dslreports logo
 story category
$6 Billion Broadband Bill Retains Neutrality Language
Open access provision stays intact as bill moves along...for now...

As we noted the other day, $6 billion of the $825 Obama infrastructure investment bill will be going to broadband, primarily to existing loan organizations who focus on wiring the most rural areas. But buried in the language of the bill is a provision requiring any government subsidized networks adhere to "open access" conditions – the term left intentionally vague to be more specifically defined by the FCC within 45 days of passage. So far the provision lives on, early bill drafts this week passing muster before the House Appropriations Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

If the language survives, the neutrality provision may be defined by Commissioner Michael Copps, who was today assigned as the interim FCC boss by Obama, and whom has traditionally been very pro-network neutrality. The real test will be whether the language remains intact as the stimulus bill hits the House next week, where it will begin its run through the gauntlet of powerful telecom lobbyists (and the many, many lawmakers who love them). According to the Wall Street Journal, lobbyists from the wireless industry -- where 5GB caps and very restrictive EULAs are the norm -- are already pushing to have the language stripped from the bill.
quote:
CTIA, an association of wireless companies, sent a letter to committee leaders Wednesday asking that the "vague, undefined, and unnecessary 'open access' obligation" be removed. CTIA said carriers will be reluctant to apply for the grants if they are uncertain of their open access obligations.
It's unlikely that the network neutrality provision will survive a collective lobbyist assault by major landline and wireless ISPs. A passage of the language would be the most substantive rule covering network neutrality to date. Currently, the only rule protecting consumers from neutrality infringements is the FCC's network neutrality policy statement (pdf), which carriers have argued isn't legally enforceable. Comcast sued the FCC after the agency forced the cable company to be more transparent with its network management practices.
view:
topics flat nest 

Maynard G Krebs
@teksavvy.com

Maynard G Krebs

Anon

Let Obama veto it

Let Obama veto a bill that doesn't have the 'open access' provisions in it.

Once he veto's it, the companies will come back crawling on their hands and knees for the money and will accept a "new" bill with 'open access' conditions in it.
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Lees Summit, MO

me1212

Member

Re: Let Obama veto it

You are right, if they want government cash, from us, they don't get it unless they stop skrewing us over.
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

jc10098

Member

Re: Let Obama veto it

We shouldn't be giving any of these companies ONE DAMN DIME. Hell, if you figure the U.S. workforce is 150 million, EACH WORKING TAXPAYER already pissed away 4600 dollars in that 700 billion bailout. I'd rather this money went back to me, instead of some ASININE company that gave its CEOS 100 million dollar golden parachutes, ran itself into the ground, and then is on the brink of collapsing. By all means, let these guys go. It'd serve as a lesson to other companies there will be NO FREE RIDE for bad decisions. Instead, tweedle dee and tweddle dumb (Republicans and Democrats) bailed out these morons. Now, we're going to give them more. I'm sick of both of these parties quite frankly. Not that a new one would be any better, they'd become what we despise. What we really need are Americans to speak up and let these MORONS know their votes are on the line for each and every stupid action they do. Politicians understand one word, and one word alone. Re-Election. Holding them accountable for their choices, is the only way washington is ever going to change.

jazzy_
join:2004-01-27
Charleston, SC

1 recommendation

jazzy_

Member

Re: Let Obama veto it

And that's why our current tax system is so great. Because the top earning 2% pay 95% of all our taxes. Therefore we don't all pay $4600 the average earners share is pennies compared to what the wealthy foot.
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

jc10098

Member

Re: Let Obama veto it

Jazzy, that may or may not be true.. but figuring that someone who has been paying taxes for a year or more has put in their 4600 easily. Figuring someone who makes 30,000 a yr is taxed at the 25 percent rate, that's 7500 in taxes. So yes, I think we should get our 4600 dollars back. The rich might pay more, as they make more. 25 percent of 30,000 = 7500. 25 percent of 100,000 = 25,000. That's simple logic. The point being is that even middle earners have DUTIFULLY paid the portion that went STRAIGHT to these companies. Matter of fact, they shouldn't have seen a dime, as I said. They made bad decisions and WE SHOULD NOT be the one's left to foot the bill for them. Plain and simple.

jazzy_
join:2004-01-27
Charleston, SC

jazzy_

Member

Re: Let Obama veto it

I don't really care to see our tax dollars being given to these corporations either. But I would like to see something as essential as internet access provided to all Americans.

As far as progress for our society goes use of the internet is up there with clean fresh water and electricity in my opinion. It opens up a whole world of opportunity for people and helps increase our overall knowledge.

