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

[JSt0rm]

I don't know, how'd we get it into every home in the country? Did we make others pay for it? Make the businesses pay for and they therefore passed the costs onto everyone?

If you want someone 20 miles from the CO, through harsh terrain, to get wired broadband, I think that's great. That'll be $50k or so. Just subsidize that yourself and you can be super duper happy then. What's that? You have money left over? Sweet, there's millions more just like that person. I hope you've got a good job!

Chuck

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Utilities_Service

Read about your history, peasant.

 

[chucky2]

I'll read the link later, I'm genuinely interested in how elec got everywhere.

I just want to confirm you'll be paying for all the broadband extension you want to see everywhere. You will be paying for that yourself, and not dipping into my pockets via increased taxes and/or increased service price, amirite?

Chuck

 

[werepossum]

you fucking retards. How do you think we got electricity into every home in the country? We dont have shanty towns here in the united states. This is a first world nation no matter what you American Taliban think.

While I don't disagree that we don't have shanty towns in the USA, it's a stretch to correlate electricity with broadband access, especially with the availability of satellite Internet service. Is a 20,000 square foot country home a shanty because it doesn't have broadband Internet? And it's hilarious to call her209, a pretty liberal if generally sensible person, the "American Taliban" simply because he disagrees with subsidizing a particular service. Almost everyone (Craig and Red perhaps excepted) has limits to the amount of socialism he prefers in his society, and there are no right or wrong answers (except for limits imposed by the Constitution.)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Doesn't mean that the government has to extend the basic infrastructure to where ever you choose to live.

alright, who hijacked her209s account!

 

[rudder]

High speed internet is a right!

 

[JSt0rm]

While I don't disagree that we don't have shanty towns in the USA, it's a stretch to correlate electricity with broadband access, especially with the availability of satellite Internet service. Is a 20,000 square foot country home a shanty because it doesn't have broadband Internet? And it's hilarious to call her209, a pretty liberal if generally sensible person, the "American Taliban" simply because he disagrees with subsidizing a particular service. Almost everyone (Craig and Red perhaps excepted) has limits to the amount of socialism he prefers in his society, and there are no right or wrong answers (except for limits imposed by the Constitution.)

The american taliban comment was directed at chucky.

and for the second one I'm too busy right now to debate about this any more. If you dont see the similarities between electricity and broadband internet then I dont know what to tell you. Both changed the planet though.

 

[chucky2]

Hahaha, I'm the American Taliban now....I can't wait to hear why, this'll be rich...

Chuck

 

[charrison]

you fucking retards. How do you think we got electricity into every home in the country? We dont have shanty towns here in the united states. This is a first world nation no matter what you American Taliban think.

IF you were running electricity to remote parts of the US today, do you think if would be more cost effective to run wire, or setup solar? THink about it.

 

[charrison]

The govt should not bother with this. Right now wireless broadband covers most of the US. 4g is being rolled out right now and this will provide most rural areas with better service. Current 3g services provide decent interest to rural areas.

Let not waste tax payers money doing something that private industry is already doing without subsidy.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Hell, I live in dead center in a city with a population of around 40,000 and I still can't get broadband. Well, buggy Qwest dsl up to 1.5, or Comcrap that hardly works. How about instead they use that money to require "broadband" companies to actually provide working broadband in the areas they already serve, like they advertise. Christ the infrastructure is so far gone in a lot of places that people are grateful for dial-up speeds.

 

[Throckmorton]

People can choose to live where they want. There are pros and cons to living in each area. Sometimes those cons are really pros. But why should I have to pay via taxes to provide basic infrastructure for your choice to live where you live. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to have it at all. You should pay for it. If its too costly though, then maybe you should consider moving to where its more affordable or not have it at all.

Because that's how America works. I haven't driven on an interstate highway for over a year because I live on Maui, but I pay for the interstates you drive on.

I'm guessing you didn't suddenly become a Libertarian wishing for a 3rd world Randian Libertopia and that you're being sarcastic.

 

[Cerb]

I don't know, how'd we get it into every home in the country? Did we make others pay for it? Make the businesses pay for and they therefore passed the costs onto everyone?

If you want someone 20 miles from the CO, through harsh terrain, to get wired broadband, I think that's great. That'll be $50k or so. Just subsidize that yourself and you can be super duper happy then. What's that? You have money left over? Sweet, there's millions more just like that person. I hope you've got a good job!

Chuck

Harsh terrain? You mean like over paved roads? The telephone lines are there. Depending on where you are, the cable lines are there.The infrastructure needs upgrading, not complete new installation.

 

[Double Trouble]

I have to come down on the liberal side on this one. Broadband internet should be treated like any major utility at this point, and having broadband access is essential to educating the next generation of kids, no matter where they live.

Sure, you could say "move to the city!"... and where exactly would all the farming happen? This country needs agriculture and farming, and if you cut off the rural areas at the knees (it's just not profitable to set up broadband infrastructure in rural areas) you're just going to hurt the whole country in the long run.

Broadband can also be in the form of 3G or 4G services, but with the incredibly low caps being ushered in by providers that's not a viable solution either.

This is one of the situation where it is appropriate for the government to spend money on one area for the good of the entire country.

