FCC votes to use phone subsidy fund for high-speed Internet

[spidey07]

I don't find that high-speed access should be just given out, however basic access should be...

ISDN is available just about anywhere that POTs is.

 

[charrison]

ISDN is available just about anywhere that POTs is.

Yup and still quite expensive for what it is.

 

[her209]

I could see the redirecting of ALREADY ALLOCATED FUNDS to change towards "broadband" infrastructure vs traditional telephony. As long as it's not being tacked on as another/extra expense.

I'm saying "Why should it -- telephone service or broadband -- be subsidized at all?" If you live somewhere where a telecommunications provider refuses to operate because its unprofitable to do so, then you should live it or move to an area if you need it.

 

[her209]

This is not city people paying rural folk's infrastructure. It's not like there is some new tax if you live within some city limits.

It's tax on people who use long distance telephone services, I'm pretty sure rural people use that.

How does one pay taxes on a service which they aren't receiving yet? At least until the infrastructure is built using the taxes paid for by those that do.

 

[her209]

I live in a rural area. We have virtually zero crime. Why should I pay taxes to subsidize your police and all the other services that are provided to urban areas? There's a lot of funding for the "arts." We don't have the "arts" out here in the rural areas. Why should my taxes subsidize all that crap in the urban areas. We don't have any illegal aliens out here in the rural areas. Why should I pay taxes to subsidize their medical care so that they can continue making your fast food for you, mowing your lawns, providing manual labor, in urban areas? Etc.

If you moved to a town where there was no police because the town couldn't afford to hire one, then should the residents who do have a police force be taxed by the state/federal government and use those revenues to pay for the town's police man's salary? Its not a perfect analogy because someone in the town can always volunteer.

 

[child of wonder]

The idea of everyone having access to broadband internet is great, however, what's not so great is that the broadband internet will be under control of a single company (maybe 2 if the rural people are extremely lucky) and they'll have no choice but to pay whatever amount of money that company sees fit despite whatever sub par product they choose to deliver.

 

[piasabird]

There are plenty of places where it is difficult to get good or cheap internet service. Some places close to me and in outlying towns just do not have good internet service. Many times the only service available is satelite internet. This is not necessarily a bad thing. People should move to where they can get better internet service or find unique new ways to get internet service.

We only guarantee Freedom, not access to the Internet.

 

[piasabird]

If you are a farmer or a rancher or live in a rural area, you might or might not have access to the Internet. In some places you might not have electricity. There are places like cell towers in the mountains where there is no electricity and they use solar power.

 

[DrPizza]

If you moved to a town where there was no police because the town couldn't afford to hire one, then should the residents who do have a police force be taxed by the state/federal government and use those revenues to pay for the town's police man's salary? Its not a perfect analogy because someone in the town can always volunteer.

I'm not sure what you're talking about - we don't have a policeman because we don't need one. On the very rare occasions that we do need one, there's the county sheriffs, or state police, but per capita, we use their services far less than larger localities.

Speaking of subsidies, since you live in the big city, what about subsidies for all the other infrastructure? Subways, tunnels, bridges, etc.?

 

[IronWing]

I'm not sure what you're talking about - we don't have a policeman because we don't need one. On the very rare occasions that we do need one, there's the county sheriffs, or state police, but per capita, we use their services far less than larger localities.

Speaking of subsidies, since you live in the big city, what about subsidies for all the other infrastructure? Subways, tunnels, bridges, etc.?

Government policy redistributes the wealth generated in the cities out to the small towns and rural areas. From farm subsidies to subsidies for rural health care to road improvements to small town waste water plants to irrigation development, folks in the sticks get subsidized at the expense of the cities.

Edit: Another example is the distribution of post offices. The small town nearest me has ~5k people and a post office, the next town south has 1000 people and a post office, the next town past that has 500 people and a post office. My fair city has one post office per 50,000 people. By law, the USPS has to keep money losing small town post offices open and accomplishes this mandate by under-serving the cities.

 

[DrPizza]

Small town waste plants? That's BIG town waste plants. Small towns - everyone has septic systems. Towns big enough for waste plants typically also have broadband access. Post office - isn't that a separate entity that isn't funded with taxpayer dollars?

 

[Throckmorton]

Government policy redistributes the wealth generated in the cities out to the small towns and rural areas. From farm subsidies to subsidies for rural health care to road improvements to small town waste water plants to irrigation development, folks in the sticks get subsidized at the expense of the cities.

Edit: Another example is the distribution of post offices. The small town nearest me has ~5k people and a post office, the next town south has 1000 people and a post office, the next town past that has 500 people and a post office. My fair city has one post office per 50,000 people. By law, the USPS has to keep money losing small town post offices open and accomplishes this mandate by under-serving the cities.

That's exactly why the public USPS and public health insurance make sense. It's the only way to have 100% coverage. Private companies will always pick and choose based on profitability-- it's in their nature.

 

[Throckmorton]

Small town waste plants? That's BIG town waste plants. Small towns - everyone has septic systems. Towns big enough for waste plants typically also have broadband access. Post office - isn't that a separate entity that isn't funded with taxpayer dollars?

Yeah the USPS is funded by junk mail. But they're a government agency that is mandated to provide mail service to everybody, even if it's not profitable.

 

[werepossum]

I'm saying "Why should it -- telephone service or broadband -- be subsidized at all?" If you live somewhere where a telecommunications provider refuses to operate because its unprofitable to do so, then you should live it or move to an area if you need it.

That's true of all government subsidies. You like high speed rail - my federal tax dollars go to fund those projects even though I'll likely never use it. You like government redistribution of wealth - my federal tax dollars go to fund those even though (hopefully) I'll never benefit from them. Every time I purchase something in a city, I pay extra taxes, the vast majority of which go to fund things from which as a county resident I'll never benefit.

Virtually all government programs punish those who fund but do not use them. That's the nature of government; now matter how socialist you may be, eventually your ox will be gored.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

You don't have to use directly something to reap the benefits from its existence. I don't use the public schools my taxes pay for, but I still benefit by not living in a county with a single digit literacy rate. That's the point of taxes and government spending, but don't let it get in the way of your "punishment" and "wealth distribution" talking points.

 

[werepossum]

You don't have to use directly something to reap the benefits from its existence. I don't use the public schools my taxes pay for, but I still benefit by not living in a county with a single digit literacy rate. That's the point of taxes and government spending, but don't let it get in the way of your "punishment" and "wealth distribution" talking points.

How can you apply that to one side of the argument but not the other? I'm not a proponent of subsidizing rural broadband, but I can see more indirect benefit in that than in, say, wealth redistribution schemes.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

How can you apply that to one side of the argument but not the other? I'm not a proponent of subsidizing rural broadband, but I can see more indirect benefit in that than in, say, wealth redistribution schemes.

I'm quite sure you do considering the fact you can draw up some arbitrary distinction between personally beneficial subsidies and evil "wealth distribution" schemes.

 

[hal2kilo]

FCC to Use Phone Subsidy Fund to Pay for Broadband
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=12866718



What the fuck? Why are poor and rural areas being subsidized by the rest of us to pay for telephone service and/or Internet? If these people want service, how about moving to an area closer to the rest of civilization.

Yea, let's keep the rural and poor barefoot and in the kitchen.

 

[werepossum]

I'm quite sure you do considering the fact you can draw up some arbitrary distinction between personally beneficial subsidies and evil "wealth distribution" schemes.

You know, for someone so often acclaiming his own intelligence (at least in comparison with the rest of the country) you have a remarkably hard time actually thinking with that brain, much less being able to see both sides of an argument. Perhaps, purely for the sake of protecting your brilliance for the betterment of future generations, you should give up trying to think with that brain and just adopt whatever knee-jerk leftist position seems handy. I can assure you that the rest of us with our limited intellects will not be able to tell the difference in your posts either way.

For Gonad: The proper distinction is between programs "for the common good" and wealth redistribution, not between subsidies and wealth redistribution. The former takes money from a variety of people and uses it for something from which everyone supposedly benefits, be it subsidies (e.g. rural phone service or urban housing) or direct government-owned projects (e.g. interstates or public schools.) These programs will each have differing levels of utility to different people because the world is not a perfect place and people have different needs depending on their unique situations. The latter takes money from some people and gives it to other people for no reason beyond their lower earnings. Well, that and the need to buy votes. The former I can support regardless of whether or not I directly benefit (and I usually don't - that's the nature of government) as long as I think it's a valid and Constitutional function of government AND as long as I think the need is pressing enough and the return on investment is high enough AND as long as we can afford it. The latter I oppose beyond bringing someone up to the federal poverty line - or the state or local poverty line in the case of purely state and/or locally funded programs. My ideal would be that one parent working full time at minimum wage would be able to support one child at the federal poverty line with no wealth transfer programs, but I'm able to see that people can legitimately get into situations they did not foresee. We should not however have wealth redistribution programs to the extent we do now, where in many states people are better off not working or working for minimum because government steals someone else's earnings to give them.