I wouldn't mind seeing a strong set of limitations set on the use of this stimulus money. You're right that protections should be in place to prevent this money being wasted.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 recommendation

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Let Obama veto it

said by jazzy_:

I don't really care to see our tax dollars being given to these corporations either. But I would like to see something as essential as internet access provided to all Americans.
PROVIDED ... or "accessible" to all American? Please clarify that statement becuase as you have written it, you are making it sound like a hand out.
As far as progress for our society goes use of the internet is up there with clean fresh water and electricity in my opinion. It opens up a whole world of opportunity for people and helps increase our overall knowledge.
Some can argue that in many ways. On one hand, Cable/Pay television could be considered the same for the betterment of society or a necessity.. additionally, it can be said that the internet only opens up opportunity for those that chose to use it that way. There are still FAR more people out there that use it for socializing only which doesn't better anything. The internet is what you make of it. And, to be honest, the internet is already available to everyone.. what you are talking about is making at available in your home. One can go to the library and use the internet, and if it's not available in the stix, they can move to the city where the population is centered. IOW, there are more than set of arguments for the 'internet'.. But, I do agree that it's a "VALUABLE" tool for those that use it.
I wouldn't mind seeing a strong set of limitations set on the use of this stimulus money. You're right that protections should be in place to prevent this money being wasted.
The EASIEST way to set up the stimulation money is not to have it at all. The government is picking and choosing whom IT feels deserves being bailed out. The politicians are taking money out of my and every American's pocket that ever paid taxes and giving to to others with out our consent.

The BEST way to stimulate the economy, and with out abuse, is simple. STOP COLLECTING TAXED FOR 3 MONTHS! In this period of time, about a trillion dollars would be doled out to wager earners and small/medium businesses a like. (Not bad to have an extra few hundred dollars a month for a few months eh?) This is trick UP economics, the way it SHOULD be. Initially, every tax payer and business included would immediately be placing that money in where.. the bank! This gives the banking system an immediate flush of cash they didn't have before. The consumer now has a few extra hundred dollars in which to spend, which stimulates consumption, sales taxes, etc. Business will see an influx of cash, and the consumer will feel more confident. Banks will have more money and should be able to start lending again. This will start to spur the need for production, and less people will be losing their jobs.

Meanwhile as all of this is happening, the government can STILL print their fake money to run itself and pay its own bills. If they can print it and give it to business, they can print it for themselves, right? Meanwhile, there is no need to figure out the best way to spend money in the stimulus or how to be fair. They don't have to worry about non-tax payers getting money they didn't earn, no arguments on if people who don't deserve the money get it.. the system would very much be guaranteed to spark up, and quick! Further, the argument can be made that people will just put the money in the bank and save it... which, is NOT a bad thing! In this case, the banks STILL win becuase now they have liquid funds in which to lend with again.

Either way, this is a win-win situation and removes government involvement at the consumer / business end.

This is the best way to avoid "waste" and if the government wants to print money in order to improve infrustructure, then for THAT, I'm all for it as EVERYONE benefits from that. We ALL benefit from bridges, roads, better internet, etc.

I really don't know why this is so difficult. Regan thought that trickle down was the way.. and people applaud him to this day. However, they don't realize that we're in this mess today PARTLY from it. MY system is trickle UP, the way it SHOULD be. We should tax consumption, not productivity. Since an INCREDIBLE portion of the country's economy is consumer based, I never understood how trickle down worked.

That's my plan.. and, oh, in the spirit of this site, I think I'll patent it so when the feds finally figure it out, I can sue them for some of the fake money they're printing.. all before Obama fixed the patent loop holes.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

funchords

MVM

Re: Let Obama veto it

said by fiberguy2:

The BEST way to stimulate the economy, and with out abuse, is simple. STOP COLLECTING TAXED FOR 3 MONTHS! In this period of time, about a trillion dollars would be doled out to wager earners and small/medium businesses a like.
Wow ... that's actually brilliant and simple.
Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN

Pv8man

Member

Re: Let Obama veto it

Hmm, you may be on to something.

But if that happens. you would also have to call a spending freeze for all or most things for almost 3 months as well.

FastiBook
join:2003-01-08
Newtown, PA

FastiBook to jc10098

Member

to jc10098
The bailout funds will be returned plus interest. why are people so confused about this? It isn't a check you never get back, it's a short term investment aimed at helping financial system rebound. Stop being uneducated about policy.

- A
jc10098
join:2002-04-10

jc10098

Member

Re: Let Obama veto it

WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. Did you see the 8 billion the government has touted as making? It's paper money. That 8 billion, according to the accountant, was a MISTAKE on his part. It wasn't actual profit, but a return of the money that was lent. The government called this a GAIN, even though it was paid back some of the ORIGINAL money. We won't see a dime back. If you believe we're going to profit as tax payers, I got a bridge in New York to sell you. 10,000 dollars and the Brooklyn Bridge is yours!
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY

tmc8080

Member

provisions..

