backtop


Print 88 comment(s) - last by YashBudini.. on Dec 29 at 10:36 PM


Washington D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray  (Source: washingtonpost.com)
The idea behind DC-CAN is to offer a city-owned, middle mile network that last-mile service providers can establish a connection with for cheap

Washington D.C. announced its first link of a 100-gigabit-per-second fiber network, which will help provide affordable broadband services to homes and businesses throughout the District.

Mayor Vincent C. Gray, current Mayor of the District of Columbia, along with the District's Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO) made the announcement yesterday, saying that the District is the first city in the nation to build a network this fast.

The new 100G fiber network, called the DC Community Access Network (DC-CAN), will initially be provided to communities east of the Anacostia River, but will eventually extend its reach throughout the entire District.

"With this 100G connection, we are making history by providing state-of-the-art network capacity that will help create jobs and grow the District's economy well into the 21st century," said Gray. "DC-CAN will help pave the way for greater broadband adoption across the District of Columbia, and I'm proud that we will be the first city in the United States to make such a forward-thinking investment in crucial technology infrastructure."

The idea behind DC-CAN is to offer a city-owned, middle mile network that last-mile service providers can establish a connection with for cheap. By using DC-CAN, these service providers can then offer affordable broadband services to homes and businesses throughout the District.

At this point, 24 community anchor institutions are already connected to the 100G network, such as schools and libraries. The city hopes to link at least 223 as the network grows.

"As Internet use moves toward video and other data-intensive applications, this network is well-positioned to support such next-generation apps without the need for further infrastructure upgrades for at least a decade," said Rob Mancini, D.C. Chief Technology Officer. "By expanding to an established 100G platform, the District has invested in an efficient and economically viable solution based on proven technology."

The project should be completed by 2013.

D.C.'s efforts to bring affordable broadband to underserved areas of the city echoes the recent efforts of others to achieve the same, such as the Federal Communications Commission's partnership with U.S. cable companies to bring low-income families broadband Internet access for as low as $9.99 per month.

Source: The District of Columbia



Comments     Threshold


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

Rural Broadband
By titanmiller on 12/8/2011 10:05:56 AM , Rating: 2
This is nice for people who live in DC, but what about the millions of Americans who have to chose between dial-up and satellite?




RE: Rural Broadband
By titanmiller on 12/8/2011 10:06:34 AM , Rating: 2
Choose is what I meant.


RE: Rural Broadband
By The Raven on 12/8/2011 10:15:00 AM , Rating: 5
I'm not sure what "millions" you are talking about, but certainly it is nice that people out in the boondocks like you and me can enjoy wide open roads, friendlier neighbors and cleaner air... what about all those poor people on Wall St who have never even seen a cow?


RE: Rural Broadband
By idiot77 on 12/8/2011 10:54:03 AM , Rating: 1
Thanks for telling people what their priorities are! I wasn't sure until you told me that I shouldn't have good reliable fast internet access until you posted! It's so clear now!


RE: Rural Broadband
By Argon18 on 12/8/2011 11:08:13 AM , Rating: 2
He didn't say that you shouldn't have fast internet. He said that you *chose* not to have it. You are making decisions about a great many things when you choose where to live. If you think seeing a cow is more awesome than high speed internet service, that is your own choice to make. As a DC resident, I'm looking forward to this new service. My current 50 Mb/s connection is starting to feel slow.


RE: Rural Broadband
By The Raven on 12/8/2011 12:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
As a taxpayer, you are welcome bro. It is nice to hear about my money being wasted on someone with a brain for a change ;-)

(And that was by no means meant to be a shot at the previous poster. I just appreciate Argon's comment.)


RE: Rural Broadband
By phantom505 on 12/8/11, Rating: -1
RE: Rural Broadband
By The Raven on 12/8/2011 1:29:20 PM , Rating: 2
He might be a libertarian or a constitutionalist. You on the other hand must be a bigot. What is your point about labeling this guy? Focus on your disagreement and don't attack his character by calling him a republican ;-)

And don't criticize his (and my) belief by simply stating yours.

And who is it that you think can't choose where they want to in these United States in order to get broadband? It is normally the inner city crowd that is labeled that way. They have broadband in the city typically. Are you standing up for some meth head out in Springfield, MO? I don't follow you whatsoever.

How about the fact that I "had" to leave my beloved home in Sacramento because it is too expensive to live there now thanks to the local, state and federal gov't? Why should I be "forced" to move from my "home"? This kind of crap does that you know.

Even though I was born there doesn't give me a right to stay there. Wake up.


RE: Rural Broadband
By Yucker54 on 12/8/11, Rating: -1
RE: Rural Broadband
By Icebain on 12/8/2011 4:00:58 PM , Rating: 3
Those in the mountains whose mining industries have been gutted should look to the very same people that you associate with as to why they can't support themselves anymore.


RE: Rural Broadband
By Yucker54 on 12/8/2011 7:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I dunno...maybe if Social Service Agency funding weren't the first to get cut out of the federal budget, we JUST might be able to make an impact on the macro level. :)


RE: Rural Broadband
By The Raven on 12/8/2011 5:16:33 PM , Rating: 3
What are you talking about? We have forsaken people in the hills? When did this happen? You mean because we didn't get them broadband (yeah broadband) sooner?

You want empowerment for these people? Then cut it out with the corporate taxes (which get passed on to those miners BTW). That will allow more jobs to be created and yay, everyone has broadband.

How about miners take their large union negotiated paychecks (which artificially attracts them to the job that you think is bad) and their low cost living arrangements and get their own BB internet? Otherwise they can take a train to the city and get a different job. People aren't stupid. They just don't choose to do everything that you think they should.
quote:
Teaching those in impoverished areas legitimate computer skills and how to live a proactive (and positive contribution to society) life.
I disagree. I don't think that miners are worthless. Who is forsaking them now?

The only reason that social worker like yourself are looked down upon is because of your illogical opinion that we should subsidize broadband for miners in the hills. I was a social worker for 2 years at community college note taking and tutoring visually-impaired students. No one looked down on me. I was treated like a saint, and I had to beat people with a stick to get them to accept that I was doing it for money and did not deserve praise. So I think you are getting "social workers" confused with "socialist workers."


RE: Rural Broadband
By Yucker54 on 12/8/2011 7:25:11 PM , Rating: 1
1. I used that as an extreme example and loosely associating the scenario to that of the on-hand tech. news. 2. You are right, people are not stupid. If given the correct tools, skills and knowledge they too can accomplish whatever they can dream of. But without those fundamental skills and tools to succeed in life, they might as well be brain dead. 3. You sir (or ma'am) were not a Social Worker in college. For one, an SW does not do it for 'money' (my measly $31k/year salary says so...which is a rather high salary for someone without an MSW). Secondly, unless you have a BSW/BASW/MSW (or any other degree the NASW will accept as an SW degree) AND licensed by your state from the NASW, you are not an SW. Thirdly, just to educate you before you further make a mockery out of the profession, here:

http://vimeo.com/24384679

And lastly, my point is this: instead of bitching and moaning about the poor people or about how the government takes too much money just for the poor to feed off of, how about helping and empowering those people you despise so they become better contributions to society?


RE: Rural Broadband
By The Raven on 12/9/2011 9:57:21 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that I was not a social worker. I think I just threw any paid 'charity' work in with my definition. And I guess for the purposes for which I mentioned it, it is still relevant.
quote:
For one, an SW does not do it for 'money' (my measly $31k/year salary says so...
You are not doing it for money? Ok cough up that taxpayer money then, Mother Teresa. If you keep it, you are doing it for money. Period.
quote:
If given the correct tools, skills and knowledge they too can accomplish whatever they can dream of. But without those fundamental skills and tools to succeed in life, they might as well be brain dead.
Tell that to all of the immigrants who have ever come to this country. I think they will disagree. I actually find that a bit offensive being a descendant of some great people who immigrated from Europe and Mexico who did not have ANY formal education before they came to the US. They came here and made a life for themselves without a formal education. On the Mexican side I am the first one to get a 4yr degree, and on the European side I am one of many graduates (due to large family size lol). Do you realize that throughout history people emigrated from their homelands to live in America for that very reason? To accomplish anything they wanted. Some wanted to become rich, and others just wanted a job to survive. SOme wanted to work for someone else and get paid a lot in a big company and others wanted to work for little but be their own boss. Anything they wanted. It takes a lot of drive to be a CEO of some corporation, but it is easier to sit back and just be a good worker at some low level job. My dad was like that. He just wanted to work enough as a body man to afford a six pack to go home to every night. Sounds miserable to me, and heaven knows that I tried to help him become something better. But he was not having any of it. And eventually I respected that it was his choice. Not everyone wants to put the effort in to become a genius like you.
quote:
Secondly, unless you have a BSW/BASW/MSW (or any other degree the NASW will accept as an SW degree) AND licensed by your state from the NASW, you are not an SW.
lol Yes you are a socialist worker and that is why people look down on you as you say. So if I do the same things for free at my church (which I have done a bit by the way, and there are others who do MUCH more) then I am not a social worker? Well I guess you are right, because people like that don't get paid. It is not work, it is pure charity.
quote:
those people you despise
When did I say that I despise anyone? You are the only one who has said things about people being too stupid to make rational decisions on their own.

You sit here most likely as a descendant of an immigrant from another COUNTRY and tell me that someone can't move to a different CITY in order to get broadband? Seriously?
No these people are not stupid. They just CHOOSE (yes this is the USA) a lifestyle different than you or me. But you somehow think that we should collectively pay to make it possible to turn these hard working people into Kardashian-gawking morons because that is what people like you see as valuable. No they are fine knitting sweaters and playing football out there. If they weren't, they would move.


RE: Rural Broadband
By The Raven on 12/9/2011 10:39:34 AM , Rating: 2
I started to watch the movie (first 3.5 min intro).
Looks nice, but I think the problem I see with the statements made there is that everyone is saying "I" help people, "I" am reaching out to people, "I" am helping people get a job...

The fact of the matter is that if these people are paid, which since it is SW I am guessing that they are, "they" are not getting people jobs. The people who are paying their salaries are helping people get jobs. I mean if I sent a guy to your place to clean your carpet, would you send a thank you note to me or the cleaning guy? And who is the "saint"? Me or the cleaning guy? Do you get what I am saying here? If you were a money grubbing rich 1%er snob then you would do a 1000x more for all of these people that you claim you are helping out of the goodness of your heart than you are doing now as a SW. And who do you think is making the jobs that you are trying to get people into? That is right: the big 1%er.

So you want to take their money, and waste it on broadband to some people in the hills for whom it is not even a priority?

Well there go some more jobs out the window to India or wherever. Because this American 1%er can't compete with some 1%er in Mexico. Go ahead and make all of your judgements based on people being charitable with other people's money and watch the jobs disappear. Don't believe me? Open a US history book.

lol I'm sorry, but I have "the 1%" thing on the mind after watching this video:
http://www.reason.tv/video/show/peter-schiff-at-ow...

This guy Peter Schiff is a Libertarian (though he ran as a rep for a senate seat).


RE: Rural Broadband
By Yucker54 on 12/9/2011 11:35:50 AM , Rating: 2
You really should watch the whole thing until you make a final recommendation. You don't watch 10 minutes of a movie and make an educated review on it. Or you don't play four hours of a 40-60 hour video game and speak about it like you played and beat the game.

"This is a profession of hope." ~ NASW. A lot of what we do is in the first person tense. But we also do a lot of "we" work. They are two different classifications. There are three areas in social work that are all inter-related. You have the micro - working 1 on 1 with a client - level. Then you have the mezzo - small group work - level. And finally you have the macro - large system work (usually related to working with an agency, community, state or national policies and such. Francis Perkins was the Macro-Social Worker who helped Roosevelt form the Social Security Act of 1935). The "we" does not come into play until you hit the mezzo and macro levels of social work.


RE: Rural Broadband
By The Raven on 12/9/2011 3:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think you missed my point, because even when you get to the "we" level it is still paid for by the others out there who are busting their humps doing something that is not necessarily perceived to be noble like social work. The guy running the doughnut shop is not as good of a human being than the SW? His taxes fund the SW so his doughnut shop is also a profession of hope. Not to mention that he 'hopes' to be able to afford to keep his family off of the streets. So in what way is social work a profession of hope more than any other profession?

I am willing to put social workers on a pedestal when they individually earn it. What I am saying here is that just like people in the private sector they have to earn the respect of their communities. There are firefighters who are heroes and there are firefighters who are aholes. You cannot just say that since someone is of a certain profession then that makes them somehow special and eligible for sainthood. Priest still molest kids, presidents still lie, cops still beat people... none of these perceived heroes are beyond reproach and I will be damned if I will consider someone to be noble JUST because they do these things (while they are being paid mind you).

I import chemicals from Japan to make high-quality auto parts that keep people like you and your clients alive in the event that there is an accident (so I guess it is also a profession of hope).

As far as not watching the movie... do you finish watching everything that you see? I got the message which I already understand and agree with right at the beginning. There are people out there that need help and SWers help them. Duh. The hard part is balancing the needs of these people with our actual ability to sustain the support for the SWers. The free market can determine that. Just like the free market has determined where it makes sense to have broadband. (Sorry, but let's stay on target here)

However you feel about your socialistic ideas, you have to admit that we don't have enough money to afford all the unicorns and fairy dust that you (and I BTW) want to give to people. Sure there are people here that don't have a great education background. There are also people in Africa that are dying. Where are your priorities? Would you rather install this fiber to deliver BB to hill folk or would you rather end world hunger?

