Print 104 comment(s) - last by rpierce.. on Feb 16 at 12:55 PM

  (Source: Comsoff)

Barack Obama has finally unveiled hard numbers and a plan of action for his call to expand wireless and broadband access to Americans who don't currently have it.  (Source: Majordomo)

Among the targets of increased broadband coverage will be poor rural farming regions across the country. Many of these regions currently have no broadband or 3G cell phone service.  (Source: Timberside Farms)
Inside Uncle Sam's magical self-funding internet dream

After much talk, U.S. President Barack Obama has finally delivered a concrete plan for how he will fund his plan for government-funded internet expansion.  The only thing is the published details [press release] concerning the plan jump all over the place.  But never fear, we're here to break it down for you, exactly where the Obama administration (claims) the money for Nation wireless and broadband is coming from and where it's supposed to be going to (and when).

I. Time Frame

First the time frame -- according to the release, the National broadband plan will be executed over the next 10 years, with much of its success criteria targeting improvements at the five year mark.

II. Funding

(This gets rather long... there's a quick cheat sheet at the end)

Funding for the initiative begins with the auction of 500 MHz of wireless spectrum over the next decade.  That measure is supposed to raise $27.8B USD in today's money.  Presumably this figure is after broadcasters' cut from incentives auctions (more on that in a bit), but the release wasn't exactly clear in this regard.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has already found 115 MHz of unused government spectrum to put towards the auction (hopefully this isn't a case like when the U.S. accidentally sold the spectrum it used for B-2 Stealth Bomber communications).  The NTIA is currently evaluating another possibly auctionable 95 MHz of spectrum.  That would bump the total to 210 MHz.  And the NTIA thinks it may be able to squeeze out a few more small chunks of spectrum by having government networks make more efficient and full use of their allotted spectrum.

President Obama hopes to get the remaining 250 to 300 MHz of spectrum via incentive auctions for broadcast TV companies who are sitting on unused spectrum.  The U.S. Federal Communications Commission does not have the power to hold these auctions.  In order to hold the divided Congress will have to approve of the plan.  

Under the plan, most of the collected spectrum would be sold to companies like Verizon Wireless or AT&T, while a small amount would be reserved for unlicensed use. To "spur innovation" $3B USD of the auction proceeds would be funneled to research grants for "emerging wireless technologies and applications".  This fund would be dubbed the Wireless Innovation (WIN).

The next source of funding would come via a revamping of the Universal Services Fund (USF).  That fund currently pours $4.3B USD into the landlines.  Under the President's plan, that funding would be phased out and replaced with support for funding broadband expansion and services in rural and low-income areas.  That funding could provide as much as $30-40B USD over the next decade, depending on how fast landline subsidies are turned off. 

Under the proposal a "one-time investment" of $5B USD would also be added to the pool.  This investment would go towards expanding rural 4G wireless coverage.

President Obama is also calling for $10.7B USD, including $500M USD from the WIN fund, to develop a modern public safety network to inform the public in the event of a terrorist attack, national disaster, etc.  Of that funding $3.2B USD would go towards reallocating the D-Block of spectrum, which is currently reserved for emergency communications.  Under the plan their might be auctions to telecoms, if those telecoms are willing to work to fund and support coexisting emergency broadcast systems on their chunk of purchased D-Block spectrum.  

In total $7B USD would go towards directly deploying the network.  And the $500M USD from the WIN fund would go towards research and development of new public safety broadcast technologies.

In short, this aspect of the funding would necessitate $10.2B USD on top of the previous funding.

The remaining $9.6B USD from the auction would be put to use cutting a chunk out of the growing deficit.

The follow "cheat sheet" sums up the plan:

+/- $25-30B USD
 (USF transfer -- no more or less funding than current)
+$27.8B USD (auction proceeds, after partners' "cut")
- $ 5.0B USD (4G deployment one time expense)
- $ 3.0B USD (WIN fund)
- $10.2B USD (Public safety network)
$9.6B USD (leftover funding; used to cut deficit)

III. What America Gets Out of the Plan

According to President Obama, $5B USD of the funding will be used to expand wireless coverage from 95 percent of Americans to 98 percent of Americans.  Most of these 3 percent live in impoverished or remote areas that don't make sense for the profit-driven telecoms to come to.  That said, these regions often perform vital functions to our nation's economy like food-growing.

The additional 3 percent of Americans equates to roughly 9.2 million people.  That figure is substantially more sedate than the previous promise by the FCC and Obama administration to cover 100 million people with 100 Mbps internet.  The additional coverage will all be high-quality 4G networks. (e.g. LTE/WiMAX).

The benefits of the public safety network are obvious.  The government will be able to prevent some of the loss of life and property that occurred in events like Hurricane Katrina.  And the public will be less likely to endure the fear and uncertainty that it did on the infamous 9/11 attacks in 2001.

The transferred $4.3B USD a year in USF funding will help deploy broadband to many other rural Americans, without further expanding the budget.

And the WIN fund will likely go a long ways to support research at universities and wireless startups across the country.

A final upside that must be considered is the positive effects of auction off the 4G spectrum.  While 500 MHz isn't going to radical alter how we consume wireless data, it will go a long way towards relieving congestion and delivering faster service.  In fact, that much spectrum would nearly double the amount currently available to the wireless industry.

The Obama administration claims that, at the end of the day, broadband and high-speed wireless access will spur new business development in rural areas and help Americans enjoy a better standard of living.  These seem like good things and could lead to an increase in the GDP and, in turn, government tax revenues.

IV. Analysis -- Super-Star or Fantastic Flop?  The Outlook for the Plan

So what's the verdict on the plan as a whole?

Probably the best aspect of it is that if it sticks to its promises, it will actually cut federal spending, rather than increase it.  And the key parts of the plan will largely be executed by private sector, which will please proponents of the free market.

Also, it's hard to argue that the government should take no action to try to expand wireless and broadband availability.  Much like high-speed rail, the U.S.'s competitors are spending to expand this infrastructure, and if the U.S. doesn't keep up, it risks becoming a second-class power.  And the private sector, due its focus on profits, has expressed little interest in preventing this from happening.  So at the end of the day the government has to step in, but the questions are "in what way?" and "how much?"

The big problem with the plan is that it is perhaps overly optimistic.  The $10B USD could cover 9.2 million Americans with 4G, if it was applied very efficiently.  However, government efforts, including those of the Obama administration (and its predecessor the Bush administration) seldom showcase such fiscal responsibility.  

In all likelihood the plan will end up either costing more than the Obama administration's optimistic figure, or it will deliver less results.  Either way, people won't be happy.

In other words, this plan is good, but it's not great.  It's a concrete vision, but if we've learned anything from history it's an overly optimistic one.  In the end "yes we can" will likely become, "well we did -- sort of".  The effort will help the U.S. keep from falling behind in the world tech race, but will it be enough?  It's hard to say.  And it is equally hard to predict what the reaction across the political spectrum will be to Obama's vision.

Comments     Threshold

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

That Pesky Constitution
By DaveLessnau on 2/10/2011 5:13:44 PM , Rating: 4
Also, it's hard to argue that the government should take no action to try to expand wireless and broadband availability.

It's not hard at all: show me where the United States Constitution authorizes any part of the Federal government to meddle with anything remotely like this. In case you can't find your copy of the Constitution at home, here's a link:

And, in case you've forgotten that the Constitution holds the entirety of everything the Federal government can do, here's the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By ICBM on 2/10/2011 5:29:25 PM , Rating: 4
Aren't Interstates a federal project? I would think this would fall under the same rules.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By Cakemeister on 2/10/2011 5:34:19 PM , Rating: 1
The Commerce Clause covers situations like this.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By JBird7986 on 2/10/11, Rating: 0
RE: That Pesky Constitution
By The Raven on 2/10/2011 6:29:45 PM , Rating: 5
The commerce clause was abused with the Interstate system and it was abused with the health care act. Can we stop abusing this?

But at least Ike had a pretty good reason for it.
From Wikipedia:
Eisenhower gained an appreciation of the German Autobahn network as a necessary component of a national defense system while he was serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II. He recognized that the proposed system would also provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion.
Sounds pretty important compared to Obama's plan. I mean who is saying, "If we don't have the gov't step in and do something about the Internet, there will be no stopping the Germans?!"
And also the Internet is already here. We already have a 'highway' when it comes to the Internet. In fact it is an 'information superhighway'.

It would be like if the gov't built the Interstate when we already had an Interstate. It would just had more bells and whistles that would've eventually come along anyway given a free market.

And I don't mean to sound down on the Interstate since that is in the past and I don't have to vote one way or another regarding that, but I do know that this Internet proposal (and the health care one while we are at it) certainly isn't needed as much as the Interstate.

The point of Obama's plan is to reach out to farmers and such. I got news for y'all...the Interstate doesn't go to farmers either.

This is clearly the feds trying to cross the line. And President Obama is a habitual line stepper.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By Iaiken on 2/10/11, Rating: -1
RE: That Pesky Constitution
By Nfarce on 2/10/2011 8:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of calling someone else a troll, why don't you just pick his post apart piece by piece and counter it like an adult? Oh. I guess calling someone else a troll is a lot easier to manage.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By bug77 on 2/10/2011 7:15:26 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds pretty important compared to Obama's plan.

Dude, are you insane? Do you really want to see the US invaded by <insert foreign country here> while 3% of the population can't tweet about it or update their facebook page? How was Eisenhower's motives more important?

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By Nfarce on 2/10/2011 8:27:44 PM , Rating: 3
What's missing here is that Eisenhower during WWII saw the US road infrastructure as a hindrance in logistics getting troops, supplies, and equipment from one end of nation to the other rapidly and in large scale. Rail wasn't fast enough and there weren't many transport aircraft available, and the transport aircraft that were available didn't carry much relatively speaking (DC-3 for example).

Web access for everyone is an entirely different theory and has nothing to do with national security and US military logistics which is definitely more important that BillyBob in DeMoines, IA checking out fat chick p0rn on his mobile phone.

And then there's the prospect of the Obama administration implementing an internet "kill" switch in the event of a so-called national emergency (like the Egyptian government shutting down web).

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By The Raven on 2/11/2011 11:40:57 AM , Rating: 2
You know on second thought I think I once heard that although Ike was all for this Interstate system he feared the precedent it would set.

But I don't want to spread rumors. Please note that this is just me trying to remember something I once heard. Please let me know if any of you have heard of this. I tried to Google it, but to no avail.

Also it may have been some other proponent of the system other than Ike. But it was a proponent.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By Wererat on 2/10/2011 6:20:05 PM , Rating: 5
The Commerce Clause is so badly abused as to be meaningless; all it says in practice is "the Feds want to, they will."

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By Nfarce on 2/10/2011 8:43:13 PM , Rating: 3
It's not so much that it's abused, it's just very vague and good lawyers - and politicians with lawyer backgrounds - can successfully navigate through the gray areas for the outcome they want.

The Commerce Clause is routinely cited as the validation for Obamacare mandating someone to buy into the program by law - and threaten those who do not with fines and possibly even worse. Normally it is unconstitutional for a government entity to force someone to buy a legally binding contract which is why so many states are rejecting Obamacare and intend on suing the federal government over it.

But the bottom line here is that the federal government - and politicians both Democrat and Republican - will do whatever they damn well please if they want it bad enough. And that includes confiscating your home through Eminent Domain.

Elections have consequences.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By BansheeX on 2/11/2011 5:59:41 AM , Rating: 3
Not buying something = not engaging in commerce. If not buying something is commerce, then what isn't commerce? There's nothing gray about it, we just have a buttload of political activist judges who don't do their job.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By The Raven on 2/11/2011 12:03:35 PM , Rating: 3
Oh snap! I like that one. Prove us wrong judges!

I'd also like to know how the courts are always split (depending on size) 4/3 or 5/4 or whatever on decisions. I mean really? Half of the super educated people interperet a constitution one way and the other half interperet it completely the opposite regarding our basic rights? How is this not explained by judges being bought off?

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By zixin on 2/11/11, Rating: 0
RE: That Pesky Constitution
By Ammohunt on 2/11/2011 2:19:06 PM , Rating: 2
Becasue driving in a state is a privilege not a right..know the difference?

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By eggman on 2/11/2011 3:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
Health care is not a right, is it?

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By SlyNine on 2/12/2011 8:24:06 PM , Rating: 1
No, it is not. I believe it should be, Everyone here spends more money on healthcare than they know.

1. Most bankruptcy filed for medical reasons the people had health insurance when they started accumulating debt, guess who foots those bills, You do.

2. When someone waits until a situation is grave to go to the doctor ( which happens A LOT with people without medical insurance) The bills become astronomical and they never pay. Guess who pays the bill. YOU DO.

3. Health insurance isn't something that the free market should have anything to do with. There isn't a product that can be improved. They don't make anything, all you have is greedy people trying to get your money and give you as little in return for it as they can. Tell me how this is any better than government run health.

4. We pay MORE per person in this country because of how we handle health care. You would SAVE money with socialized health care. Do you honestly think you're getting a good deal from your health care provider? Even if you are getting it from work, that money still comes from somewhere. You would probably pay less in the tax increase than the money your employer could give you. And lets not forget

Most bankruptcy for filed for medical reasons is filed from people that had insurance when they started accumulating medical debt.

ya ya I get it, you guys think the government shouldn't do anything and have a huge bias against anything socialized. While I agree with that in many ways, something should be socialized.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By diggernash on 2/13/2011 9:29:30 AM , Rating: 3
You want more socialization to treat the symptoms of socialization. Another option is to treat the disease. You remove indigent care from the system and your argument is gone. Freely donated monies could be used to treat those who can not pay. If that money runs out before everyone is treated, then they don't get treated. Why should someone get the latest treatment to prolong their life for six months if they can't pay for it? Because the medical community gets to suck more money out of us. It is that simple. If the country as a whole truly cares about them, the money will be their from private sources. End of story.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By SlyNine on 2/14/2011 8:01:09 AM , Rating: 2
You're baseing your whole argument on an assumption. In fact, The Idea that "Donated money" would pay for people who can not afford it is LAUGHABLE. I know people who could not get the care they needed and are filing bankruptcy.

What I think is funny is you do not understand that your HEALTH INSURANCE would not cover you in full, and that you would be reliant on this donated money as much as the next guy.

"You want more socialization to treat the symptoms of socialization" What a bunch of BS designed to be nothing more then an emotional appeal.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By SPOOFE on 2/13/2011 10:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
Guess who pays the bill.

Cry me a river; the taxpayer pays the bill because the populace recognizes how ugly the world would be if hospitals plain refused treatment if they didn't think you could pay. That's why there's a Federal law requiring them to provide treatment. But it's pretty dishonest to insist we need a law to mitigate the negative, inherent consequences of another law.

If you live where there's avalanches, you take measures to protect yourself from avalanches. But if someone's CAUSING avalanches, you take steps to stop him from causing avalanches. Why should everyone else suffer because of a handful of deadbeats?

Tell me how this is any better than government run health.

Choice. People tend to prefer it.

We pay MORE per person in this country because of how we handle health care

We also don't have people waiting ten months for necessary surgery, nor are they banned from paying for such surgeries out of their own pocket. For every lousy thing you can say about privatized health care, there's a lousy thing to say about government-run health care.

You would SAVE money with socialized health care.

