• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

FCC voted to subsidize rural broadband through the Connect America Fund

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
As a resident of suburbia with 16MB cable access who does not need this, as a liberal who recognizes the people who would benefit are overwhelmingly right-wing citizens who vote to screw Americans in need every chance they get - my view is that this should be looked at as to whether it's an issue the government can play a helpful role in for these citizens to access an important need for communications, if the private sector can't.

Yes, I know it's wasted - that the Red States get things like the Tennessee Valley Authority, and far more back from the federal government than they pay.

But whether or not they continue to be clueless, it's how it should work IMO.
 
Wasn't this one of Obama's initiatives?
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with Obama on this. Broadband at home is not an essential service and it should not be subsidized. If people wish to live in areas where it is not profitable for a cable / phone company to provide broadband, they should move or form their own co-op.
 
Schadenfroh said:
I have to disagree with Obama on this. Broadband at home is not an essential service and it should not be subsidized. If people wish to live in areas where it is not profitable for a cable / phone company to provide broadband, they should move or form their own co-op.
Click to expand...

Just as automobiles were a luxury in 1800 and are a *near* necessity now for most Americans, times change and I think internet connectivity is increasingly essential.'

Part of it is just how much more is done there, part of it is as a competitive issue with other Americans who have access.
 
Craig234 said:
As a resident of suburbia with 16MB cable access who does not need this, as a liberal who recognizes the people who would benefit are overwhelmingly right-wing citizens who vote to screw Americans in need every chance they get
Click to expand...

So who are they? Are they the middle/lower class workers and families that you claim to be the champion of, or are they idiot right-wingers who fuck America over while thumping bibles and driving tractors to the liquor store?

Typical leftist trash... demean and insult the people you claim to be a champion of.

Yes, I know it's wasted - that the Red States get things like the Tennessee Valley Authority, and far more back from the federal government than they pay.

But whether or not they continue to be clueless, it's how it should work IMO.
Click to expand...

Clueless Craig tops it off with another steaming pile of unintellectual garbage.

Say it one more time, Craig. Tell us about how red states get back more than they pay, and blue states pay more than they get. Last time you ran away crying when I destroyed your feeble argument.
 
Craig234 said:
Just as automobiles were a luxury in 1800 and are a *near* necessity now for most Americans, times change and I think internet connectivity is increasingly essential.'

Part of it is just how much more is done there, part of it is as a competitive issue with other Americans who have access.
Click to expand...

So where is my government-sponsored car? Why hasn't the government forced companies to sell cars at a lower price so everyone can have one?

Jesus, you can't go 2 posts without destroying your own non-argument.
 
woolfe9999 said:
Infrastructure=entitlement? In other words, if the government is doing it, it's a bad thing. Ideological dogma>reality.
Click to expand...

This. There's no difference between the deployment of electrical, phone, or transportation infrastructure to more rural areas in the 20th century and the deployment of broadband in the early part of the 21st. We stand to reap huge future economic rewards if we make these infrastructure investments.
 
Craig234 said:
Just as automobiles were a luxury in 1800 and are a *near* necessity now for most Americans, times change and I think internet connectivity is increasingly essential.'

Part of it is just how much more is done there, part of it is as a competitive issue with other Americans who have access.
Click to expand...

So, we should have the federal government buy cars for everyone? What a silly analogy.
 
CPA said:
So, we should have the federal government buy cars for everyone? What a silly analogy.
Click to expand...

No. The private sector meets the needs for automobiles. On the other hand, I'm glad the government builds roads and public transportation. Learn to read.
 
Craig234 said:
No. The private sector meets the needs for automobiles. On the other hand, I'm glad the government builds roads and public transportation. Learn to read.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. I know plenty of people who can't afford very good cars. Lots of people can't afford anything more than an old beater that doesn't go very fast and isn't good for much else than getting them to work. Many more people can't afford a car at all.

On the other hand, I bet you couldnt find me one person in this country that doesn't have access to Internet in some affordable capacity.

You're so devoid of intellectual honesty it isn't funny. Like I said previously.. You reach the depth of your own understanding of the world, and no matter how shallow it is, you proclaim it is the absolute depth of all reasoning. Anybody who objects to you is labeled as an idiot, while you look down on them and claim they are not as deep as yourself... Nomatter how many times you are shown for being exactly as you are.


Save234
 
Craig234 said:
Just as automobiles were a luxury in 1800 and are a *near* necessity now for most Americans, times change and I think internet connectivity is increasingly essential.'

Part of it is just how much more is done there, part of it is as a competitive issue with other Americans who have access.
Click to expand...

Analogy fail.
 
Texashiker said:
I live about 4 miles from the middle of town, and DSL stops about 1/2 mile from my house.

SBC REFUSES to build the area for DSL.

This means my cable modem provider can charge whatever they want, give crappy speeds, and I have to put up with it.
Click to expand...

And ...........
 
Texashiker said:
I live about 4 miles from the middle of town, and DSL stops about 1/2 mile from my house.

SBC REFUSES to build the area for DSL.

This means my cable modem provider can charge whatever they want, give crappy speeds, and I have to put up with it.
Click to expand...

then move. Capitalism at work. You must hate America if you want that changed.
 
This decision isn't popular with the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA)... says president and CEO Michael Powell.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be the same crony corporatist Michael Powell who headed the FCC as the son of Colin Powell, now heading a lobbying organization would it?
 
brandonb said:
It's been about 2 years since I've looked into it, but when I called them in the past, they said their ping times are horrible, about 1000ms, and you're not able to game off it. And I believe they capped your download to 200 megs a day. Which doesn't give you much.
Click to expand...

There are enough disadvantages with satellite broadband (higher costs, equipment costs and/or contract lengths, ping times, extremely low caps, service outages caused by weather) that one can argue it is in fact a worse solution than dial up. I almost got it several times but when I looked at it objectively it wouldn't really have been an improvement except for downloading some semi large files at home (which I could do from work with a flash drive anyway) and loading some overwise largely unusable websites at home. In the end I probably still would have tried it out, had it not required a 3 year contract during a three year period when DSL was always "coming next year" (I know, I know, why would I believe that?) My dial up cost me $13/mo versus ~$60...which would have been fine if it was in fact better. It also gets quite windy at my house, meaning I'd be looking at situations where my TV didn't work and my internet also didn't work.

In the end I decided to wait (while having a fit)! Shotgunned 56K would have had a better choice if I wanted better and wanted to pay for. Same shitty dial up pings and almost as fast as ISDN.
 
JSt0rm said:
then move.
Click to expand...

No, I live next to a major highway and just a few miles from the center of town, there is NO reason for fiberoptic not to be running through here.


JSt0rm said:
You must hate America if you want that changed.
Click to expand...

This shows your arrogance, you think the US owns the name "America". Ever hear of North America, Central America and South America?

I do not give care about fiberoptic running through Brazil, but I do care about the US Government building infrastructure.

Private business has refused to build areas for high speed internet, I think it goes past "the free market at work".

her209 said:
The FCC approved it :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

Good, now maybe parts of the US can step into the 21st century.

pcgeek11 said:
And ...........
Click to expand...

If can have comforts of the 21st century, then so should everyone else.
 
Last edited:
Schadenfroh said:
I have to disagree with Obama on this. Broadband at home is not an essential service and it should not be subsidized. If people wish to live in areas where it is not profitable for a cable / phone company to provide broadband, they should move or form their own co-op.
Click to expand...
While I think it's a nice idea to provide broadband in remote areas, I can't say I feel overly sorry for people in that situation. People in rural areas overwhelmingly vote for "small government" so shouldn't they suck it up and deal with it?


Also, broadband is available almost everywhere on the planet. They use these things called "satellites" which were invented by the Chinese back in the 1870s. Here's the cost breakdown for one in Canada. Keep in mind Canada is ranked LOWER than the US when it comes to broadband availability.

ka_serviceplans.gif
 
brandonb said:
It's been about 2 years since I've looked into it, but when I called them in the past, they said their ping times are horrible, about 1000ms, and you're not able to game off it. And I believe they capped your download to 200 megs a day. Which doesn't give you much.
Click to expand...
I need to quote this. Seriously, what the hell? The data plan on my phone is 50mb per month and I've never once gone over that. I read this forum on it every day on the bus going to work then home from work. I also use my phone to read and post stuff on facebook. Every day.

200mb is only small if you're trying to stream porn. Then yeah it's only like an hour of porn, and that's not enough for me.
 
Broadband internet is not a necessity, just like TV. If you choose to live somewhere without reliable broadband internet, you either live without it or pay for slower satellite service. There are plenty of people in my area who do both and get along just fine.
 
Actually the govt agrees it is a necessity. We get broadband as well. So I guess the only benefit of living in the city is hearing sirens at night, crime, and over population. Enjoy city life. Peace
 
Last edited:
SparkyJJO said:
Maybe, just maybe, don't put your business out in the middle of nowhere 😉

If you NEED broadband, then MOVE. (I did.) It is not the governments job to provide (or force someone to provide) you with broadband out in your cornfield because you want to be there and still have all the amenities of being closer to town. Infrastructure to support broadband costs money, and lots of it. You can't fault a company for not wanting to put out huge expenditures of money where there won't be a return.
Click to expand...

You act as if the only people who don't have broadband are living like isolated hermits out in the forest. There are whole communities, large regions that don't have it. It isn't cost efficient for entire communities and regions to move to where the infrustructure is. It's far less expensive to bring the infrastructure there. So far as the evil gubment doing it, that I suspect is your real issue here. It's ideological.

I don't recall anyone complaining about government building roads to connect less densely populated areas with the rest of the nation. I fail to see the distinction here. High bandwidth access is increasingly vital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top