Bless Ms. Perkins' heart, I know she had good intentions but SS is an inescapable ponzi scheme. No thanks. Even FDR himself didn't foresee that his union backing would result in what it has become today. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/th...
Nice ideas don't always have nice results.

The answer is freedom IMHO and in the opinion of the Founders. Freedom to create a big business that benefits everyone through commerce, or the rights of people to peacefully protest (strikes, boycotts, etc.) Freedom for all is the great moderator. It seems that you don't appreciate your freedom like what seems like most people in this country.

But whatever, admittedly I may be wrong, so please stay on topic here and explain why DC should be the richest part of the country or why we should pay for the few people in rural areas to get broadband internet.


RE: Rural Broadband
By Yucker54 on 12/9/2011 11:22:39 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You are not doing it for money? Ok cough up that taxpayer money then, Mother Teresa. If you keep it, you are doing it for money. Period.


Taxpayer money? Lulz. I wish I worked for the public sector. My benefits would be better than what they are. I work in the private non-profit sector where my salary is paid for by a couple of grants (which are a bitch to attain in the first place) from private institutions.

I see your point (even if you're being rather literal here). But my meek $31k/yr is much more modest than if I chose to stick with my engineering degree some years ago (about halfway through a computer engineering degree I just realized I needed out and wanted a different career path). So comparing to what I could have been making as an engineer, yeah, that $31k is not much at all because at the end of the day, there are many many more people in bad situations that just need some empowerment to better their own lives.

quote:
I actually find that a bit offensive being a descendant of some great people who immigrated from Europe and Mexico who did not have ANY formal education before they came to the US.


Did I ever say that the skills, tools and knowledge I was referring to was formal education? No. In years past people were to come over and live a decent life. However you get immigrants that try to do that in today's society and it becomes much more treacherous for them to achieve that dream because the American people are not an accepting people. Yes discrimination has been around for years and years. And in some regards is not nearly as bad as it used to be. However it is still a subtext of our culture and forever will be.

And you are right, I am a descendent of immigrants. Both from Germany and Hungary (though according to some old family tree on my dad's side, I have royalty from Europe in like the 1400's...haven't fully researched that so I have no clue if that is true or not). Congratulations on your family history. Many people that come here from some kind of persecution or just to lead a better life succeed at it. However there is still a HUGE population of people that need just a bit of help to make it. I am here for those people. I help link them to the resources they need; I help teach them necessary skills to thrive in America; I ultimately provide them with the mental and emotional nourishment they need to get on their own feet.

quote:
lol Yes you are a socialist worker and that is why people look down on you as you say. So if I do the same things for free at my church (which I have done a bit by the way, and there are others who do MUCH more) then I am not a social worker? Well I guess you are right, because people like that don't get paid. It is not work, it is pure charity.


I have pride in my work. I have pride in my profession. Too many people that ARE licensed social workers will shy away from calling themselves social workers and refer to themselves as counselors or a social service worker. But not a Social Worker. Part of that is because we have the stigma that ALL we do is take children away from their families (which is inaccurate in and of itself...child welfare's goal is to strengthen the family unit and only remove children when all else has failed). The other part is because we are looked down upon for a plethora of reasons.

I also take offense to that because there are non-licensed social service workers who refer to themselves as a social worker without the right training and without the right certification. My cousin is one of them. Love the guy but has his Masters in School Psychology and works with MRDD kids. Great, great service he provides and makes the world a better place for those children. However, he is NOT a social worker.

This profession on a whole I feel has lost its true intent. Going back to the 1600's when the Elizabethan Poor Laws went into effect to Chicago in the 1930's with Jane Addams...eh that's a whole different can of stuff I will leave alone for now and a tangent that shouldn't be explored at this moment.

quote:
But you somehow think that we should collectively pay to make it possible to turn these hard working people...


Based on your logic, we should end Medicare/Medicaid too? Or perhaps end food stamps for those families with kids they can not feed? Or perhaps we should get rid of Social Security (both SSI and SSR)?????

Or while we are at it, lets just get rid of taxes alllllll together? Lets see what happens when crime rates rise and there are next to no first respondent services (Firefighters, Police, EMS) to help those people who need help.

Those are services of necessity. Not luxury. Broadband and internet in general is still a luxury, yes. However as our world becomes more and more digitally connected, it is going to become a necessity (and that time is coming pretty close. Look at the number of employers who ditch the Wanted Ads in the newspaper to post job opportunities online?). Pretty much the same with a vehicle these days. A vehicle is a necessity to get around. Especially until cities and local governments can beef up their transportation infrastructures.


RE: Rural Broadband
By The Raven on 12/9/2011 5:21:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Taxpayer money? Lulz.
That is nice to hear. Not that I think it is a waste. It is just nice to hear about people volunteering their money in the free market instead of the gov't taking it at the point of a gun lol.
quote:
I wish I worked for the public sector. My benefits would be better than what they are.
Unfortunately that is the truth. Public service should be public service. People should go into it knowing that they will not be set for life there. But at any rate, I commend you for this. Though...
quote:
But my meek $31k/yr is much more modest than if I chose to stick with my engineering degree some years ago (about halfway through a computer engineering degree I just realized I needed out and wanted a different career path). So comparing to what I could have been making as an engineer, yeah, that $31k is not much at all because at the end of the day, there are many many more people in bad situations that just need some empowerment to better their own lives.
If this is true you should've become an engineer and got paid (I'm being conservative here) 60k/yr.
Then you could donate 30k/year to the non-profit you work for and you (and society) would be better off.
quote:
Great, great service he provides and makes the world a better place for those children. However, he is NOT a social worker.
I don't know why you are splitting hairs here. Good for him. Good for you. I'm sure those with doctorates look down on you too. It sounds to me like he is a social worker. Why do you have to hate on him? The idea that you need permission from the gov't to help people is a bit sickening to me. I am a fan of things like good Samaritan laws that protect nice people.
quote:
Based on your logic, we should end Medicare/Medicaid too?
You said for yourself that BB internet is a luxury (hell, any internet is). These programs are completely different things even though I think they need to be massively overhauled. Just because I am against a wasteful program that subsidizes (and encourages) people living in the hills, doesn't mean that I am an anarchist.


RE: Rural Broadband
By Yucker54 on 12/9/2011 6:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
TBH, I am quite tired of typing out lengthy responses and bored with this argument so I propose this: How about we agree to disagree? Deal?

The bit about me leaving engineering is true (which is why I still visit sites like these because I am still a tech. geek at heart). You are right, I would be quite happy about my yearly earnings. However, I would not have nearly the amount of passion and enthusiasm that I currently have in Social Work. So you stick to ordering the right chemicals for our vehicles (which I will assume you either have a background in science or engineering yourself) and I will stick to being a victim advocate. We found what works for each of us.


RE: Rural Broadband
By idiot77 on 12/8/2011 4:48:00 PM , Rating: 2
You're short sighted fool too.

