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."
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
Great for middle-class employed people
Why? To the extent that the government makes anything happen in this regard, that's exactly who gets to pay for it (well, their grandhildren do, actually). What does this have to do with unemployed people, other than the indirect prospect of it involving a few more jobs?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Not necessarily true. Unless you are at the very bottom of society you still have a phone. For people in these areas they can replace their landlines with smartphones that also provide them with internet access they wouldn't otherwise have. The overall cost to have a smartphone vs having a landline, internet access and a home PC is far less.
Head over to India and go through the country-side. You will see cell towers everywhere and even goatherders with cell phones. Honestly when I was there I had better reception that some places in the suburbs of NY.
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.
Coverage for 98% of the US is different than coverage for 98% of Americans.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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. If you do the math, you might find that a landline + an old modem (remember those?) is still more cost effective for internet access. Yeah, you don't get to stream 1080p video over a modem, but the expensive smartphone data plan can barely manage that either. You'd still be able to access essential services, though (if they haven't succumbed to bandwidth-consuming web 2.0 b.s.)
Your experience in India may be relevant, but you probably missed the part where the goatherders weren't being bent over a barrel by domestic telecoms to satisfy "maximizing shareholder value". I bet their costs were a fraction of what they would be in the U.S. In other words, your experience in foreign lands was largely irrelevant to the reality that people have to face in the country that the original post was referring to.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Back before I gave up the land line, it always cost around $60/month and dialup internet was another $20/month. And that would go WAY up if I actually called anyone outside of my rural county - like $.15 - $.35 a minute. Also remember that rural dialup doesn't happen at 56kbps. More like 22kbps. Couple that with today's fat bloated web sites and it'd be hopeless to do anything useful.
$65/month for a smartphone with unlimited data, unlimited nights and weekends, and free long distance is a fantastic deal compared to a land line monopoly.
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
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.
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
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.
I already read this story.
Well as I said before: This is a bad plan. There's Not enough wireless spectrum to support ~350 million people (plus free TV, radio, et cetera). Maybe if you limited them to 500k each, but that's certainly not a solution.
What we really need is Wired internet to every home.
I also object to the FCC's plan to turn-off free television (i.e. sell off channels 25 and up). I currently enjoy 40+ channels and this plan would drop that number to ~10 channels. I don't feel like being forced into a $70/month cable plan just to see the news and weather. And many americans can't afford it even if they want to.
FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
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.
Poor people can't afford the ~$600/year of upgrading from Free TV (which will largely turned off) to cellular 4G internet.
They might be able to afford $15/month DSL which is what the Obama admin should be pursuing, especially since the copper wires are already there.
FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
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...
Even assuming that there's no incentives here forcing the wireless carriers to offer cheaper options (reasonably priced pay as you go data, for instance) in exchange for the new spectrum, let's do some math. I'm making some assumptions here some of which are probably not accurate in every case but seem sensible in the broad sense. You'll only have one smartphone per family (seems reasonable, since people usually only have one phone and computer per family), and there needs to be a way to make the smartphone a little more accessible in the sense of letting it hook to a keyboard/monitor setup for when you're just sitting and working. Most of this is based on what I currently pay for these things.
Smartphone/4G setup:
We'll assume the iPhone 5 costs what the 4 does, that it can do 4G, and that you can hook it up to a keyboard/monitor. It could be an Android phone just as easily:
iPhone5: $200
4G data plan: $30 a month
voice plan: $20 a month
cost over one year: $800
Advantages: Faster Internet. Can make and receive calls while using the Internet (remember we're assuming 4G here, the current iPhone can't do this). Has GPS and other assorted "extras" related to being a phone rather than a computer. Software tends to be much cheaper. Long distance is "free" (no more expensive than local calls).
Disadvantages: Limited number of minutes for talk time. Lower computational power than even a relatively cheap "real" computer.
Computer/dial-up setup:
Computer: $400
Telephone service: $30 a month
Dial-up Internet: $10 a month
cost over one year: $880
Advantages: More computational power. Unlimited local talk time. Depending on the area, 911 service may be more reliable. Free software is available if you know where to look, and are willing to wait for downloads over dial-up.
Diadvantages: Can't talk and use Internet. Much Slower Internet. Software tends to be more expensive (if you don't know about, or can't reliably download free software). Long Distance charges can add up. Non-portable
Now, you could tweak lots of these numbers. You could probably find a cheaper computer (or a cheaper smartphone), argue about 5 bucks either way on the monthly costs (which are partly dependent on region, cell provider, etc). Some companies limit your total downloads on wireless, but wireless is always on, blah, blah, blah... Overall it seems to me that, even here in the US, a smartphone and 4G Internet would be comparable in expense if not slightly cheaper than a computer and dial-up. Assuming you ditch your land line phone, and only have one smartphone per household (as most poor families would only have one land-line and/or computer). The trick is ditching the land-line. Those things are fairly expensive.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
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.
And a hypocrite when it came to accepting government hand-outs while she publicly denounced such things.
This isn't at all about landlines: it's a deal to save Clearwire's butt and make a Sprint-Clearwire deal impossible for T-Mobile to pull off. The administration, beyond its lofty goals, is pretty worried about having the Deutsche Bourse merge with the NYSE, then have about half of the mobile infrastructure also owned by EU interests... IMHO
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
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.
But at what cost?
I've read the FCC's plan, and it would all-but-kill the Free TV that poor, unemployed, and ~50 million other americans currently rely upon (i.e. the FCC would sell-off the remaining channels). In exchange these people will be offered 4G internet plans that most cannot afford, and which cannot replace the television they lost, because of 5 GB caps.
From free to ~$600 a year. Not the kind of offer I would expect from a Democrat.
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
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 $
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.
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.
>>>5-7% of it.
Well I googled it. POTS copper line leads into 95% of Alaskan homes, mainly due to FDR's universal service fund subsidizing the lines. In other words - you were waaaaay off.
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
But at what cost?
I've read the FCC's plan, and it would all-but-kill the Free TV that poor, unemployed, and ~50 million other americans currently rely upon (i.e. the FCC would sell-off the remaining channels). In exchange these people will be offered 4G internet plans that most cannot afford, and which cannot replace the television they lost, because of 5 GB caps.
From free to ~$600 a year. Not the kind of offer I would expect from a Democrat.
You think that a $600/year plan would cover the cost of watching TV online? If it is really "4G", and if I still have access to the websites where I watch TV, then I think I would blow through a cap in about a day!
However, with net neutrality not applying to wireless networks...maybe I wouldn't...
I disagree. She was not a decent novelist.
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
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.
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.