Slashdot Mirror
Obama's Goal: 98% of US Covered By 4G
alphadogg writes "Ninety-eight percent of US residents would have access to high-speed mobile broadband service within five years under a plan that President Barack Obama detailed Thursday. Obama's proposal, which he alluded to in his State of the Union speech last month, would free up 500MHz of wireless spectrum over a decade by offering to share spectrum auction proceeds with current spectrum holders, including television stations, that have unused airwaves. The cost of the proposal is likely to raise questions from lawmakers, and some backers of government broadband spending have already raised concerns that the plan would give money and spectrum to large mobile carriers."
Not so great for the increasing percentage of poor and unemployed people.
So I have to wonder if this will be very similar to the wired broadband initiatives done years ago which have only started to provide benefits to the people many years later and at a much higher cost than our tax dollars should have required?
And what is '4G'? Is this wireless broadband definition going to be rooted in 2011 or will it be an ever increasing amount which will be viable in 2025 or 2050?
The spectrum is owned by the PEOPLE Mr. President, not you, not the government, and certainly not those you license it to. If they are not performing up to the very flexible definition I am sure you won't create because it wouldn't be at all advantageous to the wireless carriers, can we remove that license from them immediately?
Yeah, I didn't think so. Let's rethink this before you do something insanely stupid and let 'broadband' history repeat itself.
How about taking that money, building out the fattest/fastest fiber network you can and then turn around and let any carrier/company lease it to resell. I'm not sure why you are trying to make "mobile" broadband the thing to invest in, when wired broadband options suck just as much.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
How appropriate to hold down the shift key when typing that: $G
Looks like he wants to make sure that net usage can be easily metered and controlled. Just more pandering to BigCo.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
After all, internet access is A HUMAN RIGHT!
Does that mean if there's a power outage people's rights are being violated by the power company?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
500 MHz of which spectrum? 4GS may already be colliding with GPS. http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/news/data-shows-disastrous-gps-jamming-fcc-approved-broadcaster-11029
Vision with execution is hallucination.
Actually it is - just like federal highway administration. There are certain things that just can't be done on the small scale local government level. I am curious what you think the federal government's purpose IS if it isn't to take on national scale projects.
100% of US having no poverty.
Considering that poverty generally seems to be defined as having less than X% of the average income, that's easy: just pass a law requiring that everyone is paid the same amount.
Of course the economy will collapse, but at least no-one will 'have poverty' anymore.
Coverage for 98% of the US is different than coverage for 98% of Americans.
Does that mean if there's a power outage people's rights are being violated by the power company?
Yes, yes it does. Which means that the person who has lost internet access should be able to sue the person who swerved to avoid a cow in the road and hit the utility pole that was carrying the lines that provide the power. Also, good health is a human right, and you can't be healthy without food, which is why the constitution involves itself in the important enumerated government power of forcing once citizen to provide food for other citizens. And 4G service, of course. And a nice house.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Is anyone else angered at the prospect of using US taxpayer monies to build out a backbone to be given to, and then resold to us by the big carriers at rates that the rest of the world finds laughable? One day maybe you can post your discontent on your FaceBook phone at 4g speeds though.
You do realize that many people can only afford to live out in the "sticks", right? Living in or even near a big city is very expensive.
And read my post above about why this is more important for the poor and lower middle class than you think.
4G technically refers to networks that have "peak download speed at 100 Mbit/s for high mobility communication (such as from trains and cars) and 1 Gbit/s for low mobility communication (such as pedestrians and stationary users)" http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/index.asp?category=information&rlink=imt-advanced&lang=en Wireless broadband services offering WiMAX (clearewire, DBC) are not technically 4G (unless implementing 802.16m), but are still "mobile broadband" as of 802.16e. Which does he mean?
Is anyone else angered at the prospect of using US taxpayer monies to build out a backbone to be given to, and then resold to us by the big carriers at rates that the rest of the world finds laughable?
No. But then I'm not American.
This is not the job or purpose of the federal government.
And I suppose the next thing you're going to say is something crazy like it's also not the federal government's job to use the IRS to sieze your wages because you haven't paid the penalties you've racked up for refusing to buy the insurance that you will now be required to buy so that you can use that to get your constitutionally enshrined human right to services from a podiatrist because your feet hurt from standing in line for your new iPhone.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Actually it is - just like federal highway administration. There are certain things that just can't be done on the small scale local government level. I am curious what you think the federal government's purpose IS if it isn't to take on national scale projects.
Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; [Altered by Amendment XVI "Income tax".]
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
You will note that Post Roads are mentioned but oddly nothing about Internet access.
Comment ftw! Too bad I used up my blessings dude :)
You've got the wrong Roman reference, actually. Communications access is economic infrastructure, like roads and aqueducts. Economic infrastructure pays for itself and increases the wealth of the nation.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
What's a Bieber?
That enjoy indoor plumbing http://www.eoearth.org/article/Water_and_poverty_in_the_United_States ? If not, how can we determine the percentage of US outhouses that will be in the 4G zone?
46. The Hobo smiles, his eyes glaze over, and he burps. "Beware the man who has lived longer than the Wasteland."
Market Value is exactly the problem.
Covering 98% would mean covering an awful lot of territory that doesn't have enough customers to make it worthwhile.
No, it is not - the market should decide who needs what coverage, and where. If you made the choice to live in the middle of a 100,000 acre range in Montana, don't bitch about lack of coverage and expect me to pay to make it happen.
Where are these jobs going to come from, aside from the telecoms building out the infrastructure? Does anyone other than politicians actually believe that if you give everyone broadband internet access, we'll suddenly have this cool new economy where every unemployed worker can start retraining for a STEM job?
Andy Grove (fairly) recently made a sobering speech about how naive the US is about the role startups play. I think the broadband argument plays into his point. You can't rely on just startups to rebuild the US economy. Every would-be Apple that starts in a future Steve Jobs' garage must eventually reach the ability to employ hundreds or even thousands of employees and handle unsexy work like running factories.
No amount of broadband penetration or legions of startups will change the fact that the US regulatory system makes it very difficult for the US to have a robust, diverse and productive economy. The people who advocate broadband as a key recovery point are also the same sorts who often throw out soundbites on this issue. "Yeah, regulations suck, but having dirty water sucks harder, stupid libertarian." Gee, you fucking moron, you notice what the state of the environment in China looks like today, you know China, where your iToy was fabricated? Like a lot of what's wrong with America, this is more duct tape and chewing gum used to hold together a system that is collapsing under the weight of its contradictions and kludgish design and all people want to do is throw out snarky comments instead of getting into the trenches and restructuring things.
I dunno - kind of looks like a girl!
1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
Well, seeing as I work on the chips that go into the base stations, at least I and my coworkers benefit from this. And then there's all the people actually installing and maintaining the towers, etc. Not all of the money gets used like this.
Of course, I haven't seen a good argument for what the economic benefits of widely deployed broadband might be. Sure, everyone can now stream YouTube videos at higher definition. But in terms of basic economic benefit, even if you have fairly slow (by today's standards) Internet access, you still can access online retailers, news, government web sites, etc. You just don't get all the shiny baubles.
I surfed the web over a shared 14.4kbps dialup link once upon a time. It wasn't great, and would be unbearable with many of today's ad-laden websites. But, with AdBlock and FlashBlock, 56kbps modems are at least workable, if not great.
Program Intellivision!
So where in the constitution does it grant that to the Federal Government?
Federal highways come under "To establish Post Offices and post Roads;" one of the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, for example.
Why is it that every time an initiative is launched to modernize the country and bring us up to speed with the other countries that have far surpassed the US, people cry foul? Why do they never do that when, oh I don't know, a WAR is about to be launched on a country that has nothing to do with anything?
Yes, these things cost money. And yes, that money is probably going to come from the people who pay taxes. But as far as subsidized plans go, this is a good one. This will actually help people. Not like subsidies for oil companies to drill up our oil and then sell it back to us at a massive profit. Or subsidies to private armies to fight our wars for us without those nasty checks and balances. Or subsidies to Israel that go straight into their oppression efforts.
I can totally get your reluctance to pay for things like this but it just strikes me as rather awful that we can spend THAT much money on right-wing causes and nothing on good initiatives like this.
That's a very simplistic view of the situation. I am not sure why people think this only benefits people who choose to live in the middle of nowhere for the fun of it. First, high speed mobile broadband is not available in a lot more areas than just rural Montana. Second, people live far from cities because they just can't afford to live anywhere closer. As I mentioned above, these people probably can't afford a landline, internet access, and a home PC but they probably can afford an internet ready smartphone to replace all three. That then gives them the ability to perhaps find a new job and improve their life.
Agreed, and I DEFINITELY don't want cell phones all over the place in our national parks. People are bad enough in the city, can you imagine taking in a great scene while hiking and here comes someone blabing loudly into their cellphone. No thanks.
...some backers of government broadband spending have already raised concerns that the plan would give money and spectrum to large mobile carriers
Someone hasn't been paying attention very well over the past decade or so. Giving money to the large mobile carriers is likely the entire the point.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
It's each individuals RIGHT to pay higher taxes so we can have $100+ bills every month from corporations! Glad to see everyone else gets it too!
Riiight, so everyone ought to move into the cities, driving up housing costs even higher than the already unreasonable rate.
Also, you do realize that agriculture and mining is nearly always done "in the sticks" as you put it. Show me where you can fit a 6,000 acre farm, or even a 60 acre farmette within your average city. Even if there were room, complaints about noise, smell and dust would cause the farm to close, and property tax rates would bankrupt the farm.
Around agricultural and mining industries you need infrastructure, farmers need stores to buy clothes and foods they don't produce (and off season), they need cars and trucks and tractors.
Not only that, but living in an urban area results in much higher stress, which can have an impact on one's health.
To suggest that everyone congregate in cities is ridiculous.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
My god you're right!
You do understand that the Constitution was written over 200 years ago, right? Not everything that happens is going to be spelled out word for word there. That's why we still have a legislative branch.
And you can extrapolate from Post Offices and Post roads VERY easily to email and internet access. One's kinda superseded the other.
Hmmm... the new Slashdot theme eats italics. Does it eat bold? It looks like it lets bold through. I had meant to emphasize "broadband" in this statement:
Basically, the gist of my thought is that, yes, broadband is nice and shiny, but what great innovation are we enabling by bathing the vast plains of Wyoming and Nebraska and Montana with it? I can see the argument that more and more basic services are moving on line, but the baseline level of service you need to access these looks more like a 56kbps modem than broadband. Universal access could mean requiring certain sorts of websites to include a low bandwidth version, rather than building out higher bandwidth to everyone.
Broadband everywhere just makes it easier for ad networks to shovel more crap into each page.
Program Intellivision!
If you have been following Egypt even a little bit then you should be worried about any U.S. plan to implement an internet kill switch. So the question is: who is going to administer this nationwide 4G and will it have a kill switch built into it? Will there be market competition in the form of multiple carriers or will you only be able to get it in one place and therefore be subject to whatever useless rules they come up with? Law enforcement can already triangulate your cellphone's position with little effort.
I believe those "4G" are meant to denote the 4th generation network; and not actual 4G the standard since it's not been finalized/implemented yet. That's why like every carrier has a 4G network, but use different technologies; there is no standard for them to actually adhere to.
3G and CDMA are actual standards and for a carrier to use that title it has to adhere to those standards and use certain technologies.
4G at this time is just a marketing term meant to capitalize on the fact that everyone was touting their 3G networks, and T-Mobile decided to one up the others.
Is this the same 4G that is going to kill GPS functionality? http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/4G_Broadband_May_Jam_GPS_204069-1.html?CMP=OTC-RSS
I am actually surprised, too, that a site like this would be full of people who are so against this. Is this a tech site or Fox News forums?
The answer to the question, "Where does Congress get that authority?" is always the "Commerce Clause," which grants Congress the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States..." While the Commerce Clause has been used excessively broadly (the Supreme Court interpreted it to allow the federal criminalization of marijuana, for example), this actually seems like a case where there is a genuine (and massive) effect on interstate commerce. Just look at how much shopping is done over the internet nowadays, almost always delivering goods to someone outside of the state.
Actually it is - just like federal highway administration. There are certain things that just can't be done on the small scale local government level. I am curious what you think the federal government's purpose IS if it isn't to take on national scale projects.
I'd say that's pretty well spelled out in Article 1, section 8 of the constitution. It's unfortunate that the general welfare clause and regulating trade among the states clause have been so badly abused. They were never intended to give the federal government unlimited power.
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
bread and circuses
If you can burn through 13 trillion dollars in two years and end up with higher unemployment, a continued credit crunch, and devaluation of the national currency, what better way is there to seek reelection than to distract the people?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
would about sum this latest boondoggle up. $5B we all pay to bring broadband to the people who chose, knowing the limitations, to live in the sticks? Outside of that, are there any areas that don't have broadband sufficient to watch at least 480p video?
Some of us are living in rural areas for many reasons and that choice sometimes comes with major factors that far outweigh broadband availability. Yes, there are many areas that don't have any broadband access at all. None. I don't think you can fairly consider satellite internet "service" to be broadband. Overpriced and slow with massive latency. You should try viewing even a 320p video over satellite connection sometime - it isn't very pretty.
That said, this sounds like another instance where the government take a public resource, pays a private industry to develop it and then allows them to screw over the consumer with the very infrastructure we paid to build for them. Either make internet access a national infrastructure, like the roads, or get out of the way.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
Well you are getting into a whole other discussion about government vs anarchy. This is not the place to discuss whether we should have a federal government that taxes its citizens in order to create a military, provide support for the needy, and take on national level projects.
Unless you plan on staging a revolution, though, I guess you'll just have to leave with the way things were started 200+ years ago.
But how come for the founding fathers didn't remember the internets?!?!
Seriously though, that shows initiative to maintain communications infrastructure. I'm pretty sure they'd be in favor of a government controlled base medium (i.e. open wireless channels) that can be leased and operated by private companies. If another company can come in and offer the same services for less money, then you'll have competition. The current state of affairs is a small group of monopolies (no, not an oligopoly, in my area, as in many, there is only one provider allowed) colluding to pretty much screw everyone. It's a broken system and it's why we're so far behind other developed nations.
I live in an affluent neighborhood in NYC, and I am currently testing two different mobile carrier's latest 4G wifi hotspot phones. Sprint's is really fast one minute, and then horribly slow the next minute. Overall it's very unstable, even when I'm getting a decent 4G signal. T-Mobile's is much more stable and lower latency, but only gives me around 1Mbps. I wonder how much bandwidth and reliability we'll have when 98% of America is using mobile broadband.
"Crude and slow, clansman. Your attack was no better than that of a clumsy child."
I am curious what you think the federal government's purpose IS if it isn't to take on national scale projects.
Protecting business interests. In fact that's what all governments are for. Government is a function of business. To enforce contracts. To "open" markets.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Most of Chicago is covered with 3G. I currently use AT&T but have tested devices from other mobile carriers as well. Coverage isn't the biggest issue. It's the fact that when you do have 3G, so do more than 1 million other people. They've oversold and underprovisioned their network in dense population areas, which means that while I've got a full signal, I can't really do anything with it since there's no bandwidth left at the tower. If there's only a T1 going to the cell tower, and 100 people are connected to that cell, coverage doesn't really mean jack.
Covering most of rural America is great, it'll (debateably) make education/communication easier in a lot of places. But for the big cities, network capacity is the bottleneck.
Also, didn't we give AT&T a bunch of government/taxpayer money in the 80's to expand it's network? How'd that work out? They're fleecing everyone to pay for yachts and laughing all the way to the bank.
This seems pretty critical. I don't know how my kid would do their homework without the Internet. And don't say, "Go to the library". That's fine if you can spend 4 hours researching, but the teacher's assignments are built around the idea that you've got a text book with all the answers in one chapter...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
More people need to read Atlas Shrugged.
No. No no no. No no no no no no no. Nononononononononononononnonononono.
Ayn Rand was a decent novelist, and a travesty of an economist and philosopher.
I want to feed and cloth 98% of Americans and I will use Magic Fairy Dust and the sale of Unicorns to pay for it. Logistics...Aint it a b!tch?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Hmm your point would be relevant if the founders had known what the internet was and decided not to address it. Do to the fact that they did not know, your point means nothing.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Second, people live far from cities because they just can't afford to live anywhere closer.
While cost of living is definitely better outside of the cities, a lot of us choose to reside out here for other reasons. Peace, privacy, low pollution, low crime rates, no stupid city ordinances, etc. The only good thing to come from living within a city is convenience.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
You do realize, that there is the process of "amending" the Constitution - so that if you want to do something it falls in line with the provisions of the document. You know, they did build that process into the document, right? I know, silly founders - how dare they have the foresight to envision they couldn't cover everything and gave us the means to fix it!
And then, 94% of the US won't use it because they will face large overage charges if they use over 3 Kilobytes per month.
Im surprised that everyone isnt angry. Government stealing our money to fund private business (and ensure no new competition comes along) in the guise of 'bettering the country' should outrage every citizen of any country. And the fact the government (who is pushing for an internet kill switch) wants to be involved with it should sound deafening alarms.
I only post when im drunk.
Who care what they were intended for. When this country was founded there was no national identity. People feared and distrusted people from other states. The world was bigger back then as well. Today you can drive across the entire country in a few days. When the country was founded you could mabye travel to the capital of your local state in that time. Federalism hasn't been as strong in this country since the civil war and for good reason.
I am actually surprised, too, that a site like this would be full of people who are so against this. Is this a tech site or Fox News forums?
I'm sure most everyone here would like to see ubiquitous high-speed wireless internet access for everyone. What some of us don't want is ubiquitous high-speed wireless internet access that's given to some people at a cost to other people. Others may be concerned about government control over the network. Now that it's ubiquitous and government controlled, little 10 year old Johnny who just got his new iPod touch can look at porn whenever he wants, and the government can't have that, because the children are our future! I know there are a lot of leftist here on Slashdot, but usually, when the government gets more involved in any venture, it involves a lot of bureaucracy, inefficiency & negative unintended consequences.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Dude, why do I care if your house burns down, whether the road to your house is maintained, and whether you are protected from foreign invasion? The next time you or one of your family members starts a cooking fire in your kitchen, I expect you to pay for a private company to come put it out. (After all, you live outside city limits to avoid paying property taxes, right? That way other people can pay the fire fighters to protect you?) Or maybe your neighbor's house will catch fire, but he won't be able to afford to pay somebody to put it out, so it will burn until your property lights up, as well!
We wouldn't want the government to pay for those things with stolen money after all.
The point being made is an economic one. It will wind up being a "bridge to nowhere" argument - that is to say it is a waste of resources that could have been put to better use elsewhere. This doesn't really fall into the category of items that a free market system cannot provide efficiently.
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
I don't know what the advantages of near universal high-speed access would be, specifically, but I can certainly say that it doesn't seem unlikely that there would be some emergent behavior going on where unexpected benefits can crop up.
The main reason I'm in favor of spending money on something like this is because I think that increasing access and convenience to vast amounts of information can be transformative.
From my own experience, the shift from dial-up to an always-on DSL connection years ago was actually pretty dramatic. With dial-up, I really didn't use the Internet very much unless I pretty much scheduled it - signing on took time, connections would break when I got a phone call (or I'd miss calls, and so couldn't use it when I was expecting an important call) etc. When I shifted to always-on DSL, suddenly I started using the 'net and various sites a LOT. Because of that tiny shift - from needing to dial-in to just needing to launch a browser - my way (and a lot of people's way) of using the 'net changed dramatically.
It's also transformed the landscape of the Internet: Easier connectivity = more people using it for more things = more chance of really neat things coming out of it. Back in the days of dial-up it was a lot harder to have something take off like wildfire because there were simply fewer people on-line and the ones that were used it less.
Another transformative thing is wireless access via my phone. I've got a "4g" phone, and it is quite responsive and I carry it with me most of the time. If I run into something where I have a question, I can quickly find an answer. Or, if I'm out and I have an idea that could be really useful, I can very quickly do a bit of basic research into it, make a note, send an email to ask someone else about it, etc.
Granted, 99% of people will use it for porn and cat videos and facebook, but I think that it's very likely that massive access to mobile broadband will change the way many people interact with the Internet, and that could lead to some really amazing things - just like every other time we've changed the way people are able to use the 'net it's lead to some amazing things.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
It worked the first time.
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
I suspect the *real* strings of this plan will be revealed in the fine print--where license terms will require carriers to police "IP infringement," agree to the Obama's kill switch, and allow the NSA and FBI free reign to monitor individual users.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I dont think so, I think it's also part of a bigger plan, that they have. They want to be able to access all people, no matter what the communication style, cell phone radio, tv, etc....the president needs to be able to address all of his people, not some....
I think this also has a bigger means of allowing access to the military that want to be able to have access to all that is electronic in terms of communication....so if you have a cell, they want you to use something that they can track easily, it's usually a first step to something bigger.....probably in 10 or 20 years from now, we will see the full image....now we are just seeing the first step.
Why do we even need this?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Because it bears Obama's name. They would complain about a new war, if Obama was the one starting it. They also complain about everything Obama does with the wars he inherited.
That said, plenty of people rallied, physically not just blogwise, to oppose the invasion of Iraq. The news media barely covered it. Shamefully I wasn't one of them, but I don't think their efforts should be forgotten.
Someone had to do it.
They have perfectly functional forms of reasonably fast long-distance communication. They didn't when that section was written. It worked as intended.
Where does it say that they have to get upgraded every time a newer, faster form of communication is pioneered?
define poverty. do you mean "poor" or do you mean "must have at least this much spendable income" or do you mean "must be able to attain this level of food/shelter/goods"? specify.
It's impossible to eliminate "poor" without a method for instantly generating any tangible good one may desire. I.e. star trek replicators. until you reach this point, "poor" is simply a relative value meaning "bottom 10%" or something like that. you will always have a relative spectrum of wealth unless you manage to invent the utopian communist society (hint, nobody seems to be able to do that). Also, as poor is a relative value, compare the US's Poor vs the poor people in other countries. Last time I was out of the country, the slums and people who lived in them outside of city I was in made our (united states) poor look like kings.
You do understand that the constitution was supposed to be an explicit power grant, where powers not granted were not to be available to the government, even the legislative branch? If the government truly needed more powers than those expressly granted, it was supposed to require a constitutional amendment. That's why the constitution provides for amendments.
No wonder the government doesn't really like the idea of strong contract law...
Considering that poverty generally seems to be defined as having less than X% of the average income, that's easy: just pass a law requiring that everyone is paid the same amount.
Or it could just be defined as earning less than $-1, so even with no income you're still not poor.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
/. has been taking more and more of a swerve to the right as, i'm guessing, its readers age and get bogged down in middle-management.
That's odd, because I was just thinking that /. has been taking more and more of a swerve to the left over the last decade. So much so that I don't bother to read it much anymore.
Either way, the idea that the most important thing the US government could be doing right now is paying people to install new cellphone towers so more people can watch youtube on their phone is ludicrous. It's the same old Keynsian nonsense which has brought the economy to the mess it's currently in.
Dude! I don't use hemorrhoid cream. If you do can I have the $0.0001 my taxes payed to make sure the next tube you buy doesn't give you a bunghole tumor?
Seriously, you think you aren't on the dole with the rest of us? Get real.
Someone had to do it.
I don't mind increases in spending to do these things. I want the government to legalize these things being done by local governments who can do a much better job of cutting waste and providing us we need without subsidizing large businesses and union leaders in the process.
Who care what they were intended for.
I care. And a lot of other people care. In fact, even you making that statement was ridiculous.
While the world may have been "bigger" back then (by your definition), the basic principles outlined by the founding fathers were based upon insight into the human mind. Regardless of tools, a human innately craves power. Give any one branch of government too much power, and they will abuse it. That's why the founding father's specifically limited its power.
And that's why I, and other people, care that they are abusing the powers given to them.
A decent story from NPR (WARNING: contains Ira Flatow) on what U.S. providers are calling "4G" even though they don't meet the ITU definition: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/14/132934022/what-does-4g-really-mean-anyway
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
The administration's proposal to sell 500 MHz of radio spectrum to "4G" expansion is ill advised at best and at worst a boondoggle that will exact untold harm to the citizenry of this country. By selling off the citizen's spectrum our national security will be compromised through the loss of room for military radar, telemetry, navigation, and communications systems and public safety will be put at risk through reduction in spectrum available for police, fire, EMT, public works, SCADA, and marine safety. By taking away broadcast spectrum which allows the consumer to view free broadcast content, they will be forced to go to pay services such as cable/4G to get their previous free content. Scientific advancement and technological innovation in radio/wireless, remote sensing, and others require spectrum available for experimentation. Spectrum for experimentation will become ever more scarce if big blocks of it are sold off to billion dollar corporations. Instead of implementing this bogus plan based solely on short term thinking...lets think of recapitalizing existing wireless spectrum over the long term by using more efficient protocols, standards and spectrum sharing. Government/TELECOM takeover of the public's spectrum should be resisted to the utmost. If the public's interest is compromised for big business; what's next - Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Acadia, Grand Tetons, Statue of Liberty, public schools... ??? Beware before we sell off our national patrimony for the profiteers.
Good. You begin to suspect the presence of the man behind the curtain. Clever boy.
I bet you expect clean water and food in your populated-beyond-self-sufficiency city and would bitch about a lack of it. You chose to live in the city, you should be happy dining on sewer rats and soylent green.
And a hypocrite when it came to accepting government hand-outs while she publicly denounced such things.
That company would be LightSquared, there's several govt agencies that are hopping mad and there's all kinds of management types in Washington DC engaged in meetings on how to mitigate this situation. How this was approved by FCC, apparently someone didn't do their homework.
Data Shows Disastrous GPS Jamming from FCC-Approved Broadcaster
http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/news/data-shows-disastrous-gps-jamming-fcc-approved-broadcaster-11029?utm_source=GPS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Navigate_01_31_2011&utm_content=data-shows-disastrous-gps-jamming-fcc-approved-broadcaster-11029
I sometimes wonder if this country is losing it, as in the big rage to go all 700MHz digital trunking for public safety 2-ways. For rural areas, well lots of luck with that.
Even the hamsters have groups getting into the same kinds of mischief such as repeater coordination organizations getting into the spectrum management role and claiming they have FCC and ARRL approval (which they do not). And one such group stated all amateur repeaters and users of them have to go narrowband (hey A******, do your homework and you'll see it applies only to Part 90 users!!!!!!!!!)
Alrighty folks, that's my Gripe Of The Month.
mfwright@batnet.com
Why is 4G greater good? The country suffers from only 3G? I have a very comfortable income, having never used 4G. I fund libraries and thier internet access. I fund buses that make trips to those libraries. I fund vehicles for people that can afford $40,000 cars. I fund cell phones for people making $27,000. I fund people to not make corn. I fund people that make fuel out of corn. I fund mexico not to sell drugs. I fund the rehab for the folks down the street that buy drugs from Mexico. I fund Egypt in hopes of a democracy. I fund Israel to protect themselves from Egypt. I live in Ohio and fund social programs in Alaska. I fund retirement for employees of public companies I have never worked for nor purchased from. I'm up to my ass in greater good. I'm going broke on all my "investments". Hopefully we can offset the cost of all the above with a 4G network.
It's unfortunate that the general welfare clause and regulating trade among the states clause have been so badly abused
If trying to stay competitive economically and technologically are not part of the "general welfare" of the country, then what is?
The majority of people are against programs that don't offer them any perceived direct benefit. It's as simple as that. We the people are too selfish to put our neighbor's needs ahead of our own because we suck too much at seeing the big picture to realize that our fates are intertwined.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Aside: that scenario would only effects stand-alone GPS devices. Throw in a receiver that can do telemetry off of the 'blocker' towers, and you should be good to go. Sort of like the smartphone approach...GPS, cellular towers, and WiFi are all used to determine location.
0 = 1 + e^(Alt something)
we need am radio / tv for local weather alerts and how many cable systems work off battery's? Directv has a battery powered sat + small lcd tv system. Do you want to have no tv where the cable system is down? want to have no tv when raid fade is blocking the dish?
And AM radio is needed for traffic and other alerts for people in cars Internet based systems will need to be better and have free with no data plan needed local traffic and weather info.
Yeah, who needs those pesky things called rights, they are outdated. We should just just ignore the Bill of Rights. It was written more than 200 years ago, it doesn't apply anymore. /s
If you think that parts of the Constitution are outdated, there is a way to deal with that. It is called getting an Ammendment passed.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
The problem that this plan is meant to solve are those people who live in places that are not profitable to serve. This is the same as the land line issue. Sure it was unfair in a way. Those of us who live economically have to subsidize those who do not. Places like Arizona and Alaska that requires huge federal subsidies to survive. OTOH we in America do strive to give everyone a basic standard of living, even if they do not deserve it. So now mobile broadband is seen as a quality of life issue. For the most part in places where it is profitable it is now accesible at a price that most people can afford. So we know have to subsidize so that people who can't afford it can have it. Just like we do for land lines. Just like we do for fuel for cars.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Call me a cynic at this point, but I don't believe the US government any more when they claim they are trying to "help" people. It's all about the money lebowski.
... while WIRELESS doesn't get net neutrality ... )
... Well.. except of course the people who are being forced into these crap agreements and who's money is being handed out like candy ...
The money trail -
Step 1: Find the biggest companies who have the most (or at least most potential for) money : Google + Verizon Android Deal (Basically - plans to get android on a bunch of verizon phones to tap into the iphone / apple market)
Step 2: Figure out how the government can step in to get paid while still looking good: Google + Verizon Net Neutrality Deal (Basically - WIRED stays net neutral (government looks good)
Step 3: Show public support for a bill that will help the big companies.. err I mean the people - "YAY! Interwebs for Allz!!"
Step 4: Avoid the headache that is the current wired infrastructure...
Step 5: $ Profit $
Considering that Google was recently given permission to monitor the white space between channels by the FCC, and the political mindset of many Google employees, wouldn't it be great if Google open sourced a distributed White space Wifi network protocol, every transmitter works as a node in the network. The early adopters would get lousy transmission speeds, but over time, coverage and bandwidth would increase until it reached a tipping point where the radio network passes the wired in functionality. The best thing about this would be that short of jamming there would be no way to switch it off.
I'm not sure why you are trying to make "mobile" broadband the thing to invest in, when wired broadband options suck just as much.
The government is already doing lots to encourage access to very-high-speed broadband (which likely means fixed, wired services), but mobile broadband has particular advantages that fixed does not. Fixed is important because it provides the best speed, mobile is important because of its utility to applications where fixed access doesn't work (e.g., emergency responders.)
The FCC is going to redirect $8 billion already in hand from POTS to broadband. In addition to a dictionary, try cracking open a newspaper.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/08/idUSN0828392120110208
How about the gov builds out a national 4G network using european frequencies and standards, and leases the network to cell carriers. And mandate that any phone or device can be used without needing a locked in contract (like you can use any home phone or fax). And regulate the billing rates so that americans -don't- have the highest cellphone rates in the entire known world (yes, that includes Hawaii, sigh.).
Yes, only dumb people set accidental cooking fires. I see my point was well taken.
Ayn Rand was a decent novelist...
Uh, no. Her characters are wooden simulacra of people, her dialog is stilted, and her plots non-existant-to-laughable. Even she said that her main point in writing her novels was to put forth her philosophy. It shows. Her writing is good only to the extent that ones knowledge of literature starts at "Sci" and ends at "Fi" - and not very good SciFi at that. She doesn't even make it to the level of a good pulp writer...
That is all.
Look, there are lots of benefits of scale to living in an urban area.
There are also lots of benefits to living in a rural area
These benefits are not the same. If you want benefits like infrastructure, live where infrastructure makes sense.
If you want to live in the middle of nowhere, all by yourself, enjoy your dialup and/or satellite connection.
I have no doubt that increased broadband would be a transformative technology (and a welcomed one). However, the crux of my brief observation was that I am not inclined to pay out of tax dollars to build up the infrastructure of a few private companies who will then resell it back to me at an uncompetitive price. The same companies who sue and shut down municipal projects to provide free wifi for the tax payers (I am looking at you Verizon). Now if this money was going to be used to ensure that these companies had a real need to compete in a market place or to restructure their current practices (I don't want a subsidized phone) i want the option of data only on a phone. txt messaging prices are disgusting.. etc. Then yes, I would personally help to make this proposal become action. I do not want to be forced to give my tax money to help a private company build out their infrastructure.
If it's going across state lines it's a Federal issue.
"You will note that Post Roads are mentioned but oddly nothing about Internet access."
E-mail.
I'm someone who lives in the sticks and would benefit from this, having only a WISP now that charges $60 for 765k down. I'd love to have some real competition out here. That being said, access from a cell carrier that is capped at 5 GB a month is not something that's viable. Sure it's enough to check your email and surf around, but if you want to watch movies and backup your files with services like Netflix and Mozy, it just won't cut it. I've been contacting my local rep and I'm just not sure what to tell them. How do you think the government (state or national) could better spend to move forward access for everyone?
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
Does he mean 4G that actually approaches theoretical speeds, or the abysmal a-little-faster-than-3G-but-we'll-take-what-we-can-get that we're seeing now?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Besides the previous articles on SD - 4G Broadband May Jam GPS http://slashdot.org/story/11/02/09/1324253/4G-Broadband-May-Jam-GPS/ Nothing like having America blanketed by GPS blocking net :P
It will be interesting to see how long before 4G is antique and the new 42G is the rage...
Will the infrastructure be usable or shall we all pony up for the new stuff when it comes time? What the Hell we have too much disposable income anyway, right?
If bars don't serve drunk people, then McDonald's shouldn't serve fat people...
Dumb people do things like:
- Throw water on a grease fire. Best Idea Evar.
- Turn the stove on and pass out drunk so they can't hear the fire alarm.
- Not have working fire alarms in the first place.
- Leave the house while the stove is on.
Smart people generally don't start cooking fires in the first place, but if they do, they know to put a lid on it, turn the stove off, and use baking soda and/or a fire extinguisher. They certainly don't call the fire department over an easily-contained cooking fire... fire departments are notorious for making a big fucking mess and then leaving.
Who gives a rats rear about mobile broadband...how about we get better saturation on standard home broadband first. I'm sick of being in the heart of a 40,000 person city and stuck at under 1.5/768 that only works 50% of the time anyway.
So, the FCC, FDA, and NASA do not have a right to exist, hmm interesting.
No one will be unobserved.
Yours,
Laszlo Toth
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Way to fail civics.
Obama, while you're out making unreasonable demands, can you demand companies stop shipping my jobs off to India? Perhaps demand CEOs give up their bonuses and instead give their workers a raise, or hire new ones. Or even better, why don't you demand that everyone in the US government stop acting like children.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
Morpheus, God of Dreams.
.. considering you can burn through most plan's miserly download caps in a couple of hours of streaming content even on 3G? For example, T-Mobile advertise a 10$/mo 4G data plan with a 200Mb cap. 200Mb!!! AT&T's 200Mb plan is $35/mo and to upgrade to a 5Gb cap would cost an additional $25! Until cell phone companies in the US move into the 21st century there is no way I am buying a smartphone.
You're either not familiar with smartphones and the costs associated with internet access (here's a clue - that landline you propose people replace with a smartphone is mucn MUCH cheaper than the wireless data plan) or you are one of the middle-class employed people that doesn't really understand how expensive this stuff actually is, and how unaffordable for the poor.
Or you are not familiar with the President's National Wireless Initiative that is being discussed here, which includes:
reform of the “Universal Service Fund” to ensure millions more Americans will be able to use this technology.
I have mixed feelings about this. First of all the government cannot really afford to be doing overarching things like this right now. Is having LTE everywhere important? Yes, I think it is. Can the government afford to fund it for the carriers? NO. There needs to be a massive contraction in spending right now including on the defense budget. I think that given enough time that LTE will probably get close to the government mandate of 98% coverage. It might take longer but it will get there. I only wish that mobile wireless wasn't so darn expensive and limited. 3g is not that specacular. REAL 4g (as in LTE) is pretty good but it is still going to have capacity issues compared to cable and DSL. I think it makes sense for rural areas where telecoms cannot afford to wire every neighborhood or home with fiber. And when I mean REAL 4g I don't mean T-mobile's or ATT's "4G Like" HSPA+ system. It is fine on its own but it is not 4G and should not be marketed as such. It is rather misleading I think.
>>>"Commerce Clause,"
AMONG the states means the 4G wireless that crosses state lines, not commerce inside the state. The Supreme Court has said that several times over the last decade, such as when they struck down the Congressional law forbidding guns within one mile of schools. (They didn't buy the "guns pass over borders" argument.)
It does not include the local Mom&Pop celltower located at the corner of Main and King street, Glendive Montana. THAT jurisdiction, like all internal state matters, falls to the Member State Legislature's control. If that body determines "Yes mom and pop can put a cell tower in that location," the Union government has no authority to overrule them and put an ATT cell tower instead.
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
Because we've been down this road before, with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. See: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html
$200,000,000,000 in excise taxes later, we have exactly NOTHING to show for it. Do you have your 45Mbps up-and-down service? Neither does anyone else.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Agriculture can be done almost entirely entirely in the city. It's done so in Havana, feeding basically the whole population in city limits. Meat is more tricky to do in dense spaces.
Al those other products are more available in population dense areas.
City dwellers generally have better health, largely because they get more exercise than suburbanites or rural dwellers.
City costs are fundamentally lower than those for suburbanites and rural dwellers. The cost of access to goods, the energy costs for living, and so on are all lower. It's just that we have such a paucity of quality dense urban space that the laws of supply and demand drive the housing costs up.
-josh
You must think that the network runs on fairy dust.
Who is going to pay for the customer service operator who you call when you have a problem with your account or want to sign up for a new one? Who is going to pay for the web developer to maintain the company website? Who is going to pay for the technician to repair the telephone lines when they get knocked out in a storm? Who is going to pay for the janitor who cleans up the company office? Who is going to pay for the human resource managers that are required to select and supervise all of these employees?
A network is not a "build it and forget about it" project. It requires maintenance, and that's the useful thing that the company provides -- maintenance and oversight.
So, you can either have the government pay the salaries and wages of all the telephone company's workers, as well as the costs of all the company's equipment and supplies -- or you can have the users of the service pay monthly fees like they do in the current model. Those are your choices. Just don't pretend like you can maintain network infrastructure for free.
And you managed to come across as condescending at the same time.
The network doesn't run itself for free. It requires maintenance and repairs. That is what your monthly service fees pay for -- the gov't subsidy, at least in theory (I don't know how well the telecoms are managed), is used to pay simply for the installation of new lines. If you don't want to pay a monthly service fee, then you're going to have to support all of the company's employees and other business expenses with tax money instead.
As a side note, Obama's "infrastructure" plans as you describe them in the Chinese comparison are actually straight out of FDR's "new deal" legislation that was enacted in 1933. Does your knowledge of American history only go back to the beginning of WW2, or what?
Any GPS I have ever used has been a stand-alone device, personally, I'd rather use a system with fewer potential points of failure.
and a travesty of an economist and philosopher.
And of course, unlike all other Ayn Rand critics, you are able to back up your statement with some evidence, right? Or are you, like most of them, basing your negative opinion of her on the vague notion you overheard somewhere that she is in favor of 'selfishness' which, without reading or understanding any of her work, is enough for you to classify her as a horrible person? I am willing to bet $1000 that it is the latter and that you cannot come with a persuasive argument why she is a "travesty of an economist and philosopher". Please prove me wrong if you can.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
I agree, it's a shame William Gibson had a psuedonym name...
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
You've got the wrong Roman reference, actually. Communications access is economic infrastructure, like roads and aqueducts. Economic infrastructure pays for itself and increases the wealth of the nation.
Ummm. Then why are all the roads and bridges crumbling? Why are many national parks threatened with closure?
Sorry. But the money isn't there. We keep "growing" when we can't afford it. My reference to Bread & Circuses is appropriate - I think - because providing broadband sounds fun, good & egalitarian when all it does is provide a distraction from the economic peril the entire world faces.
Then again, most of the country wants to either get rich quick building websites or creating a product/service that Oprah will like so bring it on.
I disagree. She was not a decent novelist.
No, it's that other 4G.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Dude... tower telemetry triangulation is not GPS, in spite of what a phone says.
Real GPS uses satellite alone for latitude/longitude.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
The UK is looking at massive library closings due to right-wing ideology on how to close their budget shortfall:
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/10/133656983/britain-faces-closing-the-book-on-libraries
Plus, it's also been seen here in the states with the big budget shortfalls in municipalities:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6618984.html
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/04/10/trustees_vote_yes_on_library_closings/
So in the end, we'll have no text books, no libraries, and you'll have to own your own iPad or other tablet, or rent it from the school.
Isn't it cool that our dystopian future is already here?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Wait for the 4G routers to come out.
I mean, 3G routers are out now, it's not hard to change the modulator and make another model.
Besides, every sane person uses token ring... sheez.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Let me guess, you live in an apartment in a city? That wouldn't have any shift in your bias, would it?
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
...he lost his coverage somewhere for his crackberry??? You know maybe when he was on one of those vacations he seems to take every month.
Joe Investor
>>>Why is it that every time an initiative is launched to modernize the country and bring us up to speed with the other countries that have far surpassed the US, people cry foul? Why do they never do that when, oh I don't know, a WAR is about to be launched?
>>>
I have protested against every president for the last 20 years. Your claim "you were silent" is false for both me and most of my friends (remember the "Bush is a murderer" or "Patriot Act is Big Brother" posters?). Nice try at a strawman argument though, even though its obviously false.
As for THIS specific 4G idea, I protest not because of the policy, but because of the physics. There's simply not enough room for the Radio spectrum to support ~350 million people at anything above 1 megabit/s. It's the equivalent of trying to run Interstate 80's traffic down a single lane road..... even in rural areas, it will overload and slow to a crawl.
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
I can already guess what this program is going to look like. In my small city, and many other small towns in the country, a company called Open Range (http://www.openrange.net) has recently been offering Internet service that they brand as "4g". It uses WiMax. One of their flyers was left on my door, offering a free one month trial, so I decided to give it a try, just for the heck of it. They provide a unit that looks like an oversized wireless router, with giant antennas on it. This device recieves the WiMax, and it also has a built in wireless router. They also offer phone service through the unit - it has phone jacks in the back. The internet is $40 a month, and it goes to about $60 if you want the phone service as well. The internet is actually unlimited. But it isn't what I'd consider to be broadband. They claim speeds of up to 4 Mbit. In reality, I found that speed varied quite a bit, depending on time of day mostly. Sometimes it could get very slow. And doing something bandwidth intensive on it would take up so much bandwidth it would significantly slow my browsing even. So in the end, I decided it wasn't for me. There are other options in this city, and I think for the price, DSL would be better. I have cable, and while cable is more expensive, it at least provides an 8 Mbit connection that is always reliably right around it's advertised speed. I believe this company is partially financed by government grants and or low interest government loans. Since we're considered a rural area, it was part of the rural broadband initiative. However, this still doesn't help the people who live outside of my city. This wireless doesn't reach them, the cable company won't run cable out there, and the phone company won't upgrade their lines outside of the city to handle DSL. To top it all off, the cell phone service around here isn't great. In the city (of 20,000 people) AT&T hasn't even yet upgraded to 3g, T-Mobile doesn't offer service, Sprint doesn't either, leaving Verizon the only game in town if you want to use data on a mobile device. Enough whining about my city. Anyways, I fail to see what this will accomplish. All the decent sized towns and cities in America already have choices for internet, which are already better than 4g. Still no one will be covering the really rural folks who live outside of town. So. What does this accomplish? Nothing, really, except to waste more taxpayer money. Maybe the competition will help lower broadband prices? I haven't seen that happen yet in my city, the 4g isn't really priced low enough to bring droves of people away from what they already have. Even if it was dirt cheap, it just isn't fast enough for me anyways.
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes.
See?
Just because I say 'yes' a bunch of times doesn't change anything.
I also disagree with you completely on Ayn Rand.
She was not as bad an economist as all the accepted "economists" of current era are: Krugman, Bernanke, Geithner, Greenspan etc.
You can't handle the truth.
Of course it's "within five years." Politicians love making grandiose statements about what we should have while conveniently putting the deadline beyond their term limits.
I'm not saying that universal internet coverage would be a bad thing, but this seems like a purely political move to me. It sounds nice and it promises nothing that can be held to him.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
US gov't should have NEVER been building roads.
The New Deal thing killed the railroads and airline profits in USA.
The railroads were torn down (before that, USA used to have more railroad than any other country in the world) and those railroads were profitable.
The airline industry was taxed to hell to build the roads (and also of-course there was debt and money printing).
Also after the roads were built, USA became very 'car friendly'. USA gov't subsidized its car manufacturers basically by building all those roads, but they have destroyed the rail and put airlines on gov't dole as well, as then the airlines became dependent on gov't subsidies to survive.
Also the building of the roads allowed the huge suburban areas to be built, and so lots of deforestation, lots of spread out and pollution due to cars driving huge distances to get anywhere - all thanks US gov't. This was pure gov't driven insanity, all under the guise of improving economy, while instead it prolonged the recession, which became the great depression, all thanks to gov't spending and mis-allocation of resources.
There are no projects that gov't should be involved in except defense of the nation, and US military budget needs to be cut by over 90% anyway.
You can't handle the truth.
One thing is investment, another thing is spending.
They are different, never mind what Obama/Biden are telling you.
Today USA borrows over 50% of the money it spends on CONSUMABLES. Military, SS, EI, Medicare, etc., over 50% of the money that is spent on those consumables does not come from taxes but comes out of debt bought by other nations and some private banks (though it looks lately that almost all US debt is now bought by either central banks or the Fed. Central banks - because they don't care about profit and they are desperate to keep US going for some reason. Fed - obviously it's completely subverted, it was supposed to take the punch bowl away from Congress years ago, it's totally failed on everything it does, from price stability to being independent.)
When you loan 50% for your consumption, you don't go deeper in debt to try and 'invest'. You CUT CONSUMPTION first. You cut consumption and give back some debt first, because you are in a position, where every single interest rate percent costs you 140billion a year, that's unsustainable.
In reality US gov't is in the same boat with US banks. All of these entities are bankrupt right now. What investment into infrastructure when you can be foreclosed upon any day?
You can't handle the truth.
The spectrum is owned by the PEOPLE Mr. President, not you, not the government, and certainly not those you license it to.
Patently incorrect. The spectrum is not owned by either the citizens of the United States nor the president. I don't think ownership is even appropriate term here; can you own light? That's part of the spectrum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_allocation
In a related matter, the allocation of who uses which parts of the spectrum has to be regulated by a government body, otherwise anyone could start hijack any part of the spectrum. For example, one could start broadcasting porn over another FM station's programs with a stronger signal.
Finally, I don't think the purpose of the President's initiative is to define what is viable in 2025 or 2050, nor would it prevent the technology from continuing. It is simply an initiative to get people a certain minimum level of wireless access.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
But not afford to get, or use, with how things are going.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I reply to you but it applies to the others too. I split my time between the suburbs of a major metro area and, gasp, the sticks!. You know what? Our local phone co. here that covers 5 or 6 towns has manged to get me... drumroll.... high speed broadband, 4Mb/1Mb to be precise. They have a lower offering and also now a higher one too. They do this without Obama, Nancy or Harry's help. It runs roughly 35 bucks a month so no, its not the cheapest offering in the country nor is it the most expensive.
If you look at the rankings of MSA's and microSA's, they total 287mio people. The smallest of them is Pecos TX (pop about 11K) and they have time warner broadband internet service available.
So I repeat all of my above points - its a waste of money, its government trying to tell us they know best and it is certainly not a priority.
FYI - the nearest traffic light to me is 18 miles.
No, from the article:
This article uses 4G to refer to IMT-Advanced (International Mobile Telecommunications Advanced), as defined by ITU-R.
It turns out that U.S. carriers do not use the IMT-Advanced as a definition of 4G. I suspect that Americans will come to know such technologies as 5G. I also understand that there is somewhat of a battle going on between some consumer advocates who want the wireless companies to stop using the term 4G because it doesn't fit the IMT-Advanced protocol. That is a losing battle. For one, consumers don't know or need to know the technology behind it, but they do know (and it is true) that what Americans know as 4G is faster than what Americans know as 3G. Second, the ITU shouldn't be (and isn't) in the business of making marketing terms, which is exactly what 4G is. Let the IMT-Advanced protocol be defined, and let whomever wants to implement it call it whatever they want.
I hope that the Wikipedia article is updated soon to clarify the difference between what 4G means in America (a term which includes HSPA+), and what the term means elsewhere. (I cannot speak on what 4G means in Europe, Asia, etc.)
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Ummm. Then why are all the roads and bridges crumbling? Why are many national parks threatened with closure?
Although I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your main point, I have to point out that if "all" of the roads and bridges are crumbling, that in no way proves against the OP's point that "Economic infrastructure pays for itself and increases the wealth of the nation."
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
The world at the time had lines of 'semaphore towers' as a kind of pre-telegraph.
The founders were aware of that and did not fund it.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Your question has an implicit assumption that you should think about.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
When the government gets involved in anything it ends up costing more and not working as well.
Soon enough the (intentionally) uninformed conservatives will be running around screaming that Obama wants to start a state-run phone service that will provide everyone with 4G cell coverage for free and instantly put all the wireless companies in this country out of business.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I actually formed my opinion of Rand by (wait for it) reading her work. The problem with Rand's work is that it is all just one big knee jerk reaction to communism that hand waves away all of the details just as badly as Marx ever did. She blathers on and on about how terrible it is for the government to take what is rightfully ours, but neglects to address what we are supposed to do when corporations, in the vacuum of power created by a government that does not participate in the economy, are powerful enough to enact that same force. And what's worse, the government is made up of elected officials, so they at least don't have a direct motive to enshrine additional power to those in their position, because we could vote them out tomorrow, and they don't actually want to be oppressed any more than we do. A laissez faire economy, on the other hand, lets people amass power (money is just a big abstraction for the power to make people do things, which Rand loathes so much) and then hand it off to their children, which means if you can lock everybody but you and your friends into serfdom, you've won the game. When you give the economy free reign, you move first to industrial revolution-era abuse of the lower class, and then eventually into hereditary dictatorship (or feudalism). We know this because that is exactly how all of the old world monarchies formed. If you don't let your government participate in the government in any way, eventually the private sector will amass enough power that it can tell the government no (or more realistically, just control the government by proxy, which we are getting more and more of every day).
The way Rand talks about the free market, it sounds like it is some beneficent force powered by fairy dust and magical unicorns. The burden of proof for demonstrating anything should lie with Rand's followers, because that's as much a leap of faith as believing that some Jew died a couple thousand years ago for your sins. A capitalistic market is not a moral force. It is a tool with limitations. And if we do not recognize and address those limitations, it is about as useful as trying to put together a gun using a wet saw, only a lot more dangerous.
See, I'd repost what I said in response to a reply up above, but that would be uncouth. Instead, I'll say this: calling her an economist is giving her way too much credit.
I hear that. I'm still waiting for cell phone coverage (of any variety) to come to my house so my cell phone can receive calls when I'm at home.
If I run into something where I have a question, I can quickly find an answer. Or, if I'm out and I have an idea that could be really useful, I can very quickly do a bit of basic research into it, make a note, send an email to ask someone else about it, etc.
God forbid you have to wait an extra couple of seconds for 3G when you're away from home
Sorry if that comes off as rude, but I find it very frustrating that those of us who don't have the latest 4G smartphones should have to pay for the installation of a 4G network, especially since people who subscribe to 4G will still have to pay a monthly fee to the cell phone company.
Even giving more business to private companies in an effort to improve our collective quality of life while doing no harm, financial or otherwise, to the corporations that currently run the show is somehow "too far to the left"?
Except there's one problem: this doesn't improve our collective quality of life. Not everybody wants a 4G smartphone, so not everybody should have to pay for it. I can respect the logic behind things like universal healthcare and food stamps because those are things that can save lives, but I sure as hell cannot understand why its fair that I should have to pay so that somebody else can watch the Dramatic Chipmunk on his phone.
Your question has an implicit assumption that you should think about.
No. If they say the purpose of the bill is to compete economically and technologically, we can't just assume they're lying. If you want to claim laws are unconstitutional, you need something more than "general distrust of the man"
I am glad to hear that, although it is unfortunate that you didn't understand it.
And this is how I know you didn't understand it. You are in agreement with her when you think you are arguing against her: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html
Her entire point is that the government's duty (the only moral duty) is to prevent initiation of force by anybody against anybody else, and here you are arguing that without government, someone (corporations) will be able to use force against someone (I guess individuals?). She agrees! Laissez faire capitalism is not anarchy. Itn fact it cannot exist without the rule of law, which means government.
This is completely wrong. Bill Gates has billions of dollars. In a society where there is rule of law and the government monopolizes physical force, can he make you do whatever he wants? How?
Industrial revolution era abuse of lower classes? Is this how they were abused: http://images.tdaxp.com/tdaxp_upload/real_income_per_person_in_england_md.jpg
You can draw a chart exactly like that for every aspect of the standard of living, life expectancy, child mortality, income, education etc. By today's standards worker conditions during the industrial revolution were bad. But, and this is very important: they were enormously better than the conditions that preceded the industrial revolution. In fact, short of invention of agriculture, industrial revolution improved the life of ordinary people more than anything else in the history of human race. If that is what you call abuse, then your expectations are unrealistic. Note that this huge improvement in people's lives was accomplished entirely by private sector with government in England wisely staying mostly out of the way, something that current governments could learn from.
So, this the problem you have with laissez-faire capitalism. The purpose of the government, as you see it, is to regulate private sector in order to make sure no company gets too rich and too powerful to overpower the government? Because if it does, it is going to disregard the laws, courts and police and use force against individual citizens (by forming a private army?). You seem to believe this to be so self evident, that the onus is on anyone who disagrees to demonstrate why this wouldn't happen.
I think this is nuts. Every example so far known of gross abuse of individual citizens' rights has come from the only place where it can realistically come from: unrestrained government. Every example of countries approaching something like laissez-faire capitalism (Britain in 18th century - industrial revolution, Hong Kong in the 20th, US in the 19th century) has been a huge success. None of them have led to companies building armies and overruling governments.
P.S. I just replied to the points you made. I didn't go into the real point of Ayn Rand's philosophy which is the moral underpinnings of all this, immorality of all initiation of physical force.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
And I am saying that calling any of the mainstream Keynesians economist is like calling astrologists and sign readers - astronomers.
You can't handle the truth.
And this is how I know you didn't understand it. You are in agreement with her when you think you are arguing against her: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html [aynrandlexicon.com] Her entire point is that the government's duty (the only moral duty) is to prevent initiation of force by anybody against anybody else, and here you are arguing that without government, someone (corporations) will be able to use force against someone (I guess individuals?). She agrees! Laissez faire capitalism is not anarchy. Itn fact it cannot exist without the rule of law, which means government.
The problem is that Rand convolutes physical violence and economic coercion when she talks about the government controlling you, but then turns around and only addresses physical violence when it comes to what we can do to each other. She's changed the definition of "force" mid-argument, and you've fallen for it wholesale.
This is completely wrong. Bill Gates has billions of dollars. In a society where there is rule of law and the government monopolizes physical force, can he make you do whatever he wants? How?
You can't really pick an example from within our controlled economy and have it say anything about a laissez faire system. If all regulation today were dropped, Bill's corporation could stomp out products competing with his, and then they could control how you or anyone else interacts with a computer. Or, if he took a more personal dislike to you, he could purchase every piece of food out from under you when you try to buy it until you submitted. At that point, he would have as much control over you as the government does now (the government can't actually currently make you take whatever arbitrary action it desires)
Industrial revolution era abuse of lower classes? Is this how they were abused: http://images.tdaxp.com/tdaxp_upload/real_income_per_person_in_england_md.jpg [tdaxp.com] You can draw a chart exactly like that for every aspect of the standard of living, life expectancy, child mortality, income, education etc. By today's standards worker conditions during the industrial revolution were bad. But, and this is very important: they were enormously better than the conditions that preceded the industrial revolution. In fact, short of invention of agriculture, industrial revolution improved the life of ordinary people more than anything else in the history of human race. If that is what you call abuse, then your expectations are unrealistic. Note that this huge improvement in people's lives was accomplished entirely by private sector with government in England wisely staying mostly out of the way, something that current governments could learn from.
The awesome thing about your chart is that it is not descriptive at all of the quality of life for the bottom quintile of income earners during the same time period. That graph could look like that even if the poorest people got twice as poor, provided the people at the top made enough more money. Even if everything you say is true, though, that does not actually mean that the workers were not being abused. The point of comparison isn't what life would be like if the technology had not been invented. There is not a single shred of evidence you can produce that having laws to protect workers actually stifles innovation (The united states ranks #40 in patents granted per capita, far lower than socialized countries like Sweden and Norway), so they would have gotten the quality of life improvements the technology provided whether they had to work in inhumane conditions or not. The only point of comparison is how those workers would have done if factory owners were not allowed to walk all over them. What you are claim
You are right in that I don't understand what do you mean by "economic coercion when .. the government is controlling you" as opposed to physical force. What is this economic coercion by the government that does not involve force? How can coercion of any kind not involve physical force?
You need to be more specific. By what mechanism can he stomp out products competing with his? How does he stop rival corporations and rival billionaires from competing with him and how does he force customers to buy his products as opposed to the competition's products? The evidence is that even without anti-trust laws, the free market does not tend to concentrate anything like that sort of power in the hands of a one or few people and even when it does in a particular market, it does not last for long.
The chart was just one example. For some perspective, in 1600s life expectancy in England was about 35 years which hasn't improved much for centuries prior to industrial revolution. The % of children who died before the age of 5 in London went from something like 75% to 30% in only a few decades. Population: http://apworldhistorywiki.wikispaces.com/file/view/worldpopulationgrowth2%5B1%5D.gif All charts about the period look the same. Why do you think people moved in huge numbers from countryside into the cities to take factory jobs unless it meant a better life and a chance for all four or five children to survive instead of just one as or two was the norm before.
This is hardly worth replying to. People will sometimes abuse other people, free market or not. This abuse happened in as you say "controlled" economy, so how does that present any evidence in your favor? On the other hand, I have good evidence that government actions (with best intentions in mind) have directly caused over 100 million deaths in the last century through disastrous effects of the central planing of the economy.
Please provide reading material that proves that government planning of the economy works better than the free market, I need a good laugh.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
I'm proposing an initiative to double the size of flash storage over the next 5 years.
Don't forget to thank me in 5 years when I have achieved my goal.
This will happen eventually, just after pigs fly out of my ass
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
You are right in that I don't understand what do you mean by "economic coercion when .. the government is controlling you" as opposed to physical force. What is this economic coercion by the government that does not involve force? How can coercion of any kind not involve physical force?
Just as a quick example that takes place today, farm subsidies. Or the government can require certain concessions in order for me to obtain grant money that I need to stay competitive with rivals, who are also getting the grant money.
You need to be more specific. By what mechanism can he stomp out products competing with his? How does he stop rival corporations and rival billionaires from competing with him and how does he force customers to buy his products as opposed to the competition's products? The evidence is that even without anti-trust laws, the free market does not tend to concentrate anything like that sort of power in the hands of a one or few people and even when it does in a particular market, it does not last for long.
He doesn't stomp out direct and equal competitors. The two collude until they either merge, or one gains enough of an edge to buy out or quash the other. It is utter hogwash that this doesn't happen. As to what he does to smaller companies, to continue our specific example: Microsoft's mergers and acquisitions. That was usually the easier course, but they could also just Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish. And hell, by historical metrics, Microsoft wasn't even that bad as far as monopolistic companies go.
What you are saying is unfounded religious speak. Please provide specific historical examples where true monopolies resolved themselves.
The chart was just one example. For some perspective, in 1600s life expectancy in England was about 35 years which hasn't improved much for centuries prior to industrial revolution. The % of children who died before the age of 5 in London went from something like 75% to 30% in only a few decades. Population: http://apworldhistorywiki.wikispaces.com/file/view/worldpopulationgrowth2%5B1%5D.gif [wikispaces.com] All charts about the period look the same. Why do you think people moved in huge numbers from countryside into the cities to take factory jobs unless it meant a better life and a chance for all four or five children to survive instead of just one as or two was the norm before.
Again you give overly broad statistics and then willfully interpret them to support your stance. Life expectancy was only in the 40s at the start of the 20th century, and a large portion of even that modest growth came from the other statistic you mentioned: infant mortality rates plummeted. This had nothing to do with living in cities and everything to do with medical advances such as pasteurization of milk. The more interesting statistic is that the rate at which people survive through childhood didn't get better at all until much later, because strangely enough, having 8 year olds operate heavy machinery for huge numbers of hours a week in squalid conditions actually was not conducive to a long and happy life.
You've also just flat made up causation that sounds good to you for why people moved to cities. The reality was that between technological advances and population growth, there actually weren't jobs that they could have taken instead away from the cities. They didn't get up one day and say "hey, all those factory workers with their soul crushing poverty sure seem like they have a great life! Let's quit my job fixing shoes for my local community, which is considered a respectable trade and earns me liveable wag
That is physical force. How does the government get the money it pays out in subsidies and grants? Please say that taxes are voluntary, you'll be in good company: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6q0slMhDw8
You are again confused about what force means.He cannot buy out competition by force, only if the money he offers for their business is a good deal for them. He cannot stop new competition from emerging, hell if he is buying competition out all over the place that alone is an incentive to start a competing company - there is a big check coming in. Even Bill Gates will pretty soon run out of money if he had to buy out everybody.
Talking about industrial revolution:
In the words of Nobel Prize winning Robert E. Lucas, Jr., "For the first time in history, the living standards of the masses of ordinary people have begun to undergo sustained growth. ... Nothing remotely like this economic behavior has happened before.
In the words of Nobel prize winning economist F.A. Hayek :the industrial revolution portrayed by the pessimists is the âoeone supreme myth which more than any other has served to discredit the economic system to which we owe our modern day civilization (capitalism)â
In the words of Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman: "Industrial Revolution saw a net decline in child labor, rather than an increase."
The great leap forward, the famines in USSR, China, Cambodia, North Korea etc directly caused by agricultural collectivization, immeasurable and unnecessary hunger, poverty and every kind of suffering in India which despite being democratic embraced centrally planned economy until recently etc etc. All those were done with intentions of improving the conditions of people and had the opposite effects.
No, Hong Kong is NOT an example of how central planning works better than free market. Just the opposite, it is an example of success of the free market: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH06M_nYWAw Some public housing doesn't change that. I never said that Hong Kong was completely free economically, only mostly free, in fact more so than any other country.
They are not. The key
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Shia LeBeouf, is that you? :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Check out the FCC's fast track of LighSpeed's high powered ground based transmitters in the satellite band right next to GPS. Not even any buffer space for 40,000 transmitters authorized to run an effective radiated power of 45,000 watts. It can cause interference (loss of signal) to ground based GPS (automotive) in cities to over 3 miles and aviation GPS (complete loss of signal) at over 5 miles. Isn't that a comforting thought with most aircraft now using GPS for instrument navigation. Watch for line wrap on link. http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/news/data-shows-disastrous-gps-jamming-fcc-approved-broadcaster-11029 Even the comment period was far shorter than normal with the FCC giving the OK against the wishes of the Department of Defense, Department of Transportation, and Homeland Security. it was also against the FCC's own policy. Lots of conspiracy theories about this one. :-))
According to the article LightSpeed *apparently* expects the GPS community to fix the problem and not them. They are also the ones who will turn in any report to the FCC on a study of interference to GPS. Basically if they get their way anything presently using GPS would likely need to be either upgraded or replaced which includes all modern cell phones along with both automotive and aircraft GPS receivers.
That is physical force. How does the government get the money it pays out in subsidies and grants? Please say that taxes are voluntary, you'll be in good company: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6q0slMhDw8 [youtube.com]
The source of the the government's power and its expenditure are two different processes. Norway's government is largely funded by income generated by money they have invested after selling oil from their large natural reserves. By your logic, if they were to provide grants and farm subsidies, it would not be exerting economic force? Your definition of physical force is as mercurial as Rand's.
You are again confused about what force means.He cannot buy out competition by force, only if the money he offers for their business is a good deal for them. He cannot stop new competition from emerging, hell if he is buying competition out all over the place that alone is an incentive to start a competing company - there is a big check coming in. Even Bill Gates will pretty soon run out of money if he had to buy out everybody.
You don't have to buy out everybody, you just buy out legitimate competitors. What I can't understand is how you can be so delusional that you can pretend it didn't happen when it occured during your lifetime. It is a good deal for them because it is a better option than watching your business crumble when they use any number of other dirty tricks to crush your business. Did you even look at the list of companies that Microsoft bought out?
Talking about industrial revolution: In the words of Nobel Prize winning Robert E. Lucas, Jr., "For the first time in history, the living standards of the masses of ordinary people have begun to undergo sustained growth. ... Nothing remotely like this economic behavior has happened before.
In the words of Nobel prize winning economist F.A. Hayek :the industrial revolution portrayed by the pessimists is the âoeone supreme myth which more than any other has served to discredit the economic system to which we owe our modern day civilization (capitalism)â
In the words of Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman: "Industrial Revolution saw a net decline in child labor, rather than an increase."
Nice, free market economists say nice things about free markets. Tonight on the news: bears shit in the woods! Tune in at 10:00!
Seriously, though, Paul Krugman is also a Nobel laureate, and I bet he'd give somewhat different answers if you asked him. Appeals to authority are just as worthless as your other citations. Of course there was a net decline in child labor in the Industrial Revolution. Social reform programs such as Lord Althorp's Act in Britain had already started to cap the number of hours children could work in the week. My contention isn't that the poor did not eventually benefit greatly from the progress made during that time period. It is that all of their gains come from technological advances, and a mostly free market, at best, didn't do anything to help them along, and more than likely, slowed their overall progress.
The great leap forward, the famines in USSR, China, Cambodia, North Korea etc directly caused by agricultural collectivization, immeasurable and unnecessary hunger, poverty and every kind of suffering in India which despite being democratic embraced centrally planned economy until recently etc etc. All those were done with intentions of improving the conditions of people and had the opposite effects.
If you think the government in places like Stalin's Russia and North Korea have the best intentions, then you're more crazy than I realized.
No, Hong Kong is NOT an example of how central planning works better than free market. Just the opposite, it is an example of success of the free market:
The world at the time had lines of 'semaphore towers' as a kind of pre-telegraph.
Yes, that's exactly the same as the internet. Ladies and gentlemen, we have definitive proof on whether or not the Founding Fathers would have funded a modern communications infrastructure!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)