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?"
Socialism !! Wont any one think of the capitalists! Isnt being able to read the bible every night by whale oil lantern enough?
The lawless market has spoken!
When our telecommunications WERE "nationalized" (i.e., when Ma Bell was a regulated "natural monopoly"), we got very good service as a whole, with reasonable rates. When it was all land lines, that is.
That was anything but a "fascist wet dream". Today's pretense of a market is, though. Obviously I prefer an open, competitive market but that's not what we have.
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.
we got very good service as a whole, with reasonable rates
How old are you? Are you old enough to remember the concept of "long distance"? Of paying $0.10/min - $0.25/min for the privilege of calling your friends and family across the country? Rounded up of course. Don't tell me Ma Bell had "reasonable rates". Their rates were highway robbery even with the technological limitations of those days.
Innovation and regulated monopolies don't go hand in hand either. The theoretical underpinnings of what we now call DSL were well known in the 50s and workable technology was field tested by the 80s. It went nowhere because AT&T saw it as a threat, we can't sell dedicated data lines if we bring data and voice in on the same pair. That technology was left to collect dust on the shelf until DOCSIS was on the horizon and they realized they had a competitor.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Memory is often viewed through rose-tinted spectacles. Do you remember that SNL sketch, with the line "We're the phone company and we don't care"? Today, we have crony-capitalism, which isn't any better than fully regulated. The FCC rolled over when incumbents made it impossible for CLECs to compete. If the FCC had had some backbone then, there might be a competitive landscape now.
On a related note, I don't understand why the broadcasters (NBC excepted, of course) are not up in arms about the proposed Comcast/Time Warner merger. The merger will give the combined entity more negotiation power against the broadcasters.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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.
If you define "theft" to include tax, most adults would agree with the statement "some theft is justifiable".
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.
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
You can thank the Electoral College which gives rural states more relative power than populated states. Plus, rural areas tend to have older voters, who are more likely to show up at the polls because many are retired and have time.
Table-ized A.I.
... 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.
How old are you? Are you old enough to remember the concept of "long distance"? Of paying $0.10/min - $0.25/min for the privilege of calling your friends and family across the country?
Yep. I sure do.
At the time, did YOU bother to check what the rates were in other countries where there was "competition" in the landline phone markets? It cost 3 times as much, and sometimes you couldn't even call your neighbor because they were using a competing service that wasn't electrically compatible.
Memory is often viewed through rose-tinted spectacles. Do you remember that SNL sketch, with the line "We're the phone company and we don't care"?
Yes, I certainly do. But what my memory is "viewed through" is University economics courses back when landlines were still the norm.
I studied the economics of our "natural monopoly" phone system vs. other countries where they had "competition" in the landline phone business. And in comparison, ours kicked ass. (Nobody is claiming it was perfect. But relatively speaking, it was very damned good.)
Then, later, in business law, one of our case studies was the breakup of Ma Bell. The whys and wherefores, and the eventual results.
So, yeah. I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, but I do know a bit about it. More than most.
Today, we have crony-capitalism, which isn't any better than fully regulated. The FCC rolled over when incumbents made it impossible for CLECs to compete. If the FCC had had some backbone then, there might be a competitive landscape now.
I would say that "isn't any better" is a gross understatement. We went from a situation in which our telecommunication services were world-class and (relative to others at the time), very cheap. Now, due to lack of real competition in what passes for the "market", were trailing the pack when it comes to the Western world. Higher prices for far less service and capability.
So I think if you really take a look at it, yes, we were far better off then. FCC should have made ISPs Title II Common Carriers from the very beginning.
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.
That sir is socialism! We in America prefer freedom thank you very much!
Sincerely,
Verizon CEO
http://saveie6.com/
plans to bring broadband to everyone years after years. You'd think it'd be finished by now. What happened to all the money ?
They were that way, until telecoms lobbyists had it their way and got telecom providers/ISPs (who are often one and the same) delegated as "information services" with all of the accompanying lack of regulation forthwith.
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
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.
30 billion for 30 years is 1 billion a year. divide by 300 million americans... $3. Total. a year. Ok, I get that the site didn't get built. It might have. Not everything succeeds. There were probably a lot of studies, some decent research, work was done. it's $3 a year to pay for nuclear waste disposal. Stop whining.
Yes, I know the population changed and my math isn't perfect. It's napkin math. You still made it out to be a huge theft. It's $3. You're an anonymous whiner.
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.
Likely because many people are cutting the cord and getting most of their entertainment from the internet and broadcast stations.
I know people who have netflix and Hulu accounts and do not even bother with broadcast TV. They have the ability to, but don't see the need until some local emergency comes around and even then rely mostly on radio. I do the same, I cut cable out 6 years ago and watch what I want on the network's web portal, hulu, broadcast channels, or some streaming site. 200+ channels of reruns, infomercials, and the occasional show I like just isn't worth the $80 or whatever it was costing when I already was paying for high speed internet on top of it and could find the shows I like there.
General Alexander must have made a phone call to his good friend Jeff Moss.
Ma Bell charged ASTRONOMICAL rates, particularly for long-distance calls. They also rented out phones, the same way cable/satellite companies rent converter boxes, hard-wired them to your wall, and would sue you if you dared to connect a different phone to your phone line. That's why we had "acoustic couplers" rather than modern dial-up modems that just plug-in to the phone jacks... There were no phone jacks, and Ma Bell demanded it stay that way.
No, that's pretty much what it was. AT&T got obscene profits, government got lots of AT&T money, and consumers got horrendously screwed. Why else do you think Ma Bell got sued and split into pieces?
The only thing that saved us, is the march of technology. Bell Labs stupidly invented and developed microwave, which allowed nation-wide communications without land-lines, and immediately opened-up competition for less-ass-rapey long-distance service.
Beyond that, fiber optics, docsis, and 2G cellular technologies eventually opened-up the possibility of phone service for less-than monopoly land-line prices. Notice that government regulation didn't do it.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
No argument from this corner.
Another waste of your money, brought to you by the brilliant people that run the US federal government... Idiots, most of them.
um...the point he was making was that we paid $3/year for nuclear waste disposal, and WHAT WAS PROMISED DID NOT HAPPEN.
So, please, send me $4/year for fairy protection. Why not? after all, it's only $4. What does it hurt?
I hate that nonsense. You see it continually in California,every year, like clockwork: "Vote for this , it will save the schools!". Then, once it passes, next year: "Oh, we forgot, we also need the following". Continue this pattern every year.
My local elementary school recently used it's massive intellect to put solar panels on all the outdoor play areas. Yes. now there's only asphalt and solar panels. To make things worse, they don't even own the panels, they let some company install them on the fields, then pay for the power.
In the end, theft is theft. If you steal $1 from me, you're a thief. If you steal $10000 from me, your'e a thief.