backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 30 comment(s) - last by Starcub.. on Apr 15 at 11:37 AM

Before funds can be dolled out the FCC must offer guidelines and definitions of underserved areas

The U.S. broadband infrastructure is significantly lacking in many areas of the country. The U.S. ranks far below many other countries in broadband speeds and availability. Part of the massive stimulus package President Obama approved was $7.2 billion in funds to expand broadband access across the country.

Obama approved the funds earmarked for broadband expansion through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and urged agencies involved in the plan to put the funds to use as soon as possible. At this point, the FCC still has to set the parameters that will be used to determine how the funds are allocated.

The FCC must define what constitutes an underserved area and draft the guidelines for what types of programs will be funded. Any spending of the stimulus funds require a waiting period for public input. InformationWeek reports that the FCC, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and Agriculture Department issued notices seeking public input until April 13 and held hearings relating the use of stimulus funds. According to the organizations as of April 3, about 3,000 people had responded.

The Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service will be offering $2.5 billion in stimulus funds that are expected to be available to a wider range of groups than the funds being offered through other groups.

Former HP CEO and chair of the Technology Policy Institute Carly Fiorina said, "We know from experience that simply throwing money at technology is not a solution. We should think about spending it wisely and making sure we actually achieve the goal, which is that we have 21st century infrastructure."

Fiorina says that it is encouraging that Congress is spending substantial amounts of money on a broadband infrastructure. The FCC has given every indication that it is stressing the importance of allowing competition and the need for carriers to manage traffic neutrally regardless of the content or content source.

Despite the FCC's insistence on neutrality for networks created with stimulus finds, major telecom carriers like AT&T say that it may not participate in the stimulus find programs because of the neutrality provisions.

Rumors persist that Verizon will not participate in the broadband program, but a spokesman says the company has made no firm decisions at this time.

The spokesman told InformationWeek, "Whether we participate in a specific government program or not, our intent is to do our part, and to work cooperatively with governments, nonprofits, and others to ensure that next-generation ultrafast and mobile broadband become ubiquitous."

Verizon says that even if it and other large telecommunications firms don’t participate directly in the stimulus fund programs, it could still benefit from funds if asked by smaller providers to lay the actual cable networks.

Part of the problem deciding what areas qualify for stimulus finds is that the way broadband access is reported by some providers is far from accurate. Some providers list broadband as being available even if only one person has broadband access in an entire zip code. To address this dilemma NTIA will be drafting a broadband map that shows what parts of the country lack broadband and which parts lack the infrastructure for broadband.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Bateluer on 4/13/2009 12:17:12 PM , Rating: 5
Which they then squandered on hostile takeovers, mergers, and other anti-competitive, anti-consumer practices?




By Golgatha on 4/13/2009 12:30:51 PM , Rating: 5
They pinky swore this time though that things would be different.


By Bateluer on 4/13/2009 12:41:59 PM , Rating: 2
So what are we going to call the megacorp formed by AT&T, Cox, Time Warner, Charter, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, Cricket, and others?


By IceBreakerG on 4/13/2009 1:01:34 PM , Rating: 5
No Vaseline Communications, Inc.


By Gumby16 on 4/13/2009 1:05:39 PM , Rating: 3
Genius!


By Kefner on 4/13/2009 2:25:37 PM , Rating: 5
Don't leave out their wonderful new CEO, Mr. Benjamin Dover.


By Golgatha on 4/13/2009 3:34:25 PM , Rating: 5
Terms of Service written by the law firm of Dewey, Cheetam, and Howe.


By Pirks on 4/13/2009 3:40:26 PM , Rating: 3
6


By Chadder007 on 4/13/2009 6:32:26 PM , Rating: 4
We need a "6" up in here, son!


By Samus on 4/14/2009 3:46:20 AM , Rating: 1
omfg NVC ftw!


By someguy123 on 4/13/2009 1:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
when i read the title of this article i literally screamed WHAT.


By AntiM on 4/13/2009 1:07:04 PM , Rating: 3
Absolutely. I don't think any money should go to any commercial enterprise. It will only used to screw the taxpayers as much as possible. If congress wants to make good use of the funds, they should use it to buy every American taxpayer an extra large tube of Astroglide lubricant.

Speaking of penetration, most of the money should be used to somehow break the regional cable monopolies to allow more competitive market penetration by those companies (like Verizon) that have a vision for the future and are already heavily investing in it. Plus, before any commercial enterprise receives one penny, they should have to open their accounting books so the past and current ratio of executive bonuses (and other perks) to infrastructure investment can be determined.

Anyway, the FCC is asking for comments....
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/br...


By AahzNotOz on 4/13/2009 1:46:09 PM , Rating: 5
I agree, the monopolies need to be broken, but part of the reason they exist is because the local governments don't want multiple lines for different services run throughout the cities, and the current companies don't want to allow other companies to run on "their" lines.

I think what needs to happen is the government, preferably local, but possibly state (hopefully not federal) needs to own, install and maintain the lines and then lease out capacity to any company that wants to offer a service. Imagine being able to choose between several cable and broadband providers for your service. I would think something like this would be possible with the bandwidth available on fiber.

Dan


By RandallMoore on 4/13/2009 2:17:47 PM , Rating: 3
I agree. We need to spend the money on series of fiber lines that are very future proof. The only problem is actually busting up the geographical monopolies.

I ask everyone reading this that is wanting action on this. It can be done, but honestly, how? Unless we start something, it will never happen. So I ask, who has a real grassroots solution to this problem? I am willing to help out with what I can.


By Penti on 4/13/2009 6:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
They do this for fiber in Sweden, municipally owned FTTX which then different suppliers (ISPs) can offer a connection to the internet over. We really only have cable to apartment buildings here though, so there it's a monopoly that the owners of the apartment building has signed on too. To bad IP-TV pretty much suck though.


By MadMan007 on 4/13/2009 6:29:55 PM , Rating: 3
www.lus.org


Double Penetration
By FITCamaro on 4/13/2009 3:04:14 PM , Rating: 3
Gonna take it in both holes here. Getting bent over with high prices with data caps and your tax money used to fund it.




RE: Double Penetration
By homerdog on 4/13/2009 8:21:45 PM , Rating: 2
Both?


RE: Double Penetration
By 9nails on 4/13/2009 10:53:47 PM , Rating: 3
Perhaps you're not familiar with the female anatomy? Just maybe this is a reference to The Shocker.

But perhaps FITCamaro is not of this Earth, is the likely course of explanation.


Question:
By hoosierE on 4/13/2009 3:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
Who ownes the pipes? The telcos.
Who paid for the pipes? You did.

I would love to have broadband available. I've been at dial-up speed for nine years. I live 5 miles from a city with 1/4 million+ people.

What happened to Moore's law?




RE: Question:
By rdeegvainl on 4/14/2009 8:49:38 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Since the invention of the integrated circuit in 1958, the number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has increased exponentially, doubling approximately every two years.


You mean that moore's law... yeah, what happened was... people forgot what it actually was and tried applying it to their internet connection.


By SlipDizzy on 4/13/2009 1:06:47 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think any of this matters because as soon as this new super fast infrastructure is built the broadband companies will quickly negate all progress with extremely low data caps. I foresee Time Warner offering a 100/10 service with a cap of 10Gb a month for a low price of $99.99.

I guess the good side is that the people that live out in the middle of nowhere will be able to access the internet via a line/wireless rather then having to use satellite.




By theArchMichael on 4/13/2009 3:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
yeah but i have the feeling this is gonna be a mafia favor. Once the telcos take the money and expand infrastructure they won't have much to complain about when the government sides with net neutrality, consumer rights etc.. Right now a lot of the telcos whine about the cost of expanding infrastructure to new homes and improving bandwidth here in the US is causing high fees / low bandwidth.


Dear Broadband Firms...
By ClownPuncher on 4/13/2009 5:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
...no, you get nothing.




Fiorina? Carly?
By Jalek on 4/14/2009 9:18:37 AM , Rating: 2
Is her "institute" giving her a jet too?

How qualified is she on this anyway, I mean you can't just send all broadband infrastructure work to Singapore.




End Around
By Starcub on 4/15/2009 11:37:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Verizon says that even if it and other large telecommunications firms don’t participate directly in the stimulus fund programs, it could still benefit from funds if asked by smaller providers to lay the actual cable networks.

This sounds like the telco's have it in mind to employ fronts for the purpose of bypassing neutrality provisions. Could a better case be made for getting the govt to pass laws rather than getting an agency to issue policy statements that may or may not be enforceable upon the market?




TW has already applied
By lucyfek on 4/13/2009 8:38:52 PM , Rating: 1
it'll costs US 150 per month to be stimulated.




My Girlfriend
By icanhascpu on 4/15/2009 2:49:01 AM , Rating: 1
got my stimulus package today.

she returned it becuse it was a size too big =(




Competition......my ass
By Slim934 on 4/15/2009 10:46:23 AM , Rating: 1
The idea of the FCC saying it is for competition in broadband (or anywhere it has its grubby fingers) is absolutely absurd on it's face. Yeah, I'm sure that the organization tasked by congress to set top-down management of various factors of pricing and production of the telecommunications market is REALLY interested in open and free competition.

People seriously need to look into how these markets are managed (yes, I say managed because there is no may in hell you can call what we have in the US actual competition when you actually look at all Federal, state, and local regulations which have to be complied with) before they start throwing around all this anticapitalist mind bullshit.

Not that I am shilling for the companies mind you. Throughout history the current players in any market have hopped onto the government regulation bandwagon (tariffs, subsidies, etc.) when they believe it will put them in a position of dominance against new competition of any kind.

And please stop saying that Americans get shafted for broadband in comparison to different countries. I do not deny that we get shafted, I am simply getting irritated at this shallow level thinking that the people in OTHER countries are not also getting shafted. We in the US are simply shafted directly while unseen shafting is occurring elsewhere in the form of either: 1. higher taxes to pay for these networks, 2. MONETARY INFLATION to pay for those networks, and 3. redistribution of wealth in relation to which parties were taxed to pay for the network.




"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki