Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Wants To Shift Phone Subsidy Funds To Broadband

Posted by Soulskill on from the i-know-just-the-place dept.

An anonymous reader writes "FCC chairman Julius Genachowski revealed plans yesterday to overhaul the U.S. phone subsidy program and shift its focus to providing broadband access. He said, 'Broadband has gone from being a luxury to a necessity for full participation in our economy and society. If we want the United States to be the world's leading market, we need to embrace the essential goal of universal broadband, and reform outdated programs.' According to BusinessWeek, the program currently 'supports phone service to schools, libraries, the poor and high-cost areas.' Last year it spent $4.3 billion to provide support to over 1,700 carriers in high-cost areas. Genachowski hopes the change will put the U.S. 'on the path to universal broadband service by the end of the decade.'"

9 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. Open up the books by SeeSp0tRun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'd like to see what carriers would be getting, vs what we will continue to pay.
    Fee hikes every year leaves me bouncing between two carriers that I hate, just because they're the only two in town.

    --
    Something witty.
    1. Re:Open up the books by bws111 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you already have broadband it won't lower your fees. The program is to subsidize service in areas where it is currently too expensive for companies to wire (rural areas).

    2. Re:Open up the books by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, much of the "taxes" on the bills are "regulatory recovery fees." It's a dodge by the phone and elec companies to make their services look cheaper and to blame to government for making them do the right thing.

      Imagine if the local Walmart started charging you a fee for the merchandise, then a 3% "regulartory recovery fee" for having to install stormwater management so the neighboring property didn't flood, plus a 4% "federal corporate tax" fee, and a 6% "Local Property Tax recovery fee". It's a cost of doing business and gets built into the price of the goods.

      Some of the taxes are real, like the 911 fee which (surprise) pays for a 911 operator to be standing by waiting to get your emergency call and route it to the appropriate emergency service provider (police, fire, rescue, etc.)

      Everyone seems to be down on taxes, but nobody wants reduced services.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:Open up the books by Ed+Bugg · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, taxes on the wealthy are at pre-Depression era lows and ...

      And with the same truthfulness you could say we have the highest corporate in the world (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world it's 38% federal with an additional 12% state and doesn't count local taxes). It's not until you take part in all the nice tax loopholes that you get an equivilent tax rate that's at the record lows. Unfortunately since many businesses are small, they can't afford the tax lawyers to take advantage of all the nifty loopholes.

      If you actually listen to Tea Party whole stance and what many speak about at the rallies, it's to lower the tax rate overall (lowering the 38% to something reasonable) AND to get rid of the loopholes. Allow the local computer store up the street to pay the same tax rate as Best Buy down the street.

      I know it's hard to actually hear words through the shrieking, but I'm sure that even you equate someone stealing from you, with your liberty. It's a question of do you equate getting charged left and right for something as stealing. I pay my sewer bill every month, I expect that that money to go to the upkeep of the sewer system. To have the sewer company turn around and tell me that they are going to charge me an extra fee depending on how much non-grass area I have in my yard (thus assuming rain run off into storm system), after I'm already paying for my use of the sewer system. Me... I find thing close to stealing from me.

      --
      -- Ed Bugg --You have freedom of choice, but not of consequences.--
  2. How the FCC defines broadband by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    Three years ago, the FCC defined broadband as 768 kbps down. Two years later, it was changed to at least 4 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up, which would imply 400 to 500 kB/s downloads.

  3. Re:Business subsidies need to be revisted by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I guess it's okay for the FCC to give money to telephone but not to broadband? But you know, I guess this will help to end the argument that "the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction" over the internet in the US.

  4. Re:So.... by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Agreed. I'd go for this plan on one condition: That large ISPs (e.g. Comcast sized or so) are forced to do what AT&T was forced to do back in the 1950's or so - string out a reasonable broadband speed to even the most remote rural area, upon request, at a fixed price ceiling. Then I'd demand that independent and random sampling be done (both in-town and out) to insure that speeds and quality are consistent nationwide. Finally, set up a hotline or similar means by which consumers can lodge complaints, and for each valid and provable complaint, the ISP has to pay back a fixed sum of money to the FCC - low enough to not kill the system immediately, but high enough to get their attention.

    No improvements, no money.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  5. Provider should be compelled to offer service by MetricT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The FCC needs to compel broadband providers to actually provide service in some instances. My parents live a mile off the road in a deep valley. The "mile off the road" part precludes cable because the cable company wants $15,000 to run line. The "deep valley" part precludes cell service and satellite. Literally, their only option is DSL, but BellSouth's local DSLAM has no free ports and they have refused to add a new one for several years.

    We've raised the issue with the Tennessee Regulatory Commission (the TN service nominally in charge of overseeing utilities) and even they won't/can't do anything due to our braindead legislators handicapping them.

    I can find 24 port VDSL2 DSLAM's on Google for $100 a port. I'm presuming AT&T, with their much larger negotiating power, can do even better. I'd be willing to buy the whole DSLAM for them, but they have no internal way of even handling that.

    When the customer has no other option from whom to buy, there is no "free market". In that particular circumstance, the seller should be compelled to provide service.

    1. Re:Provider should be compelled to offer service by MetricT · · Score: 3, Funny

      My parents live 1 mile off the main road, on a creek rock drive way. There is only one other neighbor living on this road. It's still far cheaper to just buy AT&T a DSLAM, if they even had the internal procedure to do it.

      They built this house back in 1985. It was their dream house (still is, and mine too), in a nice, quiet, secluded little valley. I'm led to understand that the Internet wasn't such a big deal back in 1985, and thus had no bearing on their purchasing decision at the time. I'm sure a lot of older, fixed income people are in similar circumstances, having purchased homes before the internet even existed.

      You are an idiot. Seriously. You'd have to work harder to even be considered a worthy troll on FARK, much less here.