As we've seen in the decidedly
botched digital TV transition, nothing involving government and technology is ever straightforward. With that in mind, let us present to you the most germane portion of the recently passed economic stimulus package with respect to gadgets and the overall nerd kingdom: $7.2 billion. That amount is what President Obama has set aside for "broadband grant and loan programs," though things get confusing right from the start. $4.7 billion will be distributed through a program run by the Commerce Department, while $2.5 billion is handed out by the Agriculture Department. In theory, at least, that latter chunk would go specifically to rural and underserved areas, but having one goal with two masters just seems like trouble waiting to happen. Oh, and then there's the mandate to the FCC that instructs it to create (within one year, mind you) a "national broadband plan to ensure that everyone in the US has broadband access." Granted, these aren't entirely unheard of -- Britain just did the same sort of thing a few weeks ago, and South Korea's already aiming at
1Gbps for all. We appreciate that the money's there, but only time will tell if leads to anything meaningful.
posted Feb 18th 2009 8:52AM
No disrespect intended, but I have a feeling that our goal is a bit more than lofty that those 2 MUCH smaller countries. And how does eliminating an entire industry (dial-up internet) help stimulate the economy?
*Fingers crossed* hope it works!
dial up is still around because it works and people want it.
Government should stay out of this stuff and leave it to the free market. If people wanted it, and it was a profitable venture a company would have already moved out there. Why should it be my responsibility to pay for someone who chose to live out in the middle of nowhere to get something that is a luxury?
Besides who here actually thinks this money will actually be spent building more than a small fraction of broadband infrastructure and not wasted? My guess is that the company's that are given the cash will blow through it- and then ask for more. Much like how GM did and is currently doing.
I agree with ya D!
It's a load a crap.
@D: What? Common sense? Free-market ideals? What are you talking about with all that logic and stuff? You might confuse some people...
Ah great another awesome thing in this porkulus spending bill that will stimulate the economy. Great job! Has anyone even read the whole thing yet!! Maybe I have some money coming my way for a few of my pet projects! LOL!!!
believe it or not, here in the US you do not have to leave in the middle of nowhere to lack broadband... but I assume you must have been leeching off your parents broadband since the age of 2 hence your ignorance.
In essence though I support the funding to get everyone on broadband where it is reasonable. I did not have broadband for several years in an area of over 300 houses.... was it because it was not profitable for at&t up until a few years ago? I seriously doubt that. I think the government though has no idea how to appropriately distribute the money to really build up any significant broadband infrastructure as the authors skepticism suggest. Last time when Clinton did a similar thing we saw relatively nothing other than the companies pocketing the money and then going ahead with doing what they were going to do anyways which was and is to delay the roll out of any new infrastructure as long as humanly possibly to lower costs and raise profits.
@D: With that attitude people living out in the country on farms, you know, the people who make are food, wouldn't even have phones.
AND.... OH WAIT..... the "money is" not "there". It is printed and borrowed! Good lord... the spending is getting out of hand. Everyone who voted for Obama.... congrats.... you got more than you bargained for.
IMPORTANT NOTICE:
Due to recent budget cuts, the stock market crash, the rising cost of electricity and oil,
the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.
We apologize for any inconvenience.
Sincerely
The Government
@chrisaroz
"And how does eliminating an entire industry (dial-up internet) help stimulate the economy?"
Well, my guess is that building that infrastructure is going to create 2 or 3 jobs. I could be wrong though. And I didn't see anything up there about eliminating dial-up. Just about giving people the option for broadband. I'm sure a lot of people will ditch their dial-up for broadband, but then while that eliminates dial-up jobs, it'll probably create broadband jobs. Or...am I missing something here?
@D
"dial up is still around because it works and people want it."
Really? I'd guess that most people who use dial-up are using it because it's their best (or only) option.
But, what the hell do I know?
"Why should it be my responsibility to pay for someone who chose to live out in the middle of nowhere to get something that is a luxury?"
Exactly. Those damned farmers should either build their own broadband infrastructure or just rot!
Ya know, people who criticize the government for passing this bill kill me. It's like watching a man drowning, seeing a lifeguard dive in after him, then turning to your friend and saying "That lifeguard has a terrible breaststroke. He's doing it all wrong."
Is the plan perfect? No. But doing SOMETHING beats standing around watching a man drown. But, of course, they could have instead another six months putting together a plan that everybody would be happy with (and we all know that you can't please everybody...especially in Washington.) while the economy continues to tank.
The smallest of deeds outweighs the greatest of intentions.
Nobody asked you to let the man drowned. We just ask that you not take him on a f**king tour of Ellis Island after you get your hands on him. Bring him to shore and be done with it.
To many of these so called lifeguards want to be the almighty savior and "save him" and then put him up in a house I helped pay for, give him a car that I helped pay for, and then take him to the f**king emergency room at my expense too. Next I'll be paying for him to have 14 kids too. Oh wait...I already do that!!!
@Troy:
It's not the place of the government to be doing these projects. Period. I suggest you review this series of 8 videos on The Constitution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hzMHLK93TA
I also suggest you review why the founders made the USA a Republic and not a Democracy. The Constitution grants the government the power to regulate (not control) the general welfare, not the specific welfare of farmers without broadband. This "stimulus" violates Constitutional law so much that it's not funny. They should not be taking money from someone living in New York so someone in Iowa can download porn faster.
You can bet your bottom dollar that in addition to (or shall I say more "important" than) extending Broadband out to the boondocks, this bill requires the povs to get free Internet as well because it's "necessary". I mean, that's just what we need: a reason for the welfare recipients to spend MORE time playing on Xbox Live.
I'm starting to agree with my friend in law school at the moment: a law that says if you are on welfare, you should have a cell phone (and the unnecessary bill that comes with it) and other electronic luxuries. Get a job and feed your kids first!
Correction: Or rather NOT have a cell phone.
@Troy Powers
Those are some great points, and I hope it does just that. My suspicion, however, is that the broadband will be deployed by the same players as it always is (which is safe to assume). That will result in a lot of small, rural ISPs being shutdown, and those 2-3 employee shops aren't going to be absorbed by Telcos and cable companies. There are hundreds of these small ISPs serving rural areas, and since there on the fringe there rates are generally $20-$30/month. At those prices a majority of people will switch to the new broadband lines, forcing them out of business.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the idea of the stimulus, I just share the same concern many people have voiced, that the money will not be spent as it's intended, and poor government oversight (Republican and Democratic) will result in poor execution. I agree with you on your comparison to the lifeguard, there is no perfect solution, just good intentions.
@ this thread up through D
Capitalism earned itself an epic fail. We're socialists now. Deal with it.
@Dave Bach
Okay, let's have an analogy that's closer to what you're saying. Drowning man (economy). Lifeguard (president) is running to shore. On the way, he's gotta get the okay to save the man from a few senior lifeguards (congress) before he can dive in. Senior lifeguard who makes money off of Ellis Island tours says, "Well, first, you have to agree to take him on the tour before bringing him to shore." Senior lifeguard who is also a real estate agent says, "You'll have to agree to get him to buy a house before I'll clear you to save him." Senior lifeguard who owns a car dealership says, "Make him buy a car, and it's a go." First lifeguard can now either argue and negotiate about the terms, or dive in and save the guy before he drowns.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's how congress works. Does it need to be fixed. Yuppers. But, it's what we're stuck with at the moment. I mean, what do you think was happening to this bill the entire time? Do you think the president put on a bunch of extra, unnecessary stuff, and congress was trying to save us? Or do you think the people of congress saw a bill that needed to be passed in a hurry, and saw an opportunity to tack on a thing here and there that would benefit them?
I'm buying a house (hopefully) in the next few weeks. Part of my incentive to buy is the $8,000 tax break for home buyers. Coincidentally, Obama proposed that it be upped to $15,000, but I would have to pay it back to the government over the next 15 years. When congress was through with it, it had gone down to $8,000...but I don't have to pay it back. Great for me. Good for all?
@Andir3.0
Okay, fine, it's not the place of government to try to save the economy. Then, who should do it? Who's gonna step up and make the plan?
Troy,
Read up on the fall of Rome as well as reviewing those 8 videos and then ask me that question again. A Republic Government interfering in the economy will only lead to the fall of the US.
If broadband companies want to attract more dialup customers, then they will have to drop their prices below the cost of dialup. Government "Stimulus" may only encourage higher broadband rates for all, because it eliminates competition. It may also cause complications for some who live in remote areas and cannot get any other type of service or travelers who may need an occasional dial up connection where WiFi isn't available.
Okay, Andir3.0. What would save our economy and prevent us from suffering the same fate as Ancient Rome? Government should take a hands-off approach and...what?
@chrisaroz
Well, decades of watching government screw up have made us all a bit cynical. And, rightfully so. At this point, all we can do is hope for the best. I say if this plan even does some of what it has set out to do, then we're better off than we were without it.
Hands off and let the economy recess. That's it. Small upstarts will outperform the giants and we will recover eventually. You can't go through life thinking that everything will be peaches and cherry. No President can fix this.
@ Andir3.0
You nailed it! You are absolutely correct.
You know what's funny though Andir3.0? Obama taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.
I think he needs to watch those videos as well. Thank you for the links. They are now bookmarked.
It's obvious that Obama only serves the Status Quo. The media got him elected. I've never seen 1 person on more magazine covers than Obama. I walk into 7/11 I see Obama bottled water. We got the https://www.franklinmintobamacoin.com Obama coin.
Let's not forget the Obama Plate! http://www.victoryplate.com
Though, Andir3.0, I do agree the government should have stepped back and let the bad guys (predatory lenders, auto makers) take the fall. I think bailing out the actual people is a good idea.
@ Troy
It's called PERSONAL responsibility. If you work at Wal-Mart and bought a house for $500,000 it's your OWN fault regardless of what the lender told you.
"Government should stay out of this stuff and leave it to the free market. If people wanted it, and it was a profitable venture a company would have already moved out there. Why should it be my responsibility to pay for someone who chose to live out in the middle of nowhere to get something that is a luxury?"
Who cares about minorities, right? These people vote and pay taxes just like you, and have probably got less from it than you, living in a city.
As for it being a luxury - the internet can be used to make money, so more people have the potential to become online journalists, web designers and editors, language teachers...etc. It can be used to learn to get a better job, and to find new vacancies quickly to get a job. For many people it's an essential way of making a living. You also need people to lay the lines, so those people also get to stay (or become) employed, and the ISPs get a wider target market with little or no expenditure, which will grow the telecommunications industry, and in turn result in more employment (more customers = more customer service reps...etc). If it works, the increased profits and working people will result in more tax revenue and pay it back to the government.
It's not a handout. It's an investment. It it adds up, great. If it doesn't, people have had their standard of living raised.
I don't see how anyone is preventing people from using dialup if they really want to. Our nation fell from #1 to #15 on the internet speed rank because we are such a big country and the development and placement up newer and more powerful wires for speed and access. We need this just to keep in the game.
http://www.speedmatters.org/blog/oecd_rankings.html
"Ya know, people who criticize the government for passing this bill kill me. It's like watching a man drowning, seeing a lifeguard dive in after him, then turning to your friend and saying "That lifeguard has a terrible breaststroke. He's doing it all wrong.""
The reality is far worse. If you train to become a lifeguard, you learn how to avoid being drowned by the victim. That pontoon on a lanyard? Victims climb up that and crawl on top of your head. Some people just don't want to be rescued.
Please spend some of that money and investigate comcast's business practices.
Right, I'm sure that the New Deal didn't have ANYTHING to do with our recovery from the Great Depression huh? Yeah, government involvement never fixed anything. Anyone ever stop to think what kind of a mess we'd be in if they government HAD let the auto-industry or the financial district fail? Yeah, sure, there would be someone stepping in to take their place and things would get better....but not before we got through the GreatER Depression, and believe me, it would be a long and hard road that I think this country can do without.
Oh yeah, the New Deal.... Fannie Mae, Social Security.... Those are in great shape today!
"Government should stay out of this stuff and leave it to the free market"
Ha! You are like the conservatives railing against the "waste" of the Interstate highway system 50 years ago! What do you think the reason is that the United States continues to fall behind in Broadband measures like adoption rates, rural availability, and in particular speed and cost/speed even in very dense urban areas? This will only continue without some kind of subsidization program akin to what most other developed countries have done.
Rural and many suburban areas will never see decent broadband from the private market. Similarly, we are not going to see widespread deployment of Fiber-to-the-home in urban and suburban areas from private enterprise. It is just too expensive. These types of largescale infrasturcture installations have to be helped along by the local, state, and federal government.
This country basically invented the modern WWW, and should be at the leading edge of technology adoption and deployment.
Bush and the idiotic republicans are happy to squander hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq, but god forbid anyone suggest actually spending some money domestically to improve our own damn country --- and they are a socialist... Fucking idiots..
Notice "D" has an anti Obama campaign icon next to his user name? He's against anything this administration does no matter what it is. I"m not a big Obama fan, but isn't obvious he has an preset mind before he even know this news? As far as dial-up goes. Raise your hand if you want to go back to dial up. Raise your hand if you want to go back to telegraph.(I bet it's way cheaper than phones) Raise your hand if you want to go back to horse carriage. Society have to move forward or everything will always stay the same.
@ Troy
FYI a lifeguard would probably not be doing the breaststroke...its too slow...
To the rest of this post, I must say I am glad to see some like minded Americans who believe that our country seems to be heading down the wrong path...I couldn't have said it better then you guys....I think most of the government could learn a lesson from you guys...
Common sense for the win!
My hat is off to you. And may God truely bless the USA during this time....may we not forget the principles and ideas that our country were founded on. Look at the prosperity that it has brought us...I think alot of the problems today are happening because we have left a lot of those principles. Anyways...I'm rambling... :P
dial up FTW!!!
You know, instead of not taking a position, perhaps you might consider describing the best way to utilize the funds?
It's always better to suggest than to complain.
Personally, since I repair these hideous boxes (and networks) for a living, I'm thrilled. I'm calling the above two departments today and request a meeting!
How about this for a position:
Repeal the massive spending bill. All of it. The U.S. is now 10 trillion in debt, by the end of the year, and before any of these so called stimulus programs can start, the debt will be 12 trillion. The bills for medicaide, medicare and social security are going to come due soon - at an estimated cost of 70 trillion. How is taking on more debt going to solve any of these issues?
Say you have a good job, bring in a good salary and live the good life with a couple cars and a nice house, but you are mortgaged to the hilt, granpa's medicall bills keep going up, and uncle Tommy, who you have been supporting for years, keeps asking for more money. You don't have any savings, of course, and eventually you are going to have to pay for the kids schooling. So, although your income is going up, your expenses are increasing at a faster rate, and all ready every month you spend more than you earn. What would you do?
A. Cut expenses, or
B. Take out another loan.
Congress just chose B.
Mycroft, so your suggestion is to do nothing?
No, just read that again. Your suggestion is to cut government spending. Okay. That's actually a great suggestion. But, what do we cut spending on?
And, yes, the government has choses to take out another loan. Then take that money and build an addition onto the house. We hire uncle Tommy's construction company to do the work, so he stops asking for money. Once the work is done, we rent out that extra space so we'll have some extra income. Sure, we're gonna have to pay this loan back with interest in the long run, but we've got a short term solution.
Fixed.
What does Tommy's Construction company do after the job is done? Get the Government to give him another job? That's a short term bandage.
Okay, it's a short term bandage. But it beats doing nothing. That's my only point. Sure, it doesn't get uncle Tommy his next contract, but it puts food on the table until he finds that next contract. It's better than spending the next six months brainstorming.
I mean, doesn't a short-term fix beat no fix at all? Doesn't staying afloat a little while longer while we work on a better plan beat drowning TODAY?
We have to drown a little. You cannot run an economy at full speed as we've been doing. You cannot recover from that. We need to reduce federal spending, get out of all these wars, cut the military operation/research/spending by 50% or more (that's a TON of money). This means getting rid of government programs and letting the local governments worry about their own people. We are not a socialist country. Period. People will be hurt. There's no avoiding that. We might have to start taking pay cuts, stop buying $40K cars, living in smaller homes, and generally cutting back across the board. Giving citizens another $100/month bill for cable and internet isn't going to suddenly fix the problems that have been building here since the 1930s when our government overstepped their bounds and Presidents started violating their jobs as executors by becoming drivers.
@Andir3.0
Good points, but you would NEVER get elected on that platform. Americans are fat, lazy, and rich, and you'd never get into office saying, "Hey, you're gonna have to tighten your belts and suck it up for a while." And you surely couldn't get into office telling a post-9/11 America that you're gonna cut military spending.
I mean, I can see where you're coming from, but America isn't having it.
Hell, and many of us have already drowned. I know good, honest, hard-working, intelligent people without jobs right now. You can't tell them that they're gonna have to drown a little. They're already barely hanging on. It really is rough out there, man. Again, I say anything that creates jobs is okay with me. I don't care if it's socialist, communist, or satanist.
I think in times where things are going well, your ideas would fly. In times of crisis...well, something has to be done.
Then we will fall.
Well, I'll play the fiddle.
Nothing lasts forever, eh?
@Andir3.0: Please run for President in 2012. I will vote for you.
@Troy Powers: No offense, but stop posting. Everything you say is wrong. All that people with your outlook do is encourage government to continue over-stepping their boundaries, and spending us out of existence.
10 Trillion dollar debt = Every Man, Woman and child would have to pay $30,000 to pay off.
@hexydes
Open debate is good. Without Troy you never would have heard a third of what Andir had to say.
@hexydes
Everything I say is wrong? Really? Okay. Quote one thing I've said that is factually incorrect, sir.
Not counting, of course, my mistake thinking that the majority of people on dial-up use it because of lack of a better option. That's already been corrected.
I wouldn't say he was wrong. But he was doing what normal humans do. Looking out for his interests and thinking he's looking out for the interests of the country. There has always been two schools of thought on how our government is to be run. This reaches back to the days before we were a country. Nobody wants to fail at life and we all want to be first. Everyone wants a magic bullet to fix all that is wrong.
I just don't see it happening without years of recovery. Right now, my parents have broadband internet in the middle of nowhere Ohio, in the form of microwave transmission. Last time I checked, it was 1Mbps down/256K up. Most farm country ISPs have the capability to put up microwave towers and transmit the internet to homes up to 10 miles away (in the case of my parents and possibly further.) They pay less than I do for Cable broadband. It's not as reliable during a storm when it slows down a bit, but it works.
This act was most likely driven by corporate lobby and cable providers looking to extend their service at the cost of the taxpayer instead of the cost of themselves.
Also, and unfortunately, it's not up to the President to fix anything. They don't decide the law. Ultimately, the responsible parties are you and I, not a President. They are only executors of the Constitution, like a Judge is to the local law, and ambassadors of our country to the foreign markets.