Someone should forfeit their wealth and property because the internet has changed the world around you. The only thing you need to get it is some copper lines and you think we should tell them... sorry, but you're just going to have to sell your property for nothing because you need the internet to survive in today's economy.

Right.

Must be great to be a kid and think that the whole world that you've witnessed is all that there is.


RE: Rural Broadband
By The Raven on 12/8/2011 5:44:28 PM , Rating: 2
Really?

No one HAS to sell their home in order to get internet access.
I could be in the (inhabited) mountains and still get:
1) a (likely subsidized) phone line that could provide DSL
2) a cellular modem
3) satellite internet

They may cost more, but guess what? Other things are cheaper there, like housing.

So do you propose that they subsidize the rent of those who live in the city? Do you really think that everyone should pay the same price to live wherever they want? That is not viable and certainly unnecessary?
quote:
Someone should forfeit their wealth and property because the internet has changed the world around you.
a) Yes, it is cheaper now thanks to the Internet. People in the hills should be able to afford the high costs of mountain-side internet access because of this.
b) Ok cough it up. You are free to donate as much as you want to this crazy 'cause'. I prefer to keep our country economically stable and free.
quote:
Must be great to be a kid and think that the whole world that you've witnessed is all that there is.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you know everything there is to know about everything. Unfortunately for me, all I have seen is all I can go on.

Do you even understand the differences in cost of living amongst different places? Oh I'm sorry, of course you do. As you know, I am of a lower level of intelligence to you :-P I recently moved in order to save time and money. I cut my commute from 40 miles to 10 miles and the rent dropped by $300/mo. Now to get right on topic here, my ISP rate went from $30/mo for 3 mb/s down to $40/mo for 1.5 mb/s down. Well boo hoo since you feel sorry for me (and you know everything) I will write to my congressman and demand that some money grubbing rich snob pay for my Internet.


RE: Rural Broadband
By FITCamaro on 12/8/2011 9:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why should you have to move away from your "home" just to get adequate internet service.


Why should the rest of us have to subsidize you to have what you deem "adequate" internet service?

If you choose to live in the sticks, then you accept the realities of where you live. Not expect the rest of us to pay to make sure you can watch Netflix in HD.


RE: Rural Broadband
By Paj on 12/9/2011 7:12:39 AM , Rating: 3
Would you tell those people that live in the sticks to build their own roads and power infrastructure too? They live too far from urban centres, and its so inconvenient and expensive to make sure they have everything that people in the cities enjoy. Why can;t they realise that!

I'm sure they'd love you telling them that if they want roads and power, they should just move closer to the city. Im sure they'd also accept the inherent wisdom that its their CHOICE to live without roads and power.

Just like its someone's choice to be poor. If they dont have money, its their fault - why should taxpayers have to fork out to make sure their health is looked after?

Why do we even have countries anyway? Theyre so inefficient and their regulations just get in the way. Everyone should set up their own little fiefdom and do things how they want, without goverment getting in the way. Just like Somalia, they've got it sorted over there. Look how well their companies are doing!


RE: Rural Broadband
By FITCamaro on 12/9/2011 7:32:39 AM , Rating: 2
Roads and power are necessities. The internet is not. No one has ever died because they didn't have the internet. People have died from not having power or having adequate roads to go get help if something happens.

It's not someone's choice to be poor but it usually is their own doing. If you screw around in school and don't get an education, you have no one to blame for being poor but yourself. I am not against welfare. I am against the federal government running welfare. It should be at the state level. Because that's who actually has the power to do it. Furthermore there should be a limit. And greater requirements on whether or not you get it (which states like Florida are trying to impose). Generations of families should not ride welfare.

It has been proven time and again though that giving people money doesn't stop them from being poor. It just gives them more money to be irresponsible with. Most poor will always be poor. Not because they don't make enough money but because they are irresponsible with their money.

Furthermore today's "poor" in America now have most of the luxuries that those who make far more. Because they get everything for "free" practically, whatever money they do make, they blow on stupid crap. In the 70s we started all this "War on Poverty" crap. Even when times were good, poverty was still the same. Partly because there were more people but also because we kept redefining poverty. We just keep giving more free programs, more free money. And we do nothing to actually encourage those on those programs and getting that free money to get off them. Why work twice as hard to lose all those benefits and then have just what you had before? Someone who is "poor" gets back several thousand dollars at tax time, nearly all of which they didn't even pay in. We REWARD poverty today.


RE: Rural Broadband
By Paj on 12/9/2011 8:25:07 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Roads and power are necessities. The internet is not. No one has ever died because they didn't have the internet. People have died from not having power or having adequate roads to go get help if something happens.


How about phones, would you say they are necessities? I would say that they are, and internet service is not a big leap from a phone network in terms of infrastructure.

The internet is rapidly becoming a necessity. You're probably right in saying it isn't *quite* there yet, but it's coming faster than anyone anticipated. Banks are closing branches, particularly in rural areas, moving everything online. Same thing with shops. More and more essential services are moving online, and will continue to do so as long as it saves businesses money. In very remote areas, the internet is extremely valuable in providing education and healthcare. If people in rural areas can't keep up because the infrastructure isnt there, they'll get left behind.

No, they don't need to watch Youtube in hi-def for hours at a time. But if they can get a wired regular, reliable service thats measured in megabits, is that too much to ask? It's not an easy problem to fix - the same issues exist in Australia, but they are putting a network in place to address it. Guess who's paying for it?

quote:
I am not against welfare. I am against the federal government running welfare. It should be at the state level. Because that's who actually has the power to do it.


Fair enough. I still have trouble grasping the dichotomy of federal vs state goverments in the US and the arguments this causes. In the places I've lived, the states have far less power.

quote:
It has been proven time and again though that giving people money doesn't stop them from being poor.


It has also been proven time and time again that cutting community service, health and education budgets perpetuates the problems that poverty causes. I'm not sold on the idea of people getting cash for doing nothing either, but if the money is put towards community centres, youth centres, libraries, extracurricular activities, sports clubs - these things can have a real impact. They boost school attendance rates. Lower poverty and you also lower crime.

quote:
It just gives them more money to be irresponsible with. Most poor will always be poor. Not because they don't make enough money but because they are irresponsible with their money.


This is a massive generalisation, and is wrong. Poverty creates a feeling of helplessness, which is magnified when the government provides nothing. It causes people to turn to crime, or drug abuse, or any number of vices. If these people have families, it can be extremely destructive. Poverty, like persecution, is often passed down through generations. A child growing up in a housing project, with an alcoholic criminal as a father and a mentally ill mother, with nowhere to go after school, a society that turns it's back on him - you're saying it's his fault if he turns out bad?


RE: Rural Broadband
By The Raven on 12/9/2011 5:44:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The internet is rapidly becoming a necessity. You're probably right in saying it isn't *quite* there yet, but it's coming faster than anyone anticipated. Banks are closing branches, particularly in rural areas, moving everything online. Same thing with shops. More and more essential services are moving online, and will continue to do so as long as it saves businesses money. In very remote areas, the internet is extremely valuable in providing education and healthcare. If people in rural areas can't keep up because the infrastructure isnt there, they'll get left behind.
Actually more and more people are ditching their DSL/cable for cellular internet connections. So if that is the future, broadband via fiber is really stupid.
quote:
Fair enough. I still have trouble grasping the dichotomy of federal vs state goverments in the US and the arguments this causes. In the places I've lived, the states have far less power.
Think of it this way: Europe as a country instead of a continent.
quote:
This is a massive generalisation, and is wrong. Poverty creates a feeling of helplessness, which is magnified when the government provides nothing. It causes people to turn to crime, or drug abuse, or any number of vices. If these people have families, it can be extremely destructive. Poverty, like persecution, is often passed down through generations.
I think you are both wrong. Some people are just content with a certain level of work for a certain level of pay. This seems to be caused by the standard of living that one has grown accustom to. So the poor remain poor because they are acclimated to that lifestyle. I do not have a taste for $5000 bottles of wine so I will not put in the effort to make enough money to afford them. Of course this is also a generalization but I think it is better than either than yours IMHO.
quote:
A child growing up in a housing project, with an alcoholic criminal as a father and a mentally ill mother, with nowhere to go after school, a society that turns it's back on him - you're saying it's his fault if he turns out bad?
FIT said that he is NOT against welfare. Given the welfare, yes it is his fault. Otherwise you are saying that we may as well preemptively give him the chair before he kills someone, because we can't make all of his decisions for him for the rest of his life. This is the sad reality.


RE: Rural Broadband
By The Raven on 12/9/2011 5:46:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am not against welfare. I am against the federal government running welfare. It should be at the state level. Because that's who actually has the power to do it. Furthermore there should be a limit. And greater requirements on whether or not you get it (which states like Florida are trying to impose). Generations of families should not ride welfare.
Wow, you've really warmed up to Ron Paul?!

;-)


RE: Rural Broadband
By FITCamaro on 12/9/2011 6:51:29 PM , Rating: 1
I've always agreed with Ron Paul on most domestic matters. His problem is his bat shit crazy foreign policy.


RE: Rural Broadband
By YashBudini on 12/29/2011 10:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
what about all those poor people on Wall St who have never even seen a cow?

There's poor people on Wall St?


RE: Rural Broadband
By nafhan on 12/8/2011 10:40:07 AM , Rating: 5
I think it will be interesting to see if the big telcos try to shut it down like they have in other cities that have attempted to deploy municipal broadband.


RE: Rural Broadband
By MGSsancho on 12/8/2011 1:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
nah the govt already has their DPI gear installed, D.C. will allow it to continue.


RE: Rural Broadband
By Arsynic on 12/8/2011 10:43:24 AM , Rating: 3
Didn't Obama promise better rural broadband? I think it's called the "YESWE-CAN" network.


RE: Rural Broadband
By Argon18 on 12/8/2011 11:28:08 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah he was great at promising things. Pretty piss poor at delivering on those promises. Remember the one about posting every piece of legislation online for 5 days so the people can review it before he signs it? Or the one about "transparent" government? Lol. So many empty promises it's hard to count them all.


RE: Rural Broadband
By jRaskell on 12/9/2011 8:16:38 AM , Rating: 2
He's a politician. Empty promises are just the status quo.


RE: Rural Broadband
By tamalero on 12/8/2011 11:32:40 AM , Rating: 5
wasnt this blocked (along many other promises) by the Republican lawmakers in the congress?


RE: Rural Broadband
By The Raven on 12/8/2011 12:39:56 PM , Rating: 4
You mean the (at the time) republican minority?


RE: Rural Broadband
By anactoraaron on 12/8/2011 6:21:54 PM , Rating: 3
Yes. That's what that poster meant. Filibuster anyone? The most filibusters in history to block all of those promises...? To do what again? Ah yeah, to be able to spit out bs like "there's been no change" "change no one can believe in" and "he couldn't deliver" "Obama failed" etc. Both sides posture like that and EVERYONE (people like you and me) suffer because of that bs political posturing.

Nothing like the stench of modern American politics.


RE: Rural Broadband
By FITCamaro on 12/8/2011 9:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
Show me where the Republicans explicitly blocked posting bills online for 5 days before they were voted on. Or filibustered it. They might have filibustered a bill it was a rider on that was otherwise complete garbage.

I guess the Republicans also blocked Obama's "jobs bill". Nevermind that it took weeks before Reid even allowed it to come up for a vote in the Senate and when it finally was voted on, it was unilaterally blocked by both sides.


RE: Rural Broadband
By TSS on 12/9/2011 7:00:26 AM , Rating: 2
Oh stop it. I can practically smell the partisan through my computer.

Republicans AND democrats both are shills, idiots, traitors. Both time and again promise stuff that never happens. Let us not forget who the president before Obama was.

In fact i'm gonna predict the next election results right now: Obama wins by a narrow spread, something in the range of 52%/48%. He will win even though he's unpopular as hell because the republicans are doing what the democrats did in 2004: put forward such idiots and douchebags as candidates (i swear this time the scandals are in the news on a regular basis... in europe... a year before the election in the US) that they have got no choice but to loose.

Bush won because Gore ran against him and Bush was the better choice. Plain and simple. He might've been an idiot but atleast it was better then Al Gore. The same will happen to obama. He might be an idiot, but he's a better choice then whatever the republicans are putting forward this time. He will screw up again, even worse then last time, and the republicans gain a land slide victory in 2016. Around this time inflation will be getting out of control and they will use their majority to push through the final measures that take away all liberty in the US.

Why not? Similar stuff happened 3 years ago why shouldn't it happen again now....


RE: Rural Broadband
By FITCamaro on 12/9/2011 7:18:03 AM , Rating: 2
Other than Cain, who has a scandal? And Cain's is nothing more than liberals attacking a black conservative because they fear a race between him and Obama would be devastating to their message of "Republicans hate blacks". All these accusations (and that's all they are) are coming out of Chicago. Go figure. They did the exact same thing to Clarence Thomas when Bush nominated him for the the Supreme Court.

Gingrich isn't perfect either (from a conservative point of view) but he's very well spoken, very knowledgeable, and resonates with a lot of people. Romney is the liberal shill who the media wants to get the nomination because he's the most liberal so if a Republican wins, they want it to be him. Perry is largely a talking head (and I say that as someone from Texas who wouldn't mind a Texan) at this point. Santorum is a real conservative but the media won't give him the time of day because anyone who's religious and conservative is just "crazy".

Ron Paul is his usual self. Talking great ideas fiscally, but still making stupid comments and spouting ideas that America is at fault for 9/11, we shouldn't have killed bin Laden, and we need to be isolationist. If Ron Paul would drop his viewpoint on foreign affairs, he'd be a serious candidate. Until then he never will be. Most people agree we should limit our involvement in certain affairs but the idea of completely pulling out of the world? No.


RE: Rural Broadband
By The Raven on 12/9/2011 4:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
Newt is a DC insider with blood on his hands. Voting for him is like voting for 4 more years of a well-spoken Bush.

Romney, Perry or Cain don't deserve to mentioned after what they have been through during this campaign.

So as far as I see it, it is between Paul and the rest of the pack. And my hope is that it will be Paul. He reputation is beyond reproach regardless of how you feel about his policies. He is the only person who
...will talk us out of a war instead of dragging us into one (mind you if we still want to got to war, we can do it through congress).
...seems to think that he should be less powerful as president.

As for foreign policy...which president do you think had a great foreign policy? I can't think of anyone who didn't see the US as the world police force. We stick our hands in the hornet's nest and don't expect to get stung?

When Ruby Ridge and Waco happen and there is a wacko that blows up a building because of that, I don't assume that the federal gov't was innocent because the wacko does something horrible. That is Paul's thinking as far as I understand regarding why we brought 9/11 on ourselves. I am inclined to agree. If I (an America loving fanboy) am sick of our giant gov't, why is it unfathomable that other people around the world are also. Not that such violence is called for or justified, but we are still guilty of screwing with the rest of the world and that is what Paul is talking about. He is not defending the "effect", he is just attacking the "cause".

I may be wrong, but at any rate I'd rather error on the side of freedom here.

And isolationism? He is not proposing sakoku.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakoku

He doesn't want us involved (as a gov't) in all of these quagmires around the world. He is more specifically a non-interventionalist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism
Hey speak of the devil!
quote:
Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.
lol

At any rate I understand your feelings that he is a nut. I wrote him off last time around also because I thought the same way. But I have wised up IMO and am voting for Paul or the libertarian candidate. No more cookie cutter reps or dems for me. I don't care if it means 4 more years of Obama because Newt, Mitt, Rick, or Herm are at best only slightly better than him in my estimation.


RE: Rural Broadband
By FITCamaro on 12/9/2011 6:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a firm believer that a vote for a libertarian candidate is nothing but a wasted vote. They're never going to win and do nothing but take votes away from the Republican candidate mainly. I don't want another 4 years of Obama. If that means Romney, so be it. But we can't afford another 4 years of that man. Literally and figuratively.

Santorum is the only candidate I truly like in every aspect. Unfortunately, he has little chance. I would be happy to vote for Ron Paul if he wins the nomination as his foreign policy goals will never happen (namely closing all foreign military bases). I'm fine with him choosing not to get involved with foreign conflicts for 4 years.


RE: Rural Broadband
By The Raven on 12/13/2011 11:32:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They're never going to win and do nothing but take votes away from the Republican candidate mainly.

This is my goal. I don't care if the lib candidate loses. I just don't want the rep to lose as a message that I will no longer support this stupid dog and pony show that we go through all the time. The reps and dems are so indistinguishable that it makes no difference which one you vote for. Talk about a wasted vote. The more people who opt out, the sooner we will get real change in DC and the rest of the country. Otherwise the gov't (especially federal) will continue to grow, our troops will continue to die, and we will have less and less freedom (both social and economic).

I WANT THE GOV'T TO SHRINK. Voting for theses statist morons in the rep party is folly. Is this not the most important thing that we as "conservatives" focus on?


RE: Rural Broadband
By The Raven on 12/13/2011 12:18:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just don't want the rep to lose as a message that I will no longer support this stupid dog and pony show that we go through all the time.
Sorry I meant win . The reps are the closest thing to a small gov't party of the two, but when there is a big gov't candidate and we vote for them, aren't we condoning the rep party change to a big gov't party? That has been the pattern for quite some time now.


RE: Rural Broadband
By YashBudini on 12/29/2011 10:34:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm a firm believer that a vote for a libertarian candidate is nothing but a wasted vote. They're never going to win ...

That's commonly known as a self fulfilling prophecy.

quote:
I would be happy to vote for Ron Paul if he wins the nomination as his foreign policy goals will never happen (namely closing all foreign military bases).


That's commonly known as having checks and balances. And one thing you can be more sure of, Paul is less likely to override or simply ignore policy.


RE: Rural Broadband
By FITCamaro on 12/9/2011 7:19:05 AM , Rating: 2
And I was doing nothing but pointing out the previous comments completely false statement that Republicans blocked bills from being displayed online for 5 days.


RE: Rural Broadband
By sigmatau on 12/8/2011 11:37:01 AM , Rating: 2
No, that "YESWE-CAN" was spoken by your mom after Obama dropped his pants.


RE: Rural Broadband
By Flunk on 12/8/2011 10:43:52 AM , Rating: 3
They can pay for it the same way the people of DC are paying for this, property taxes.

Of course, with the costs of running all those cables they would probably have to increase property taxes exorbitantly.

I'm not serious, obviously, but some things are feasible and some are not. There are positives and negatives for living in the country. The rest of the country shouldn't have to subsidize your lifestyle.


RE: Rural Broadband
By Argon18 on 12/8/2011 11:32:49 AM , Rating: 2
No- they won't have to raise property taxes. Property taxes in DC are already sky high. On top of that, DC and the surrounding suburbs weren't really hit at all by the housing bubble - the bubble burst and DC housing prices stayed right about the same, no real drop. My condo in DC is worth more today than it was in 2005. "What bubble?" Very few parts of the country can make that claim.


RE: Rural Broadband
By The Raven on 12/8/2011 12:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
I think you only have to look at the number of legislators that were laid off or took a pay decrease as the reason for that. We hit hard times and they still get paid to take our money. That sounds weird...paid to take our money... roads...ro-ads...


RE: Rural Broadband
By steven975 on 12/8/2011 1:47:32 PM , Rating: 2
My place in Vienna dropped about 40% since then. But, I just live there.


RE: Rural Broadband
By wushuktl on 12/8/2011 10:47:37 AM , Rating: 2
i have no sympathy for you. you wanted to live out in the countryside so you wouldn't have to be near the big bustling cities. Why should you be provided with the infrastructure for cheap internet access? You don't expect to get cheap effective mass transit or a centralized water source. So why is this any different?


Wait...DC get this before NY or LA?
By The Raven on 12/8/2011 10:23:16 AM , Rating: 3
How does this not happen in NY or LA first? I think this and the fact that DC is the now the richest area in the country now really go to show that the federal gov't is too big. If you can't see it you must be blind.

Unfortunately, the two parties that are in power are both for bigger gov't. If you want smaller gov't (not the same as 'no gov't') vote in the republican primaries or caucus with them to nominate someone like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson. Otherwise send a message and vote libertarian. There is little difference between Gingrich, Romney, or President Obama.

I know we always get off on these political tangents and here I am starting one straight out as usual, but if you really care about technology then you unfortunately need to care about politics in this day and age.




RE: Wait...DC get this before NY or LA?
By gamerk2 on 12/8/11, Rating: -1
RE: Wait...DC get this before NY or LA?
By Nanobaud on 12/8/2011 11:02:32 AM , Rating: 2
Of course we can just as easily show that all those technologies were originally created by Kevin Bacon.


By The Raven on 12/8/2011 12:17:32 PM , Rating: 2
Or with Will Smith and Donald Sutherland.

BTW Kevin Bacon was in Hollow Man with Gary Hecker who was filmed with Will Smith in Independence Day which of course couldn't have been made without the help of DARPA and their space aged lasers.


RE: Wait...DC get this before NY or LA?
By Breathless on 12/8/2011 11:13:39 AM , Rating: 4
"You are aware big government is a very good thing?"

That's some good sarcasm there... either that or you obviously have a mental disability. So, let me explain this in the simplest of terms. The larger the federal government gets, it is absolutely POSITIVELY inevitable that more corruption will exist, and more and more of our long fought for and cherished personal freedoms will vanish. Our founding fathers understood this, and even though they also understood that government was a necessary evil, they knew it was EVIL, and something that must remain small. A very brief, and very generalized look into history would tell you this. It would be far better to have LESS TECHNOLOGY and more liberty / freedom. Basically, your point is ridiculous.


RE: Wait...DC get this before NY or LA?
By Piiman on 12/8/11, Rating: 0
RE: Wait...DC get this before NY or LA?
By Breathless on 12/8/2011 3:35:43 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously, the smaller it is, the easier it is to control or get control of. Come on dude, think for a second before you post.


RE: Wait...DC get this before NY or LA?
By TSS on 12/9/2011 6:46:20 AM , Rating: 2
He does have a point though. You speak of control, but control is always excersized by somebody over somebody. The "over somebody" is the government, but who exactly excersizes control over the government?

The people. If the people relinquish control, then corruption and big government is inevitable, no matter the size it started out as. And currently there's very little effort by the people to either keep, regain or excersize that control.

It's not the government you need to fix first.


RE: Wait...DC get this before NY or LA?
By Paj on 12/9/2011 7:24:34 AM , Rating: 3
How do you explain that the SOCIALIST nations of Scandinavia have the lowest corruption in the world?

http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/survey...

Corruption is not inversely correlated to the size of a government. This is a ridiculously myopic view. Corporations also experience corruption - and with the lack of oversight a smaller, toothless goverment brings, corporations in these nations often get away with much more.


By Breathless on 12/9/2011 9:45:55 AM , Rating: 1
The answer is either:

A) Dumb luck

B) Highly subjective test results

Or

C) Zealous moral values held by those in charge.


RE: Wait...DC get this before NY or LA?
By disgusted@thieves on 12/8/2011 11:20:39 AM , Rating: 2
The government gets it's money from me. It then wastes a large percentage on overhead. The remaining fraction is then given out as a political payback, say to GE.

If you think that is more efficient then me investing my own money in companies I believe in, well, that is another strike against public schools.


RE: Wait...DC get this before NY or LA?
By sigmatau on 12/8/2011 11:35:23 AM , Rating: 1
LOL! Companies don't have overhead? They don't have CEOs trying to make off with 20% of the company's asserts?

Please pray tell why oh why is it the local government run Internet services are much cheaper and offer way more? Just look at Wilson, NC. Over 5 years ago they offered 20+MB Internet and city-wide wifi for less than half the price Time Warner or anyone else wanted to charge.

Some government agencies really need to be whipped back into efficiency, but you can't say businesses do it any better.


RE: Wait...DC get this before NY or LA?
By Breathless on 12/8/2011 11:44:44 AM , Rating: 2
No, but I can say that its better that they do it.


RE: Wait...DC get this before NY or LA?
By fishman on 12/8/2011 12:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, It's better when people pay twice as much. :(

Too bad the politicians in NC were bought off by the major ISPs to block it from happening again.


By Breathless on 12/8/2011 1:06:17 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes how much you pay for something isn't the most important thing.


By The Raven on 12/8/2011 12:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The government gets it's money from me. It then wastes a large percentage on unnecessary overhead.
I think that is what he meant. And that is undeniable. And sure private companies also have unneeded overhead from time to time but too much of that and they go out of business. That doesn't happen in the federal gov't.

And did "the gov't" (federal or local is a case by case matter) not essentially give Time Warner their monopoly? So who is to blame? Time Warner or the gov't?

On the other hand I agree that if a city wants to do what they did there in NC that is great. My problem specifically in relation to this story is that DC is the richest place in the US where they can afford such things. If Wilson can afford it and St Louis, MO doesn't have to pay tribute to the citizens of Wilson and bail them out when the piper comes calling, then they can knock themselves out. That is their business. But DC's wealth is obviously funded by the rest of the US.

And I should say that it is ultimately the responsibility of the citizens who create this quagmire of a gov't. that is why I said something to begin with.


By disgusted@thieves on 12/8/2011 1:55:58 PM , Rating: 3
I can absolutely say businesses do it better, they have to or they go out of business. The government just comes and takes more money at the point of a gun.

Now lets take a look at your example. Government outlaws competition granting monopoly powers to a company. When that company then charges the rates approved by the government, the government turns around claims it can do it better then private industry. And you believe that? Honestly are you that gullible.

The solution is to take away the monopoly status and let capitalism reign. You can not claim it doesn’t work, it hasn't even been tried.


By The Raven on 12/8/2011 12:04:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who's cash do you think funds, either directly or indirectly, every single product on the market today?
I do. Mr. Taxpayer/Consumer. Obviously your beloved publicly funded schools, not Harvard or MIT have failed to teach you that.
quote:
how does making more people unemployed during a recession make ANY economic sense whatsoever?
Ok before you go there please explain to me why we are in a recession to begin with, since I blame the gov't. And please give me a second to weep for our soldiers who will allegedly be out of a job (because you think they are too stupid to fend for themselves in the private market) instead of getting paid to die for apparently no reason whatsoever.

Yes it is easy to say that DARPA helped us with a, b and c, but it is impossible to show where we would be without it. It is like saying that thanks to Yoko Ono the rest of the Beatles are alive since they weren't together when John was shot. You can't know one way or the other. All you can know is what makes sense. And the current policies do not make sense on their face. Do you think we have an unlimited budget to throw at education? How do you know when we have spent enough? An attempted cultivation and adherence to a free market is the only way to come to a rational conclusion on the matter without infringing on economic or personal freedom.

And BTW, even if Ron Paul or someone like him that wants to (I know it is a crazy idea) defend the Constitution gets elected, I don't believe much will change. But he will be better at curbing the unfettered growth of the gov't substantially. He (ironically) is one of the people that believes that he shouldn't have as much power as you fear.

Trust me, you will do fine without your pacifier when you give it up.


By geddarkstorm on 12/9/2011 6:10:51 AM , Rating: 1
Freedom is taking personal responsibility. The more you tell the government to make choices for you and simply accept what it doles out, the less freedom you have.


By steven975 on 12/8/2011 1:53:03 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't call DC the richest area of the country.

Some parts of it certainly have rich people, but on a per-capita basis, the surrounding areas, especially VA are far richer.

Most of DC is a dump. The northwest portion is nice, but the east side is terrible.


"DC CAN"
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 12/8/2011 9:39:29 AM , Rating: 5
Since when??




RE: "DC CAN"
By Shig on 12/8/2011 11:09:39 AM , Rating: 2
It's really nice to see the richest city in the country getting the cheapest bandwidth.


RE: "DC CAN"
By Argon18 on 12/8/2011 11:43:00 AM , Rating: 1
I assume you meant that with a tone of sarcasm, (out of jealousy of course). The wealthiest areas have always had the newest and best stuff. It's pretty simple math. Here's how it works: They can afford it.

The poorest areas don't get high speed internet for the same reason they don't get a mass transit subway system. Do you really think the county gov't of East Bumfart, Kansas can afford to install a 100 Gigabit fiber optic network to service all the residents? Of course not.

Secondly, urban areas lend themselves better to these projects because of the density. When you've got a million people all living inside a dozen square miles, it makes financial sense to install something like that. In East Bumfart, you've got about 30 people living in that dozen square miles. It just doesn't make sense to install something like this outside of a dense urban area.


RE: "DC CAN"
By The Raven on 12/8/2011 12:52:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The wealthiest areas have always had the newest and best stuff. It's pretty simple math. Here's how it works: They can afford it.
You are right on, but it is where the wealth is coming from that is sickening.

It is like being mad that plantation owners in the south had all the nice houses and what not, because they were built off the backs of slaves. You wouldn't just say, "Well they are rich so they deserve those great houses."

This fiber is paid for by the DC taxpayers who can afford this kind of stuff because they get their money from taxpayers all over the country (directly via taxes and indirectly by lobbyists).

Get rid of the stranglehold of power in DC and you also get rid of lobbyists, graft and corruption there. Do that and the incomes of our legislators will drop and they will no longer be the first ones to market with this sort of thing.


RE: "DC CAN"
By Jeff7181 on 12/9/2011 12:22:37 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. If it costs a hundred million dollars to install this infrastructure they're going to install it in a place where it will service millions of people, not 14.

I suppose we should have government funded public transportation helicopters to air lift these mountain men out of their log cabins, 60 miles away to Best Buy so they can have Geek Squad clean all the malware off their PC after downloading multiple terabytes of porn at 100 Mbps with their new fiber to the premises government funded broadband.


DC->CAN->FLUSH
By MeesterNid on 12/8/2011 10:03:50 AM , Rating: 2
That'll make everything better




RE: DC->CAN->FLUSH
By The Raven on 12/8/2011 10:27:46 AM , Rating: 3
DC->CAN->shove a length of this fiber where the sun doesn't shine.


What will happen when...
By Rukkian on 12/8/2011 10:08:58 AM , Rating: 2
The cable companies and other last mile providers connect to this and still charge the same amount, pocketing the rest? Unless they are actually providing the end point connection, or fixing the price, this will only serve to further take my tax dollars and line the pockets of some execs to buy bigger houses.

I will beleive the "cheap broadband" when I see it!




RE: What will happen when...
By stardude692001 on 12/8/2011 12:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
very true. Even if it was cheap and you have a computer that can handle high speed internet you can pay more then 10 bucks a month. Even though I would probably benifit I don't not believe we should subsidize high speed porn.

For real speed you need fiber for that last mile but no one will put it in. I can see the high speed fiber hub for my local internet company from my roof but the best speed they offer is 3-4 megabytes


Government run broadband...
By dgingerich on 12/8/2011 11:32:53 AM , Rating: 2
We know where this will go. Eventually, probably in 2-4 years, it will get overly expensive to run because of too many administrators. Then the outages will get higher and higher because of incompetent people, hired because of people they knew, not their work ethic or skills, can't keep it together. Then, in 10 years, tax funds will be paying to keep it going even though nobody uses it. This will keep going for the next 100 years until someone says "what's this? Why are we spending money on this?" and things suddenly shift to political damage control.

nothing new under the sun...




RE: Government run broadband...
By Zaranthos on 12/8/2011 3:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
The government won't let this go to waste. Trust me, they really need this new speed to get the people work done. Now that Washington DC will be able to compete with internet speeds in California the government can really get some "work" done.
http://gawker.com/5501445/meet-the-high+ranking-se...


At the risk
By Shadowself on 12/8/2011 11:46:03 AM , Rating: 2
of sounding like the "640k is enough for anyone" crowd...

quote:
At this point, 24 community anchor institutions are already connected to the 100G network, such as schools and libraries. The city hopes to link at least 223 as the network grows.


A 100 Gbps link to a school or library is equivalent to 2,083 concurrent, different, independent Blu-ray HDTV (1080p60) streams. What school or library needs that today or in the near future?

Sure, in 10-20 years, 100 Gbps will seem like *nothing*. But why is anyone spending tax money TODAY in the current economic environment to build out a 100 Gbps network with that kind of access to schools or public libraries?




RE: At the risk
By The Raven on 12/8/2011 1:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But why is anyone spending tax money TODAY in the current economic environment to build out a 100 Gbps network with that kind of access to schools or public libraries?
Because it is DC, and DC will never run out of money. No responsibility to worry about.

As to the bandwidth observation, I think you are right. I also think that the next technology advance will be in making do with less bandwidth (e.g. lighter streams, tighter programming, etc.). Sure in the future we will need more bandwidth, but I think that we are going to hit a wall where we don't need 2160p streams because the TV won't be getting much bigger. (If anything maybe even smaller like those "tv glasses" that you see in BTTF2.) And the brain can only absorb so much information at one time. So the good news is that they probably won't have to upgrade this anytime soon lol.


When Wall Street and DC Collide
By The Raven on 12/8/2011 10:34:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"DC-CAN will help pave the way for greater broadband adoption across the District of Columbia, and I'm proud that we will be the first city in the United States to make such a forward-thinking investment in crucial technology infrastructure..."
...where not only can we stream HD content on Netflix and Vudu that our citizens can't live without, but now they can simultaneously p2p their rips of The Hurt Locker and Who's Nailin' Paylin?.




really? 100G that's it?
By cmdrdredd on 12/8/2011 10:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
100Gb is not enough. Try getting a million people hooked to the 100Gb line and all downloading or streaming a 1080p movie with 5.1 sound. It's not enough. They don't even talk caps...oh yes I can see it now. It's "free" but you get higher taxes to pay for it and then you will say "WHAT!?" then they'll tell you that you have to sign up for the premium plan which costs a separate monthly fee if you want more than say 100GB a month or whatever number.

Yeah, 100Gb is not enough and unless it's really, truly, 100% for sure unlimited with no caps it's a bad idea IMO.




"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser














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