Slashdot Mirror
FCC Dodges Pointed Questions On US Broadband Plan
Ars covers a series of questions that US senators put to the FCC chairman following up on his appearance before the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee in April. The headline question was a blunt one asked by octogenarian Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI): "The National Broadband Plan (NBP) proposes a goal of having 100 million homes subscribed at 100Mbps by 2020, while the leading nations already have 100Mbps fiber-based services at costs of $30 to $40 per month and beginning rollout of 1Gbps residential services, which the FCC suggests is required only for a single anchor institution in each community by 2020. This appears to suggest that the US should accept a 10- to 12-year lag behind the leading nations. What is the FCC's rationale for a vision that appears to be firmly rooted in the second tier of countries?" In the FCC's formal response (PDF), Chairman Genachowski doesn't rise to the "second tier" bait, and in fact talks about "ensuring that America remains a broadband world leader," as if he believes we currently are. A blogger over at Balloon Juice is a little more forthright on the "What is the FCC's rationale" question: "The rationale is that this is the best they can do with a legislative branch in the pocket of telecom providers."
>>>you're entitled that the number of things
Yes I am. The electromagnetic spectrum belongs to me and the People in general. The FCC has zero right to take-away OUR common property and lock it up behind a ~$100/month cellphone paywall.
Whoah there. Common property? Who says you own diddly-squat of the spectrum? Did I miss that in the Constitution or in the UN list of human rights? Just because you breathe you "own" something that other people discovered and are using for your free use? They designed the hardware. They produced the content. They maintain the infrastructure. You have no right to require that they continue to do so. Common property and belonging to the "People in general" are communist buzzphrases. We have public land, but thats it. There is no other common property, and there shouldn't be.
If you want to argue that you have the right to build your own hardware and broadcast on licensed spectrum, go ahead. You might have a point there. Arguing that you have a right to receive free stuff on those spectrums is way out there.