White House Forks Over $795 Million to Broadband Projects

24

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

joel96

No. No....NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS WORST!!! AGAIN!!! This can't be happening. Tell me this isn't happening. This is a 10 out of 10 on the Joeybuddy Internet Scale of Badness. Apocalypse, destruction, famine, eeeeeviiiiil!!! I saw this coming. I tried to warn you. But you didn't listen. Or maybe you did, but we couldn't stop it. Behold, the end is nigh.
 
This is the doing of the Internet's greatest foes, the FCC, the FTC, and the World's Biggest Business--the federal government. They want power, I told you, and they aren't going to stop until they control the Internet. The FCC tried everything. First they started with the National Broadband Plan, which would have given them control without going through Congress. SCOTUS nixed their Net Neutrality plan, and so the FCC along with some of the biggest ISPs instead went to Congress to ask them to give them the authority to control the Internet and pass Net Neutrality. That might still be ongoing. The FTC tried to declare that they had the authority to regulate the Internet. Recently, congressperson Delahue or Donahue whatever started an attempt to tax the Internet. The FTC is trying to tax online news aggregators to prop up the old news sources, even though they are online too now.
 
Since the announcement over a month ago that the NBP would be cancelled, we saw Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, and Sprint all announce bigger and faster network plans. We didn't need the funding, things were doing fine without it. We didn't want the NBP to be passed, said polls, but they passed the takeover anyway. This was forced down our throughts, a hostile takeover. This will not create or save anything but suffering. This was about creating more government presence. I said the NBP was a dry run for healthcare, and I was right. Both passed on weekends, when no one was paying attention. It was near a holiday too. Did they do this under cover of night? In darkness they try to hide their evil deeds. Eviiiiilllll.
 
The world's biggest organization benefits most, with the big ISP industries as a secondary beneficiary. You will pay for this, ISPs, because eventually the government will consume you. It does not share power. *jumps off onto eagle*
 
I present now to you, the original, unedited response to the announcement of the NBP. Realize that some of the things in it got passed piecemeal. The DRM set top box regulation got passed in the form of SoC set top box exemptions for set top box Internet port DRM. Realize that this whole thing happened after the Australian gov't announced their own version of the takeover of the biggest ISP there. Remember how they were going to give out free Internet to "underserved communities" and downtown areas? Well, that promise is gone now. I told you they would never be able to offer it for free or at a lower price. Now, we don't even have that benefit. I think this is the FCC getting revenge on America for not giving in to the NBP.

And now, the end: 
 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THIS IS WORST!
Okay, let's start with the first promise. They say that 200 million Americans have broadband at home. They want to have 100 million more Americans to have broadband at home by 2020. Last time I checked, the US population is 300 million. Even with expected growth in population, this pretty much means the government wants 100% of Americans to have broadband at home. Have they ever heard of "the boonies?" Some people don't even get mail at home, let alone broadband. They can't fulfill this promise. They know they can't fulfill it. That's called "lying," folks.
What have I shown you these past months through my shared items? Big organizations, centralized power, is bad. Google, Microsoft, IBM, the MPAA, the RIAA, Comcast/Xfinity. They all do bad stuff and get away with it because they are big. And now the FCC wants to give the ISP business to the world's biggest, richest organization- the American federal government. You thought Ma Bell was a nightmare monopoly. Watch what happens when an organization owns a full third (for starters) of the telecom business, and can't be sued against by consumers, and can't be defeated by competition.
Do you realize that the end Internet users will still have to pay subscription fees, and for your modem, and for overuse fees, and some sort of green tax? Your won't be freed from your ISP master, you'll have a new master, one you can never run away from.
We'll never know what the Internet could have been, because the government option will be the only one. Remember back before '95 the spectacular Internet? Remember how much more awesome it was than the Internet of today? Yeah, if only the Internet had stayed a project of the military, run only by the government, we would still have the same incredibly better network we had back then. Good news though, we'll get to freeze the Internet in place, just like with the Interstate system and Amtrak, and not improve it any more than it already is.
This is unconstitutional. Where in the constitution does it say the government is to provide for the common good of everyone? Hey, guess what, someone already has that job. It's called you and me and the neighbor next door. We take care of people. The government takes care of itself. The FCC just wants more jobs and more money. They don't get elected, they don't get fired, they just stay there until they're older than Dick Clark and the guy that owns Reupert or whatever news put together. They have the same corporate structure as any private big business. It's like the mafia, except they are there by law. It's worse than Swimming with the Sharks and It's All About Eve.

What they'll end up doing is selling the 500MHz spectrum, put the profits into the general FCC budget, spend it all, and have no money left. Then they'll levy some sort of fee on users or businesses or a new tax, and then 10 years later, they'll finally start the project in big electoral districts, and it will be barely 10Mbps.

Is anyone thinking about control of the lines? Censorship, filtration, bandwidth choking an throttling and caps, file type and traffic restrictions (including P2P) are all going to be put in place, and then the private ISPs will be required to do it too (PBS has supposedly educational content, so every other network has to have it too). Not to mention monitoring of your activities by the IRS, FBI, and EPA. Next they'll require your thermostat to be hooked up online straight through their lines and to the doors of the IRS, so they can charge you a fee if you set it too high, or maybe the EPA will just set it how they want.
Rules on the set-top box market? What?!? You can't do that! The market is fine as it is. There's variety in cost and features. This is just going to change things so that all set-top boxes are slower and have fewer features and more DRM, that way it will be easier for more people to get in. The FCC wants to reduce competition by destroying the market and making the boxes into commodities. One size fits all. Just like with the analong to digital transition. I'll bet the taxpayer will fund those too. No, wait, maybe better, the government will make and sell them.

"Give all communities access to 1Gbps service" This means that GoverNet will extend even to areas that are already served by one or more ISPs. They don't want to give access just to areas that have only satellite access, they want to take over Internet nationwide. Not even AT&T and Sprint combined have that. Hi Big Brother. They're also managing expectations already. The 100Gbps number is a lie, only available under ideal conditions, with all kinds of expensive caveats that only the big electoral districts and government-friendly big businesses can afford. This isn't about access for everyone, it's about more control for the government. We've already heard the claims from private ISPs that the speeds they advertise are the upper limit of your speeds, and that your average will be way less. You're willing to believe the government, that changes leaders and goals every few months? They even say in the article that the 1Gbps ubiquitous service is targeted at public places. That could even mean that access for the "underserved homes" means that those households have to go to the public places to get the Internet that isn't even 1Gbps. And what do you want to bet that even that sub-1Gbps that is public is shared amongst multiple facilities, just like cable connections are shared within a street or suburb? Know this: 100Mbps will turn into 56Kbps. Be warned.
This whole National Broadband Plan is a dry run for healthcare insurance bills. It is passed by a regulatory body filled with unelected good-ole-boy employees without ever seeing a vote to become law. You let this proposal pass, you lose your Internet and any hope of a better future for it.
So you want the Internet to be free. All the FCC asks of you is that you take its place as a captive. You have a choice. Pay for the Internet with money, or pay for it with money and freedom.

avatar

Mighty BOB!

This money better actually go to the projects and not ISPs' pockets...

avatar

MIFarmer

All this money for five thousand jobs? thats only $159000 apeice. What a bargain

avatar

Muerte

Well, its not just the labor.  There is material involved and its not like you can pick this stuff up at the hardware store.

To me the jobs are nice but improving and spreading broadband around the country is critical.  Hopefully it will reduce the cost of bandwidth or at least improve bandwidth so there are less restrictions.

avatar

nHeroGo

Improved broadband infrastructure can improve commerce and opportunity in the same way that improved/expanded road-networks once improved commerce (for decades). There are long term benefits. However, the undertakings of old to put America back to work were so much larger back then; I don't want to compare pulling some wires between telephone posts as significant as paving America from coast to coast.

 

Reading some other comments I see that this $800M improvement is not regarded as a technical issue (a technical solution to a technical problem) but a matter of political idealism. Ideology-based rhetoric tends to blow things out of proportion; $800M is perceived as a matter of $800B - a whole new magnitude. Here are some thoughts to help us see beyond our political ideals, simply by comparing some numbers.

 

$800M divided by 50 states is $16M per state, which is the amount of money it may cost to fix up an intersection with some traffic lights and turning lanes, some additional road signs and a bunch of temporary orange cones. That's it!

 

$800M is ten times the money that one senator spent on her political campaign to become a senator - that was $72M of her own money - or the equivalence of improving the broadband infrastructure in 5 states in America.

 

Since $16M per state (average) is such a small amount of money, the question is not about the money, but rather what $16M per state (in grants and loans) will actually buy, and if the 66 projects will really put a dent in America's slow adoption of broadband technology?

avatar

p47riot

this is just another case of government overstepping its bounds.  If the private sector shows a need to provide highspeed internet to one area or another LET THE PRIVATE SECTOR STEP UP AND PROVIDE IT!  Why is it Obama's job to ensure that each and every American has high speed internet?  And why should MY tax money fund such an endeavor?? I'd rather the WH concern iteself with stopping threats to our National Security (like oh I dunno, THE BIG HOLE IN THE BORDER TO THE SOUTH!)  and leave the rest of the business decisions to the citizens.

Bottom line, the government should not be "creating jobs," it should be allowing an environment for its citizens to create the jobs themselves. Internet everywhere sounds great on paper, but it's pie-in-the-sky with kool-aid-flavored rain and has no business being on the government's agenda.

avatar

Muerte

The purpose of any corporation is to improve profits.  The cheapest way to do this is to not invest in new infrastructure but to get people to pay more for diminishing services.

avatar

p47riot

...it's a pretty general statement to make.  Successful companies DO think long-term and look for ways to bring their product to as many new customers as they can.  The example I'll use is Sprint.  Back when Sprint was Southern Pacific Railroad, whenever they laid new rails do you know what they put under them?  Fiber Optic lines.  (SPRINT is actually an acronym for Southern Pacific Railroad Intelligent Network of Telecommunications) Their foresight told them that it would probably someday be beneficial to having miles and miles of high-speed network fiber whereever they could put it, so they did, and over the course of a couple decades demand went up for high-speed communications lines, Sprint made a killing selling out the access rights.  Some of you are old enough to remember this as a catalyst for what brought about the demise of Ma Bell's monopoly on public phone service.  Competition=Innovation=Win for consumer.

avatar

TheZomb

Why should my tax dollars go to solving your border hole, selfish jerk. Its too bad you aren't stranded in a rural community without internet because then we wouldn't have to hear your comments.

avatar

p47riot

How am I selfish?  I don't live in a border state.  If you're an American, then you own that hole just as much as the rest of us.  I just don't see how, with or without everything that's going on in this country that the Federal Government has chosen to set their priorities the way they do.  Right now it's estimated we have anywhere from 10-15 MILLION illegal immigrants in this country.  Now compare that with the 10-15 million American citizens that are out of work...it's not rocket surgery.  But instead of solving the problem, not only are we going to ignore it, we're going to provide all these illegals with Health Care, Social Services, Education and now Internet access.  Show me how this is sustainable.

 

avatar

PawBear

 Interesting comments mentioning Nazi Germany and the US together.  People finally realize we now have a fascist government?

I'm finally proud of America; the new world order is closer than ever before.

Happy "independence day".

"Either we conform the Truth to our desires or we conform our desires to the Truth."

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

What really worked for the US and Nazi Germany was to enact public works on a huge scale. The Nazis put the German public to work building the Autobahn among other things. While here in the USA FDR created The New Deal that put the public back to work in the Civilian Conservation Corps. The CCC here in the USA built fire lanes in the forests to help fight forest fires, plant new forests and grass to prevent states from turning into dust bowls like what happened to Oklahoma early in the 20th Century. 

Both the Nazis program and the CCC were organised in a military fashion instilling national pride in the participants. Both countries were able to fill the ranks of their armies with these civilian workers when WW2 broke out.

The fact of the matter is that public works projects helped the USA and Germany get out of the Great Depression and it'll work again here in the USA. I actually believe that is all that'll work and sadly the politicians aren't even considering what worked during the Great Depression. So history repeated itself and we are blind to what we did in the past. So this time around we are left to suffer.

I really really hope those in Washington really want what is best for America. I really hope so and I hope that they will start showing they actually care.

This is kinda like public works but not nearly large enough in scope. Not even close enough.

I know as a republican I'm supposed to be against social programs but some social programs actually work. I just hope those in Washington will actually enact some of them.

So instead of a never ending Unemployment check, why not just put those unemployed workers back to work building fire lanes and planting trees and grass. Hell there are alot of unemployed workers that are used to office work and other more cushy work environments that would jump at the chance to get their hands dirty. Be real men. 

avatar

Ashton2091

i like how you mentioned, being a republican you're supposed to be against it. i personally don't agree with having two sides but that's irrelevant because we do. but i wish there were more like you. it's cool that you actually think about the issue and let it swirl in your head and then make a decision instead of being against something simply because you're supposed to. at that point you're simply being controlled. all decisions should be made that way. i know it's off subject but it really bothers me that our government can't EVER agree on anything. it's one of the many factors that are screwing up our country. having rival gangs run the country isn't a great idea. sounds a bit like bloods and crips to me. lol...joking of course.

avatar

US_Ranger

All those government funded jobs come from taxpayer money. It comes from money we don't have because we are in a massive deficit. Now you want the government to spend more money to create temporary jobs that soak up even more taxpayer money?

No thanks. I like high speed internet as much as the next guy but not when we're almost 14 trillion (TRILLION) dollars in debt.

avatar

Mibgranny

Even IF the money is squandered, I hope they at LEAST manage to get DSL to my area. I'm living off of effing satellite internet at the moment, and it SUCKS.

avatar

mls067

yeah, wasn't money given to the telco's in the 90's (not for the creation of jobs, just to push broadband technology) for the same reason and said money was squandered? They hand out this money and have no idea what they use it for because I really do not think there is a single person on capital hill that knows anything about tech. Just look at some of the overly vague laws they have created concerning tech.

 

ugh, yet again some greedy ceo is going to get a big bonus this year on my dime... 

avatar

Scootiep

 I really hope that by now, everyone realizes that this: "Obama administration officials estimate that some 5,000 jobs will either
be created or saved as a direct result of the funding and projects." Is complete BS and is the exact same as them saying "We have no fucking clue what this will do." The phrase was created to absolve them of any accountability when it came to the results of their programs but still allow them to claim credit if they appear to be working. Government at it's worst.

To start press any key...ohh, where's the "Any" key. - Homer Simpson

avatar

p47riot

Because the Constitution says it's the Gov's job to provide Healthcare, Energy Efficient Cars and Internet to every household in America, amirite? What a great use of taxpayer dollars! Meanwhile we have Pelousy spouting that printing Unemployment checks is one of the most effective means of job creation...riiiiiiiight.  I've been biding my time til the Nov elections in hopes that we can turn this pres into a lame duck, but I really don't think we can last that much longer with this administration at the helm.  Vote incumbents OUT!

avatar

tri8gman

Let's just ignore that last couple hundred years of progress...

The Constitution allows for this thing called "amendments."

Minority voting? Women voting?

GOD DO I HATE A DOCUMENT WRITTEN TO PROGRESS WITH THE PEOPLE.

avatar

p47riot

Well sure the Constitution has required some tweaking over 200+ years to ensure that people are allowed to live unoppressed.  The examples you stated are issues in which the Government was denying rights to certain groups and the Constitution had to be amended to enact the change.  Everyone being equal, it was the right thing to do. I hardly consider the internet as a constitutional issue, though so let's not try to make it one.  Who is being denied internet access here?  People in rural areas?  No one is saying that they can't have it.  Like someone stated earlier, that's a technical issue, not a political one.

Now, I will admit that the Government could probably provide some funding to laying down infrastructure in an effort to encourage business in otherwise technology-void areas.  If that's the case here, then so be it.  $800 million is a drop in the bucket and is potentially job-creating.  But I question the motives of this administration.  Especially when BO is on record saying that his mission is to bring high-speed internet to every American.  Do you really want your Government to be providing these services?? Post Office, Amtrak, Obamacare...now ObamaNet.  America On-Line indeed.

avatar

whr4usa

Amen

there's only a single incumbent in my state I'll help to send back

there's need for some regulation which is precisely why the interstate commerce clause exists but only in the context of national security so I can see fibroptic being just as essential as the Harry Truman Highway System or the continued sorry excuses for federal grants to keep the only world-class shipyard left on the continent open that just happens to be in my area

the simple fix to budgetary & economic problems would be to constitutionally ban entitlements but far too many americans are too uninformed to get it done fast enough to matter probably but I'll keep praying in optimism while planning realistically

avatar

US_Ranger

You nailed it brother. The fact that people don't understand what you just wrote is mind boggling.

avatar

whr4usa

Amen

avatar

Zallomallo

+1

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.