For the rest of us not blinded by our own self-proclaimed brilliance: Kudos on the debate. Everyone should be able to see the benefit in providing broadband Internet service to everyone, whether the urban poor or the rural population. That's not the same as supporting it. Not every good thing is the proper function of government; not every program does enough good to justify its cost. Not every need can be met, not every desirable thing can be afforded. Certainly there are arguments to be made on either side of this issue. Assuming that you agree that rural electrification programs were Constitutional, there are no wrong answers, only opinions. You may support it as a reasonable government function or because you think broadband Internet is fundamental to our modern society; you have to be convinced it is (probably) an efficient use of tax monies in either case. You may oppose it because you think the costs outweigh the benefits, or because you think this unreasonably benefits some people who could choose to live in an area with such services, or because you don't think subsidizing Internet for anyone is a valid government function. One is not good or evil based on his or her opinion on this subject. One is not opposing police protection by opposing this program. One is not supporting wealth redistribution by supporting this program. And it's always fun to see a liberal running up against the costs of socialism - just like it's fun to see a conservative run up against the limits of "family values". We all have our little foibles.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Don't worry about my brilliance, this board chips away at it every day. Pretty soon I'll be stuffing McRibs in my mouth with one hand and holding a "keep your government hands off my Medicare" sign with the other while rolling around on my fat scooter. See a lot of you folks there.

 

[HumblePie]

That's true of all government subsidies. You like high speed rail - my federal tax dollars go to fund those projects even though I'll likely never use it. You like government redistribution of wealth - my federal tax dollars go to fund those even though (hopefully) I'll never benefit from them. Every time I purchase something in a city, I pay extra taxes, the vast majority of which go to fund things from which as a county resident I'll never benefit.

Virtually all government programs punish those who fund but do not use them. That's the nature of government; now matter how socialist you may be, eventually your ox will be gored.

I hope you like buying an ear of corn at $10 a pop!

People, you seriously have no clue how and why this works. Some work MUST BE DONE in rural areas and cannot be done in large cities. It is a simple fact of life. Livestock, farms, and other places still need items to do their business just like any business in a city. We are not talking about providing high speed internet to some hermit living on the top of the Rockies in the middle of BFE. We are talking about the vast majority of the country where it is not that hard to run lines to an area, it just that the profit margins are not as great since the people per square mile is lower.

 

[werepossum]

I hope you like buying an ear of corn at $10 a pop!

People, you seriously have no clue how and why this works. Some work MUST BE DONE in rural areas and cannot be done in large cities. It is a simple fact of life. Livestock, farms, and other places still need items to do their business just like any business in a city. We are not talking about providing high speed internet to some hermit living on the top of the Rockies in the middle of BFE. We are talking about the vast majority of the country where it is not that hard to run lines to an area, it just that the profit margins are not as great since the people per square mile is lower.

Corn will become $10 per ear because farmers don't have broadband Internet? Umm, I call bullshit. While many farmers are very sophisticated and use the Internet quite a bit for market and scientific research, they are not cut off now. Look around the rural landscape - see all those little digital satellite dishes? Those same companies also sell broadband service. About the only thing for which satellite broadband is unsuitable is gaming; the lag time is simply too high.

Except for gaming, this is not an issue for whether or not people have access to broadband because rural communities overwhelmingly live in single family homes where satellite deployment is generally quite simple. It's just an issue of whether we should extend more options to rural people. Having grown up in a home whose directions included "leave the paved road", an area that didn't have city water until they built a new water treatment plant next to my grandfather's farm when I was a boy, I can appreciate that, and I don't have a huge problem with it. I'm just not convinced that with our deficit so out of control, this is truly an immediate, pressing need.

 

[ElFenix]

are they talking about running lines or are they talking about running fixed 4g wireless installations?

 

[Acanthus]

food, clothes, electronics... all kinds of manufactured good you use travel via interstate... even in Hawaii. You benefit from a qood quality road system even if you do not drive on it. When I drive on an interstate, I pay for using it.

John Doe surfing porn in podunk, north dakota does not help anyone. So no federal subsidies for him to get internet.

John Doe surfing etailers does.

"John doe using his lightbulb in podunk, north dakota does not help anyone."

See, you can do this with anything.

 

[Acanthus]

are they talking about running lines or are they talking about running fixed 4g wireless installations?

It's a combination.