Just as McDonald's SAVES money by using crappy ingredients.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By SlyNine on 2/14/2011 8:06:00 AM , Rating: 1
Nice second guy to start out with an emotion appeal.

Are you suggesting that the hospitals refuse treatment? Is that your answer??

Ok I just want to be clear that this is the answer, we just send people that cannot take care of themselves out to die.

And seriously, These walk in clinics do not take more then 30min to treat people, and they are FREE. So don't try and lie and say they wait for 10 months, THEY DO NOT. On average people in this country wait longer for health care.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By eggman on 2/14/2011 3:40:51 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have first hand experience of government run health care?

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By Parhel on 2/11/2011 4:34:52 PM , Rating: 2
In the context of this discussion, the difference is that of a Federal government mandate versus a State government mandate, and which level of government has the right to control what.

On one side, you have a federal government who is indeed slowly grabbing more and more power. But, on the other the hand you have States' Rights fundamentalists who want to pretend the Civil War never happened and refuse to acknowledge that it's 2011.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By KCjoker on 2/11/2011 6:59:04 PM , Rating: 3
Because you don't have to drive a car which means you don't have to buy auto insurance. You have a choice whether to own a car or not. Obamacare gives you no choice.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By JediJeb on 2/12/2011 6:25:48 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly! You can decide not to buy a car and not have to buy insurance. With the mandated health insurance you have to decide not to live to not have to buy insurance. Therefore the exact analogy would not be states requiring you to buy car insurance but states requiring you go buy a car.

If the precedent of the insurance mandate stands then it opens the door for the Federal Government to require all citizens to buy a car, or to buy a house, or to buy pink hot pants, whatever you want to throw in there.

The commerce clause is there to regulate buying and selling across state lines or the procedures to do so, not to mandate any such purchases.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By RedemptionAD on 2/10/2011 7:25:48 PM , Rating: 5
If politicians have "hoes in different area codes" is that covered under the commerce clause as that would be interstate commerce? J/k....kinda

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By shin0bi272 on 2/13/2011 12:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
actually if you read federalist papers #41 or 42 I think it was Hamilton describes that the commerce clause is there to allow the federal government to put a TAX on goods traded between the states and not to deem how those goods are used or how many you have to purchase or any other tenuous association with the word REGULATE you wanna come up with. The clause is there to ensure free trade between the states themselves (meaning ny cant put a tax on something going to a slave state just because ny is opposed to slavery) and the indian nations but the federal government CAN tax it. Thats it.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By MozeeToby on 2/10/2011 5:44:29 PM , Rating: 1
The Federal government (through the FCC) has been doing the same thing for phone and radio service since 1934, this is simply expanding a nearly 80 year old piece of legislation to include modern technologies.

As to where in the constitution they are given this power, I would look under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), which gives the federal government the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States...". Communications in general and the internet in particular are essential to modern commerce. No one has ever managed to get a major US court to even take seriously a constitutional argument against the 1934 Communications Act which was passed along these same lines so it would appear the legal experts disagree with you.

Of course, you could easily argue it just from the preamble's "promote the general Welfare" which is exactly what managing the spectrum in general does, since without this management many services would be difficult or impossible to implement. Setting a portion of this spectrum aside supports the general welfare by providing emergency channels and communication access for as many people as possible.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By The Raven on 2/10/2011 6:36:58 PM , Rating: 3
Of course, you could easily argue it just from the preamble's "promote the general Welfare" which is exactly what managing the spectrum in general does, since without this management many services would be difficult or impossible to implement.

Well let's also make everyone drive the same car, which the gov't determines as the safest while we are at it. And let's ban all unhealthy foods, and let's...
That will all promote the general welfare. I think we have to look at the big picture here.

At any rate, it is not so easily argued.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By rdawise on 2/10/2011 7:50:39 PM , Rating: 2
Well let's also make everyone drive the same car, which the gov't determines as the safest while we are at it.

Doesn't the government set safety regulations on cars now?

And let's ban all unhealthy foods, and let's... That will all promote the general welfare

How does this promote general welfare of "state's"?

What the previous poster is saying that "general Welfare" is a vague term which (unfortunately) can umbrella a lot of things.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By The Raven on 2/11/2011 11:53:33 AM , Rating: 2
"State's?" What about states? State like the US, or state like Missouri, or state like Billy Joel?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare , and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

No... MY point is that "general welfare" can be vague.
They were saying that it specifically gives this broadband plan a pass. I was saying that you could give a lot of things a pass with that thinking. And I don't want to give anything a pass if it is not doing this part of the preamble...
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By The Raven on 2/11/2011 12:13:27 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot to reply to your 2 counters.
Doesn't the government set safety regulations on cars now?

Yes they do, and no they shouldn't. Or at least as much as they do. Like the Toyota snafu for example. I am also anti-helmet laws and anti-seatbelt/carseat laws and anti-speeding laws, but I am for some control on the road regarding driver behavior like reckless driving (which can consist of speeding among other things).
How does this promote general welfare of "state's"?

A healthy diet reduces costs to a family greatly compared to the average American's current diet. So it would help financially right there. (They could then afford broadband ;-) Then there is the more subjective "they will feel better about themselves and more energetic" factor that is less easily measured.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By Nfarce on 2/10/2011 8:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
Well let's also make everyone drive the same car, which the gov't determines as the safest while we are at it. And let's ban all unhealthy foods, and let's... That will all promote the general welfare.

What do you mean, "while we're at it." Hell just look at how the current administration mandating smaller and smaller cars and wishing to kill off SUVs through CAFE. And in the case of food, just look at Michelle Obama trying to get into our pantries and into the kitchens of American restaurants telling us all what we should eat and serve.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By kc77 on 2/10/2011 5:47:34 PM , Rating: 2
Article 1 Section 8 makes mention of the general welfare of the country.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By etekberg on 2/10/2011 8:19:16 PM , Rating: 4
From a recent article by one of the great men of our time, Walter Williams:

Here's what Thomas Jefferson said: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Madison added, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By DNAgent on 2/10/11, Rating: 0
RE: That Pesky Constitution
By SPOOFE on 2/13/2011 11:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, a "great man of our time" who is a secessionist, loves to brag about the number of times he's read Common Sense, and spouts Constitutional analysis on the level of what is taught to law students across this country in the first two weeks of classes. Forgive me for not being impressed.

Good job shooting the messenger. What say you to his message?

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By Nfarce on 2/10/2011 8:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
Please define "general welfare" as our Founding Fathers referenced it.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By gamerk2 on 2/11/11, Rating: 0
RE: That Pesky Constitution
By SPOOFE on 2/14/2011 12:08:13 AM , Rating: 2
. As such, any law which can be shown to be a net positive is, provided it doesn't conflict with any other part of the constitution, constitutional.

Interesting take. Going by your explanation, it stands implicitly that any law which can be shown to be a net negative is unconstitutional. Federal Assault Weapon Ban, anyone?

Heck, this opens up all kinds of doors: If you don't like a law, riot a lot and make a lot of noise about how you don't like the law. If the costs of the riots outweigh any benefit from the law, the law has a net negative and is thus made unconstitutional. Sounds like a rip-roarin' good time to me.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By gamerk2 on 2/11/2011 7:46:10 AM , Rating: 2
Spending clause + General Welfare clause. Even members of the Supreme Court, such as Alito and Roberts openly admit these two clauses essentially make it possible for the Federal Government to spend taxpayer money, frankly, however they want.

As such, the 10th ammendment has no legal standing whatsoever, as since Congress has the power to spend money however it wants, there is very little power NOT implicity given to congress. And before you complain, thats how the 10th ammendment has been interpreted for over 250 years now.

RE: That Pesky Constitution
By Ammohunt on 2/11/2011 2:22:18 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't worry to much who wants use Internet ran with all the efficiencies of serving #5

"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki