backtop


Print 35 comment(s) - last by TSS.. on Jan 27 at 8:29 AM


U.S. President Barack Obama was upbeat at his State of the Union Address, but issued tough challenges to the FCC and Congress, respectively, when it comes to wireless spectrum, oil incentives, and alternative energy.  (Source: WhiteHouse.gov)

  (Source: WhiteHouse.gov)

On Wednesday, President Obama will visit Wisconsin green energy startup Orion Energy Systems, a provider of energy-efficient lighting and solar-power solutions. The President will also visit two other local businesses.  (Source: Orion Energy Systems)
Government hopes to release 500 MHz; but plan relies on TV networks agreeing to auction of their spectrum

After pounding net neutrality and several less tech-related issues through the door, U.S. President Barack Obama was back at it during his annual State of the Union Address on Tuesday night, trying to fulfill yet another one of his campaign promises.

I. Step Right up to the Wireless Spectrum Auction!

When elected, the President promised to deliver faster wireless networks to Americans.  How he plans on making good on that promise is by freeing up 500 MHz of spectrum, currently left unused, and selling it to spectrum-hungry wireless network providers like Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and T-Mobile.

During his State of the Union Address [video], he remarked, "Within the next five years, we will make it possible for business to deploy the next generation of high-speed wireless coverage to 98% of all Americans. This isn't just about a faster Internet and fewer dropped calls. It's about connecting every part of America to the digital age."

The federal government has 380 of the 500 MHz it needs.  However, the other 120 MHz is currently occupied and unused by television networks, which were gifted it long ago.  The administration is trying to set up a special auction to convince these networks to part with the unused spectrum by letting them keep a cut of the auction proceeds.

Verizon Wireless general counsel Steve Zipperstein [profile] cheered the measure, stating to Reuters, "President Obama is helping the nation to understand the incredible benefits that broadband wireless can bring: to our business, to healthcare, to productivity and to education.  Wireless innovation requires public policies that foster innovation, growth and encourage continued investment by Verizon and our partners in the technology."

Television broadcasters, however, have expressed mixed feelings on the issue.  While they appreciate that the auction will give them funds and that it's voluntary, they are reticent to part with the unused spectrum, partly because they accuse wireless networks of sitting on unused spectrum they previously purchased.  States Dennis Wharton [profile], a spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters to Reuters, "We would encourage Congress to immediately pass spectrum inventory legislation that fully identifies airwaves that are not being used."

Clearly, as with the net neutrality issue, President Obama has his work cut out for him.  But at the very least, he can urge Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski [profile] to open up the 380 MHz reserve as soon as possible, even if he can't convince TV providers to willingly sell their unused spectrum.

II.  Hitting the Road for Alternative Energy

Life isn't always easy if you're the president of the world's richest nation.  Not ready to call it a night just yet, hours after giving his address President Obama hopped a late night flight to Wisconsin.  There he plans to today plug his five "pillar" vision, which calls for: innovation, education, infrastructure, deficit reduction and government reform.

The visit is largely focused on the innovation and infrastructure pillars, and specifically, his objectives concerning alternative energy.  During his speech last night, the President urged Congress to act swiftly to eliminate incentives to oil companies who import oil from unstable foreign sources (e.g. Venezuela and the Middle East).  

During the speech President Obama stated, "I don't know if you’ve noticed, but [the oil companies are] doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow's."

President Obama hopes to walk a narrow tightrope of investing massively in alternative energy, but avoiding increasing the spending deficit.  Key to that plan is scaling back military efforts overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan, refocusing that funding on the home front.

By 2035, the President wants 80 percent of America's energy to come from alternative sources like modern nuclear fission, solar power, wind power, geothermal power, biofuel (algae, switchgrass, etc.), tidal power, and hydroelectric power.  Congress has yet to authorize that lofty goal or discuss what kind of government funding might be necessary to help achieve it.  Meanwhile China and the EU have pledged over a trillion dollars over the next two decades to clean energy projects, threatening to leave the U.S. far behind [1] [2] [3] [4].

On Wednesday, the President will visit [press release] Wisconsin's Orion Energy Systems, a manufacturing company in Manitowoc, that designs energy efficient lighting and solar power solutions, which it sells domestically.  

The President's visit to Manitowoc will be a first for a sitting U.S. President.  Orion Energy Systems CEO and President Neil Verfuerth, cheers the President's decision and the chance to show off the success his "green" firm has enjoyed.  It comes at a time when the energy-efficient lighting industry is reeling from a disappointing study released by the Californian state government, which showed compact fluorescent lamps burning out quicker that expected and saving less energy.

Two other domestic firms in Manitowoc will also receive a visit from the President on Wednesday.  He will travel to Skana Aluminum Company, a revived domestic manufacturer who received a $650,000 state grant to employ 110 people and resume manufacturing.  He will also visit Tower Tech Systems, a wind turbine manufacturer.

Despite the fact that his constituents are eagerly awaiting the President's visit and support, new Wisconsin U.S. Senator Ron Johnson (R) [homepage] seized the opportunity to attack the President in a Milwaukee Sentinel-Journal column.  He writes:

Washington's agenda has put a stranglehold on our economy. The pitiful result of the stimulus package is proof that growing government does not grow our economy. We need a thriving private sector to do that. We need to encourage and incentivize entrepreneurs, not tax and regulate them to death.

What America has accomplished over its short history is truly remarkable. America is exceptional -- it is precious. And we are bankrupting it. Americans hunger for leadership. They want leaders who understand that the only way to set America's economy back on the right path is to promote freedom, protect the free market system and respect our founders' vision of limited government.

The call for a limited government will please many, but when China and the EU are racing ahead on the heels of massive high-tech investment in clean energy and high-speed rail, one must wonder if the economic wind is shifting when it comes to massive infrastructure projects.  And many forget that the U.S.'s greatest technological innovations historically -- the railroad system and the telephone network, came on the heels of what would now amount to billions, if not trillions of dollars in land, tax breaks, and subsidies.



Comments     Threshold


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

Really?
By Expunged on 1/26/2011 3:00:02 PM , Rating: 5
For such an educated man he sure is good at making a complete fool of himself. The spectrum he plans to "free up" is largely unusable for most broadband applications. If we assume that the 120 MHz he's after are the former TV channels in the 512 MHz and up range many of these channels are still permitted for use by low power TV. Translator sites that exist in many areas provide off air TV at these frequencies and they aren't controlled by TV stations or anyone else, they are run usually by local government.

Next, we can venture into the physics of why this is a stupid idea. The wavelengths at these frequencies are so long that it would take a massive antenna to have any kind of gain and thus any type of coverage. The reason you can get a TV signal 100 miles away from the transmitter is they're using tens or hundreds of kilowatts of ERP. The average person isn't going to have even a 100 watt transmitter at their house so good luck getting doing anything bidirectional. The signal to noise ratios required to use advanced modulation techniques like 64 QAM requires such a low noise floor or such a high signal level that there is no practical way to use such a modulation. So the only other way to get large amounts of bandwidth at those frequencies is to use more spectrum, so let's say you can use 50 MHz, you'll have to have a modulation that can deliver spectral efficiency of 2 bits / Hz to get 100 Mbit. But wait, at 50 MHz the wavelength difference is so large that the reflected power on the antenna would be horrible.

Plain and simple, any type of wide spectrum directional antenna below 800 MHz is almost impossible. When I say wide spectrum I mean anything greater than 20 MHz. So at 2 bits per Hz that would deliver 40 MHz, that's in a point to point scenario, PtMP you're looking at more like 3 Mbits. We still haven't solved the CPE antenna issue either since they can't have 100 watts of Xmitter they must have a lot of antenna gain, wait, that's not possible either. In rural scenarios this is not the answer and in urban environments there are always going to be better, faster, hard wired solutions.

Next issue:

"The federal government has 380 of the 500 MHz it needs. However, the other 120 MHz is currently occupied and unused by television networks, which were gifted it long ago."

They were never "gifted" the spectrum, the spectrum was allocated. The FCC was charged with administering spectrum. Not with selling, gifting, giving, taking, or anything else. That's like saying the EPA "gifted" all of us oxygen to breathe and if they want that oxygen to sell to some industry they can take it back....

Finally, we have this bold statement.

"But at the very least, he can urge Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski [profile] to open up the 380 MHz reserve as soon as possible, even if he can't convince TV providers to willingly sell their unused spectrum."

Even if he can't convince TV providers to willingly sell their unused spectrum? Really? So now we are going to take something from private companies by force if they are unwilling to relinquish it at our request? Or are we going to say that even though the spectrum is allocated to the TV providers, it is fine for everyone else to jump in and use that spectrum for whatever else because the TV industry isn't using it. In that case, I'll jump into the air traffic segment of the spectrum b/c it's not being used to it's full potential either. Or maybe I'll go take the lawn mowers from the local government building b/c they aren't using them in the winter.




RE: Really?
By GruntboyX on 1/26/2011 3:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
holy crap an intelligent comment based on .... FACTS!

Its a rarity to find on Daily Tech.

When I read it, I interpreted the spectrum hold up by Obama, to be the result of heavy lobbying by the powerful Telco's.



RE: Really?
By kattanna on 1/26/2011 4:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The average person isn't going to have even a 100 watt transmitter at their house


first up, im sure you meant 100 Kwatt

and i dont know.. *I* would find the humor in average joe taking home such a transmitter and then wondering why no other RF remote worked at all LOL

like them going out and trying to use their car lock remote, or their local neighbors even

hahaha.. good times!!


RE: Really?
By JediJeb on 1/26/2011 5:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
Oh the days of running hotfoot on a CB with a 100 watt linear amp ;). Could key the mic and open garage doors half way down the street lol. Just imagine every house in the neighborhood transmitting broadband on those frequencies at that power, there would be car door locks and garage doors going up and down 24/7. Though that was the 27Mhz band, but at the power needed for the 500Mhz band you could still be interfering with a lot of things.


RE: Really?
By Expunged on 1/26/2011 6:47:44 PM , Rating: 5
No, actually I meant 100 watt. If you have a 10 KW ERP broadcast on with an omnidirectional pattern then a 100 watt transmitter with directional antenna with 20 dB of gain would have the same ERP allowing it to reach the same distance (i.e. 10 KW ERP tower covering homes that each have 100 watt with 20 dB CPE). The problem is an antenna with 20 dB of gain at 500 MHz would be massive, a dish is out of the question. Scala makes a CA series yagi with 12 dB of gain and it is something like 36" long (this is off the top of my head, I guess I should do my homework). Assuming that the surface area has to double to increase the gain 3 dB it would need to be 250+ inches long to have 20 dB of gain at 500 MHz. Everyone is going to look like a HAM operator with a massive Yagi on a tower in their back yard.

The reason I said "even a 100 watt" is that even a 100 watt transmitter running 24/7 is going to create a serious power bill and warm up their house a few degrees. The entire concept is impractical, while the free space loss at 500 MHz is much less than at 900 MHz or 2.4 GHz the physical requirements for antennas and transmitters makes the entire thing absurd. UHF radios (near the 500 MHz mark) used to be used quite frequently for fire, police, etc as well as private radio systems had people running around with 100 watt radios in the trunk of their car tied to a large whip antenna and even then it rarely covered the county well...

Wireless is the answer for last mile broadband, that much is true. Wireless at these frequencies is not the option though and will never be the option. The only place these frequencies make sense is in extremely rural instances where you could cover 1000's of square miles from a single tower that covered a few hundred farms or ranches. Even then the entire concept is impractical for the reasons previously outlined and a whole bunch of other reasons not even discussed.


RE: Really?
By 0ldman on 1/26/2011 11:24:47 PM , Rating: 1
These frequencies will come in handy to insure 100% coverage for WISPs. They will be supplemental to the 900MHz, 2.4GHz, 3.65GHz and 5GHz band we already use.

They will not be the savior of America's tech problems, nor will they reliably cover hundreds of miles and thousands of users.

The people doing these studies and the feds are missing the forest for the trees.

This is useful as another tool to get Internet service to the folks that can't get it through other means, like the guy that gets a -90dB signal from an existing ISP, or his neighbor that is *just* outside the range or in a blind spot.


RE: Really?
By Solandri on 1/26/2011 5:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even if he can't convince TV providers to willingly sell their unused spectrum? Really? So now we are going to take something from private companies by force if they are unwilling to relinquish it at our request? Or are we going to say that even though the spectrum is allocated to the TV providers, it is fine for everyone else to jump in and use that spectrum for whatever else because the TV industry isn't using it.

I think that's where the FCC screwed up. Instead of selling perpetual licenses to the spectrum, they should've leased them. If you pay for something once and are allowed keep it forever, sitting on it just to prevent your competitors from using it becomes a viable tactic. But if you're leasing it and paying for it annually (presumably increasing amounts each year), then it forces you to either come up with a good use for it to make back that money, or to sell/relinquish it to someone who can.


RE: Really?
By Expunged on 1/26/2011 6:06:47 PM , Rating: 2
The FCC was charged with licensing, not selling. Telco's and everyone else strong armed the FCC into longer and longer licenses based upon the argument that the investment into construction of a cellular network at frequency X only to have the license revoked was too great. This argument is true to a point, if AT&T invests $10B in putting up an 1800 MHz cellular network only to have Verizon step in and pull the license out from under them.... However, the solution is not to sell spectrum, it's to develop a licensing system that protects the current license holder as long as they are in "good standing".


yes, lets
By kattanna on 1/26/2011 11:25:23 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow's


yes, lets do that please.

quote:
By 2035, the President wants 80 percent of America's energy to come from alternative sources like modern nuclear fission, solar power, wind power, geothermal power, biofuel (algae, switchgrass, etc.), tidal power, and hydroelectric power.


and the only 2 on that list that will have any truly meaningful percentage of it is hydro and nuclear.

so lets truly invest in our energy future and cut the red tape on nuclear and stand behind that pledge for loan guarantees on nuclear. since it is highly unlikely we would be able to get too much more out of hydro, nuclear is the only viable path forward. the others will provide a small part, but are simply unable to handle the large baseload power our country needs.




RE: yes, lets
By corduroygt on 1/26/2011 12:21:06 PM , Rating: 3
Algae biofuels is also pretty promising, especially since the Army thinks they can make it for $3/gallon with mass production. No matter how much electricity you generate with Nuclear, there'll always be a need for fuel for airplanes and helicopters, even if you convinced everyone to stop taking road trips and live with the pitiful range and recharging times of electric cars.


RE: yes, lets
By JediJeb on 1/26/2011 1:05:15 PM , Rating: 2
Also ships would either need to convert to nuclear or revert to wind power. Either of those would save tons of fuel each year alone.

I wonder how much more fuel efficient blimps would be than planes for transporting people and goods? Of course they are not going to fly as fast, but if your power is only used to push you forward and not provide lift it has to be better.


RE: yes, lets
By geddarkstorm on 1/26/2011 2:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
True, and you can put solar cells on the blimp coating to generate the electricity for the engines.

But these are all extreme measures.


RE: yes, lets
By JediJeb on 1/26/2011 3:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
I was watching a documentary about the USS Macon which was a lighter than air zeppelin air craft carrier that could carry up to 4 planes inside it. It seemed to have been a good concept and the only thing that killed it was a design flaw which the designer discovered but the Pentagon wouldn't allow time to repair. If something like that could be built in the 1920-40s why could we not build some serious cargo carrying zeppelins now days. With the carbon fiber and advanced alloy technologies we have, it should be feasible. I know some companies are working on the tech, but if the fuel savings could be promoted I wonder if they could get extra R&D funding?


RE: yes, lets
By Dorkyman on 1/26/2011 3:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about the documentary you saw, but my gut feel is that designers grossly underestimated wind shear forces on early designs.

Having accidentally flown through a thunderstorm in a light aircraft a few decades ago, I can appreciate the enormous transient forces generated by Mother Nature. Conventional aircraft survive only because the wing stalls before the shear forces would be enough to detach it. I doubt a lighter-than-air vehicle impervious to such forces would be practical.


RE: yes, lets
By kattanna on 1/26/2011 3:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
why could we not build some serious cargo carrying zeppelins now days


oh, we could. but they wouldnt be as practical as modern container ships for MASS transit of cargo around the world. to build an airship that could handle the sheer tonnage a modern container ship can, it would be soo huge that the ports needed to handle them would have to be so massive as to make them economically unviable, for starters.

for smaller more specialized jobs, sure thing, and thats why there is R&D going on.


RE: yes, lets
By kattanna on 1/26/2011 3:32:58 PM , Rating: 3
true, but i was only talking about electricity needs.

i foresee oil derived fuels being a primary liquid fuel for cars/trucks/planes for some time. not that im against biofuels, im not. just not ones the depend on food crops or take food land.

one thing i have thought interesting about algae based biofuels is how they can be coupled to existing coal plants for their CO2 needs.


Senator Ron Johnson
By roykahn on 1/27/11, Rating: 0
Just another lying dirtbag politician IMO
By Beenthere on 1/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: Just another lying dirtbag politician IMO
By raddude9 on 1/26/11, Rating: 0
RE: Just another lying dirtbag politician IMO
By AEvangel on 1/26/2011 11:25:53 AM , Rating: 3
Both of you wrong to some extent...they are all the same.

There is no real difference at all from Bush to Obama, the only real difference I can see is that Obama is a better public speaker and Bush had overblown sense of patriotism behind him due to 9/11 to justify anything he wanted to do.

At this point I don't think there is any real hope to salvage our Federal Govt. It's better the states start stepping up and taking back the power that is rightfully theirs and repealing all this idiotic federal laws and departments by denying their funding or arresting their officers.


RE: Just another lying dirtbag politician IMO
By Parhel on 1/26/2011 11:36:02 AM , Rating: 2
What do you mean by "arresting their officers?"


By quiksilvr on 1/26/2011 12:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
He means rebel against the system into chaos so that in the aftermath we can "reboot" and start anew.


RE: Just another lying dirtbag politician IMO
By HrilL on 1/26/2011 12:37:11 PM , Rating: 3
I don't know about your state but mine can't run itself ether. California used to be and maybe still is the 5th biggest economy yet our government is broke. We spend money on the dumbest things. Paying the most out of any state for welfare and health care. Giving people free money doesn't solve any problems it creates them.


RE: Just another lying dirtbag politician IMO
By AEvangel on 1/26/2011 1:03:33 PM , Rating: 1
They can if they didn't have to follow ever silly Federal guideline and also some states have become over burdened by their own crazy programs, but believe me it's quite a bit easier to change that sort of problem at the state level then it is at the Federal level.

Also consider how much more money a State would have if their citizens were not sending the bulk of their taxes to Washington every year.


RE: Just another lying dirtbag politician IMO
By HrilL on 1/26/2011 4:55:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah and then every state would have to have their own military budgets, their own type of FBI and CIA and NSA. Honestly Collective security should be cheaper than each state having their own...


By JediJeb on 1/26/2011 5:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
Federal government should be in charge of security/military and in enforcing interstate laws, but the rest needs to be left up to the states. Let the states handle the health care, welfare, education, ect and the federal handle interstate transportation, military and ports of entry. Have all taxes paid to the states, then the states pay the federal enough to keep it going. If the federal starts running in an inefficient manner then the states have the reigns by the amount of funding they provide.


By TSS on 1/27/2011 8:29:43 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, it would get cheaper for each state.

The FBI dissapears, as does the CIA. The job of the FBI can be done by police detectives while whats left of the CIA can be incorperated by the NSA, as to have 1 institution for state security.

The combined militairy budget of the 51 states won't even be 40% of the current federal budget. With seperate states there's no need, nor money, for the 2 wars in the middle east. There's also no need for Aircraft carriers, at the very least no need for the current super carriers. No need for militairy bases around the world. No need for an invasion force. The only thing you'd need to defend from is the state next to you - anything else you cannot compete with anymore anyway.

That and federal overhead dissapears. No need to tax for federal programs, no need to pay the wages of federal workers. No Federal Income tax!

... Honestly the more i think about it the more it's starting to sound like an actual sollution. I mean, it would probably balance the budgets of nearly all the states at once. While the really rotten ones go bankrupt and get taken over and then returned to profitability. The only sad federal thing to go would be NASA. But honestly if just 1 of the 51 states decides to stimulate space development as their economic model we'd get something much better then NASA, while costing less and opening up more options for more people. Besides once states have stabilized and are growing again it's likely an alliance will be formed at some point or another, starting off the USA again.

It would return the power to the people. Maybe just momentarily, but it will. Democrats AND Republicans are bought and paid for. If the USA collapsed, so would both parties and alot more local parties would be created with local interests in mind. They will be corrupted again with time, of course, but atleast the people bribing them will be local companies, so local interested are still served, somewhat. Has anybody Anywhere really benifitted from say, the new federal healthcare bill?

In closing, it's Balance that allows stuff to be cheaper while beeing more effective. Just like it's not effective to have a body guard for every citizen, and it's not effective to have 1 police officer for every million inhabitants. And it's balance America has competly and utterly lost.


RE: Just another lying dirtbag politician IMO
By Dorkyman on 1/26/11, Rating: -1
By raddude9 on 1/27/2011 3:58:38 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ah, so socialism is a good thing, eh?


You know I didn't say that, and besides, it's not an "if you're not with us you are against us" type of issue, it's perfectly possible for a state to have a number of social policies while retaining it's free market values, most countries already do this. Don't tell anyone, but pensions and unemployment benefits are socialist policies!


RE: Just another lying dirtbag politician IMO
By captainBOB on 1/26/11, Rating: -1
RE: Just another lying dirtbag politician IMO
By espaghetti on 1/26/2011 2:18:27 PM , Rating: 2
Hear, let me help you.
They both have spent money that they didn't and don't have by virtue of signing bills that were drafted and voted on by a congress that was trying to get re-elected by handing out "grants" and "projects"

Write this down and don't you dare come back with "Well, they all do it!"
It's time to lead by example.


By espaghetti on 1/26/2011 2:20:08 PM , Rating: 2
*Here*
There. Perfect.


RE: Just another lying dirtbag politician IMO
By MrBungle123 on 1/26/2011 4:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
Hey uh bob... yeah he may have been parroting someone else but If you have been halfway paying attention this last couple years Obama's policies have been pretty much socialistic in nature:

Annex 2 major auto companies... socialistic.

Setup a system to bankrupt health insurance companies (which will mean the government has to eventually come in and "save the day" by being a single payer)... socialistic.

Spend 800 billion dollars on a "stimulus" to fund a bunch of make work government programs, pay off campaign contributors, and extend unemployment "benefits" so that they are funcionally indestinguishable from welfare... socialistic

Its just easier to label him a socialist and be done with it in one word.


RE: Just another lying dirtbag politician IMO
By diggernash on 1/26/2011 6:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
But he said he was going to build us some them there fast trains.

What more can we ask for? I especially like that he is going to let me pay for part of their cost. It's a wonderful thing to live in rural America and be able to help fund all the sorted programs for urban areas. I don't even like driving into a town of 30,000; I can really see myself hopping a train to go to New York or Boston...


By Expunged on 1/26/2011 7:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
Here here.... I've been paying fuel tax, a fleet of vehicle taxes, etc for years and the road to my house is still 13 miles of rarely maintained dirt that connects to another 20 miles of crumbling, pothole infested, chip seal over asphalt that hasn't seen any maintenance in 20 years. I'm happy to know I'm not the only one that is paying for part of the cost of urban sprawl. I've seen the same interchange re-engineered, rebuilt, and revamped at least 4 times in the last 20 years and each time it's worse than before. Luckily I stay as far away from the wreck called a metropolis as possible.

The states, counties and local municipalities have all given their power away in the name of big government. The state steps in and says "Let us collect your sales tax for you, you don't have to maintain a sales tax department and we'll just send you a check". Sounds great to the local city except they don't realize that when the state needs some money they dip right into those funds. The state turns around and does the same thing, giving power to the federal government and at some point the local government has no power left because they have no funding and no ability to control their destiny.

The federal government should do the bare minimum things, provide for a national defense, deal with interstate issues, etc. Let the local governments do whatever they want, if Boston wants a train system let Boston pay for it, if LA wants health care let the residents of LA vote on it and pay for it. If the state wants something it needs to go to the counties for the funding, the counties go to the people.


"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














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