Santa Rosa, CA
Bravo for uncovering bogus "interest" groups Well done Karl!
Clearly, we do need competition. It's amazing that so many people don't understand how important competition is.
| || |said by baineschile:At one time, celluar service was regulated by the government. There was a requirement that there be an "A" and "B" system in every market. The "A" system company could NOT have any interest in the local wireline service. The "B" system could have an interest in the local wireline service. Lease rates were also regulated so the "B" system couldn't out price the "A" on the same connections. In my area, the "A" system was Celluar One and the "B" system was Bell Atlantic Mobile.
But should competition be subsidized by the government? Thats a step towards socialization.
Personally, if I started an ISP, i would target areas that would cost me the least amount to wire, with the most amount of homes passed (potential customers). The answer to this? Cities!...and densley populated suburbs around those cities.
Rural living and city living both have advantages and disadvantages; you dont see a lot of competition in any industry in small towns (one walmart, 2 or so chain restruants). Why should broadband be different?
Sometimes mandated competition is a good thing.
| |said by baineschile:Oh god you people and your fears of a socialized USA.
But should competition be subsidized by the government? Thats a step towards socialization.
A) take off the tin foil hat Chicken Little
B) guess what we already have socialisation with SOCIAL security, Medicaid, Medicare etc. And guess what for most Americans those programs have always existed yet you still think the USA is free, right? You still think it's the greatest nation on earth, right? Wait, how can that be, there's socialization?
C) it's 2009 not 1989 the big mean commies aren't coming to invade us.
| |RadioDocPremium,ExMod 2000-03Reviews:
La Grange, IL
Re: Bravo for uncovering bogus "interest" groups
said by FFH:Well put.
Bravo for uncovering bogus "interest" groups. You mean like Public Knowledge? Brodsky wants a big chunk of that $350 million for his own organization
Re: Bravo for uncovering bogus "interest" groups Just so you know, I wrote my first story about Connected Nation more than a year ago, long before there was any thought about a need for the stimulus. see »www.publicknowledge.org/node/1334
I've done several more stories since, which you are free to examine at your leisure.
Supporters of "Public Knowledge?" Art, you might want to publish a list of Public Knowledge's contributors here -- preferably the one from your 2008 Form 990 -- so that folks know which corporations you are lobbying for.
| |wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
New York, NY
Re: Pot Meet Kettle
said by pnh102:Do you mean to imply that flushing trillions of dollars down the toilet is somehow bad??
The pork bill itself is a con.
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
PK has been trashing Connected Nation for years Public Knowledge -- an inside-the-Beltway lobbying organization funded by GoogleClick -- has long been trashing Connected Nation without good reason and merely seems to be continuing this vendetta (see »blog.apt.org/my_weblog/2008/01/d···-co.html for a history) with this latest salvo. Above all, it says, it doesn't want Connected Nation to do broadband mapping because it might keep some providers' private data, well, private.
Theres a good reason why ISPs especially small, rural, and competitive ISPs do not want precise maps of their coverage areas published: it enables anticompetitive tactics. Given detailed information about competitors coverage areas and sites (especially wireless ISPs towers), large incumbent carriers can precisely target anticompetitive tactics (e.g. predatory pricing, long term "lock in" contracts, etc.) at the areas which competitors serve, while not losing money on other areas. And since our countrys current broadband policy does nothing to aid these competitors in any way, theyre vulnerable. Want a duopoly? Gather competitive intelligence, at government expense, for the big guys who will use it to wipe out all competitors. On the other hand, if you want users to have a choice of providers, or to foster the deployment of broadband to unserved or underserved areas, youll advocate exactly what "Connected Nation" does: map the general coverage areas but aggregate the information so that it cannot be used to harm competition. And keep the detailed, sensitive information that providers can't risk publishing under NDA. It just makes sense, and it's the only way to ensure that providers will be able to fully cooperate with a mapping effort.
Municipal broadband is a bad idea. Usually, it favors a single carrier and disadvantages the others. (The fiber project in Powell, Wyoming is a good example; it locked competition out for 10 years, making it unlikely that our ISP will ever serve that city.) And municipal wireless is even worse, because it takes over the radio spectrum and actively jams the signals of private providers who are trying to offer coverage. Government should encourage the development of broadband, but it has no business competing unfairly with private businesses.
Too Bad For Them I live in downtown Chicago because I want the fastest internet in the region. I pay the highest taxes in the country, breathe dirty air, have miserably cold weather, and potholes up the ass. However, I choose to put up with all that because I want the fastest internet possible.
Why should my hard earned money go to subsidize people who choose to live in rural areas. They have fresh air, peace & quiet, plenty of space, serene views, and the list goes on. If these rural Americans want fast internet, they need to pay whatever it costs to get it, so long as it doesn't cost me ANYTHING!
Re: An accurate census must always rely on confidentiality.
said by Calvin489167 :Maybe so that you could move there and avoid "the highest taxes in the country... dirty air... miserably cold weather, and potholes up the ass?"
Why should my hard earned money go to subsidize people who choose to live in rural areas.
| |marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
Saint Louis, MO
Mapping broadband $350M. Every parcel in American: $200M ESRI, the premier mapping software company in the nation, AKA the Microsoft of GIS, released a white paper detailing how every parcel in the country could be mapped for $200M. Every parcel. That's a very significant development for real estate and construction.
(Other links have since been pulled since the proposal was rejected.)
We could do a comprehension elevation, hydrology, cadastral, transportation, land cover, and boundary map for $1.2B. That's six major layers down to meter resolution.
And it's going to cost $350M to map broadband down to not even km resolution?
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
Geographic Information Science researcher
| |radiowebstBrian Webster
National Broadband availability a simple solution to mapping
The 350 million dollars allocated for a national broadband mapping is way more than necessary. Read through this message to get an idea of the issue and examine the attached maps to see what we are dealing with using any particular level of mapping detail. This is obviously just my opinion but one worth consideration.
Zip Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTA Polygons)
Census Block Groups
I have attached map images of Tom Green County, Texas with the different polygons the Census Bureau uses in their demographic tabulations. I chose this county because it seems to be a decent cross section of rural America but also has a high population density area.
Here are the raw numbers, but you need to look at the attached images to see how the totals can be deceiving when compared to the map:
Zip Code Tabulation areas = 13 Polygons (These polygons are made up by the Census Bureau, the post office does not create zip code polygons, zip codes are linear routing for them)
The FCC already has this data collected using the Form 477.
Census Tracts = 23 Polygons (look in the rural areas outside San Angelo to see that they are actually much bigger than the zip code areas)
This is the level of reporting required on the new Form 477.
Census Block Groups = 101 Polygons
Census Blocks = 5241 Polygons (even in the rural areas these are much smaller than Tracts or Zip Codes). Blocks are the most granular level studied by the Census.
The problem with the FCC data in the current state is, if there is just one single customer reported as served in a polygon, they show the whole area as being served by broadband. We know the number of households in each of the polygons (Census 2000 Figures). If the FCC totaled the number of subscribers for all form 477 respondents (by zip code) and then divided that by the total households, we could have a percentage of the households served within each polygon. This would be much better than an all or nothing reporting method. This would also not cost anywhere near 350 million dollars to report broadband availability to the public. If the total subscribers was aggregated by all carriers (removing the data for Satellite Internet), you would not know the specific totals for each provider, thus preserving private information.
Just thought I would post this for all to see and become familiar with the issue.