backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 44 comment(s) - last by kkwst2.. on Dec 3 at 11:40 AM
Initiative members include Dell, Lenovo, Fujitsu, and Intel among others

Much of the U.S. is without broadband access to the internet. This is especially prevalent in rural areas of the country where there simply is not access to broadband service. Another issue keeping many people offline in the country is one of cost.

The lack of broadband because of cost is prevalent in the inner city areas of large cities where there is typically access available. A broadband initiative with many of the top technology firms in the country is working to address the digital divide affecting the poor and those living in rural areas. Among the firms participating in the Every Citizen Online (ECO) project are Intel and Dell. Other major participants include Fujitsu, Lenovo, Velocity Micro, and ZT Systems along with local and regional broadband providers.

The ECO project is trying to grab a $24 million piece of the federal stimulus funding pie to fund a project that will also have $6 million in funds from private companies. The project will seek to make broadband available to more users in the America by offering access in rural communities and offering citizens that can’t afford access or computers a low cost bundle including broadband and a PC. The group should find out in December if it will be granted stimulus funds. Intel spokesman Eric Greenman says that the ECO's goals dovetail with those of Intel.

Greenman said, "How do we make sure the masses out there have access to PCs and the Internet? How do you get these folks who are on one side of the digital divide ... onto [the internet]? What can we do with the stimulus money to enable these people who aren't currently being reached [to have Internet access]."

One of the major challenges for poor areas where there is access is getting consumers to understand what the internet can do for them and how to use it. CompTIA CEO Todd Thibodeaux said, "I'm optimistic that the infrastructure will get there, but it will be the adoption level [that is key]. In the rural areas, we're going to need education."

If the issues of availability and cost can be addressed it is estimated that as many as 7 million additional homes could get online. The program is targeting areas in 20 different states with some of the states including Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho, Minnesota, New York, and Texas. The FCC is still working on the national broadband plan. One of the most basic aspects of this plan is definition what broadband is. The government also requested detailed information on ISPs in America but was denied that information.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Why?
By drebo on 11/27/2009 11:19:45 AM , Rating: 1
Computers, the Internet, and broadband are not rights. They're luxuries, and I don't like my tax dollars being used to provide luxuries to other people. Nowhere does the Constitution say that every citizen is entitled to be able to watch Youtube videos.

There are public Internet terminals in libraries and many other places. Access is not difficult to get for free. Giving people a computer and access to the Internet does not automatically make them smarter or contributing members of society.

I hate all this social welfare B.S. as it's counterproductive. If we're just going to give everyone everything, what motivation does ANYONE have to work for ANYTHING?




RE: Why?
By mdogs444 on 11/27/2009 12:29:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I hate all this social welfare B.S. as it's counterproductive. If we're just going to give everyone everything, what motivation does ANYONE have to work for ANYTHING?

Thats the whole idea. Democrats give people crap like this, turn into a welfare state, and secure votes for life.

I hate welfare, redistribution of wealth, entitlement programs....everything the government takes money from me and spends on someone else who is too lazy or stupid to get for themselves.


RE: Why?
By dgingeri on 11/27/2009 5:14:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Thats the whole idea. Democrats give people crap like this, turn into a welfare state, and secure votes for life.


I fully agree. they undermine democracy by appealing to the human tendency to be lazy in order to buy votes. it also destroys the economy and everything that drives it. The whole design of the Democratic party is this.

If people in outlying areas want broadband, then they should have to pay for it themselves.


RE: Why?
By kkwst2 on 12/3/2009 11:40:59 AM , Rating: 2
While technically that argument could be made, it's an incredibly short-sighted one. Currently, I would argue broadband access is more infrastructure than luxury. Furthermore, because there are only one or two providers, it doesn't follow the same supply-and-demand principles as other goods. Near-universal access to decent low-end broadband for $20/month is probably not an unreasonable expectation at this point, and it's something that tele/cable companies have not been able to deliver on.


RE: Why?
By qdemn7 on 11/27/2009 1:04:28 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I don't like my tax dollars being used to provide luxuries to other people


You don't? Too bad. When you pay taxes, you don't get to itemize for what uses they are put to. Your elected representatives do that. You don't like what they do, vote them out of office.

And I'm sure there were people who thought that rural electrification and telephone service were luxuries in the first part of the 20th Century. Fortunately their views did not prevail, and I hope your attitude toward the internet and broadband meet the same fate.


RE: Why?
By Iaiken on 11/27/2009 2:36:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And I'm sure there were people who thought that rural electrification and telephone service were luxuries in the first part of the 20th Century. Fortunately their views did not prevail, and I hope your attitude toward the internet and broadband meet the same fate.


Amen!

Now people are capable of spending more money faster than ever before! And all without having to deal with other pesky humans!

But seriously, it's not like they are handing hoboman and his hobo friends laptops. They are ensuring that consumers who don't currently have access, but are willing to subscribe, can.

What makes this a pain in the ass is how the broadband products available from companies are (in most part) homogenized at the national level. So residents of Boston, MA would pay the same access costs as the sole resident of Lost Springs, WY. That is just stupidity on the part of the providers for not pricing their product appropriately for the region.

With electricity, it is entirely possible for consumers to sign up with an LDC (local distribution company) who then purchases their electricity unilaterally from the local hydro electric dam.

The current infrastructure-sales model for ISPs is complete bullshit and inherently leads to non-competition. The public at large would be better served by a model similar to electricity gas electricity and water. This separates the infrastructure providers from retailers and opens up the market to actual competition. The current model is a huge waste as there are regions with massive physical network overlap (think NYC and it's 22 physically separate networks) while the vast majority of regions have only one network provider. So in some places they operate as monopolies until someone actually accuses them of it and then they point at competitive hot spots to justify it.


RE: Why?
By AToZKillin on 11/27/2009 3:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Price Discrimination, ironically, is perfectly achievable in this situation, unlike with shippable physical goods. You can't really do any arbitrage with this stuff because door to door delivery is itself the product (assuming no global wifi or anything at this point).
The noncompetition issue is also a serious problem, and I think that can be solved by competitively bidding retailers as well.


RE: Why?
By drebo on 11/28/2009 12:02:02 AM , Rating: 1
The geographic monoply nature of the nation's telecom industry notwithstanding, there is no way to separate service from infrastructure when dealing with telecoms.

Additionally, your metaphor doesn't make sense. In the west, PG&E owns the pipes and is the retailer to most homes. In the southwest, it's a different provider. Regionally, it changes. They own the infrastructure and buy from suppliers, but ultimately, they control the distribution. That's identical to the way the geographically monopolized telecoms work.

The ILECs own the last mile. CLECs can opt to utilize that last mile, but ultimately, the ILECs get a piece of every subscription over that last mile, regardless of who actually provides bandwidth/termination/origination. Anyone can place equipment in a local CO, but ultimately, they're going to be paying the ILEC (AT&T/Verizon/MCI/etc) for the priviledge of using their infrastructure. So, in a way, the telecom world is far superior to the utility distribution network.

The ability is there. There are a large number of CLECs that provide service. The problem is that it doesn't make sense for retail customers. The price is too high. The ILEC is the only one who is monetarily capable of sustaining residential communications.

I am staunchly opposed to government regulation and oversight of the telco networks, as well. Technically, it is in their jurisdiction, as it affects inter-state commerce (see the commerce clause of the Constitution), but they have wisely stayed away from it. The ILECs (or, rather, AT&T) has paid for the infrastructure and they should be able to use it as they see fit.

The only appropriate regulation for the telcos would come as a result of the local governments purchasing the "last mile" infrastructure and Class 4/5 COs from the ILECs and allowing anyone to set up equipment in the COs and have access to the last mile, with the federal government purchasing long-haul trunks and Class 1/2/3 COs. Neither local governments nor the Federal government, however, has either the know-how or the capital to make those kinds of purchases.

And, as I stated before, one can always purchase T1s to get high speed internet virtually anywhere in the nation.


RE: Why?
By HrilL on 11/30/2009 5:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
a T1 is hardly broadband now days. 1.5Mb/s is pretty damn slow if you ask me. And for around $800 a month if not more for a lot of areas. The local loop charge can be very high if you're in a rural area it can cost as much as the bandwidth for the line. This is not a solution for a normal consumer even a rich one. And as for the poor this is completely out of their range.


RE: Why?
By foolsgambit11 on 12/1/2009 4:18:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The geographic monoply nature of the nation's telecom industry notwithstanding, there is no way to separate service from infrastructure when dealing with telecoms.

Why on Earth not? The concept is simple, and the implementation is, while not perfectly simple, at least not intractable. The basic concept would be to mandate that all telecoms networks offer access to their network at some cost, most likely some small percentage above their own costs to operate. There is nothing stopping the network operator from also being a service provider, but they would be required to allow other service providers to use their networks.

Phone lines are already at least partially regulated in this fashion, that's how you can choose different long-distance carriers. Forcing through the rest of the changes, if any need to be made, shouldn't throw up too many flags.

The method for implementation is pretty clear for wireless communications, since their operating frequencies are, after all, licensed from the FCC, and caveats on usage like those proposed above could be added to the licensing agreement, either when it came up for a renewal or earlier via a negotiated settlement with the owners, which might require the government to return a portion of the licensing fee to the companies licensing the frequencies commiserate with any reduction in the value of the property leased.

Cable and FO, though, would probably be pretty difficult to work at the federal level, politically speaking. But action at local levels might be possible, considering the companies get use of public lands for running their lines. But I don't deny that it would be pretty difficult on a national scale, and without national movement, it probably wouldn't start being tried on a local scale - Catch 22.

As for whether the whole thing should be done, I'm not sure I've got an opinion. On the one hand, there are risks that it could slow infrastructure development by skewing the risk/reward balance. Or it may speed development by lowering costs to consumers, increasing demand. Or it may increase consumer costs due to overcharging by infrastructure owners, though proper oversight should limit that, as well as competition between infrastructure types in all areas, and within the same type in densely populated areas.

In other words, it's a thorny problem, which should be left to experts to research and our duly elected representatives to decide on.


RE: Why?
By drebo on 11/27/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By Expunged on 11/30/2009 2:43:29 AM , Rating: 2
If you feel that it is so important to fund broadband for those who cannot afford it or those in rural areas, make your check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt. In the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to assist in providing broadband services to under serviced Americans. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188

While you're at it, you might as well contribute some for me as well. Broadband is, according to Hughes Net and Wild Blue, available anywhere you can see the southern sky. I'm sure you'd like to argue the definition of broadband and why satellite internet is not broadband but trust me, I was a satellite internet user for five years and to move to satellite from dial-up was definitely broadband. In fact, apparently our own government thinks it qualifies for broadband under this new program considering WildBlue has applied for $ 15,482,000.00. While I'd agree it is substandard service, it is better than dial-up, but I don't want to fund it with my money either.

The government didn't want to hear any input for the BTOP from the industry. The little bit of input they did receive was from providers trying to manipulate and protect their infrastructure/technology/territory from others. The definition of broadband is so poorly crafted under the BTOP program that 2000 ms latency is acceptable as long as it meets some arbitrary bandwidth requirement. Politicians need to step back from crafting these types of programs and instead provide incentives to the private enterprises that deliver the best service in a given area. The "best" should be measured on several factors including speed, latency, price, hops to the backbone, etc.

Broadband isn't rural electric or telephone. Everyone starts throwing a fit as soon as Comcast and bandwidth caps are mentioned but that's closer to rural electric and telephone service than anything else. You're billed for what you use, use more than they want you using and your price goes up. You're comparing apples to oranges across the board.

Broadband has so many defining characteristics of even a basic service, speed, latency, price, upload, download, if the provider is overloaded, etc. Whereas 99.99% of all homes have a phone line with dial tone (caller ID, etc are added features just like VoIP on your broadband or "speedboost"). The same 99.99% of homes have 230 volts of single phase power with at least a 100 amp service. Usually both your phone and electricity are only provided by a single provider in a given area and there will never be any competition in these arenas. Phone and electricity are cookie cutter compared to the plethora speeds, styles, and providers for broadband.

This whole BTOP program is so poorly constructed that I have a hard time stomaching the thought of my tax dollars going to fund this clusterfsck. So by all means feel free to fund it on my behalf because you're right, I do have to pay my part, but I don't have to like it and I don't have to contribute extra.


RE: Why?
By Shig on 11/27/2009 1:31:51 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah it's silly to build infrastructure around a resource that is accelerating at an exponential rate, while at the same time becoming exponentially cheaper.

The strongest 21st century economies will have the best and most efficient electricity grid, broadband internet, and computational power.

Pleas stop living in 20th century economics people.


RE: Why?
By drebo on 11/27/2009 4:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
This is NOT about the infrastructure. Telecoms were ALREADY given the money for infrastructure, once in 1996 and again with the new bailout. The telecoms used the money for other things, despite the fact that its purpose was for rural expansion.

This initiative is no different than One Laptop Per Child...it's a bunch of bleeding hears that think it's everyone's RIGHT to have a computer and access to the internet. This has nothing to do with infrastructure and everything to do with subsidizing ISP subscriptions.


RE: Why?
By Omega215D on 11/27/2009 11:42:36 PM , Rating: 2
I just want to add that if you want a job in the US you'll have to have some sort of internet service as most of the application process is done online and then they'll schedule an interview later. Having the internet can also help people get their resumes out to a lot more companies by way of Monster, Careerbuilder, etc.


RE: Why?
By roostitup on 11/27/2009 1:37:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are public Internet terminals in libraries and many other places. Access is not difficult to get for free. Giving people a computer and access to the Internet does not automatically make them smarter or contributing members of society.

I hate all this social welfare B.S. as it's counterproductive. If we're just going to give everyone everything, what motivation does ANYONE have to work for ANYTHING?


You forget about people in rural areas that have to drive for miles and miles to access free internet at the local library, for them this is not worth the time or fuel costs. This is especially true if they live in rural areas and have lower income.

People in rural areas, no matter how hard they work still have difficulties accessing the internet because of poor line of sight for satellite connections which are very slow compared to broadband in the cities. No matter how much money they make some people still cannot access internet. Soon these satellite connections will be considered to be as slow as dialup is now because the internet is only getting more broadband friendly and less friendly for people with dial up or satellite connections. The government will be helping people who have no chance of getting broadband internet and will also help increase the speeds. The phone and cable companies will not sink their money into expanding their systems into rural areas because of high costs to them, so someone has to. This is not a matter of working harder.


RE: Why?
By thurston on 11/27/2009 11:23:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People in rural areas, no matter how hard they work still have difficulties accessing the internet because of poor line of sight for satellite connections which are very slow compared to broadband in the cities.


Satellite should not be considered broadband the latency is horrible, there are very small daily usage caps (200-500 MB depending on price)and the pricing is ridiculous.


RE: Why?
By roostitup on 11/28/2009 1:27:30 AM , Rating: 2
That adds to my point, thanks :)


RE: Why?
By theslug on 11/27/2009 3:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
Internet access is no longer a luxury, it is a utility, like water and electricity.


RE: Why?
By Spookster on 11/27/2009 4:13:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
by drebo on November 27, 2009 at 11:19 AM
I hate all this social welfare B.S. as it's counterproductive. If we're just going to give everyone everything, what motivation does ANYONE have to work for ANYTHING?


So you would like to get rid of police, firerighters, public libraries, public schools, etc.? That is part of this social welfare B.S. that you refer to.


RE: Why?
By drebo on 11/27/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By Spookster on 11/28/2009 4:23:59 AM , Rating: 1
A stupid person is one who has to resort to name calling because they have nothing intelligent to say. I see you you've shown us where you are in that regard. Keep drinking your kool aid.


RE: Why?
By drebo on 11/28/09, Rating: -1
RE: Why?
By Spookster on 11/28/2009 9:28:39 PM , Rating: 2
You mean the schools run by the government? Oh wait wouldn't that make our schools part of this thing that you insist doesn't work? Oh my gosh. Hey is that cherry or grape flavor you're drinking by the way? Oh and i'm 36. It's amazing how you could possibly know the exact age range of every person who reads this site. How is that possible? Are you part of the government? Are you big brother watching us? Oh my gosh. You got rated down because you are disrespectful. It's okay to disagree with others because we are allowed to do that in our country. Doesn't give you the right to be an ass to everyone who disagrees with you though.


RE: Why?
By atlmann10 on 11/30/2009 12:09:08 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm minus the last year in November the conservative republicans were in charge through GW Bush.


RE: Why?
By BruceLeet on 11/27/2009 4:33:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nowhere does the Constitution say that every citizen is entitled to be able to watch Youtube videos.


Come on guy, that's a little extreme. (referring to the Constitution)


RE: Why?
By drebo on 11/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: Why?
By rippleyaliens on 11/27/2009 7:09:00 PM , Rating: 3
How quickly people forget.. US Citizens in RURAL Areas also do this thing called PAY TAXES!!!!! People kill me with their comments about the rights of the people. RURAL means WAY OUT IN THE COUNTRY, Farmers, Cattle Growers, IE small towns in the USA in which provide this thing called FOOD!!!! AND yes some farmers, cattle growers also have this thing called employees... And those employees also have these things called children.. AND TO TOP IT OFF they also once again, are TAX PAYING CITIZENS..

PS.. they pay taxes which goes to making sure ROADS/POLICE/FIREFIGHTERS/MILITARY/GOVERNMENT Work.. Social Welfare???? You would be surprised on how much farmers make...


RE: Why?
By drebo on 11/27/2009 11:50:04 PM , Rating: 1
If they really ARE willing to pay, they can always get a T1 or two or eight. They are available virtually anywhere as long as you're willing to pay for the mileage, which you imply that they are.

Your argument is bunk and you know it.

Consumer-grade broadband does not have a market in rural areas for reasons I've already listed. It makes no sense for a broadband company to invest 10s of thousands of dollars to bring service to one person. Now, if that person is willing to pay for the service expansion, that's a different story. But I should not be made to pay for service expansion to someone else.


RE: Why?
By rippleyaliens on 11/28/2009 1:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
If you only read your own posts.. Getting a T1 Line to a rural house, Would require the LINES.. In which a TELCO HAS to provide. From the pole to the house is the residents responsibilities. BUT still 1 T1 line will not help out a community. 10 years ago, cable modem was in its infancy, yet today we all look at it as a common device. One would think that providing the rest of the country with those means would be beneficial.

People are saying, "but my tax tollars" Yah whatever. I support dropping some tax dollars for something like this, versus billions on sending rocket ships to the moon to crash.. Sending BILLIONS of dollars to help 3rd world countries feed themselves.. How about the USA invest in its greatest assets .. ITS CITIZENS..
I cant stand seeing me me me me people, who ride on the tails of people that actually provide a service/good for this country, then get uptight when the slightest mention of helping those people arises


RE: Why?
By GeorgeOu on 11/29/2009 8:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that "rural" isn't always rural, and we often end up paying wealthy people who own million dollar homes more dividends for their Telephone "Co-op" than they pay in services. We also end up spending $13K or more per phone line per year for people living in Oahu Hawaii when they could be paying $40/month for cellular phone service. We're subsidizing to the tune of $5 billion for so-called "rural" phone service.

http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/americans-ar...

The other problem is intercarrier compensation when small rural phone companies game the system and pay kickbacks to these "free conferencing" services or free phone sex services. They're only free because they're charging the larger phone companies operating in the suburbs and urban areas which means those customers are subsidizing these "free" services.

See http://www.telecomramblings.com/2009/09/whats-behi...

"many VoIP business models depend to one degree or another on gaming the intercarrier compensation regime by carefully encouraging the use of phone numbers from adjacent, rural, high-access fee exchanges and such and then pocketing the cash from incoming calls."


RE: Why?
By thurston on 11/27/09, Rating: 0
Huh?
By chruschef on 11/27/2009 1:43:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Greenman said, "How do we make sure the masses out there have access to PCs and the Internet? How do you get these folks who are on one side of the digital divide ... onto [the internet]? What can we do with the stimulus money to enable these people who aren't currently being reached [to have Internet access].


Wait, what? Is it now a god given right for people to have the internet? Why do the rest of us get jobs to pay for our internet services? "Stimulus money" is to stimulate the economy, not give government handouts right? (Hey guys, I can make points with questions too; instead of just saying what I really mean.)

That aside, it's very clear why companies support this. They think they're going to get $$$ from the government, and expand their customer business. Is it me, or is the government basically paying off businesses to support it? We used to use this thing called bankruptcy court when companies were doing badly, and it worked just fine.

If people want internet they should get a job, no matter how badly it pays and work for it; just like the rest of us.




RE: Huh?
By chruschef on 11/27/2009 1:46:24 PM , Rating: 2
need to add something, if there was really such a behemoth demand for internet in these "rural" areas someone would figure it out pretty quickly. Capitalism works, and in the literal sense. (Not the made up definition Liberals use.)


RE: Huh?
By thurston on 11/27/2009 11:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Capitalism works


Only if it's cost effective.


Luxuries
By btc909 on 11/27/2009 2:13:48 PM , Rating: 2
Oprah - give me a car
Obama - give a house
Obama - give me some walking around money
Obama - give me a fiber optic internet connection
Obama - give me free health care

Of course the "rich" can pay for all of these luxuries!




RE: Luxuries
By gfredsen on 11/27/2009 6:39:35 PM , Rating: 2
Many years ago in the USA the railroads were built by, for one thing, the government giving land to the railroads. The government built land grant universities to help grow the cheap food so that the city people don't go hungry. Many years ago the government started the Tennessee Valley Authority, and others, to provide electricity to the rural parts of the country.
We are either in this together or not all. Otherwise you can all stay in the cities and stop coming up here and tearing up "our" mountains with your hiking trails, tearing up the deserts with your four wheelers and start building your nuclear plants in your backyard.


RE: Luxuries
By Expunged on 11/30/2009 2:10:03 AM , Rating: 2
The government cannot give to anyone anything that it does not first take from someone else.

The government will create broadband infrastructure by taking valuable portions of the wireless spectrum and massive amounts of infrastructure away from others who strive to do the same thing. I am associated with a SMALL (<200 customer) rural ISP that offers coverage, speed and service beyond that of most large metro ISPs. Our base plan is $35/mo for 3 x 1 with 6 x 1 for $45. We can deliver all the way to 25 x 5 and even that is on par with most FiOS providers.

We applied for broadband stimulus funds and were denied. Not because our pricing structure was out of line, not because we have plans for enough coverage. We were denied because the government provided their first round of broadband grants almost exclusively to other governmental organizations. Meanwhile the FCC debates releasing Whitespace and other allocations of the wireless spectrum while various levels of government construct broadband infrastructure using technologies that are prohibited by private enterprise.

How is it promoting what is best for people to have a 500' tower constructed with homeland security funding, the have the government turn around and use 4.9 GHz equipment to backhaul broadband, which wouldn't be allowed in private enterprise. When the government wants to build a new tower, they don't have to go through zoning, planning and use commission, have building permits and inspections. The utilize an already paid for government employee to rubber stamp plans from a tower company and get government bid discounts to purchase the materials to construct it. However, the private WISPs in the area all pay their taxes which indirectly go to fund their competition. The government can use miles upon miles of Interstate right of way to bury fiber optics while private enterprises has to secure additional easements. If this were truly about the best way to deliver broadband to rural areas there are thousands of small private ISPs all over the country that could use a little boost to get more bandwidth or string a few miles of fiber. Instead the government will come in and compete with the private ISP, and the government services can afford to run at a loss (What's it up to now? $12 Trillion?).

Rural Electrics were created as a private enterprises as cooperatives owned by the people in their service area and guided by the people in their service area. Yes there were grants provided for the Rural Electric Associations, but they were awarded to private enterprise and most REA's exist today as a private enterprise providing electricity at competitive prices to almost anywhere you can imagine.


wow
By Chiisuchianu on 11/27/2009 6:51:42 PM , Rating: 2
This is just great, more and more charity for the people who already get free cellphones, free TV, etc. when what they should really be doing is increasing bandwidth so our digital economy can finally reach its potential.




RE: wow
By thurston on 11/27/2009 11:37:25 PM , Rating: 2
I live in a rural area without broadband and I work and pay taxes. I pay for my television, phone (cell phone doesn't work here either), water, electricity and would pay for broadband with money I make working at my job. Maybe all us people that pay taxes and support this should be pissed off because our taxes paid for a road that you use to get to your house.


RE: wow
By Omega215D on 11/27/2009 11:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
Most Americans don't know their American History and how the modern US was developed.


Idiocy
By croc on 11/28/2009 12:52:11 AM , Rating: 2
OK, let me see if I have this right... 700B for bankers, who plunged the world into financial crisis is OK, but 25M for your farmers (who grow your food) is ripping money out of the US taxpayers' pockets? Hmm.... After weighing this 'logic', I find that farmers (and my food) outweigh corrupt bankers (who wrecked the global economy on a scale not seen since the 1930s and still counting) by 200 kilos to one kilo. Quite a good investment, I would have thought.




interesting
By RU482 on 11/28/2009 2:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
My parents live in very rural Iowa (15 miles to a grocery store, 50+ miles away from a shopping mall, ect). The have fiber to the home, and can get 20Mbps service if they wish to pay for it. The basic internet service (~$12.99) is 1Mbps down, 1Mbps up.

must be nice




Fixing Government Spending
By hiscross on 11/27/09, Rating: 0
"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki