussion on whether the state should pay for people to have a certain good, but see the above on how well states run telecoms.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Anonymous Coward]

Having lived in and visited countries with largely state-run telecom industry and then come home to the USA, I think it should be painfully obvious to all that government does not do a good job at running telecommunications.

Think about what you've just said there. Based on your own personal experiences with something, it should be "painfully obvious" to everyone else (i.e., those who have not had your personal experiences) what some end result is. That's a MAJOR logical disconnect, which as far as I'm concerned, renders anything else you might say entirely moot.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Akido37]

You can not have a right to something that is non-free.

Tell that to the NRA.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[vlm]

And I'm going to punch the next person that tells me "Broadband is a right". The hell it is. It is a good, a service that must be paid for, same as healthcare.

There are some regulatory hassles, but pretty much anyone can buy land and build a dr office on it.

On the other hand, I can't think of any broadband provider who does not have easements to steal the use of property, a government granted monopoly to sell in a market, or use the public's wireless spectrum for private profit, or simply sponge off/resell someone else whom does so.

That's the difference. Broadband is not a free market by any means so its pointless to pretend that it is. Take Take Take from the public, the least the public should ask for is universal service and a nicely regulated price. If the drooling masses want to dramatically simplify that to "broadband is a right" that's more or less close enough.

You can not have a right to something that is non-free.

Like free speech, or equal protection under the law, or not quartering soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent? That's expensive compared the alternatives, but our ancestors decided the costs were worth it. You can always move to Somalia if you think that would be a paradise on earth.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Neuticle]

Posting anon because you're new here? Here's a tip: If you're going to read Slashdot comments like it's a formal debate, you ought to just leave now.

My point still stands. The world is replete with examples of how state-run telecoms stagnate until private competition is allowed. Google is your friend.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[eremos]

Would you say electricity and water are rights? Waste disposal? You pay for those. Anyway, even if you don't consider access to good infrastructure a right, it's definitely still a Good Idea. Not having that access will hold a society back.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Neuticle]

I know this is probably a troll...

The right to bear arms is the right to be able to own a gun, which is a free thing. It is not the right to have a gun provided to you, in the same way the government doesn't owe you a printing press for your right to free speech.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Jawn98685]

Having lived in and visited countries with largely state-run telecom industry and then come home to the USA, I think it should be painfully obvious to all that government does not do a good job at running telecommunications. I know this isn't an attempt at running a telecom, but it sounds like they are going to screw the pooch just by trying to influence the market. The power of the FCC to f-things up is just that immense.

And I'm going to punch the next person that tells me "Broadband is a right". The hell it is. It is a good, a service that must be paid for, same as healthcare. You can not have a right to something that is non-free. Now I'm open to discussion on whether the state should pay for people to have a certain good, but see the above on how well states run telecoms.

Erm..., you've got it wrong. In parts of the U.S. the electrical (and other) utilities are operated by a government entity, a "public utility district" or P.U.D. In other places, the electrical utilities, at least, are run by profiteers. Guess which system works better? And by better, we mean cheaper, more reliable, and of higher quality. That's right, all of the above. The reason for this is simple - accountability. In a marketplace that defines a natural monopoly, the mythical "invisible hand" of market economics is, de facto, not in play. Consumers can't shop for a better deal and, not being share holders, have no other influence on the provider. The P.U.D. customer, on the other hand, has the equivalent of share holder status. He/she has a vote that will elect the officials who will run the "company". The officials' jobs are tied to the customers' satisfaction above all else. And guess what? It works.

So why should telecom be any different? Socialize the ownership and operation of the infrastructure, and let the market, now open to all via that infrastructure, determine what sells and what doesn't.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Neuticle]

I agree that sanctioned monopolies are bad, competition universally brings lower prices and better service. As for right of way access and easements, do you think that if we charged companies for that, they would not just pass the cost on to customers? Also, companies pay the government for spectrum, they don't get it free for commercial use.

Like free speech, or equal protection under the law, or not quartering soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent? That's expensive compared the alternatives, but our ancestors decided the costs were worth it. You can always move to Somalia if you think that would be a paradise on earth.

You do realize all those things you listed are perfectly free? As are the right to not be subject to unreasonable searches and the right not to incriminate yourself.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[vlm]

I've heard a lot of propaganda that private ownership of firearms is a bad idea because healthcare costs are higher, criminal activity involving guns is expensive, sort of an arms race with the local ss/cops. I'm not sure I believe any of it, but supposedly, the right to own guns results in a lot of money "wasted".

Personally I think gun registration and most of the nearly infinite collection of gun laws are unconstitutional, regardless, they exist, and if we banned ownership of guns we wouldn't have to waste money on those systems.

Our ancestors, and most of the current population, are willing to pay the money none the less. So his argument still stands.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[dkleinsc]

You can not have a right to something that is non-free.

Sure you can. Public defense attorneys, jury trials, and other requirements of the Constitution definitely aren't free.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Anonymous Coward]

I do believe access to the internet is a right, same as you have the right move and buy pretty much what you choose. Transportation and goods cost money, however, so I don't know where you got the notion that everyone should get free broadband.

Why is it a right, then? Because nobody should be able to bar you from using the internet for your everyday stuff.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Neuticle]

I wasn't talking about electrical or water utilities. Those do tend to be natural monopolies where competition is not feasible*, but telecommunications is most certainly NOT in that category. Competition is easily possible, and it works. There are towns near me that have multiple cable providers and they get lower prices than I do, because I'm stuck with a city-granted monopoly, or much slower DSL. Why cities keep up these agreements is beyond me.

*Although with electricity being all one grid, at my last place I had the option to buy my electricity from a "renewable energy" company. It cost more, but I'm guessing that had more to do with it's source than with any fee they paid to the owner of the powerlines.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[DarkTempes]

If we charged companies for those things they would not provide services in areas where it was not economical (which is what currently happens anyway). The only reason everyone has access to telephone lines is because the government decided that telephone service was a necessary utility like water or electricity and subsidized it with taxpayer dollars.

The FCC now considers broadband Internet to be a necessary utility. I think 'free' public Internet would probably be a bad idea but I understand where the FCC is coming from in the desire to make telecoms provide better broadband services to more citizens.

In reality we have a bunch of regional broadband monopolies or duopolies. Wishing that we didn't won't change that reality. Why should they want to upgrade infrastructure if it won't earn them more money?

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Eskarel]

I'm not entirely sure I agree with you.

To begin with, having lived in a country with an appalling semi-privatized used to be government run telecom(Australia and Telstra) and having lived in a country with an appalling fully privatized telecom(USA and SBC) I can't say I've noticed a huge amount of difference. Large telecom companies are pretty universally appalling in my experience be they state run, private run, or somewhere in between, apparently in order to run or work for a large telecom you have to sell your soul, at least for the duration of the working day. They're just not pleasant enterprises. I suppose you could argue that there's no such thing as a small government telecom whereas some small private telecoms do exist, but that's sort of thin.

Secondly, while governments do a pretty bloody awful job at running telecoms(like private industry), having anyone but governments pay for building telecom infrastructure ends up being a gigantic disaster with redundant infrastructure, high costs, and poor coverage. Infrastructure is expensive and private companies don't share voluntarily. That means no small telecoms and generally speaking two or three mediocre fibre roll outs instead of one good one.

As for the Broadband is a right thing, I don't think it is, however studies seem to indicate that it provides some rather amazing social and economic benefits and doing expensive things that have huge economic and social benefits over the long term, but which don't turn short term profits are kind of what we have governments for because lord knows no one else will do them.

Health Care on the other hand is a bit different. Without health care, people tend to die or become financially ruined and dependent on the state and/or charity for survival. Those are some pretty damned serious consequences and at least border on being basic rights. The above arguments regarding long term or intangible payoffs and the inability of private enterprise to adequately realize them also comes into play. Health Care would be a lot cheaper if we didn't have to try and turn it into a short term profit generator.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[vlm]

As for right of way access and easements, do you think that if we charged companies for that, they would not just pass the cost on to customers?

There are some fees already. The governments agreed upon dollar value probably has no relationship with my losses. Essentially the govt collects money and keeps it in the name of my hassles. I highly suspect the dollar value is mostly selected by corruption.

Also, companies pay the government for spectrum, they don't get it free for commercial use.

Its my spectrum the company is selling, and they're keeping the money. Slashdot car analogy is, I sell your car, and also keep all the money, and you get ... nothing. Its basically an automotive "chop shop" analogy. We're rapidly nearing the point where most money to run the govt comes from loans as opposed to taxes, so the old argument about saving tax money isn't very valid anymore. Besides, if the only argument you have is "saves tax money" then the govt should get (more) involved in the drug and human trafficking industries, since those seem pretty profitable.

You do realize all those things you listed are perfectly free? As are the right to not be subject to unreasonable searches and the right not to incriminate yourself.

Nope, not perfectly free at all, none of them.

Free speech is expensive because it prevents the govt from doing whatever it wants without at least trying to persuade the population, expensive cloak and dagger stuff, or expensive bread and circuses stuff.

Equal protection under the law results in a terribly expensive legal system complete with public defenders, vs the cheap solution of the king just saying "off with his head", or the cops just executing people on a whim.

If you think military bases are built for free, and/or troops living in your house would be no cost to you, then you're right, the 3rd amendment is zero cost.

Finally, most cop movies seem to make the point that following the rules and respecting criminals rights is slow and ineffective = costs money. Of course they always call it respecting "criminals rights" never "civil rights" because cops never make the mistake of going after a non-criminal civilian, right?

It would be pretty interesting to come up with a dollar cost for each amendment.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[commodore64_love]

Yes let's Prohibit gun ownership.
It ought to work as well as the Prohibition
of marijuana and alcohol worked.

I think you've forgotten the prime reason to own guns is to scare politicians into submission. Imagine how Tiannemen Square might have ended differently if the Chinese citizens were armed and therefore had the power to topple the government. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising - You might say "They weren't successful" but I disagree. They killed a lot of valuable German soldiers.

While the government might have tanks, it cannot stand against millions of armed citizens.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[flitty]

"Broadband as a right" should be as much a right as guns are. If you want to buy a connection to the internet, you should be able to get one. If the government needs a $5 subsidy from all people connected to the internet to pay for such a right, it's about time. The internet is becoming such a backbone to society that we should view it like electricity or water or sewage.

Also, this isn't a "state run" plan. It's paying a tax to subsidize corporations to provide the service, much like landline phone companies are forced to provide cheap phone connections to those who can't pay.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/lllu.html

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[mcgrew]

And I'm going to punch the next person that tells me "Broadband is a right".

I hope you're a kung-fu black belt, because since a recent survey said 80% do consider it a right (even though I don't), you're going to be vastly outnumbered.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[commodore64_love]

>>>Broadband is not a free market by any means so its pointless to pretend that it is.

No it isn't but that could be easily fixed by allowing other companies access to the government-owned metal pipes under the street. Why should Comcast and Verizon be the only ones to run lines??? I say let other companies such as Cox, Cablevision, ATT, AppleTV, and so on run lines also.

Then each customer will have a choice of ~10 companies and there will be true competition instead of duopoly.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[commodore64_love]

>>>So why should telecom be any different?

Where I live electricity is not a monopoly. I have the choice of about 10 different companies, and it works great. We have the cheapest electricity in the U.S. at only 8.9 cents per KWH.

I want the same non-monopoly situation for my internet and cable TV. I want to able to choose from ~10 different providers.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[vlm]

The reason for this is simple - accountability. In a marketplace that defines a natural monopoly, the mythical "invisible hand" of market economics is, de facto, not in play. Consumers can't shop for a better deal and, not being share holders, have no other influence on the provider.

Just like healthcare. Especially emergency rooms and any other critical care.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[amplt1337]

Having lived in and visited countries with largely state-run telecom industry

Which would those be? Because if you're talking Bolivia or something, I would humbly suggest that there might be some confounding variables other than private-vs-public.

You can not have a right to something that is non-free. Now I'm open to discussion on whether the state should pay for people to have a certain good...

Um, what about a right to fire-fighters? What about a right to the equal protection of the country's laws? Law enforcement is very much non-free, but it's assumed necessary in all but the most incoherent anti-government political positions.

There's an additional discussion to be had about the nature of rights, but I don't want to get too sidetracked right now.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[commodore64_love]

"It is only to protect our rights that we resort to government." - Thomas Jefferson. You have the right to not have your property stolen, or your life taken, and that's why the courts exist - to enforce those rights.

You don't have a right to internet, or a car, or a house. Those are *luxuries* not necessities, and therefore I don't want to buy them for you. I might be wiling to loan you money *voluntarily*, but that's it. I don't want to be forced by Congress.

My internet is only $15.
BTW my first car was only $1000.
My housing is an apartment for $300/month.
There are deals to be had if you look for them.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Curunir_wolf]

You can not have a right to something that is non-free.

Sure you can. Public defense attorneys, jury trials, and other requirements of the Constitution definitely aren't free.

Neither is jail. But those are all costs borne by government to TAKE AWAY inherent rights of one of its citizens. The only real justification for doing that is to protect the rights of other citizens. Which is the only reason for the necessary evil of government to exist at all.

So the costs you are attributing to these things are inherent costs of GOVERNMENT, not of individual RIGHTS.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[vlm]

Health Care would be a lot cheaper if we didn't have to try and turn it into a short term profit generator.

Malpractice claims aside, very few people have any problem with health care providers. They are generally nice, super motivated individuals whom want to do as much as they possibly can to help you, which of course is sometimes a bit expensive, but then again, what they do is simply amazing. If reinvested insurance money bought them a cool new lifesaving toy, they're going to use it, regardless of cost, to your benefit.

On the other hand, private health insurance companies, now those guys suck, they're Satan incarnated. The devil himself is embarrassed by their low morals and ethics.

I guarantee in the "health care debate" you'll never hear it referred to as "health insurance reform", solely as "healthcare reform". This is known as the propaganda technique of transfer...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Transfer

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Neuticle]

I think we are differing in our meaning of "Free". I say these rights are free because it costs nothing to exercise them. You are basically arguing that those rights aren't free because they force the government to spend money on actions that they could do cheaper by enslaving the population.

I must say I find this to be an odd argument, but I'll agree that a democratic republic is a more expensive system of government to maintain than a ruthless despotism. Heck, I learned that from Civ 3.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[blueg3]

*Although with electricity being all one grid, at my last place I had the option to buy my electricity from a "renewable energy" company. It cost more, but I'm guessing that had more to do with it's source than with any fee they paid to the owner of the powerlines.

This is more obvious in our part of the country, where supply and transit for electricity and gas are charged for separately. The one power company that owns the lines always bills you for transit, but you can get the electric/gas supply from third-party companies instead of them.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[trurl7]

"Rights" as well as "fees" are both fiction - they are artificial human constructs. The issue of the impossibility of having "rights" for something you consider a service is very much open to debate. You have the "right" to travel on highways - which are arguably a service. In some instances there is a fee, e.g. toll roads, and for all of them there was an initial construction cost that society bore. So there you go - a right that is not free.

Are you also going to punch the next person that says that healthcare is a right?

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Neuticle]

Ok, the right to a trial by jury isn't free, and neither is a defense attorney. This is an odd case, but I still say this is free, in that it is free to the individual, and only not-free in that it places limitations on the government which might incur a cost. Many of the other rights work the same way, such as no-quartering-troops meaning the Army has to pay for barracks.

The state is not forced to provide you an attorney, because it is not forced to prosecute you. However, bringing you to trial is an action forced on you by the state. Since the state pays for the whole court system, judge, lawyers, buildings etc. out of taxes, if the State chooses to prosecute you, this guarantees that it can not make you pay again for something you (ostensibly a tax payer) have already paid for. Since defendants can't appoint their own judge and prosecutor, if the state uses public funds to prosecute, it must use public funds to defend.

Now if the state doesn't want to prosecute you, or if you voluntarily bring suit as a plaintiff, then you don't have any "right" to a lawyer.

I know it might seem like splitting hairs, but this is an important distinction.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[TubeSteak]

There are towns near me that have multiple cable providers and they get lower prices than I do,

You might want to look a bit deeper into the setup of the "multiple cable providers".
Odds are that one company owns the cable and everyone else is leasing from them.

Why cities keep up these agreements is beyond me.

It usually has to do with taxes (from the telecom) and (telecom) lobbying interests.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as federal gun registration in the US.

Banning gun ownership would cost more than just money.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[commodore64_love]

>>>Odds are that one company owns the cable and everyone else is leasing from them.

That's not possible with TV cable, because a single provider already fills-up the entire spectrum from 50 to 1500 megahertz (or higher). There's no room to carry both Comcast and Cox television service, which means Cox would have have to run a separate dedicated line.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Neuticle]

The internet is becoming such a backbone to society that we should view it like electricity or water or sewage.

Sure, I'm for treating it like electricity, water or sewage. None of those are rights. You don't have a right to have the state build out power lines or water/sewage pipes to wherever you live. In more densely populated areas developers and property taxes pay for those things, but if you're in East Bumblefark, you might just have to deal with a generator, bore-hole well and septic tank.

Now "universal access" taxes have subsidized the building of power and phone infrastructure out to many places in Bumblefark, and I don't have a problem with doing the same for high speed net - I think it's a good idea, so I do agree with you on that level. It just sounds like the guy who reviewed this proposal thinks the FCC will F it up.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Anonymous Coward]

My local electrical co-op is providing fiber to the home here. It is the best value and the best service available in the area.

That's right, I get electricity, phone, cable and internet all from the same source, and I have no complaints. OTOH, Comcast and AT&T sucked. They wouldn't fix problems, they wouldn't upgrade their infrastructure.

And I couldn't make them, because...at the most, they'd just write off another customer and milk the rest.

Now they'd have to work for the people's dollars, because they have competition that isn't going to be bought out or slack off like they would.

State-run, as in the whole state at once...may not work. But Public-operated in a local area? That's another story.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Anonymous Coward]

if we banned ownership of guns we wouldn't have to waste money on those systems.

A man with a zip-gun is king in the land of the unarmed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Cytotoxic]

80% of respondents: "Broadband is a right"

Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[mpe]

On the other hand, I can't think of any broadband provider who does not have easements to steal the use of property, a government granted monopoly to sell in a market, or use the public's wireless spectrum for private profit, or simply sponge off/resell someone else whom does so.

Then you even get to the daft situation of telecomms companies taking legal action to prevent city governments providing data networks which the telecomms companies don't want to provide.

Broadband is not a free market by any means so its pointless to pretend that it is. Take Take Take from the public, the least the public should ask for is universal service

Indeed having the right to run cables over/under just about anyone's land only really makes sense together with an obligation to provide service to anyone who wants it.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[mpe]

I agree that sanctioned monopolies are bad, competition universally brings lower prices and better service.

Public utilities generally fall into the catagory of "natural monopolies". There's only so much physical space to run cables and pipes to wherever they are needed. You also probably don't want a flood whilst a dozen different water companies argue over who's pipes are leaking or a gas explosion because nobody knows which one out of 10 supplies needs to be isolated.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Nethemas the Great]

The intentions of this really aren't any different than the 1936 Rural Electrification Act. Broadband is a necessary utility for enabling participation in a world going on around these people. Obviously no one likes to spend money unnecessarily.

Unfortunately not everyone believes that neighbor should look out for neighbor. That's sad. It's also typically short-sighted. The disenfranchisement of people almost always inevitably negatively impacts those that are not. A lack of education increases the incident of crime. A lack of preventative health care increases the need for emergency services, the cost of which is passed on to everyone else. A lack of food aid (food stamps, etc.) decreases nutrition and increases incident of health problems. A lack of funding to urban beautification, public cultural and recreational installations, etc. results in filthy, ugly, depressing wastelands reminiscent of dystopian sci-fi flicks and/or Detroit increasing incident of mental health issues and vandalism.

While it is true that government is not the most resource efficient, it is also true that individuals on their own are incapable of providing for themselves all of the vital resources of a civilization. Before people chime in with "businesses can this, and businesses can that" consider for a moment what the sole purpose of a business is. Make money. What tools are employed? Charge as much money as the market can bear; marginalize if not eliminate competition by whatever means possible; create/maintain scarcity to increase value of product; minimize expenditure. Left unto itself, business has a moral vacuum or will be consumed by those that do. Morality must be forced onto business. Consumers on their own are powerless to effect this and must be united under a common entity able to speak with one clear voice. Traditionally this has been government.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[mpe]

In parts of the U.S. the electrical (and other) utilities are operated by a government entity, a "public utility district" or P.U.D. In other places, the electrical utilities, at least, are run by profiteers. Guess which system works better? And by better, we mean cheaper, more reliable, and of higher quality. That's right, all of the above. The reason for this is simple - accountability. In a marketplace that defines a natural monopoly, the mythical "invisible hand" of market economics is, de facto, not in play. Consumers can't shop for a better deal and, not being share holders, have no other influence on the provider. The P.U.D. customer, on the other hand, has the equivalent of share holder status. He/she has a vote that will elect the officials who will run the "company". The officials' jobs are tied to the customers' satisfaction above all else. And guess what? It works.

However there appears to be a maximum size for a public company to work effectivly. Try to make such a company "too big" and you end up with something accountable to nobody. Whilst a national public company might work for Iceland or The Netherlands it is unlikely to work in The UK, France, Germany, etc. In the US even some of the States might well be too large in area/population.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[mpe]

Where I live electricity is not a monopoly. I have the choice of about 10 different companies, and it works great. We have the cheapest electricity in the U.S. at only 8.9 cents per KWH.

I suspect you mean you have 10 different resellers not that you have 10 different supply cables you can connect to...

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[commodore64_love]

>>>Health Care on the other hand is a bit different. Without health care, people tend to die or become financially ruined and dependent on the state and/or charity for survival.
>>>

Without healthcare people die.
With healthcare people die.

Either way it's the same result, so what's the point? IMHO better to accept fate, and maybe have some catastrophic insurance that covers major bills (over $10,000), but that's it. There's no need health insurance/government insurance rammed down my throat. I don't want it.

And that's my choice as a free person.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[david_thornley]

You can not have a right to something that is non-free.

Here in the US, I have a constitutionally protected "right to bear arms". This doesn't mean that the government has to give me a rifle, it means I can go out and buy one myself, and there can be no insuperable legal obstacles to my doing so. Similarly, although I have a constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press, if I want to publish on paper I need to buy one or rent one or contract with somebody who owns a printing press or equivalent. I have the right of free speech, but I need to bring my own soapbox.

It might be more technically accurate to describe this as "the right to buy broadband on certain terms", but that's not as catchy.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[mpe]

Yes let's Prohibit gun ownership.
It ought to work as well as the Prohibition of marijuana and alcohol worked.

The obvious difference is that the "war on drugs" dosn't involve administering the drugs in question to police officers. Whereas it's hard to see how a "ban on guns" would also result in disarming "cops".

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Jawn98685]

Telecom is indeed a natural monopoly. It makes no more sense to allow 1+n companies to string telecom cabling as it does to allow 1+n companies to string electrical distribution lines. Same goes for wireless, because the available spectrum is finite, just like the right-of-way for poles and underground cabling is finite. As for your assertion that towns near you have multiple cable providers, it has already been observed that such is an example of exactly why it makes more sense to adopt the public utility model. It may be that one provider owns the cable, but multiple providers are able to lease spectrum and/or bandwidth thereon. The happy result is, as you state, lower prices, because the model enables competition where it is practical to do so - on a level playing field where all comers have access to the same infrastructure at competitive rates.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Qzukk]

and maybe have some catastrophic insurance that covers major bills (over $10,000)

A "catastrophe" isn't the worst thing that can happen to you. Incurable chronic disease is. ALS, Alzheimers, MS, Cancer... if you didn't have insurance before the diagnosis you're just fucked. If you did, most will try their hardest to get out of it (or just wait until the disease renders you unemployed and therefore off their plan), and then you're just fucked.

Modern health insurance is an incurable clusterfuck. The government's plan to fix it just adds more dicks.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[NeutronCowboy]

I'm curious - why do you think that telecoms differ from electrical utilities in terms of f? For one, you can run the former over the infrastructure of the latter. For two, the infrastructure necessary is very similar. Lotsa cable strung or buried everywhere? Check. Big centers hosting big machines requiring lots of maintenance? Check. Start-up cost in the billions if building everything from scratch? Check.

As far as I can tell, they're identical in their propensity to form natural monopolies.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[dkleinsc]

Alright, so we'll start with your premises:
A. Inherent rights are things like being able to walk down a public street without getting punched in the face.
B. Government exists solely to enforce these rights.

So let's say Alice (a citizen of this country) accuses Bob (another citizen) of punching her in the face on the street. Now, perfectly reasonably, we want our government to enforce Alice's right by restricting Bob's rights (say, fining him - reducing his right to property, or confining him - restricting his right to travel freely). However, we can't just do what we want to do Bob - Alice's accusation might be completely false. So we therefor need some kind of court system to determine whether Bob did punch Alice, and if so what the government can do about it. We also need some system to ensure that Bob shows up in court even if he doesn't want to, and some other system to ensure his punishment is carried out.

Now, from that, it's easy to deduce that ensuring this judicial system, which is needed to protect Alice's rights, needs to also protect Bob's inherent rights (via the mechanisms I described earlier). And since this judicial system isn't free of cost, somebody needs to pay for it.

So rights which are inherent necessitate rights which are not free, ergo I stand by my assertion that you have a right to things that aren't free.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm going to punch the next person that tells me "Broadband is a right".

Actually, rights are whatever we determine them to be. If society decides that broadband is a right, then broadband is a right. You, of course, are more than welcome to disagree with the decision of society, that is a right granted to you by said society. You however do not have the right to punch people in the face (even though those punches are free).

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Curunir_wolf]

Alright, so we'll start with your premises: A. Inherent rights are things like being able to walk down a public street without getting punched in the face. B. Government exists solely to enforce these rights.

So let's say Alice (a citizen of this country) accuses Bob (another citizen) of punching her in the face on the street. Now, perfectly reasonably, we want our government to enforce Alice's right by restricting Bob's rights (say, fining him - reducing his right to property, or confining him - restricting his right to travel freely). However, we can't just do what we want to do Bob - Alice's accusation might be completely false. So we therefor need some kind of court system to determine whether Bob did punch Alice, and if so what the government can do about it.

No, all we need is a jury.

Alice: "Did you see that?"

Joe: "I did."

Fred: "Me too."

Sam: "Okay, we need 9 volunteers ..."

Sam puts grabs 9 people off the street, jury is duly sworn, witnesses confirm events.

10 minutes later, Bob is summarily executed for punching Alice and disturbing the peace.

Cost to save Alice and countless others from Bob's unreasonable imposition on others' rights: the cost of 1 bullet (happily donated by active citizen), and 10 minutes time of responsible members of a well-functioning society.

Your way just produces a bunch of bureaucratic bullshit with the only end being tyranny and despotism and people hiring other people to pick the pockets of unsuspecting citizenry, justified by some perceived lack of funding for "reasonable cost of government" that nobody needed in the first place, just because nobody had the guts to take care of the real problem. To wit: Bob.

Nice try, though. Next time, try considering other people, instead of just making up excuses to justify thievery.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[rsborg]

You do realize all those things you listed are perfectly free? As are the right to not be subject to unreasonable searches and the right not to incriminate yourself.

Huh? Freedom is NOT FREE. We must pay for it, initially in blood, and subsequently with vigilance and the rule of law. These are costs, just because you didn't or don't currently realize you're paying for them, doesn't mean they're not being paid.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[dkleinsc]

What if nobody saw else it?

What if one of the 9 volunteers off the street is Bob's best buddy and won't vote to convict him no matter what?

What if what Alice doesn't tell Joe, Fred, and Sam is that Alice had just swiped Bob's wallet and Bob punched her to get it back?

What if Bob pays each of the jurors $10 to not convict him?

I can keep going if you like.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[sonicmerlin]

Who builds the courtrooms you idiot? Who pays the salaries of the judges? Are you really that retarded? "Thievery"? Get off your high horse and look at the world around you, my god.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Curunir_wolf]

Who builds the courtrooms you idiot? Who pays the salaries of the judges? Are you really that retarded? "Thievery"? Get off your high horse and look at the world around you, my god.

Apparently, you're convinced that it should be "somebody else".

There is an intrinsic difference between inherent rights that may have costs associated with defending them, and manufactured "rights" that have costs associated with providing them.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[DragonWriter]

Having lived in and visited countries with largely state-run telecom industry and then come home to the USA, I think it should be painfully obvious to all that government does not do a good job at running telecommunications.

There is more to an argument than stating a conclusion after claiming a rather dubious grounds for authority.

And I'm going to punch the next person that tells me "Broadband is a right". The hell it is. It is a good, a service that must be paid for, same as healthcare.

Elections are a service that must be paid for, as well, that doesn't mean that voting isn't a right. But nice false dichotomy, there.

A "right" is something that society decides all people are entitled to. Often, there are costs associated with providing it.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[DragonWriter]

My point still stands. The world is replete with examples of how state-run telecoms stagnate until private competition is allowed.

If the world is replete with such examples and they are really relevant to the immediate issue (which, btw, has nothing to do with "state run telecoms" directly, since none of the plan involves creating a national telecommunications provider), it should be trivial to make your case with one relevant to the specific kind of state intervention being discussed here. (Not that an example of how something similar can be done wrong is a particularly strong argument that a proposal is wrong in the first place, but its better than just waving a hand and saying that there are examples out there.)

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Neuticle]

I make my assertion that telecoms are not necessarily natural monopolies like power or water utilities based on the fact that multiple companies have run telecom lines*. That a company was willing to invest in their own lines when the competition is already entrenched means there is not an unnatural barrier to competition.

If you say having two sets of cable is a doubling of effort, I'll respond by saying it's a doubling of bandwidth. A home user cannot feasibly use more power or water than one company can provide, so having two water mains or electrical mains offers little benefit even if companies were willing to build, but it's pathetically easy to use all the bandwidth an ISP offers. ISPs are constantly bemoaning how congested they are, and more data lines = less congestion. Cable lines are also far, far less disruptive to run than power or water when you can just hop on existing poles.

*I'm fairly sure that when you have 2 separate cable boxes that means two sets of lines, but as I said, I don't live there and I'm not sure this is the case everywhere. Another poster commented about how cable doesn't have the bandwidth to carry both companies signals separately because they each utilize almost all of it, so there's that to consider.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Neuticle]

I am making a distinction between a "natural monopoly", and a "sanctioned monopoly". I agree that public utilities make sense with a natural monopoly like power or water where it makes sense to only run one set of pipes or wires.

Where I disagree is that I do not think communications is a natural monopoly, but a government sanctioned monopoly. I do not think it is unfeasible to have multiple sets of data lines. One: because we saturate the data system in ways we do not saturate the water or power systems, and two: because companies are willing to compete, and data lines are not so huge that we cannot find space for those that wish to compete. Running multiple data lines is far, far less burdensome than running multiple water lines or power grids, and the cost of entry would pretty much limit the max number of competitors to the current major players. It's highly unlikely we'd end up with 20 different sets of lines anywhere.

Re:State run telecoms are AWESOME

[Jawn98685]

While there may be copper/fiber that is owned by multiple companies in a given patch of ground, this is, almost always, not true in the residential last mile. Where it's profitable, telco's will be happy to dig a trench and pull fiber to your door. That means business locations and typically, only those with enough density to make that profit likely. Back on the block, that ain't happening. Or hadn't you noticed?

Re:Socialist internetz

[WrongSizeGlass]

Why spend so much money hooking up rednecks and bible thumpers?

It won't improve their lives one bit, and will just add more retards to the internuts causing retardedness to overflow, which will destroy the world, and probably the solar system.

Blast the outlying areas with our strongest wireless signals (WiFi, WiMax, cellular, etc, etc) and let them each buy the wireless receiver of their choice. It's cheaper to send a wireless signal farther out into these more remote areas than it is a land line.

Let technology and information rain down upon them from the skies.

Soshalism!!!!

[xigxag]

I'm sorry, but do you mean to say that I may have to pay as much as $5-$10/month more in hard left socialist taxes for my broadband speed to increase by 1500%? Not gonna happen, America.

Re:Soshalism!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you compare the cost and performance of broadband today to what it was 10 years ago, the $5 increase in price for a 1500% increase in speed is absurd. Let private industry compete, you'll get far more than a 1500% increase for a fraction of the price.

Re:Soshalism!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to the corporate tax that you currently pay that goes into the corporate coffers...

Re:Soshalism!!!!

[jedidiah]

It's more like FORCE private industry to compete.

If you leave private industry alone they will just stay with the monopoly driven status quo.

Re:Soshalism!!!!

[Attila Dimedici]

I believe there are currently laws and/or regulations that limit the percentage of the country that a particular cable provider is allowed to service. I would propose opening that up on the condition that everything above that percentage be in markets that have at least one competitor up to about a third higher than the current limit and once it exceeds that the percentage of a cable providers market that must be in regions with competitors must be double the amount it exceeds the current limit.
We are in our current state of affairs because of government imposed local monopolies, fixing the problem the government created is not going to be easy.

Re:Soshalism!!!!

[sonicmerlin]

Government imposed local monopolies were abolished years ago. The % limit you cite for cable companies was abolished last year due to litigation against the FCC run by... Comcast... maybe? I can't remember off the top of my head. Anyways no cable company overbuilds into a competitor's territory. That would be financially stupid for them. Instead they just buy competitors.

What about the backbones and the servers?

[JSBiff]

"The FCC set a long-term goal of 100 million households with connections of 100 megabits per second"

I remember seeing that statement somewhere else (I think it was ArsTechnica.com), and I can't help but wonder how the FCC thinks that will help consumers if the Internet backbones and servers don't also get improved? Here's what I mean - my local Telco recently rolled out fiber to my apartment building, so I now have a 10Mbs/2Mbs Internet connection - not blazingly fast by any means, but a nice bump up from the 5M/768k connection I previously had with DSL. Anyhow, what I've noticed is that, sometimes I get faster download/upload speeds, but with a lot of servers, I'm not coming anywhere close to fully utilizing the available bandwidth on my connection, because somewhere in the connection (whether it's the server, or some link in-between, I really don't know for sure), something is bandwidth-limited.

It seems to me that any governmental push to increase the speed of service for 100 Million households requires that not only do you upgrade the 'last mile' connection, but there needs to be a focus on getting the backbones and servers on faster connections too. Without that, it's kind of pointless, isn't it? I don't think I'd have any *use* for a 100Mbps Internet connection since almost no servers anywhere are going to be able to consistently feed me data at even a significant fraction of that speed.

Also, since ISPs typically give you a very small fraction of the upload speed compared to your download speed (Coming Soon! 100Mbps Ultra-Broadband Internet!* [fine print: upload speeds of 6Mbps]), users can't really even provide content to *each other* at anywhere close to that rate. So, what am I supposed to do with 100Mbps? I suppose if you have 5 people using computers all at once in your home/apartment/small office, it might be nice that they each 'get their own' 20Mbps, but what is the drive for this particular number? What's so special about 100Mbps?

Re:What about the backbones and the servers?

[T-Bone-T]

A couple years ago I had 6Mbs cable and I only ever reached top speed when I hit a local server. With no one else using the connection I could usually only hit around 4Mbs. I know what I could use 100Mbs for but that wouldn't last very long because my hard drive would fill up pretty quickly.

Re:What about the backbones and the servers?

[magamiako1]

Keep in mind that this type of connection isn't necessarily for the current "client-server" model that we're used to today. Not to mention that not all data "requires" a 100Mbit connection.

Imagine having HD surveillance of your house at all times? Imagine being able to stream HD x264 encoded content across multiple TVs and devices in your house? Or being able to access your movie library while over a friend's house?

Instead of the hosted servers, you can run your own services and devices from your own home internet connection.

And there are a whole lot more things that we haven't even thought of yet that this could allow.

Re:What about the backbones and the servers?

[vlm]

What's so special about 100Mbps?

Its "a couple TVs worth of Hi Def video" aka competition for the cable providers.

Its a nice simple power of ten of a number. You can get into long tedious arguments about specially recoding feeds into H.264 at this parameter and that parameter blah blah. However, 10 Mbps is pretty borderline, and 1G is way the heck more than necessary, the convenient power of 10 in the middle happens to be 100 Mbps.

Also the folks involved are all slow moving dinosaurs. You know that bit about hit the brontosaurus tail and it takes 5 seconds for the slow nerve response to go to the brain, or whatever it was we were taught as kids? Well, when these clowns got started fast ethernet was widespread and gig-E was too new to bother considering. So with the home computing infrastructure we had, it seemed pointless to request anything above 100M. Much like it would be silly to daydream of requesting 100-Gig for home use at this instant, since there is no 100-Gig gear marketed for home use (made in china for $5, sold at best buy and walmart for $50, drool proof configuration, zero maintenance, etc)

Re:What about the backbones and the servers?

[GaryOlson]

The same argument was used when the US Interstate highway system was built decades ago. We already had highways linking the various major cities; why do we need these big limited access highways? Decades ago when the first bypass Interstate highways were built in the middle of open county around metro areas the discussions were equally argumentative -- who would ever need such a highway? Who would provide services for travelers on these roads?

Decades may be required before the average person needs 100Mbps. And some of the original architecture and 100Mbps equipment will fail to meet future needs [ analogy attempt: compare a cloverleaf intersection in Ohio with the newly built High Five intersection in Dallas]

One of the functions of government is to provide very long term goals and infrastructure measured in decades which private industry cannot meet -- and which most people cannot comprehend.

Re:What about the backbones and the servers?

[commodore64_love]

>>>I now have a 10000kbs/2000kbs Internet connection - not blazingly fast by any means

Not fast? Not fast??? I only have 750/128 you insensitive clod!
 
;-)

But seriously I wouldn't know what to do with myself with that kind of speed. I already watch free TV shows and download movies (shhh) off the net with my "slow" 750k connection. What on earth would I do with a 10,000 line? Feels like overkill, and while you say "not that fast" it feels VERY fast to my mind.

Re:What about the backbones and the servers?

[JSBiff]

Excellent point. But, I would like to point out that the intention of my post wasn't that there weren't use-cases which could be of interest to most users which could use that bandwidth. . .

My point is that, because A) 100Mbps service will most likely NOT include 100Mbps upload speed (or even 50Mbps upload speed, most likely), and B) I don't *think* the backbones can actually handle millions of users all transferring 100Mbps data at the same time, that I *still think* the usage cases you bring are still not going to happen?

Take, for example, the HD surveillance of your house at all times - if 10 Million households across the country were trying to do that, would there really be enough bandwidth? I mean, maybe. If we assume that, for example, the HD feeds for properties in, say, Atlanta, GA go to a monitoring center *in* Atlanta (and aren't being punted across the country to a single 'national' monitoring center), and other similar 'local-endpoints' for every service area, then perhaps that could work - but, I think for that to work, people's homes would need not just 100Mbps *download*, but something like 20-50Mbit upload. Does this FCC proposal even *address* upload speeds? Historically, the FCC has been silent about upload speed, only concentrating on download speeds, and I think this has really hurt the potential for what broadband could be used for.

Again, I'm not *against* 100Mbps broadband to the premises. It's not that I can't imagine a use for it. It's that I can't imagine that it would be useful if the necessary focus isn't made on the other parts of the infrastructure as well. Does this FCC proposal deal with the other parts?

Re:What about the backbones and the servers?

[commodore64_love]

>>>The same argument was used when the US Interstate highway system was built decades ago.

False.

Virtually all 1950s-era Americans agreed that we needed better paths for our automobiles, because they could see what limited-access highways such as the State Turnpikes did for long distance travel (fast, safe, smooth). It is only in recent times that some have said the interstate system should be dismantled because it encouraged sprawl (bad for the earth, don't ya know) but that certainly wasn't the case during Eisenhower's term as president.

Re:What about the backbones and the servers?

[JSBiff]

I just meant in comparison to some of the other Internet connections out there - I actually have the 'slowest' tier my telco is offering over the fiber. I also believe that recent Cable-Modem Tech has bumped speeds up to over 100Mbps?

My point was, that I already have a hard time actually using the bandwidth available to me - not for lack of imagination on how I could use up some bandwidth, but simply because it seems like it's almost impossible to actually get connections to any other host on the Internet that gives me a sustained throughput that even comes close to the limit advertised, because the backbones and other servers have connections which are too slow.

*If* at 10Mbps, I can't saturate the connection, how would upgrading to 100Mbps give me any real benefit? See, that's the heart of the question.

Re:What about the backbones and the servers?

[cdrguru]

Another huge motivation for building the Interstate highway system was military. If you needed to get troops from an Army base to a major city to fight off insurrection or the Russkies it was virtually impossible to do this in any reasonable period of time prior to the Interstate highway system.

The Army learned this in Europe during WWII. They had miles long traffic jams of trucks and tanks trying to move supplies around and to get tanks where they were needed. It couldn't be done in anything like an efficient manner because the roads weren't up to the job. So they came back to the US in '45 and looked around and saw exactly the same problems in the US. And the fact the continental US is around, oh 40 times as big as any country they were in over in Europe made somewhat of an impression as well.

I'd say the idea of having to fight a land war in the US scared the crap out of people at the time, given the infrastructure at the time.

Re:What about the backbones and the servers?

[cdrguru]

100Mbps to the home is one thing and a lot of cable systems with DOCSIS 3.0 are providing it or nearly so.

The problem is that this is "burst" only, not dedicated bandwidth. And I am sure we're not going to be seeing anything like 100Mbps dedicated bandwidth to homes in the near future. Why? Well, it has to do with the network topology, for one thing. The other is just the raw capacity of major backbones. But let's look at network topology for a moment...

My house in a relatively new development is connected via coax to a local drop of hardline which is then connected to a neighborhood node. From the node to the head end is fiber. This fiber might be 256Mbps, but let's say it is 10Gbps just for laughs. How does that work out? Well, that means for the 1000 homes in my neighborhood that there is a maximum of .01Gbps or 10Mbps per home dedicated bandwidth. Subtracting some for the TV channels, you are probably left with more like 1Mbps per home - dedicated bandwidth.

Nobody gets dedicated bandwidth in today's system. You get "burst" and you are sharing capacity with everyone else in the neighborhood. This isn't likely to improve anytime soon because to change it would require increasing the neighborhood node bandwidth by as much as 100 times. I don't know of any 1000Gbps fiber connections, and even if you had one, what would you connect it to?

Re:What about the backbones and the servers?

[sonicmerlin]

Aside from the fact that the FCC's goal is idiotically unambitious and for show because cable companies' upgrade to DOCSIS 3 would bring 100mbit to 100+ million even without any government interference by 2020, you *will* be provided with an option for higher upload speeds from your cable provider. Currently upstream bonding is still being tested, but the cable co's are just about finished testing it out and will be ready to roll it out soon (as in near the end of this year or start of next year).

Re:What about the backbones and the servers?

[DragonWriter]

I remember seeing that statement somewhere else (I think it was ArsTechnica.com [arstechnica.com]), and I can't help but wonder how the FCC thinks that will help consumers if the Internet backbones and servers don't also get improved?

There's plenty of private business case to upgrade individual firms servers as need increases; the part where there is limited incentive is "second-mile" and "last-mile" connections to rural areas, which is why those are the target of the plan.

Anyhow, what I've noticed is that, sometimes I get faster download/upload speeds, but with a lot of servers, I'm not coming anywhere close to fully utilizing the available bandwidth on my connection, because somewhere in the connection (whether it's the server, or some link in-between, I really don't know for sure), something is bandwidth-limited.

Yes, and even when everyone has 100Mbps connections, you won't always have the full bandwidth of the machine at the other end dedicated to your connection alone.

OTOH, you will be able to interact with more servers for more complex tasks over the same home connection.

It seems to me that any governmental push to increase the speed of service for 100 Million households requires that not only do you upgrade the 'last mile' connection, but there needs to be a focus on getting the backbones and servers on faster connections too.

If more users are hitting a for-profit businesses servers, the business case for shelling out the money to upgrade the servers and their internet connection is easy.

Also, since ISPs typically give you a very small fraction of the upload speed compared to your download speed (Coming Soon! 100Mbps Ultra-Broadband Internet!* [fine print: upload speeds of 6Mbps]), users can't really even provide content to *each other* at anywhere close to that rate.

RTF Plan: The target is 100 million homes with "affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second." So the plan targets having end users with an upload speed that is not a small fraction of the 100 Mbps target actual download speed. So users would be able to use much (though not all) of their capacity in even in single connection, home user to home user scenarios.

What's so special about 100Mbps?

The same thing that's special about 100 million households. That is: nothing inherent; it just provides a specific, concrete goal.

Re:What about the backbones and the servers?

[DragonWriter]

My point is that, because A) 100Mbps service will most likely NOT include 100Mbps upload speed (or even 50Mbps upload speed, most likely), and B) I don't *think* the backbones can actually handle millions of users all transferring 100Mbps data at the same time, that I *still think* the usage cases you bring are still not going to happen?

Why would you criticize the plan based on the assumption that it will reach part of its target (100 million homes with 100 Mbps real download speed) but not assume part of the same target (that those same homes would also have 50 Mbps real upload speed.)

Does this FCC proposal even *address* upload speeds?

Yes, in the very same sentence that it addresses download speeds.

Goal No. 1: At least 100 million U.S. homes should have affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second.

Suggestion, at least skim the plan for the specific things you want to criticize it based on before criticizing it.

Sigh

[sonicmerlin]

I've been following news and speculation surrounding the plan for the better part of a year now. There were numerous tell-tale signs that this was going to be a flop, like Blair Levin, the head of the NBP team, discounting the importance of line-sharing, despite it being touted as the single-most effective means of promoting competition in the ISP industry by a Harvard-Berkman study commissioned by the FCC.

Also, Dave Burstein is amazing. The guy knows more about telecom than anyone else in Washington. I highly recommend you read his website at DSLPrime.com

Re:Sigh

[Attila Dimedici]

I haven't been following this closely, but I could tell it was going to be a major loss for the American people. There are a couple of reasons. One, many of the people who do not have broadband connections to the Internet do not have them because they do not see them as being valuable enough to be worth the price. Two, this Administration has so far demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of how business works and therefore was likely to conclude that this could be implemented by government fiat without any consideration of what it would really cost. There are several other reasons, but after the way that last one came out I realized that they couldn't be posted in a short comment without sounding like a troll.

Re:Sigh

[commodore64_love]

>>>One, many of the people who do not have broadband connections to the Internet do not have them because they do not see them as being valuable enough to be worth the price.
>>>

There are a lot of people like that.

Such as my friend's dad who could get highspeed internet through his cable provider, but he says he doesn't need to pay $60/month just to "read email and livejournal". He's happy with his $10/month dialup plan.

And there's nothing wrong with that. It's HIS money and HIS choice. No point trying to ram highspeed down his throat (either directly or via higher taxes).

Re:Sigh

[sonicmerlin]

Except that it costs $8/month for an ISP to actually provide broadband, and that $8 covers all their costs, not their costs of bandwidth, which is more like $1/month/customer. The issue is one of competition, which is impossible in an infrastructure heavy industry where duopolies rule the land. That's why regulation implementing a mechanism for competition, like line-sharing, is necessary, and anti-trust along with strong government action would do wonders for the industry.

Re:Sigh

[sonicmerlin]

The real issue is that Genachowski took strong government action off the table very early in the adoption of the plan. In some ways it's understandable, as the FCC has no real power to enforce anything (as Comcast's ongoing litigation of the FCC's penalty on them for throttling customer P2P traffic demonstrates), and must even have this plan approved by Congress. Yet this pale, pathetic imitation of "change" is already being denounced by Republicans. The political atmosphere in Washington simply isn't in the FCC's favor right now.

Re:Sigh

[TheSync]

Except that it costs $8/month for an ISP to actually provide broadband

Do you have data to back up your statement?

Cablevision's net profit margin is only 3.67%. Where is all the "free money" from the monopoly going?

Think about it: A 30 Mbps up/down DOCSIS 2.0 CMTS is $15,000. Optic nodes are $1000. A mile of fiber trenching is $250,000. Not counting install trucks, cherry pickers, coaxial cable (RG58 is $0.20/foot even in bulk), fiber (>$0.30/foot in bulk). That's just the capital for a few thousand subscribers, it doesn't include billing costs, network admins, customer service personnel, maintenance personnel, etc.

Re:Socialist internetz

[Neuticle]

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Winston Churchhill

Re:Socialist internetz

[bsDaemon]

If there is one thing that the internet helps, its ensuring that no one ever has to find this out if they don't want to. If someone only watches Fox News, listens to talk radio and reads the WSJ in print, all they're likely to do is add foxnews.com, redstate.com and/or stormfront.org ("white nationalist" forum) to their reading list, group up with more and more people who agree with them, then eventually find Alex Jones and then its over. The same thing can be said of the person who doesn't watch anything but PBS news, listens to NPR and reads nothing but the New York Times... or the people reading Daily Worker or whatever.

The internet, for most people, really just helps to ensure that they never have to step outside of their comfort zone insofar as information is concerned. Once they've "discovered" so many comforting sources, then it'll just legitimize their entire world view, solidify everything in their mind, give them comfort in the virtual crowd and make them even more dangerous. I have first hand experience with this myself, and I had to drop off for a while and go read real books, multiple media sources, etc, to ensure that I gave myself a well-rounded view of things again and got back towards normal.

Don't get me wrong, I love the internet -- it makes my life a lot easier, provides the infrastructure within which I make my living, allows me to keep up with friends from high school and college, and get information from all over the world whenever I want it. But for a very large subset of the population on either side of an issue, all its going to do is help entrench their views and help them think "look at all these people who are saying what i've been saying for years! what's wrong with people who can't see what I see?! It's all right there, on the internet!" But, as a poster said above, Democracy has drawbacks. This is one of them.

some servers are rate limited so 1 download can't

[Joe The Dragon]

some servers are rate limited so 1 download can't max it out and so others can get a good speed as well.

Why do poor people need broadband internet

[airwedge1]

Since when is broadband internet a right, and the government has to intervene to make sure everyone has it. That is total crap. It's literally stealing my money, and giving it to someone else.

Re:Why do poor people need broadband internet

[debrisslider]

Access to information is vital for being an informed member of society, and the government long ago decided it is worth subsidizing its availability. Don't think of it merely as access to the internet. We have libraries for free access to books, newspapers and magazines, government pamphlets/official documents, educational programs, public speakers and presentations, community cultural and political events, and even just intellectual hangouts. The internet is merely the world's best library, alongside being an economic juggernaut that is only going to drive more commerce in the future, and good broadband internet is a steal compared to the cost of bringing even a fraction of a decent metropolitan library's capacities to rural areas and the poor. The possibilities for furthering education (both k-12 and adult) alone should be good enough, as surely the increased tax base from an educated populace should more than pay for the subsidies, plus sometimes the government just isn't afraid of spending public money to ensure that the public can be informed about the government's activities; think how much money can be saved from having to print pamphlets, fliers, and forms. The internet isn't just for trolling forums and watching Youtube.

Re:Why do poor people need broadband internet

[imakemusic]

Well a week ago most people (76% of americans, 87% of chinese) think it is or should be a right.

Re:Why do poor people need broadband internet

[Anonymous Coward]

I work from home and don't need the freeway system. Since when is driving fast a right and the government has to intervene to make sure everyone has it. That is total crap. It's literally stealing my money, and giving it to someone else.

Re:Why do poor people need broadband internet

[wytcld]

All communications and media rely on public right of way, whether to string lines or transmit over radio frequencies. Even paper transmissions rely on public roads, and often the public postal system. There is nobody in any media who is not in implicit partnership with the government. There is no stance the government can take that does not end up favoring some players, and some strategies, over others. So it is best that the government make its decisions out in the open, rather than pretend it's not a player. And it's best that the government try to favor the broad interests of the people, rather than the entrenched interests of existing media.

Existing media interests have been stalling on providing broad band net access, despite other countries showing that the road forward is wide open, and within our economic means. The government is attempting here to tilt the field more towards the public's interest in having true broadband access. It is legitimate to view this as as much a right as the right to receive mail, phone calls, the newspaper, and over-the-air broadcasts. It involves public rights of way just as much as those others do. It cannot be done but by government partnership. And the government, as a partner, needs to speak for its owners, us.

Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?

[debrisslider]

So the text has been out for several hours and this guy flipped through it (you can't honestly read 357 pages of children's fiction in that time, let alone government policy) enough to find a few stated ideas for taxes, and all of a sudden it's a net loss for consumers? When are those taxes going to take effect, and what is the inflation-adjusted amount in today's dollars? It's a lot easier to suggest taxes than to try and tell congress how to budget or regulate companies, so this statement of policy cannot honestly take into account any kind of subsidy that might be dreamed up by congress (save your complaints about how taxes pay for that, that's not the kind of cost we're talking about), nor any kind of price regulations that would decrease charges. A substantial part of the plan is supposed to be paid for by auctioning another part of the broadcast spectrum, and there's no way of knowing anything other than a ballpark estimate for that amount. It's not like this is anything other than the first public rough draft; items will change and funding will be battled over every day until the relevant budgets are passed.

Re:Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?

[hansamurai]

He read more of it than any other legislature will, at least he's raising some questions, whether they're educated or not.

Re:Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?

[Abcd1234]

So the text has been out for several hours and this guy flipped through it (you can't honestly read 357 pages of children's fiction in that time, let alone government policy) enough to find a few stated ideas for taxes, and all of a sudden it's a net loss for consumers?

Correct! See, you must remember, the FCC is obviously run by pinko communists. Plus, this is Slashdot, home of the knee-jerk nerd who, when he isn't jacking off to pictures of ESR posing with his handguns, is whining about government taxation and intervention into markets... until, of course, it's Microsoft or some other big baddy, at which point the government must step in and protect their pasty little asses.

Re:Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?

[amplt1337]

...yeah, not to mention that his take on it was essentially fact-free hectoring about how the report is light on figures. Mmmkay.

Re:Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?

[PPalmgren]

I didn't see a link to the document in those links, but I'd assume its a giant peice of legalese. A large majority of legal documents are simply definitions, and the rest overly verbose ways of describing something simple. Once you know how to read a legal document, it takes less time to read than most child's books of the same length.

It is still important to read thoroughly to find the gaps and loopholes coded into the document, but you can grasp a majority of the substance by only reading 20% of the paper.

Re:Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?

[Yaos]

I don't see the problem, I read War & Peace during lunch and wrote an essay on it. I got an F but it was the thought that counts.

Re:Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?

[mcgrew]

So the text has been out for several hours and this guy flipped through it (you can't honestly read 357 pages of children's fiction in that time, let alone government policy)

Maybe you can't but there are those of us who can rip through a 200 page novel in 2-3 hours. Agreed, it would be hard to read government gobbledygook in that limited time, but you could skim and get the gist of most of that in 3 or 4 hours, provided you're a hyperlex. I would think that a whole lot of slashdotters are hyperlexic and very few dyslexic.

Re:Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?

[debrisslider]

I have a degree in postmodern literature, don't assume I can't blaze through your standard paperback in a couple hours, but a non-narrative government policy, with substantial room for interpretation, with flow-breaking formatting, with unintuitive legal definitions, with a lot of numbers (financial and otherwise) being thrown around, isn't exactly Tom Clancy airplane reading, and skimming and 'the gist' is exactly the kind of pseudo-reporting going on here.

Re:Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?

[trurl7]

"There are no stupid questions, but there are alot of inquisitive idiots"

Re:Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?

[mcgrew]

Since when have journalists gotten much right even when they have plenty of time to study the subjects? I cringe every time I see anything concerning science in the newspaper. A fast reader could get even 350 pages of governmentese skimmed in 4 hours more correct than the average journalist gets news of the Hubble in a week.

Re:Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?

[Cytotoxic]

I don't know about the guy from TFA, but lawyers read lawyerese much faster than literature professors read novels. I work with dozens of lawyers, and I'm always amazed at their ability to scan through large, complex documents and pull out the relevant bits in very short order. In fact, I spent about 2 hours reading a large contract yesterday and didn't get much interesting from it. I passed it on to our law team for review and they had a dozen changes ready within 15 minutes. Legalese is structured language that allows well-trained priests in the temple to quickly gain information that is inscrutable to the unwashed masses.

Re:Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?

[structural_biologist]

I agree. At the risk of sounding a bit old fashioned, why do we expect extensive analysis of the text of a bill that came out just five hours prior to this post? Perhaps the lack of sources quoted is simply due to the fact that the article was published before any reporter could contact US government officials for a response? Indeed, at this point I would not expect any good journalism on this topic to be published because good journalists would contact government officials for responses to criticism or answers to questions. Maybe the poster's claim that few reporters are interested in the topic might be valid if there is not significant coverage of the issue by tonight or tomorrow. However, expecting reporters to publish information (let alone analysis) on this issue without giving the reporters time to think deeply about the bill's text and gather responses from officials is unreasonable. This is one of the problems facing our society today; while useful information and news does get disseminated much more quickly and widely than before (a plus), the time pressures of publishing makes this information be based much more on cursory reactions and less on thoughtful analysis.

Re:Isn't this just a LITTLE premature?

[khallow]

So the text has been out for several hours and this guy flipped through it (you can't honestly read 357 pages of children's fiction in that time, let alone government policy) enough to find a few stated ideas for taxes, and all of a sudden it's a net loss for consumers?

Do you think there's going to be a plot twist or something where the understanding of the previous 200 pages is turned on its end? My view is that odds are very good that if you find something in a bill, that thing is not going to be invalidated by other parts of the bill.

Maybe I can get broadband now

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the people on here are acting all high and mighty, like the only people that can't get broadband don't deserve it or are too poor to afford it. I would guess that these people live on the coasts and very densely populated areas. There are parts of the country where large portions of towns and their outlying areas can't get any service. Companies like Qwest do not care. Qwest wants to charge 12.95 per month (beginning rate) for DSL, when your community tells Qwest you would pay $50 or more per month forgoing the introductory rate they say "I don't want your money."

My last hope has been for the government to step in where all of the local companies (telephone, cable, wireless) have refused to.

Last Mile

[rlp]

Here's what I would do: cities and towns provide the infrastructure for the last mile. They connect fiber to homes, schools, and businesses and run it to a neighborhood hub. In rural areas, counties could build towers for 4G wireless. Then the big carriers would connect to the hubs (multiple carriers per hub for maximum competition) and charge for service. Local government would be responsible for deploying and maintaining last mile service, private carriers would compete to supply internet connections and other services (telecomm, video) at the best possible prices. Of course, I don't expect any of this to actually happen ...

Re:Last Mile

[ducomputergeek]

Exactly, it should be the LOCAL governments that do this. If the local city/county wanted to pass a bond or even a sales tax increase to pay for it, I would vote for it. Especially since it's a lot easier to vote that lot out of office if they don't deliver than it is the people inside the Beltway.

Re:Last Mile

[eth1]

I've also thought that this would be the best way to do it. After all, my city already has enough conduit run to every house to provide full duplex water service, and they manage to deliver that quite well.

Unfortunately, it would be really expensive to add this now that everything is all built up. New development doesn't really have any excuse.

Re:Last Mile

[Abcd1234]

Here's what I would do: cities and towns provide the infrastructure for the last mile. They connect fiber to homes, schools, and businesses and run it to a neighborhood hub. In rural areas, counties could build towers for 4G wireless. Then the big carriers would connect to the hubs (multiple carriers per hub for maximum competition) and charge for service.

Yeah, news flash: The last mile is the most expensive-to-operate part. It has the highest cost of initial rollout, has the greatest cost in maintenance and upgrades, etc.

In fact, I would contend that an ISP *is* the last mile. If you're not doing that, you're just a wholesale broadband provider offering peering arrangements. So what you're really saying is you want to do away with the private ISP.

Re:Last Mile

[rlp]

It's needed, but costly, heavily regulated (requires right of way, tearing up streets), and has a low ROI. Sounds like a reasonable function for local government (like roads and schools). But no, it doesn't get rid of the private ISP. Still a need for high availability service, billing, support, home installation of equipment, value add services, etc. All of which is not a reasonable function of government.

Re:Last Mile

[Abcd1234]

Still a need for high availability service

That would have to be provided by the last-mile provider, aka the municipality.

billing

So, sure, a corporation can do the paperwork and add overhead. Woo.

support

Again, last-mile activity. That's the city's job, remember?

home installation of equipment

*Also* a last-mile activity. Do you even remember what you proposed?

value add services

But ISPs don't need to provide services. That's why we *have* an internet. So we can access services. Hell, what do ISPs provide, today? Email, maybe (not that most people use their ISP-provided email)?

So, at least AFAICT, all your proposal does is relegate the "ISP" to providing billing services and wholesale peering. Doesn't sound like much of an ISP to me.

Re:Last Mile

[webdog314]

Interesting. So the infrastructure for net connection becomes something like the water or gas pipe into my home. The problem with this analogy is that gas or water connections don't change much or often. Telecommunications is exactly the opposite. Just go back less than 30 years, hell ten. People were using modems and their copper phone lines less than a couple decade ago. Then it was coaxial cable. Now we're talking about fiber. These are completely different pipes, each of which has to be laid down in that 'last mile'. If they were already there, it would be one thing, but how does the already cash-strapped city know that it isn't building obsolescence? The water pipes into my home are almost a half century old. How long before that shiny new broadband connection is outdated? I'd bet it's less than a decade. Then they would have to dig up all the streets again.

Re:Last Mile

[rlp]

I live in an Ohio town of about 45,000 people. The town supplies water and sewage service. They provide electric transmission service to all the houses in the town and buy electricity in bulk from a local commercial power company. We pay lower electric rates than neighboring cities and get better service (fewer outages, lines fixed quicker after storms). I deal with a commercial natural gas company that handles transmission and billing. I use (my selection) a different company that is my supplier of natural gas. So, what's the problem with splitting up Internet service?

Re:Last Mile

[webdog314]

I'm not quite sure what an "ISP" in this situation would actually be doing, other than charging us. You mention support and home installation of equipment. So the local government would only be responsible for the cable/fiber itself, but the modem/head to actually use the service would be provided by a cable company? Here's the thing - I got tired of renting my cable modem and went out and bought my own. My cable provider allows me to "set up" my own connection, and aside from the bill I receive every month, they are nearly transparent to me. Perhaps they are providing a "service" to those lines, but if it's in the last mile, it's news to me. Their operations center is 20 miles Northwest of me. If the local government was to take over the "last mile" operations, how is this a better situation and not just a boon for the cable industry, who no longer needs to shell out $$ to rip up my street because the government gets to foot the bill (and subsequently me)? I'm not disagreeing with your idea in principle, but support would become a nightmare. If there's an outage or a connection issue, the cable company can just hold up it's hands and say that the problem is out of their control (something they do now with regularity as it is). Getting a broken line fixed would go into a local government queue, along with potholes and other 'timely' infrastructure repairs they do.

Re:Last Mile

[mpe]

Exactly, it should be the LOCAL governments that do this. If the local city/county wanted to pass a bond or even a sales tax increase to pay for it, I would vote for it. Especially since it's a lot easier to vote that lot out of office if they don't deliver than it is the people inside the Beltway.

Probably easier to get rid of than your State government too.
Government, like many other things, appears to have an optimal size. Those who created federal nations appear to have understood this.

Re:Last Mile

[evilviper]

Here's what I would do: cities and towns provide the infrastructure for the last mile.

In the western US, there are innumerable areas, many quite heavily populated, which are not incorporated into a city.

So, at the very least, you'd have to do this at the County level... Then you have problems with large counties servicing a couple big cities, and completely ignoring the less densely populated areas, knowing it's cheaper, and they'll get 90% of the people happy, and voting for them again... There are innumerable recognized cases of counties siphoning off tax money from less populated areas, and giving most of it to the large cities.

So, I'd say you're screwed either way...

Plan Will Signficantly Reduce Costs

[Anonymous Coward]

You make it sound as if corporate interests will somehow drive down the costs and that the current corporate-only approach is a great benefit to consumers through low costs. There needs to be a balance between government intervention and long-range planning and the corporate view of the next quarterly earnings report.

Yes the plan will cost money, but then so does the current system, which is greatly stacked against the consuming public. Presently, media companies use the airwaves as if they owned them. With this attitude one gets 38 minutes of commercials for 22 minutes of programming and news you can not differentiate from Comedy Central. If you buy cable then you pay $100-300/month to watch the 38 minutes of commercials and 22 minutes of programming. With the current system extraordinarily tilted to the benefit of media monopolies one gets limited choice and lot of pro-corporate propaganda and filtering for one's viewing dollar, with costs continuing to go up each year, like health-care premiums. With a shift to internet broadcasting, costs will go down dramatically over time and scarce spectral resources will be used more efficiently and cost effectively by providing additional wireless services. The wider the penetration of broadband the more variety of services can be provided that will promote much needed competition and greater programmatic and content diversity. This is especially important now that America is steadily abandoning its educational institutions from K-Post Graduate to the altar of tax-reduction for the wealthy. By forcing competition onto a relatively neutral transmission medium of the internet, we will likely see much greater competition that will over time GREATLY reduced costs. It is only when the consumer has tremendous choice will one see lower prices. This is the primary reason so many in the media-elite are eager to line up and argue against the proposal and ANY plan that threatens their cozy system. This plan will force greater competition and reduce the influence of the most dominant players in what have become a patch-work of segmented monopoly markets that have been created through thousands of quietly or in a few cases, not-so-quietly negotiated contracts among media companies at the expense of the consumer. Keep in mind that few of the existing media-telecommunications-technology companies are independent of one another. Rather they are interconnected via a network of negotiated arrangements that typically extract the maximum cash from the consumer. If the US is to retain a functioning, competitive system, it must insure that the overall result is at least in someway beneficial for the country as a whole, not just those best situated to profit from it.

Also, its time for the US to once again reclaim the lead in telecommunications and internet services. The current system is only seeing other nations vault ahead of what was once a US dominated industry. At least the Obama FCC has a plan that includes some role for the consumer, other than being at the wrong end of every corporate media-mogul's wish for personal enrichment and monopolization of markets. Hats off to Obama for grasping the importance of improving the underlying technological infrastructure of America. Its nice to see an FCC that at least can do something besides protect us from Janet Jackson's breasts.

Capped

[tepples]

Why spend so much money hooking up rednecks and bible thumpers?

Because they grow the food that you eat.

Blast the outlying areas with our strongest wireless signals (WiFi, WiMax, cellular, etc, etc) and let them each buy the wireless receiver of their choice.

The monthly transfer caps on 4G probably won't be much better than what rural customers can already get on satellite. We're already seeing caps of 5 GB per month on MiFi 3G service from both Verizon Wireless and Sprint while city folk on Comcast get 250 GB per month.

Other things that may cost you money

[hobbestcat]

Buying video games may cost you money
Eating food may cost you money
Having indoor plumbing may cost you money
Riding a bike may cost you money
Upgrading your video card may cost you money
Using toilet paper may cost you money

Re:Other things that may cost you money

[Kral_Blbec]

You buying video games may cost you money
You eating food may cost you money
You having indoor plumbing may cost you money
You riding a bike may cost you money
You upgrading your video card may cost you money
You using toilet paper may cost you money
Me getting internet may cost you money

There, fixed it for ya.

Why am I not surprised...

[dwiget001]

"...that the plan will cost most Americans money, and won't provide much if any relief to the poor."

When does the U.S. government do something that doesn't match the above?

Re:Why am I not surprised...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oddly enough, pretty much whenever they do infrastructure.

Re:Why am I not surprised...

[dwiget001]

I am inclined to give you that one without any further information.

But a part of me still remains skeptical, having worked with state Departments of Transportation and their contractors for 27 years or so now.

Re:Socialist internetz

[natespizer]

Been playing civ4 lately?

Re:Socialist internetz

[commodore64_love]

A Republic with Laws to protect individual rights is superior to a Tyranny of the majority (democracy).

Re:Socialist internetz

[technology_dude]

This is one of the dangers of the current plan. If local over-the-air broadcasters go away, "national" opinion shaping can't be far away.

Re:Socialist internetz

[Anonymous Coward]

A Republic with Laws to protect individual rights is superior to a Tyranny of the majority (democracy).

Republican!!! REPUBLICAN!!!! *screeee*

Re:A duck!

[conureman]

Exactly!
I love how Democracy has allowed manufactured consent, a big part of which is "teaching" us in school that we live in a Lawful Republic, and thereby legitimising the store-bought laws that we get invoiced for.
I've given it a lot of thought, and really see a lot of promise in a monarchy, I especially like the defenestration model of checks and balances.

Re:Socialist internetz

[mcgrew]

As a US citizen I'm not really acquainted with democracy. The only government I know is a plutocratic faux democracy.

Re:Socialist internetz

[cHiphead]

I flipped to fox news the other day and at first I thought The Onion had its own 24 hour channel on comcast.

dogmatixpsych never reads

[copponex]

Privatization! All the same mistakes the government makes, plus the cost of profits, administrative overhead, plain old greed, no transparency, and no incentive to make things right.

The Pentagon’s reliance on outside contractors in Iraq is proportionately far larger than in any previous conflict, and it has fueled charges that this outsourcing has led to overbilling, fraud and shoddy and unsafe work that has endangered and even killed American troops. The role of armed security contractors has also raised new legal and political questions about whether the United States has become too dependent on private armed forces on the 21st-century battlefield...

“This is unprecedented,” [Charles Tiefer] added. “It was considered an all-out imperative by the administration to keep troop levels low, particularly in the beginning of the war, and one way that was done was to shift money and manpower to contractors. But that has exposed the military to greater risks from contractor waste and abuse.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/washington/12contractors.html

"Right now the government is paying health insurance plans that administer Medicare Advantage, on average, 12 percent more per person than it spends on patients enrolled in traditional Medicare," said AMA Board Member Cecil Wilson, MD. "With Medicare payments to doctors who care for seniors slated for a 10 percent cut next year, Congress must put the money used to subsidize the insurance industry to better use."

At the AMA's Annual Meeting late last month, America's physicians sent a resounding message to Congress - eliminate the Medicare Advantage subsidy. AMA policy clearly states that subsidies to private plans offering alternative coverage to Medicare beneficiaries should be eliminated, and that these private Medicare plans should compete with the regular Medicare program on a fiscally neutral basis.

"While groups that truly represent physicians fight to preserve all seniors' access to health care by stopping Medicare physician payment cuts, the insurance industry and its partners are solely focused on preserving their $65 billion government subsidy," said Dr. Wilson.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/76805.php

Engineers hired to investigate the cause of September's massive Big Dig tunnel leak have discovered that the project is riddled with hundreds of leaks that are pouring millions of gallons of water into the $14.6 billion tunnel system.

While none of the leaks is as large as the fissure that snarled traffic for miles on Interstate 93 northbound in September, the breaches appear to permeate the subterranean road system, calling into question the quality of construction and managerial oversight provided by Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff on the massive highway project.

Finding and fixing all the leaks will take years, perhaps more than a decade, said Jack K. Lemley, an internationally known consultant hired by the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to investigate the problem. Just repairing the section of wall where the September leak occurred will take up to two months and require closing of traffic lanes.

The engineers also said they have discovered documents showing that Bechtel managers were aware that the wall breached this fall was deficient from the moment it was built in the late 1990s, yet did not order it replaced and did not inform state officials of the situation.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/11/10/big_dig_found_riddled_with_leaks/

Re:Socialist internetz

[conureman]

The purpose of a king, and his only useful function, was to protect The People. Law and Defence are the manifestations of this. By this measure, our king, in the U.S.A., is a tyrant. In actuality, we are ruled by the people who control the Corporations, and the people who own our television signals, and they are not all very nice. The system we have now allows the kings to remain anonymous and obscure, and not answer to the people. They've gone underground, as it were, in Dubai, or London, or New York.

WTG Neuticle

[copponex]

You do realize all those things you listed are perfectly free? As are the right to not be subject to unreasonable searches and the right not to incriminate yourself.

I had no idea that there were no lawsuits or legal battles over this, or that the ACLU hasn't spent millions across the country defending the Bill of Rights, or that equal protection under the law just magically happened, and we didn't have to send federal troops across the country to destroy Jim Crow laws.

Or in fact, that under the guise of protecting freedom, we spend upwards of a trillion dollars a year on defense of those freedoms. (Which is nonsense, but an off topic subject.)

Earlier, you said: "Having lived in and visited countries with largely state-run telecom industry and then come home to the USA, I think it should be painfully obvious to all that government does not do a good job at running telecommunications."

Why didn't you specifically tell us which countries you are talking about?

Re:WTG Neuticle

[Neuticle]

You are changing the subject, I never once said that defending rights was free, only the exercise of those rights. I emphatically agree that the defense of our rights it is not free. They are precious and worth protecting with money and blood.

Re:WTG Neuticle

[copponex]

The postal service was considered important infrastructure and is constitutional (Article I, Section 8), so there's no reason broadband and health care can't be considered the same. We have the CIA and the Air Force and the NSA which are all unconstitutional, yet are still federally funded without much complaint.

Also:

Why didn't you specifically tell us which countries you are talking about?

I'm still waiting.

Re:Socialist internetz

[bsDaemon]

I was home visiting my parents over the weekend. My mother is a high school teacher, and sat through Fox and Friends and an hour of "The Cost of Freedom" (the business 'news' block) because she heard a blurb they were going to be talking about 4-day school weeks. They sat and watched, getting rilled up about "obama-care" that entire time (while being pissed off that they get charged $500 a month for insurance for the two of them through my mother's plan. my dad is retired from being an airline captain and now substitute teaches).

I spent the entire time trying to point out that absolutely no information had been imparted, just some stereotypically attractive people talking about bullshit during f&f, and then a bunch of old, rich jews talking about how they'd be even richer if it weren't for obama. When they finally got to the topic she was waiting for, it was 3 minutes of yelling between a Lisa Loeb-wanna-be and some crotchety old bitch, then they moved on to the next thing. My mother felt ripped off, but did she go find actual information? No. Did she do any research as to how this might affect her professionally? No.

I also found my dad's Tea Party t-shirt... I'm not sure I want to go home anymore. And this is coming from a former Ron Paul supporter (I joined the Dems after I fled DC in 2007 and voted for Obama). But I'll be 26 in June and its about time I just grow up and get on with it. My parents used to think I was a crazy right-winger... then Obama comes along and suddenly everything is fucking commie plot and the John Birch Society is defending our freedom... god bless Sarah Palin. Screw that shit.

Re:Socialist internetz

[Anonymous Coward]

Earl? Is that you?

Telecom joke

[lonesome phreak]

I used to work at Worldcom before Bernie got arrested...many cubes had little signs that said something like:

"How do you know you work in telecom? Same desk, same office, five different companies in three years"

Re:Socialist internetz

[TheKidWho]

Good thing too, because the USA is a federal republic.

Re:Socialist internetz

[mcgrew]

It's supposed to be, and constitutionally it is; but originally Senators weren't elected. It's supposedly become a "representative democracy" but the only ones of us who are represented is those who can afford to bribe candidates with campaign contribuions.

It's no longer a true republic, more like the "republic" in Star Wars episode III. Remember, Nazi germany was a republic, as was the USSR.

Re:Socialist internetz

[Steauengeglase]

While I get the sarcasm in this, I seem to hear a lot of similar comments when the topic comes up. The truth of it is that the people who resent the idea of Billy-Joe-Bob getting broadband are completely ignoring the fact that giving it to him will drive other costs down and in the end save them money. Say Billy-Joe-Bob Shitkicker buys himself a new fishing rod. Before he would have driven to Wal-Mart and about 9 other stores to compare price (before going back to Wal-Mart). Now multiple Billy-Joe-Bob by several thousand. Imagine the savings on road wear alone if he just ordered it off on Amazon. Also Billy-Joe-Bob want to get a psychology degree. He drives 40 miles twice every day for years on end. Now multiply that by several thousand. Just imagine the savings in child care, auto insurance/repairs and road repair.

Cosmopolitans love to go on about how their way of life is better. About how they only walk down the street for their coffee and bread and they take the train to work and their entertainment has a greater breadth than wasteful Billy-Joe-Bob Shitkicker's muliplex dive, but they are the first ones to complain about a solution brings his way of life closer to theirs.

Re:Socialist internetz

[pangur]

To be sure, if you only read what bsDaemon reads, you would also think that FoxNews watchers, talk radio listeners, and WSJ readers would probably be white nationalists. The intersections of those groups is a lot lower than you think it is.

Fox News watcher, talk radio listener, WSJ reader.

The Right to put a Router on my Roof.

[bobs666]

I have the right to buy a gun. I want the right to put a router on my roof with the range, 4 to 7 miles, to be useful.

We have seen that poring money at the industry telecommunications has not worked.

This will give me free local, +-100 mile range, cell phone / texting / email. It will also level the field for ISP's so that there can be 100's not 1 or 2 in any given area.

15 years ago Apple computer asked for part of the spectrum that would provide many 10Mbit channels, in a design for a metropolitan area.

Ya I have to pay for hardware, and power. I have to hope other people will do the same. I will perhaps want to pay an ISP.

Ya, its not free, but I bet its a lot less then that people pay now.

Its long over due for the FCC to give us this Right. And to define fare use, so that compliant hardware can be built to deliver the last mile to the consumer.

High Cost is the US Signature

[gink1]

You know you are dealing with a US solution to a problem when it takes a huge bite out of your wallet as it helps you!

We are a country based on free enterprise after all.

And the assumption is that all Americans can all afford to pay more.

---

Standing tall in the land of the rich and the poor.

Re:Socialist internetz

[nospam007]

"...and sat through Fox and Friends ..."

BTW, anybody knows how to filter that Fox crap out of Google News?

Re:Socialist internetz

[nottheusualsuspect]

Must you refer to that movie? I think I just threw up a little...

And you can't forget that "those of us... who can afford to bribe candidates with campaign contributions" now also includes multi-national, multi-billion-dollar-a-year corporations. Thank God that these face-less leviathans now have a larger say in our government than John Q Public and his unwashed brethren.

Re:Socialist internetz

[nottheusualsuspect]

When confronted with such a comment as yours, a previous /.er once asked, "So once you're done with those, then you go read the news?" (Paraphrased, of course.)

Re:Socialist internetz

[bsDaemon]

Fox News is the Der Sturmer of our day. That said, I just used that as an example of one side. Anyone who only consumes media with a single point of view is eventually going to end up completely radicalized in whatever direction they're pointing. The same with the MoveOn people (Especially also the MoveOn people). I find it of great benefit to seek out media from all sides available. There is no point getting myopic... that's something a Python fan would do.

Why do ALL people need ANYTHING?

[fnj]

Why do poor people need broadband internet: Since when is broadband internet a right, and the government has to intervene to make sure everyone has it. That is total crap. It's literally stealing my money, and giving it to someone else.

I'm going to assume your post is not pure sarcasm, and is merely a true expression of extreme libertarianism. Its not genuine conservatism, if that's what you think it is. If this is a mistake, sorry, but it was the poorest attempt at sarcasm I have ever seen.

First, get over the "right" hangup. The debate should be framed in terms of whether it should be an entitlement. And knock off the dismissive term "poor people."

Discounting any argument based on social contract, please consider that it is in the interest of anyone who wants wiser, more enlightened, more efficient, and more effective government to have voters who are well informed and able to readily interact in the true, cross section of society, commons -- for which the internet is ideally suited. Anything that effectively acts against the establishment and perpetuation of a turned-off, resentful, disadvantaged underclass is good for everyone. And, sheesh, the per capita expense involved is so small. You had better worry instead about burgeoning, crippling health care expense and national indebtedness on an insane, unsustainable level, which can only lead to a future of unimaginable inflation and poverty.

If you really want a worthwhile debate, think about whether the Great Society and the War on Poverty has led to an improved situation with respect to the social underclass, or a hopeless perpetuation of same.

Re:Socialist internetz

[cekander]

The internet, for most people, really just helps to ensure that they never have to step outside of their comfort zone

The internet, for all people, gives them the choice to decide what website to visit. If they stay in their comfort zone, that's their own choice, but I think many/most will venture out at some point in their life. Take you, for instance, it took some time, but eventually you "got back towards normal."

I don't think this is such an unexpected result. For many, it takes going to the extreme to "get over" something. I've experienced this phenomenon and although I can't quite articulate why, I think it's human nature.

The key though is choice. Everyone is not going to sit and relax in their own channels of comfort. They are going to engage, as they're doing already. They're going to integrate and realize that bipartisan politics is bullshit. The tea-party already acknowledges that discussing social issues (like gays and abortion) is divisive and is making a conscious decision to stay away from it.

I'm sorry, but I think your assessment of what the internet brings to democracy, healthy progress, and efficient governance is dead wrong. If we ever had a tool with the capacity to free us from our corporate overloads, it is indeed the internet.

Re:Socialist internetz

[MiniMike]

I was home visiting my parents over the weekend. My mother is a high school teacher, and sat through Fox and Friends ...

Wow. Most people who actually watch that would probably learn more from watching Barney and Friends. I don't know why the cable stations don't have Fox News next to Comedy Central.

Re:Socialist internetz

[Unequivocal]

How were senators originally chosen for their positions in the US? (Serious question - I've never heard of this before). Any references so I can read more would be great too.

Re:Socialist internetz

[Anonymous Coward]

You went from agreeing with Paul to agreeing with Obama? You really have no idea what to think, do you?

Re:Socialist internetz

[Anonymous Coward]

As an atheist who lives in rural Illinois ... evil sites like the pandas thumb which would help them become less thumperish.

And a zealot of the worst kind, just like many of the Bible thumpers you abhor, apparently. Good job failing Philosophy 101?

Re:Socialist internetz

[bsDaemon]

I used to work in DC with very conservative groups, because I grew up in the household I describe, and that's just what I was brought up with. Spend enough time being forced to write propaganda against health care reform by people who don't give their employees health insurance, sick days, or anything else, and it gets to you. Spend enough time being made to write propaganda against labor protection by people who pay you less than $15/hr in a place where the median salary is like $90k or something, while they're driving BMWs, Audis and Aston-Martins to work, and you get really pissed off. I learned first-hand what a bunch of slave-driving hypocrite douche-bags so-called "conservatives" are and have adjusted accordingly. Frankly, its become more about punishing them than it is about improving my own situation at this point. I got back into the private sector and make enough money, plus benefits, etc at this point. But I'll do just about anything to make the Sam Brownbacks of the world feel pain right back.

Missing the target

[Anonymous Coward]

Really??? Internet for the poor??? Really? I like how people are arguing or debating about this. So instead of housing the poor or getting them jobs or the real necessities the FCC is missing the target by a few light years by trying to provide the poor internet and in turn hiking up the cost over all. Good game FCC. It's nice to know that you're looking out for the people by providing them something that's pretty trivial in their lives. Good game.

Re:Socialist internetz

[NeutronCowboy]

A Republic with Laws to protect individual rights is superior to a Tyranny of the majority (democracy).

And yet, we had Jim Crow laws and slavery, which were the product of your precious "Republic". Republic in quotes because you clearly have no idea what a Republic or what a democracy is, and no idea that we live in exactly a democracy. Or why do you think it is so easy to enact laws that trample the rights of minorities?

Lysander Spooner

[mahsah]

Whenever someone mentions how essential the postal monopoly is, I love to point them to Lysander Spooner's American Mail Letter company:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company

He challenged the postal monopoly when the post office kept jacking up rates, and successfully got them to lower them through honest competition. Read up on him, he was truly an interesting man.

Re:Socialist internetz

[geekoid]

But other people will send them links to other sites.
Sure, people can be stuck in their own sound chamber, but with the internet there is a larger opportunity to get other views... especially for their children.

Re:Socialist internetz

[geekoid]

Did you look up actual information and send it to them?

Re:Socialist internetz

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are claiming that by searching for and reading about reasonable arguments, your bible thumpers would be able to educate themselves, you either don't know how this humanity thing works or you are probably a Chicagoan trying to pass as a True American.

Re:Socialist internetz

[adwarf]

They were appointed by the governor of the state. The 17th amendment changed it to an election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Do you know what a natural monopoly is?

[rsborg]

As far as I can tell utilities (telephone and electrical service anyway) are not natural monopolies.

We're talking a technical term here natural monopoly:

In economics, a natural monopoly occurs when, due to the economies of scale of a particular industry, the maximum efficiency of production and distribution is realized through a single supplier, but in some cases inefficiency may take place.

Natural monopolies arise where the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, has an overwhelming cost advantage over other actual or potential competitors.

Your account of history is a bit flawed. The local monopolies came to pass because they were more efficient. In this case, the best way to manage the situation is to either create a thicket of regulation to prevent the local monopoly from abusing it's position, or to just let the government run that natural monopoly.

Blame the telcos.

[MikeFM]

The problem is businesses fighting to keep from offering decent service we've already paid for. Charge me $100 more a month but give me freaking fast, reliable, uncapped service. Tell the telcos to fsck off when they sue community efforts to roll out their own Internet. Stupid anti-consumer anti-competitive behavior needs to stop. If the taxpayer pays for strong infrastructure it enables business growth which of course provides jobs and a higher quality of life. Being cheap is a bad idea.

Re:Socialist internetz

[mcgrew]

And you can't forget that "those of us... who can afford to bribe candidates with campaign contributions" now also includes multi-national, multi-billion-dollar-a-year corporations

No, I can't, but I wish I could. Rich foreigners have more access to those who profess to represent me than I do.

Re:Socialist internetz

[Unequivocal]

Thanks. I wonder how different the world would look if we didn't have that amendment. Governors would be much more powerful and courted by lobbyists. State governments would therefore be more powerful. Senators would be beholden to state governments not to private lobbyists. I'm sure there are pluses/minuses. Have you thought about this at all?

Re:Socialist internetz

[sonicmerlin]

YES! Ever since the announcement of Civ 5 I decided to give Civ 4 another "go" at it, and was sucked into another week-long addiction. AAauggh!

Re:Wow, there's a shock! PS-

[mcgrew]

Sadly, the teacher who taught math was a normal public education teacher.

Cost money? Nah, it will be free...

[Aragorn DeLunar]

Free as in unicorns.

Re:Socialist internetz

[Wovel]

We absolutely do not live in a Democracy. Buy a dictionary before you accuse other people of not knowing what something means.

Re:Socialist internetz

[NeutronCowboy]

Newsflash: there are several types of democracy, of which direct and representative are only two. Want to try that again?
Or, if you really want to rely on official dictionaries, here are a few definitions:
# the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives
# a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
# majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

Moron.

Re:Socialist internetz

[bhiestand]

Sorry, Wovel is still correct. It's more precise to say we live in a "democratic republic" than that we live in a democracy, and it's also correct to say we live in "Republic rather than a Democracy". Europeans will use the term "representative democracy", but internationally the US is still accepted as a republic. More accurately, as a Federal Republic.

My first piece of evidence, the pledge of allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands...

My second piece of evidence:
lexrex Democracy vs. Republic.

What dictionary did you pull your definitions from? You should know better. If you want proper explanations of a medical condition you won't consult M-W, you'll look it up in the PDR. If you want to know the difference in poli sci terms, you need a good poli sci encyclopedia (or dictionary if you can't find an encyclopedia).

Since I'm too lazy to re-type explanations from my own books, here are the entries from iAmericanSpirit.com:

democracy - government by the people; the rule of the majority. There is no precise definition of democracy on which all could agree. Even communist countries tend to call themselves democratic, and the mere fact that a government is elected by a majority of the popular vote does not of itself guarantee a democracy. A broad definition might include the following points (based on Thomas R. Dye and L. Harmon Ziegler's book The Irony of Democracy): Participation by the mass of people in the decisions that shape their lives; government by majority rule, with recognition of the rights of minorities; freedom of speech, press, and assembly; freedom to form opposition political parties and to run for office; commitment to individual dignity and to equal opportunities for people to develop their full potential.

republic - the form of government in which ultimate power resides in the people, who elect representatives to participate in decision-making on their behalf. The head of state in a republic is usually an elected president-never a hereditary monarch. A republic is founded on the idea that every citizen has a right to participate, directly or indirectly, in affairs of state, and the general will of the people should be sovereign. The U.S. is a republic.

(emphasis mine)

I am on Dial-up and can't get broadband

[Anonymous Coward]

All I can get is dial-up just to download the PDF to read it will take me 1 hour +, I live in California to

Re:Socialist internetz

[randyleepublic]

My friend, please read my sig. There is something much, much better than Libertarianism and the "two" party system.