Slashdot Mirror


White House Pledges $400M To Back Speedier 5G Wireless Networks (fortune.com)

The Obama Administration has announced a new funding initiative to ensure the United States maintains its leadership in the mobile technology space. For this, it will spend over $400 million on large-scale test platforms led by National Science Foundation with an aim to develop and advance wireless technology to 5G and beyond. Fortune reports: To be sure, the private sector has also been getting smarter and better organized for 5G this year and the new Obama effort will be conducted in conjunction with a bevy of technology and telecommunications partners. All four major wireless carriers, AT&T, Verizon Communications, Sprint, and T-Mobile, are participating. Tech companies on board include Intel, Juniper Networks, Qualcomm, and Nokia. Notably, Apple, Google, and Microsoft are missing from the list. "These super-fast, ultra-low latency, high-capacity networks will enable breakthrough applications for consumers, smart cities, and the Internet of Things that cannot even be imagined today," the White House said in a statement. The report adds: The transition to the next generation standard for wireless networks, so-called 5G, has so far been fraught with confusion, complications, and even some contradictions. But in a few years, when 5G gear sending data at up to 100 times the speed of current networks is commonplace, people may remember July 2016 as a major turning point. The private sector has offered mixed messages about when 5G will be available for regular people and just what it will be used for. Without many standards yet agreed upon, some predicted 5G would be ready starting next year, but others said not until 2020 or later. Some wanted to use it to speed up smartphone connections, while others said it was better suited to improve home and business Internet connections or to collect data from smart devices in the "Internet of Things."

86 comments

  1. 5x more data caps by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The speeds will increase, but the old dinosaurs won't let go of their silly data caps.

    --
    -SR
    1. Re:5x more data caps by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 2

      "United States maintains its leadership in the mobile technology space."

      When was that then, must have missed it.

      --
      If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
    2. Re:5x more data caps by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      My home internet service sucks. My LTE cellular data service is twice as fast (and 15x upload).

      So 10Gbps is great and all, but what I really want is for my cellular plan to have much higher caps so that I can ditch the landline service.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    3. Re:5x more data caps by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 1

      The 80's is calling.

      --
      -SR
    4. Re:5x more data caps by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I have just the opposite.

      Very fast cable modem, marginal LTE.

      Only one has caps. And it's the slower, much more expensive option.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    5. Re:5x more data caps by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      "United States maintains its leadership in the mobile technology space."

      When was that then, must have missed it.

      Damn you, I was coming here to say just that. :-)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    6. Re:5x more data caps by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I have excellent wired *and* mobile connectivity.

      But I live in Sweden, so that doesn't count.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    7. Re:5x more data caps by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Do you have a spare bedroom?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    8. Re:5x more data caps by Archfeld · · Score: 2

      Wish they'd quit calling collect.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    9. Re: 5x more data caps by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Do you still have a king? If so, it definitely doesn't count.

    10. Re:5x more data caps by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

      You're over thinking it. lets just spend taxpayer money for the good of the filthy rich and public hating telcos, and perhaps give them more as "incentives" for what they should do anyway just as good business. Then they can spend more on lobbyists to try to prevent any consumer protection action, and eventually merge into fewer and bigger and yet somehow more expensive "services" to steal from and cheat and abuse their taxpayer customers further.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    11. Re:5x more data caps by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Mine's exactly the same. I don't live in a city (more of a small town really), and data service here sucks, and voice isn't that great either. But I have cable internet service through Metrocast and it works great. It's not expensive (compared to similar service in this country at least), it's reliable, and there's no caps or usage rates.

      If your home internet service is slow or has caps, there's something seriously, seriously wrong.

      I don't have any cellular data caps BTW, the service just sucks because the reception isn't that great. Ting's service plan and rates are excellent, but they have no control over Sprint's lack of towers, and that's kinda what I get for living out here. But for the price ($20/month) it's an acceptable trade-off.

    12. Re: 5x more data caps by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      To clarify, my home service is slow but does NOT have caps.

      The problem is, I would just use cellular if it did not have the caps.

      At least you guys have a home option that is both fast and essentially unlimited.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    13. Re: 5x more data caps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in rural upstate ny: slow DSL and no cellulsr until I hit a major highway. For the Internet being a basic necessity it lacking here.

    14. Re:5x more data caps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too True! Ever been to South Korea? They've had 5G for a while now and it was awesome when I visited

  2. I've seen this quote somewhere before... by gachunt · · Score: 1

    These super-fast, ultra-low latency, high-capacity networks will enable breakthrough applications for consumers, smart cities, and the Internet of Things that cannot even be imagined today,

    Translation: We don't know, what we don't know.

    1. Re:I've seen this quote somewhere before... by prograsm · · Score: 1

      That one sentence won my meeting room buzzwords bingo game all by itself.

    2. Re:I've seen this quote somewhere before... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's the 2016 update to the language of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. And this will be another federal payment to the same fraudsters that already made hundreds of billions on that scam without anyone of consequence noticing.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    3. Re:I've seen this quote somewhere before... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3

      It's the 2016 update to the language of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. And this will be another federal payment to the same fraudsters that already made hundreds of billions on that scam without anyone of consequence noticing.

      The people of consequence noticed, and they're back for more. The revolving door of corporate welfare and lobbying are well-understood and when the politicians get to run out in front of the parade, it's a win-win as far as they're concerned.

      Because the people who have been kept from learning critical thinking in the schools will eat it up, and most of the rest of them will vote for either Clinton or Trump, so no change is guaranteed.

      The People are getting what they want. Democracy, idiocracy, take your pick.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:I've seen this quote somewhere before... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      Kinda reminds me of a variation of the old Rocky And Bullwinkle cartoons...

      "Hey, Rocky! Watch me make $400 million disappear up my hat!"

      "A-gain...!?"

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  3. escreve no teu braço "ele é troll" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Se tu ainda não te ligou que Eu vou fazer a mesma roda denovo, é porque tu não sabes pra que tatuagens servem.

    1. Re:escreve no teu braço "ele é troll" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fumas arriba la cucharacha!!!!!

    2. Re:escreve no teu braço "ele é troll" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      right, mexican

  4. What the hell for? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    Who is actually asking for this? As it stands, current cellular networks are capable of doing everyone a person could reasonably need, short of downloading 4k uncompressed bukake porn.

    Oh wait, that's right. Networks want to make it as easy as possible for you to blow through your absurdly and arbitrarily tiny data quotas. They need to get their lobbyist money somehow, so they can convince the gov't that even those caps are too large.

    1. Re:What the hell for? by tepples · · Score: 1

      A higher-capacity network theoretically lets the carrier fit more customers onto the same spectrum.

    2. Re:What the hell for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is actually asking for this? As it stands, current cellular networks are capable of doing everyone a person could reasonably need, short of downloading 4k uncompressed bukake porn.

      Setting aside the fact that's the only purpose for which I need my phone bandwidth for a moment, it would handle that task fine if not for the bandwidth rate limits imposed after the first 3%.

    3. Re:What the hell for? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      But if they never increase the backhaul once the packets hit actual wire, they still have the same clogged shitty network that gives them justification for data caps.

      Who cares what the flow rate of tap water is at your faucet, if there's a clogged pipe feeding your whole house a drip at a time?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    4. Re:What the hell for? by Aereus · · Score: 1

      I'd settle for my carrier remembering to rebalance or put up a new tower or two in areas with new construction. I'm literally a 2-min drive from a major freeway and I can't even connect a voice call unless I'm outside on my porch. (And that is 1-bar signal then, at that.)

    5. Re:What the hell for? by swb · · Score: 1

      My guess is that the corporations and the NSA are asking for this.

      The former wants to own the standards and their patents so they can make more money licensing the technology around the world.

      The latter wants to make sure that spying is baked into the goods and that the owners of the tech are the corporations they can most easily inject backdoors into.

      The whole thing gets rolled up into a "vital national security interest" kind of thing with lots of whispering that we don't want to become dependent on Huawei for our vital wireless communication oligopoly, possibly contaminating our precious bodily fluids in the process.

    6. Re:What the hell for? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I'm 1 mile from a major interstate, an Intel dev site, and an HP dev site.

      I can't make calls on Verizon inside my house either.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    7. Re:What the hell for? by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      Unless they run their backhaul on wireless, then 5G wouldn't make the slightest difference. AFAIK, once the wireless packets hit the towers, it then goes underground via physical networks, which is orders of magnitude more bandwidth than wireless ever could.

      And regardless, I believe at least one carrier has already admitted that they've already got plenty of infrastructure to handle the job. The only reason they force such low caps, is because they're allowed to get away with it.

    8. Re:What the hell for? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Unless they run their backhaul on wireless

      I seem to remember reading that a lot of cell towers run their upstream on point-to-point microwave links, especially in remote areas where burying fiber would be cost prohibitive.

    9. Re:What the hell for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm 1 mile from a major interstate, an Intel dev site, and an HP dev site.

      I can't make calls on Verizon inside my house either.

      Yeah, I feel your pain. I have Verizon too. I'm paying for 4G--excuse me, 4G LTE (said with dripping sarcasm)--but mostly it is 3G(-ish). Once in awhile I get the full 4G, but it is getting rarer everyday to actually get the full 4G LTE bandwidth. And now we are about to get bamboozled again. Cock suckers, the entire lot of them!

    10. Re: What the hell for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Confirmed, was at several microwave fed sites this week.

  5. All Hail... by ooloorie · · Score: 0

    to the Crony Capitalist in Chief!

    But fear not, Hillary will be completely different, having no connections to big banks or corporations AT ALL!

    1. Re:All Hail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hilary takes 30% kickbacks for spending crony money from the government, in case you wondered what her cut was. So in this case she would get $120 million if she were the one doing this. *

      * Based on numbers from Bill's salary ($16.5 million) as a board member from a university that got grants from state department of $55 million. There was a non-profit in the middle so they could claim it was clean, but owner of the non-profit and university paying Bill was the same guy. In addition to being bad at email server security, she doesn't understand how to launder money over more than 1 person.

    2. Re:All Hail... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Strangely, telecoms don't even make the top 20 for Hillary.

      You're correct about the banks though. They are, by far, #1 for her. But I'm sure she'll regulate the shit out of them once they buy her the election.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    3. Re:All Hail... by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      I doubt that they make the top 20 for anyone...

      Most telecoms prefer to buy congressmen anyway - they're far cheaper, and they get more done (from a 'subsidize-and-monetize-me point of view, anyway).

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:All Hail... by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You're correct about the banks though. They are, by far, #1 for her. But I'm sure she'll regulate the shit out of them once they buy her the election.

      True, Hillary goes for bigger fish.

      Also, "regulating the shit out of companies" is one of the prime mechanisms for crony capitalism, so that's in character.

    5. Re:All Hail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strangely, she doesn't care about campaign donations

      Clinton is more into DIRECT money given to her. In this case, I have read that $143 million total was given to her charity (where 90% is used for salaries and "administration" which is slightly higher than reality but not by much). Her claim was they gave her that money before she was secretary of state, but it looks like that statement was a lie. She got that money and then quickly had the state department approve the deal they were after.

      Really, how is she actually a presidential candidate?

    6. Re:All Hail... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Really, how is she actually a presidential candidate?

      Because the DNC are a corrupt cabal who have selected her as their next President, and a majority of the Democratic voters (especially ones in the South) are stupid enough to buy her bullshit. Many of them even actually believe that it's a good idea to elect someone who's visibly corrupt because they think this will translate into "getting things done" in Washington for them somehow, or that this is necessary for that candidate to win (even though Bernie managed to do quite well without any Wall Street money at all). Honestly, there's no end to the rationalizations Democratic voters will come up with to defend their choice to vote for the candidate who they were told to vote for.

  6. Think you misspelled Cheaper Gigabit Networks by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Like in First World Nations, where it's $20 a month with no data cap and 20 Gbps Internet, not US $300 with a cap and 20 Mbps Internet.

    You know, like in a real country.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Think you misspelled Cheaper Gigabit Networks by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      "it's $20 a month with no data cap and 20 Gbps Internet"

      No one gets 20 Gbps for $20 a month. While I agree that the US is behind, if you really believe the ISPs are making billions from capping and overcharging, then you should invest in such companies and reap the rewards.

    2. Re:Think you misspelled Cheaper Gigabit Networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet your health care is "free" too.

    3. Re:Think you misspelled Cheaper Gigabit Networks by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      "it's $20 a month with no data cap and 20 Gbps Internet"

      No one gets 20 Gbps for $20 a month. While I agree that the US is behind, if you really believe the ISPs are making billions from capping and overcharging, then you should invest in such companies and reap the rewards.

      I already do. It's called index investing.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:Think you misspelled Cheaper Gigabit Networks by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Mine is actually $150US, 12mb/s and a 30GB cap... but I don't rely on much infrastructure to get it - just electricity and a satellite dish.

      But then, my nearest neighbor is 1/2 kilometer away, and the nearest town of any size is 32 kilometers off. Call it a balance between quiet nature and connectivity.

      I may not be able to simultaneously download 36 blu-ray pr0n torrents within a reasonable amount of time, but as compensation I don't have to deal with the noise from another family living on the other side of a thin (and overpriced) apartment wall, either. ;)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  7. this is fantastic news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I partieds so hard when I heard this, that i made a mess

    1. Re:this is fantastic news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goatse.

  8. Porn & Stock Quotes by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    Still waiting for these mythical unicorns they keep touting. But then they've barely implemented what was envisioned 40 years ago: jet packs, flying cars, cities on the moon....Angry Birds via 5G pales in comparison...

  9. I don't need more speed by Toshito · · Score: 3, Informative

    I need a bigger data cap.

    --
    Try it! Library of Babel
    1. Re:I don't need more speed by allquixotic · · Score: 1

      They're not selling what we're buying, though. That's how American industry works. It's not "free market"; it's not "capitalism"; it's plutocratic oligarchy. They don't care what you want, as long as you want what they're selling enough to buy it.

    2. Re:I don't need more speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I need a bigger data cap.

      Actually, I need both. Yeah, yeah, I know. 640kB should be enough for anyone.

  10. Socialism is unAmerican by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'nuff said

    1. Re:Socialism is unAmerican by maliqua · · Score: 2

      is it really socialism when its really just a gift to friendly billionaires

  11. Pledge this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [><]
    |
    |

    For no particular reason, they were sunk by a Confederate submarine. No story here. I'm just in that kind of mood.

  12. Oh good, another subsidy... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet another subsidy to the telecoms to not deliver what they promise, and then go completely ignored by the government.

    Sincerely,
    my bi-directional 45Mbit access from the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that should have been available 10 years ago according to the Act, and the hundreds of billions of dollars paid in the form of excise taxes by the public.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    1. Re:Oh good, another subsidy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Not deliver what they promise and treat their consumers like garbage.

      At least the politicians get their bribes on time, though.

    2. Re:Oh good, another subsidy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Surely with Clinton in office it will be different!.. from the other ... Clinton

    3. Re:Oh good, another subsidy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EXACTLY!!!!

    4. Re: Oh good, another subsidy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't entirely agree, provided these funds are allocated properly. Of course, it also shouldn't be necessary to do this, when it involves allocation of the radio frequency spectrum.

      Accepting federal money generally allows the government to impose conditions with the acceptance of those funds. For example, they could require that 5G networks with those funds include unlimited data plans at reasonable costs. It's a lot easier to impose terms when they're part of an agreement to accept government money.

      Of course, this shouldn't actually be necessary. The RF spectrum is a shared and rather scarce public resource, so the government has a strong reason to regulate how it's allocated. Acquiring exclusive rights to a part of that spectrum ought to be sufficient to impose conditions that ensure customers get a good data plan and don't get screwed over by the providers.

    5. Re: Oh good, another subsidy... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      That's all well and good, except that the past shows that conditions the government impose have no actual teeth behind them. Nobody bothers to check to see if the conditions are met, and if someone finds out the conditions were not met, nobody bothers to actually impose any sanctions or punishment whatsoever.

      We're now 20 years into the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and very little of it has actually been implemented, other than the excise tax that the telecom companies happily cash the check on, and never deliver what it's supposed to be paying for.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  13. Common hardware and unlocked bands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, Allow all phones to work on all 5G bands and not artifically lock them down.... (not saying just unlocked phones for voice)...e.g.. tmobile iphone does not work on att LTE bands...

  14. Socialism for business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet there are no strings that come with that money, like no data caps. Just taxpayers funding private corporations' capital improvement projects.

  15. Oh please! Just say it! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    The government is giving away money to its fat cat friends that will enjoy a nice cabinet position when the next president opens her little laundromat.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:Oh please! Just say it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess the White House doesn't really care about people or they would have given this $400M to fight ZIKA

    2. Re:Oh please! Just say it! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There's a ton of things they could spend $400M on rather than a give-away to already-highly-profitable telecoms when 4G already is more than fast enough, at least when you can get it and you haven't hit a data cap:

      Space exploration, disease research, Medicaid funding, SkyTran R&D, taking care of homeless/PTSD vets, just to name a few.

  16. Forward thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Obama Administration has announced a new funding initiative to ensure the United States maintains its leadership in the mobile technology space.

    Any other government in their position would be focusing first on getting leadership but they're not going to waste time on that, it's straight to maintaining it. We'll have the best maintained lack of leadership in the world.

  17. Another Giveaway? by Xenographic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why don't they collect on the broadband promises that never materialized from the last round of subsidies before giving away another half billion dollars? Oh, right, never mind. They're just bribing people with our own money and trying to make it sound like a good thing, knowing that most people won't be able to call them on it.

    Maybe this time it'll be different? I wish I could believe that.

  18. Cool! More Tax Subsidies For Multibillion dollar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool! More Tax Subsidies For Multibillion dollar Corporations!

    Call your congressperson and senator and have them immediately veto this unconstitutional corporate socialism bill

  19. Lots of military uses too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not just consumers that need lots of mobile bandwidth options. Industry and government needs it too.

    Now if we could just fire every government website maker ever.. and hang them by their fingers.. for their crimes against humanity. Then we'd be really making progress.

    1. Re:Lots of military uses too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no one needs, we need bigger data caps and more options for wired internet in most areas.

  20. Correction by maliqua · · Score: 4, Insightful

    White house pledges 400m to cell carriers profit margins

  21. $400 million fits in tiny corner of black budget by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > because data collection from "Internet of Things!!!!"

    The only reason we need 5g speeds to collect data from myriad home devices is because each one is feeding audio/video back to the NSA.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  22. Internet 2 AGAIN???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh. 1998 all over again except for Apple, Google and Microsoft!

    Holdren and Obama will be OUT-OF-OFFICE on 20 January 20017 so funding (executive order) terminates then as well.

    Ha ha

  23. $400,000,000... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could better be spent on homeless vets. But no... lets fill the pockets of more 1%ers that are already fat instead of housing and feeding vets.

  24. How big was the bribe? by bwanagary · · Score: 1

    This is *not* a politically-motivated post, as it should not be, but really? 5G? Who said that (supposedly "my") government could spend $400M of *my* money (from taxes) to give the poor, starving cell carriers another, faster product to gouge consumers with? There are any number of better ways to spend $400M in the USA today. Its pretty disgusting.

  25. Perhaps by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    this time around, those funds will come with some concrete conditions before they get paid out.

    I will provide you with X amount of funding IFF you can show you have added Y amount of coverage over Z amount of time. Fail to meet those
    obligations will require you to pay back any funding you receive.

    While we're at it, perhaps we could add some riders on there as well.

    BEFORE we give you any additional funding, you need to demonstrate why we should give a Telecom who makes Billions of dollars every quarter any taxpayer money at all. ( Considering what you did with the previous funds we provided for you )

    In addition, we should talk about those silly data caps, high prices, throttling and your reluctance to embrace Network Neutrality before writing you that check.

    1. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will provide you with X amount of funding IFF you can show you have added Y amount of coverage over Z amount of time. Fail to meet those
      obligations will require you to pay back any funding you receive.

      I would prefer that they not get any money until they can demonstrate that they have delivered on their promise. It's much easier to deny payment than it is to force them after the fact to shit that money out of whatever sphincter it was shoved into. Seeing as my suggestion hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by either the sleazeball telcos or the money-grubbing politicians they bought and paid for, I am going to make a semi-serious compromise suggestion: half of the money gets payed up front and the other half gets paid only after they have delivered on all their promises. Yeah, I'm a dreamer.

      In addition, we should talk about those silly data caps, high prices, throttling and your reluctance to embrace Network Neutrality before writing you that check.

      Yeah, there's that too.

  26. and the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You can already easily exceed your average data-cap with 3g.. why will more speed be so much better?

  27. 1st things 1st please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How about you get my parents something better than 1.5MB DSL first. More than 2 miles from Walmart and you are in the 3rd world :(

  28. Speedier by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    Is President Dubya writing the headlines now?

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  29. Re:Oh good, another subsidy... Sergey Lobbied by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And now they will get goodies from Uncle Sam.

  30. WHITE HOUSE PLEDGES TAXPAYER DOLLARS.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The White House does not earn revenue other than those paid in taxes. You can't headline saying "taxpayers support $400 million speedier surveillance network" because oh shit, the truth just hurts.

    Quit lying cunts. This site is about the comments. Just post a blank summary and say, what is on your minds folks. It would be better than some more social engineering.

    1. Re:WHITE HOUSE PLEDGES TAXPAYER DOLLARS.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, add that $400 million to the public debt immediately as well.

      http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

  31. giving to those who need it not by abmw · · Score: 1

    Why is R. Gov flushing 400 Mil away to the cellular common carriers that are making money hand over fist, providing shit customer service, exist as a protected duopoly, shall I go on and on. "Verizon and AT&T are participating...." what about emerging 5g companies with new ideas or whatever....is there something broken with how Golden Fleece is handed out to the Companies that need it the LEAST. The points made about Data Caps are well taken, the law makers should not had over a cent to any company imposing data caps.