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

[HumblePie]

Again, the infrastructure needs to be there at the very minimum for supporting entities to people who pay taxes like you and me. Because people that live out in the country pay taxes like you and me, they are entitled to basic necessities. Of those, this includes schools, hospitals, roads, government offices, fire stations, law enforcement, and a host of things such as that. Do you not agree that all Americans should have access to education and hospitals at the very least? Can you not see how either a hospital or school would need access to at least phone lines at the very least for operation? If not you are one mentally challenged person. Strike that, I take that back because that would be making fun of mentally challenged people who would still be to understand that concept. It would put anyone in a completely new category of idiot.

Because these basic facilities need things like roads, sewers, water lines, and phone lines to operate those are placed out there. Then citizens in the area now can choose to purchase some of those things for themselves at a "discounted" rate. I laugh at discounted because it's still not cheap. Which for example, is why many that live out in the country live on well water.

The fact is, new capabilities for offices no require faster internet and it is not any difference now in cost for providing high speed internet over regular phone service. By extention, that allows people in the country now access to that. If you can't see this connection... wow, just wow.

 

[spidey07]

Should be handled like TV is. Put up a few wireless or wimax towers and then home owners can buy and install antennas and equipment to connect to them if they wish and pay subscriber fees. Cable broadband is a no go because of population density and the cost of upgrading the entire cable system to support it for few subscribers. DSL or satellite is the only other real option.

 

[her209]

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.

Here's a hypothetical for you then: A new island is discovered near the Hawaii Islands. The US immediately claims it and the territory is added to the Hawaii state. A group of Americans immediately buy up the land and develop it for commercial and residential, but because its not profitable for the current ISP of Hawaii to extend Internet service to that island, they do not. Should the government (federal/state) then pay for and lay the underwater cable that is required for those folks to have Internet? How about electricity/gas/water?

 

[HumblePie]

Here's a hypothetical for you then: A new island is discovered near the Hawaii Islands. The US immediately claims it and the territory is added to the Hawaii state. A group of Americans immediately buy up the land and develop it for commercial and residential, but because its not profitable for the current ISP of Hawaii to extend Internet service to that island, they do not. Should the government (federal/state) then pay for and lay the underwater cable that is required for those folks to have Internet? How about electricity/gas/water?

If there are people that end up living on the land and it is deemed American soil and they are Americans, then yes to all accounts. Again, Americans as right of tax payers have access to facilities everywhere such as schools, hospitals, roads, and such. You are missing the point by focusing on a couple of effing wires under the ground. It is not the residents that the wires are being run for. It is for the offices that support the residents that the cables must be run for. Since the wires are already being run for official services, it is rarely much more in cost to extend those same wires to any residents nearby as well. Get with the picture.

 

[her209]

If there are people that end up living on the land and it is deemed American soil and they are Americans, then yes to all accounts. Again, Americans as right of tax payers have access to facilities everywhere such as schools, hospitals, roads, and such. You are missing the point by focusing on a couple of effing wires under the ground. It is not the residents that the wires are being run for. It is for the offices that support the residents that the cables must be run for. Since the wires are already being run for official services, it is rarely much more in cost to extend those same wires to any residents nearby as well. Get with the picture.

Which goes back to: If those services did not exist, would people still move there or stay where they are where those services do exist or are affordable? If they moved to the island knowing those services did not exist, why should they think the government is required to provide it for them (at an affordable price) in the near future?

 

[irishScott]

What? More change even Obama supporters can't believe in? Lol.

Didn't you guys hear the state of the Union? This is all about building infrastructure.

Ironically, I voted for McCain and I support this. High speed internet access is a necessity for many businesses, government offices, and other large organizations. Getting it out to rural areas will be inherently good for the economy. As for individual high speed internet, high speed internet isn't going anywhere and is only getting faster. In a few decades dial-up will have gone the way of the telegraph IMO.

 

[HumblePie]

Which goes back to: If those services did not exist, would people still move there or stay where they are where those services do exist or are affordable? If they moved to the island knowing those services did not exist, why should they think the government is required to provide it for them (at an affordable price) in the near future?

Because all Americans pay taxes! The services must exist where citizens decide to exist. Ever heard the saying, "How the West was won?" It came because people were pioneers and moved to areas that were not "profitable" at the time and eventually made it so. Someone has to start somewhere. People originally moving west back in America history at first didn't realize the amount of gold to be found in the Rockies. When it was found, tons of mass migration began. However, people that originally moved out west before that happened still required government support on American soil because THEY PAY TAXES TOO!

Damn you are thickwitted here.

 

[her209]

Because all Americans pay taxes! The services must exist where citizens decide to exist. Ever heard the saying, "How the West was won?" It came because people were pioneers and moved to areas that were not "profitable" at the time and eventually made it so. Someone has to start somewhere. People originally moving west back in America history at first didn't realize the amount of gold to be found in the Rockies. When it was found, tons of mass migration began. However, people that originally moved out west before that happened still required government support on American soil because THEY PAY TAXES TOO!

Damn you are thickwitted here.

I don't think those pioneers were thinking, "If I move West, the government will build out the infrastructure to where I am if I don't have it." They moved because of the Homestead Act, i.e., the promise of free land.

 

[HumblePie]

I don't think those pioneers were thinking, "If I move West, the government will build out the infrastructure to where I am if I don't have it." They moved because of the Homestead Act, i.e., the promise of free land.

Homestead act came later than the original pioneers. That example was to make a point of the fact that people did move into an area they knew originally had no infrastructure and eventually it paid off in the end that they did move there. Also, the fact that the Homestead act was inacted in the first place shows that the government at the time took the long view of creating a country and not the short sighted view of what the current ROI would be.

 

[her209]

Homestead act came later than the original pioneers. That example was to make a point of the fact that people did move into an area they knew originally had no infrastructure and eventually it paid off in the end that they did move there. Also, the fact that the Homestead act was inacted in the first place shows that the government at the time took the long view of creating a country and not the short sighted view of what the current ROI would be.

Huh? All your example showed was that American pioneers moved to areas and didn't expect the government to provide the basic infrastructure because they knew what it meant to move to an a remote area.

 

[HumblePie]

Huh? All your example showed was that American pioneers moved to areas and didn't expect the government to provide the basic infrastructure because they knew what it meant to move to an a remote area.

I showed an example of people originally moving to an area that they thought had no real rate of return for investment. But it turned out to have one such as GOLD in some areas. So the government realized that when people move to a new area you never know what to expect. So they got the ball rolling on moving others out there so as to make the ROI for bringing more infrastructure profitable. Which is part of it. Which is why they subsized old railway companies and there tons of them back in the day.

Unless you want to suggest that people that live in remote areas do not have to pay taxes for not having access to the same infrastructure that other Americans have access to? That is sort of the point to taxes you know. To pool together money and pay for things we all can do as a society that would otherwise be way to cost prohibitive for any one person to pay for.

 

[xj0hnx]

Not everyone can have a good job, but I would say everyone wants a good job because ITS A GOOD JOB. But I'd be more concerned with everyone paying into a system if they will use it at some point; otherwise, just sign a form or something that says, "Do not treat medically."

Not everyone can afford to live in the city. You've almost figured it out, very close, just a couple more steps and you'll get it.

 

[her209]

I showed an example of people originally moving to an area that they thought had no real rate of return for investment. But it turned out to have one such as GOLD in some areas. So the government realized that when people move to a new area you never know what to expect. So they got the ball rolling on moving others out there so as to make the ROI for bringing more infrastructure profitable. Which is part of it. Which is why they subsized old railway companies and there tons of them back in the day.

Unless you want to suggest that people that live in remote areas do not have to pay taxes for not having access to the same infrastructure that other Americans have access to? That is sort of the point to taxes you know. To pool together money and pay for things we all can do as a society that would otherwise be way to cost prohibitive for any one person to pay for.

Again, people moved there because they were getting free land. They were also getting away from the reach of government and away from people. To some, that's a real rate of return.

As for the whole ROI thing, if an area has something going for it, then more people would move there and it would become self-sustaining or at least profitable for a business to operate there. Using the Gold Rush example, how many of those towns became ghost towns after the gold disappeared?

I pay the USF tax via my cell phone plan every month, but I'm never going to see any direct benefit from it because I live in an area that is serviced by an ISP already. Shouldn't I be able to have access to the same Internet broadband that is being built for rural folk that I'm paying for?

 

[her209]

Not everyone can afford to live in the city. You've almost figured it out, very close, just a couple more steps and you'll get it.

Therefore city folk should have to pay for rural folk's Internet infrastructure?

 

[xj0hnx]

Therefore city folk should have to pay for rural folk's Internet infrastructure?

Therefore working folk should to pay for nonworking folk's health care?

 

[her209]

Therefore working folk should to pay for nonworking folk's health care?

Its already been addressed. Perhaps read through the thread next time.

 

[xj0hnx]

Its already been addressed. Perhaps read through the thread next time.

Don't be mad, reality hits everyone sooner or later.

 

[Throckmorton]

Here's a hypothetical for you then: A new island is discovered near the Hawaii Islands. The US immediately claims it and the territory is added to the Hawaii state. A group of Americans immediately buy up the land and develop it for commercial and residential, but because its not profitable for the current ISP of Hawaii to extend Internet service to that island, they do not. Should the government (federal/state) then pay for and lay the underwater cable that is required for those folks to have Internet? How about electricity/gas/water?

So you're being serious?

Yes the state or feds should pay for infrastructure to connect that island, IF the state or the country benefits from that island being colonized. We all benefit from rural America. You can't grow crops in whatever city you live in, and we here in Hawaii have to import 85% of our food because we don't have enough land to grow it all.

 

[piasabird]

Who made the FCC have the ability to allocate taxes?

There is a reason why we have Satelite Internet???

There is no guarantee of Internet Service in the US Constitution.

Deep Sea Cable???

 

[Cerb]

Who made the FCC have the ability to allocate taxes?

Congress, apparently.

There is a reason why we have Satelite Internet???

So that people can complain about how bad it is, such that they will be pleased with the worst of DSL?

There is no guarantee of Internet Service in the US Constitution.

Nor electrical service, natural gas service, water service, telephone service, highways, or anything else that landed white men pissed off at their government in the late 1700s on the East coast of North America did not care about.

Deep Sea Cable???

Her209's magic new island needs one to dial 911 and update facebook. Well, really to talk about building out new infrastructure, rather than expanding and upgrading existing infrastructure, so it's very strawman-like.

 

[Lemon law]

Who made the FCC have the ability to allocate taxes?

There is a reason why we have Satelite Internet???

There is no guarantee of Internet Service in the US Constitution.

Deep Sea Cable???

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Piasabird joins the clueless set. There is no constitutional guarantee of phones, sewage systems, roads, and a whole lot of things we take for granted. But without the food and raw materials that must get into a large city, the city would starve to death.

As many city dwellers build suburbs to escape the population density.

Meanwhile many rural states have leadership that are imbeciles. On one hand they would give their eyeteeth to attract high tech business, and many high tech workers would be happy to live in less population density areas, but without broadband availability, those workers will not relocate. With that broadband access, location is almost irrelevant, because its now possible to communicate with anyone in the world.

 

[chucky2]

snip

Lets just cut to the chase:

For the folks that already have somewhat recent cable strung, I agree, it wouldn't be that large, and hence costly, an undertaking to get some speed of wired broadband to them.

For the folks that already have cable strung that cannot support TV, it's primary purpose, and broadband on top of that, new cable will have to be run. See below*.

For the folks that already have somewhat recent phone lines strung, I agree, it wouldn't be that large, and hence costly, an undertaking to get some speed of wired broadband to them.

*For the folks that already have phone lines strung that aren't recent, and there are like multiple tens of millions of those - even in urban areas - the lines themselves cannot support broadband in the manner a rollout would be feasible to implement or maintain. Pair bonding will get you more, but, you've got to have the pairs. If say AT&T or Verizon could have already done this, don't you think they would have? They could be getting AT&T U-verse to tens of millions of more customers, and in Verizon's case, wouldn't have had to go through the huge expense of going FiOS (fiber to the house, awesome for certain, future proof for certain, highly expensive for certain). See below*.

*: It's not a matter of just running a crew (who's Union, so low to high $$$ per hour depending on crew size and OT) to put up new lines. You've got to fund the project, get the project staffed, the rollout and provisioning planned, procure the cable, (where and/or when necessary) work with local gov, have the employee bandwidth to string the cable, go through the task of stringing cable through what is going to be in many cases decades of growth/deterioration due to nature (trees, caved pull pipes, etc), and then once all that is accomplished, terminate the pairs at the - presumably - (and I'll use lets say AT&T U-verse as an example) new crossbox and VRAD (because F, if you're going to go through all that, mine as well get them up on the U-verse system so they've got advanced broadband speeds, VoIP, and video; oh, did we cover the new crossbox and VRAD going in???), once all that's done, condition them, run new drops to all the houses on the cable (well, in some cases, house on the cable), put in the new NID/iNID/whatever, provision, cut over customer with new service, run the homerun to where they'll have the RG located in their house/trailer/shack/barn/whatever, pray to god you get sync and then service, test their phones (because it'll be a Fed and thus legal No No to leave them with no phone service), explaining to them that now they're on VoIP (at the minimum, unless they wanted more service) that when the power goes out in BUFU they live in instead of the phones still working because power is supplied by the phone company that the battery backup AT&T is providing will supply power until it runs out...and then the phone dies, arguing with them, and then finally leaving. All that for potentially one dwelling.

I love the country as much as anyone who does, I plan to move there ASAReasonablyP, however, even I realize I'll be giving up some suburban luxuries when I do so...and one of those things is likely wired broadband.

We're talking a lot of money to get Everyone onto some form of wired broadband...if we're going to do it, best I think to do what Phokus mentioned and do something like county/state service so each county/state can take out the Fed loan and be on the hook for paying for it. That way the people in those counties can dictate whether they want to pay for it or not: Some will, some won't. There is a place for the Fed to provide a framework of software suite and hardware standards and so all the states can have a cohesive infrastructure. Or, the Fed's can extend the same type of loans to the current wired providers and lock them down to be used only for rural broadband upgrading. Or.....pick another idea....no matter what idea though, it's going to be hella expensive to put in a for-the-future wired broadband solution for Everyone...

Chuck

P.S. That's all my personal opinion, not of that of any company.

 

[charrison]

Some reality on those broad band costs...


http://www.dslprime.com/dslprime/42-d/3993-let-them-eat-satellite

Landline broadband to 100% of the U.S. would cost $20-35B, the planners calculated. Use satellite for 4/10ths of 1% and the cost drops in half In that last half of 1% are many homes that would cost $10,000 and even $100,000 to connect. Unofficially, the planners decided that was just too much to spend, especially when the the new satellites can offer 5 meg service. They decided government money should go first to areas that could be served for a few hundred or a few thousand dollars. What everyone understood was that the more expensive areas would probably not be reached, but no one said that aloud. I expect the same will be true in the new USF/ICC proposals. The details in practice will offer only satellite to the most remote, but that won't be stated. One policy expert thinks they will ultimately use satellite for 2% or 3%. If so, the cost of efficiently reaching everyone else by land will be under $5B

An investment of $5B takes us to 97-98% wired coverage for broadband. It would cost another $15-30b to cover the remaining 2-3%. Wireles is the only way to go to capture the last 2-3%.

 

[rudder]

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.

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.

 

[charrison]

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.

I think the more accurate description is, there is no highway between California and Hawaii. I am sure it is possible, but it is cost prohibitive. We can probably affordably get 95-97% wired internet, the rest just become cost prohibitive and will require a wireless solution.