 

[charrison]

I have to come down on the liberal side on this one. Broadband internet should be treated like any major utility at this point, and having broadband access is essential to educating the next generation of kids, no matter where they live.

Sure, you could say "move to the city!"... and where exactly would all the farming happen? This country needs agriculture and farming, and if you cut off the rural areas at the knees (it's just not profitable to set up broadband infrastructure in rural areas) you're just going to hurt the whole country in the long run.

Broadband can also be in the form of 3G or 4G services, but with the incredibly low caps being ushered in by providers that's not a viable solution either.

This is one of the situation where it is appropriate for the government to spend money on one area for the good of the entire country.

While I agree I think the caps are low, they are fairly easy to live under. It will not work if you subscribe to netflix or spend all day on youtube, but it does buy a lot of email and web surfing. I know a few people who live in rural areas who use this as there broadband solution and they are able to avoid the overages without a problem. With 4g their bills have gone down, speed is better and the overages more reasonable.

 

[NetGuySC]

How is high speed internet a basic necessity?

 

[ayabe]

There are merits here on both sides of the argument. But for me, infrastructure spending of any kind should be based mostly on ROI. The problem of course is that economics is never the sole deciding factor in any government decision, politics is always in the mix and often the primary consideration.

This doesn't make economic sense; the vast majority of these people are probably already using satellite for their televisions, it goes with the territory. I vote nay.

Now a better use of this money would be to help boost satellite infrastructure/technology. That would benefit a far greater segment of the population while also dealing with the original issue.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I totally agree! Just like people chose to not get good jobs so they can gain/afford good health insurance. Or, even just get a job so they're self sufficient. If they could just chose to get a job, and a job that supports them in the manner they want to be supported in, then the public wouldn't need to fund them.

Right?

But but BOOSH!

Yeah, there's much ironing here.

 

[chucky2]

I know, I couldn't believe I read that from the OP...

 

[chucky2]

Harsh terrain? You mean like over paved roads? The telephone lines are there. Depending on where you are, the cable lines are there.The infrastructure needs upgrading, not complete new installation.

The cable lines aren't there in a sh1tton of places - probably in the millions and possibly even tens of millions.

And unfortunately, the wired internet providers don't run their cables down the middle or side of the road, they have to put them up on those telephone poles. That gets hard when there's tons of trees in the way (as many of those millions of rural homes have). Lots of obstacles means lots of time. Lots of time means lots of money. Where does that money come from? The US taxpayer: Either from taxes, or, higher cost of service to all as the companies forced to provide the service charge higher prices.

It'd be easier for the gov to look into something like broadband over electric lines. But, then the electric company is pulled into something it very well might not want to get pulled into.

Pick your poison...

Chuck

 

[Cerb]

The cable lines aren't there in a sh1tton of places - probably in the millions and possibly even tens of millions.

Depending on where you are

Is that a qualification, so as to completely avoid the above, in that it only applies to rural areas which already have a cable television infrastructure? Why yes, it is.

And unfortunately, the wired internet providers don't run their cables down the middle or side of the road, they have to put them up on those telephone poles.

Those telephone poles are on the side of the road, at least everywhere I've seen. Most rural folk aren't in the middle of a swamp, with no roads. Most live next to roads, with power and telephone lines strung up above. If not above, they have already installed pipes in the ground for them, which they can use for new hardware and such, as well.

That gets hard when there's tons of trees in the way (as many of those millions of rural homes have).

Yet, those are already taken care of, for the existing service. The poles, wires, and everything else, except modern modern DSL hardware, are already sitting there.

Lots of obstacles means lots of time. Lots of time means lots of money. Where does that money come from? The US taxpayer: Either from taxes, or, higher cost of service to all as the companies forced to provide the service charge higher prices.

You mean like current taxes that are already being used to subsidize our communication infrastructure?

 

[matt0611]

Wow, first Senseamp and now her209, welcome to the club! :thumbsup:

Is craig next?

 

[Phokus]

If it's being used to pay for broadband through a private monopoly, i'm against this. The money needs to be used for municipal broadband.

 

[Lanyap]

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.

Probably has to do with providing for the general welfare...

 

[CPA]

Well all I can say Her209 is fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Its not like I live in the middle of no where, I live less than 30 miles from the Indiana capital building.

Yes I have a land line phone, and my country has had land line phone service since the 1930's and earlier. Yet my protected by monopoly land line phone carrier, AT&T has not upgraded its phone lines to even vanilla dsl capable. And the fools at AT&T applied the profits for land line service to engage in a super costly price war in Indianapolis. And when other carriers jumped into the same price war, everyone of them lost their ass trying to eliminate the competition. And now, all Indiana AT&T profits from land service now go to other states like Arizona.

Now on the other hand, various cell carriers, built filler towers near me, and now I can get 3G broadband internet for $60.00/mo. Now if the Feds forced AT&T to provide 3G service to me at even $30.00/mo, maybe AT&T would get off their dead ass and upgrade their lines to dsl capable.

But all Her209 can suggest is that I move to a big city when broadband internet is now a basic necessity everyone. Her209, you are a fine person in a society of pigs.

wah, wahh, wahhh

 

[AnitaPeterson]

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.

It's called "solidarity", and it relates to "cooperation" and "social consensus"... A wonderful set of characteristics in evolved mammals. You should try it, someday.