backtop


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

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
quote:
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?

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

Choice. People tend to prefer it.

quote:
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.

quote:
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.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki