Slashdot Mirror
FCC Gets Go-Ahead For Plan To Expand Rural Internet Access
The FCC's plan to use fees collected from big telecom companies to expand Internet infrastructure in rural parts of the U.S. was given a green light yesterday in Denver, by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Those telecoms maintained that the FCC's mandate did not extend to using the money to pay for Internet service, but a three-judge panel dismissed their challenge. From The Verge: "The FCC originally pitched the program as part of the Universal Service Fund in 2011, noting in a report a year earlier that approximately 14 million people did not have access to broadband. The Connect America Fund aimed to use a portion of customer bills in other areas of the country to build out broadband infrastructure, including cellular data networks in those areas. That would begin with $300 million at the start, and up to $500 million as part of an annual budget."
The FCC is soooo awesome for doing this!
Finally they stood up to the telecoms and now I trust them completely to ensure that the Internet will be free, open and available to everyone.
I've never understood the hate as of late.
Fed: Here is some tax payer money. Now promise you will use it for rural Iowa where people pay $300 a month for a 640kb connection.
ISP: Oh yeah we promise. Thanks Uncle Sam!
Fed: Uh 3 years has happened where is the new infrastructure that the hard working tax payers paid for?
ISP: NO! We do not want to spend it. Screw you! We gave it to the CEO and shareholders so we could keep our bonuses.
Fed: What?! We had a deal. Why aren't you ...
ISP: Oh look at that ... big Ku CLUNG and a huge bag of money lands ... I was wondering what happened with that money that the tax payers gave us. It appears to be on your desk sir
FED: Oh then I see. Hmm perhaps we need a real expert to hear your case then. Someone with close ties and is on your payroll to tell us you need to steal more tax payer money?
ISP: Ahh good idea. Hire me. I work as a lobbyest and as you know I am quite clumsy and keep dropping these bags of free speech everywhere I go too. Oh boy got to watch that.
Fed: LOL. Ok we can't keep giving you money though. So what can we do
ISP: I know lets rip off other people then. You see we charge too much as it is and we also charge people who want to host and stream. What if we tripple charge all over the place. Then more bags of free speech might just keep falling out if I am not careful.
Fed: Praise Obama and worship Henry Reid so I can keep my job after 2014 and you have a deal!
ISP: Got it ... shakes hands
http://saveie6.com/
"Well, we said it, but we didn't really MEAN it! I mean - come on, just think of the incredible 0.0001% loss of profits! How can I justify that to my stock holders?"
If Ben Franklin had had the vocabulary, I'm sure he would have included more than just the then existing Post Office as equally necessary to provide the information and conversation and access that citizens need to hang on to "a republic, if you can keep it" --
POTS should cover everything -- call it
Post Office Telecommunication Service
Socialism !! Wont any one think of the capitalists! Isnt being able to read the bible every night by whale oil lantern enough?
You just know they will do what AT&T planned on doing... Just installing cellphone towers and use "wireless" internet instead of upgrading the actual copper pipes.
Of course, charge ridiculous rates for it with a very low cap as well.
The lawless market has spoken!
Why be hypocritical? We have a government that regulates every aspect of it, and occasionally is itself in the business of providing the same service that companies are. It's a fascist wet dream; just call it what it is and be done with it.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
It sounds to me like they're finally admitting that this is a basic service that everyone should be provided with.
I wonder how much longer it will take before they regulate it as such (as a utility).
v
The people that feed you
Given the enormous tax breaks given to "agricultural property" in Texas, I doubt there is any subsidizing at all going from rural to urban in this state. This is from 2005 (http://www.chron.com/news/article/Legislature-to-rethink-farmland-tax-breaks-1563193.php), but I don't think it has changed much since, "In suburban Austin, a 1,757-acre ranch owned by Michael Dell has what Travis County appraisers call a "well-managed deer herd" that reduces the ranch's market value of $74.8 million to an agriculture value of $290,000. "
It sounds to me like they're finally admitting that this is a basic service that everyone should be provided with.
I wonder how much longer it will take before they regulate it as such (as a utility).
The thing is that the FCC (US government agency that regulates telecoms) can do that. It's what the whole Title II reclassification thing is all about. http://www.washingtonpost.com/... Which is why the lobbyists and congress are freaking out. https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
The comment "build out broadband infrastructure, including cellular data networks in those areas." seems like a waste of money. Metered bandwidth is good for mobile applications but a home needs unlimited data volumes. While today, 30 gig a month is fine for most and 100 gig /month should suffice for the next few years, the concept of caps will be a bucket of cold water on continued innovation. Wireless is not in itself a bad technology for the rural build-out, but it is unlikely that Verizon and AT&T will change their ways. Cellular wireless is lifeline quality only for the home.
v
The people that feed you
Sir, we do NOT grow Cheetos! If someone want to do unnatural things with corn, well, as long as it's off the farm first then that's their lookout... Everyone knows trolls are covered in Cheetos dust and Doritos crumbs, but they didn't get it from us!
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
We understood that the Commerce Clause authorized Congress to construct interstate highways. The web is the interstate highway of the 21st century and the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to invest in a functioning web for all U.S citizens just as much as it did for highways. The FCC doesn't have a vote.
It is of the most fundamental importance that the United States should think in big pieces, should think together, should think ultimately as a whole.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Back when the Universal Sevice Fund was created for rural POTS, that was a heavly regulated and well defined service. So when the government mandated redistribution of funds for the telecoms (actually only the one back then) to build rural systems, they knew what they'd be getting.
Broadband Internet service is poorly defined. Lacking any sort of network neutrality (and other common carrier regulations), there is no telling what exactly will get built and once built, what people in rural communities will be able to do with it.
They should name this the Take The Money and Run Plan.
Have gnu, will travel.
Sweet internet at my cabin! Thanks tax payers.
If you define "theft" to include tax, most adults would agree with the statement "some theft is justifiable".
Have you checked to see that the money that was paid into the system already for rural telephone build-out was allocated and spent effectively? Last I heard, the phone companies were trying to keep that money on the basis that the rural customers could just use cell phone service. They don't want to pay the money they collected back to the customers. And cell phone service is much more expensive than landline service. Cell phones are very profitable.
Before you say "Hey, you wont even notice the charge", please check to see whether you notice how corrupt the system is already.
v The people that feed you
Sir, we do NOT grow Cheetos! If someone want to do unnatural things with corn, well, as long as it's off the farm first then that's their lookout... Everyone knows trolls are covered in Cheetos dust and Doritos crumbs, but they didn't get it from us!
I'm pretty sure Monsanto was involved in some way.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Some people save money by moving to remote areas. Then others have to subsidise them by paying all kinds of fees to that they get access to stuff in their cheap, remote areas.
Let's check some RECENT history on something similar. The federal government over the last 30 years or so has tacked on an additional fee to your power bill to pay for a nuclear waste disposal site. Total collected to date? $31 Billion. Yes, that is $31 Billion EXTRA paid by citizens for a specific purpose promised by the government. Where is the site? It doesn't exist. You have been fleeced by the government on a lie. It wasn't until just recently that they are no longer allowed to collect that fee despite the site missing its opening date by 20 years.
So, sorry if I consider the federal government tacking on a "small fee" for something promised to be absolute bullshit. Its just another way they can take money from us and have shills like you cheering for it.
That is complete and utter bullshit, and Obama knows it. I know he has lied and claimed over and over again that most Americans have access to it, but if you define it was being a fast 4 Mbps, then that is a lie. I live in the second most tech area in the world in Seattle, and many of my friends are still on dial-up. I have less than 1 Mbps DSL due to 50+ year-old phone wiring. Comcast has a government-granted monopoly, but doesn't offer service to much of the city. If Seattle can't get what the FCC defines as broadband, then most of the country certainly can't. We lead the country in technology.
I'm pretty sure Monsanto was involved in some way.
That's why the dust won't stick to the Cheetos... non-stick corn.
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
... the important part is to pick the metric that you like:
First, we have our possible definitions of 'family farm' :
1. Farms operated by indvidual families
2. Farms owned by individual families
3. Farms owned or operated by individual families that produce agricultural products for sale
4. Farms owned or operated by individual families that aren't incorporated. (might be a death tax dodge, might be a huge corporatation that's tightly held)
5. Farms owned an operated by individual families that qualify as a 'small business'.
6. Farms under a given acerage.
And we can further modify what we're analyzing:
a. ...only those farms that produce agricultural products for sale. ...only those farms that produce food. ...only those farms that produce food intended for human consumption. (no sod or flower farms, feedstock for biodiesel) ...only those farms that produce food that contributes to the human food chain. (so allow hay, alfalfa and animal feed if grown for cows, but if the cows are to be dog food). ...only those farms that 'contribute meaningfully to the market'.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Then, we have our metric, selecting the definiton of 'family farm' that's most advantageous of what we're trying to show, comparing "family farms" to either "corporate farms" or to "all farms":
1. Percentage of the count "family farms"
2. Percentage of the acerage of "family farms" 3. Percentage of the acerage used for farming in a given year.
4. Percentage of the products produced by "family farms" (in tons)
5. Percentage of the products produced by "family farms" (in dollars)
6&7. Percentage of the food produced by "family farms" (tons / dollars)
8&9. Percentage of the food sold by "family farms" (tons/dollars)
Some of these, I'm not even sure which way the selection bias will be. (family farms might sell at farmer's markets and get a better price per pound ... or they might focus on herbs and things typically sold at higher margins that don't tend to be grown on a massive scale).
But like anything, you run all of the different combinations, and pick the one that gives you the answer to support whatever argument you're trying to make.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
plans to bring broadband to everyone years after years. You'd think it'd be finished by now. What happened to all the money ?
Is this the slow lane?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What would be a reasonable time to buffer a video one wants to watch on Netflix? Assuming it works that way.
If worse comes to worst, reasonable would be ordering the movie one night, waiting for it to buffer during the unmetered 12 AM to 5 AM period that some satellite ISPs offer, and then watching it the next night. But Netflix has shown itself unwilling to allow an entire movie to buffer.
most things that are property taxed are not really necessary to own, as you can rent and avoid property taxes of the land
When you rent, you likely pay double property tax because you have to compensate a landlord who cannot take advantage of the deduction for owner-occupied property that many localities provide.
you can simply not drive and avoid the property taxes on cars
To not drive, you have to live within reasonable cycling distance of your job, and that means higher property values, which means higher property tax folded into your rent.
So the billions that were supposed to go to building and upgrading the network will now be given right back to the telecoms without upgrading the network.
I'm so glad the FCC is looking out for the public interest.
I thought rural United States already has high-speed internet access. Maybe the very rural towns in the mountains and hundreds of miles from a big city still use dial-up? I know most populated towns and farm areas have G3 cell phone access except for some remote areas. Even some national parks have cell phone access near the visitor's center like Yosemite in California.
Wish the article would mention which areas do not have broadband.. or maybe I missed it. Alaska, Idaho, Montana, small towns in valleys of the Rocky mountains, eastern Oregon and Washington State? Just asking, not trying to stereotype.
General Alexander must have made a phone call to his good friend Jeff Moss.
Another waste of your money, brought to you by the brilliant people that run the US federal government... Idiots, most of them.