I don't think any money should go to those companies for whom think it's alright to limit access to 250gb and use node throttling, and content filtering as anti upgrade solutions for it's customer base (I'm thinking of 2 companies in particular). Why reward these companies for delaying the inevitable upgrade of their sytems in lieu of a government handout? It just makes no sense. In this effort that may favor telcos for getting a majority of the money. I'm still convinced that hungry 3rd party companies and/or municpal governments where applicable should have first dibbs on niche unserved or underserved markets.

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ

fifty nine

Member

Write your reps

Please write your representatives to support open access. Grassroots may not have the money to defeat big monopolies like comcast, but we sure have the numbers.
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

axus

Member

Yeah right

I can't recall any examples of a business leaving government money on the table. More likely is that they take the money and then do whatever they please, and leave the obligations for future shareholders to fulfil.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Only $2.8 B have the open access provisions

The Energy and Commerce Committee approved rules for just the Commerce Department grants, which total more than $2.8 billion. The USDA grants carry few criteria and appear to be aimed at ensuring that some type of mobile voice or basic Internet service is available even in the most remote areas.
I doubt the major network providers(AT&T, Verizon, & Comcast) will accept money with those strings attached by the Commerce Dept. But they would accept money from the USDA.

DataRiker
Premium Member
join:2002-05-19
00000

1 edit

DataRiker

Premium Member

Re: Only $2.8 B have the open access provisions

Well first of all "only 2.8" is about half of 6 and not a small amount at all.

Second, it seems you take joy in knowing about 3 billion dollars is going to be evaporated into corporate bonuses.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

1 recommendation

fiberguy2 to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
TK, one thing that I have a feeling we're going to see over the next 4 years is going to be unlike business as usual in the past.

Like or hate Obama, one thing I have already been sure of about him is that he's got interest in putting common sense back into government. While he may not be able to do things single handedly, he can make it very clear to the public what our reps/senators are doing and expose the behind closed doors business.

Like you mentioned, the "going to the USDA" to get the money.. I think Obama is pretty sharp. I have a feeling that he's going to look at a lot of the pork, waste, and sloppy open loop holes and close them. The man seems to be pretty on top of many things. If he knows the USDA is a work around, he gives me the impression that he'd close that for sure.

I'm so far pretty impressed with the guy. The other day when Biden made the joke about memory at the expense of John Roberts, you could, in the slow motion replay of that moment, see Obama damn near want to kill Biden for making that joke. That's one example.. but seriously, so far, I'm impressed by the man. (Not too keen on the rush to close Gitmo the way he is, but realize it's time to do something about that place too)

So.. let's see. I'm willing to give the new President a chance to show the people what he can do. While many call the man an incredibly left leaning liberal, so far, he's playing in the center of the road. I think he may likely do one thing that many other haven't and that is TOTALLY embarrass the media and demonstrate (if he does in fact play in the middle) that all the air they blew about him, and how liberal he is, was nothing but hot fluff to instill fear.

I really do hope Obama thinks of Country first, party second. If he does, there may be a chance in restoring public confidence in the government.

We'll have to see. Either way, I think its going to be an interesting 100 days ahead.

cornelius785_nli
@verizon.net

cornelius785_nli

Anon

rural wiring?

as long as best wired portions of the country for fiber isn't the middle of f'ing nowhere (aka extreme rural) i won't have any problems with the bill. i'll real pissed to find out that lots of rural locations(4000) are being place well before more densely (15,000+) populated areas.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: rural wiring?

You take care of RURAL first with out services.. THEN you move to areas that already have access to the internet. Take the word FIBER out of your complaint there. The idea is to get people connected, not really upgraded first. Those that have internet already need to have it first.. and since it doesn't have it, doing fiber right away is only smart.

I do think it's hilarious that you're now trying to compare 4,000 to 15,000.. and how 15,000 people are more deserving that others.. that's just WAY too funny. That's a "me! me! me first!!" .. I thought that went away in grade school. It would be a little different if we were talking about a city center of about 80,000 people vs 4,000 people.. then I'd support your argument.
a1_Andy
Premium Member
join:2005-12-29
Oshawa, ON

1 edit

a1_Andy

Premium Member

Don't deviate

Hammer out the open access conditions. I would prefer no throttle, no shaping allowed reasonable 400+ GB daily caps so that people get what they pay for.
But at they same time, I see what Id10t errors can lead to in support costs. "I'm sorry the fact that your watching a streaming movie, downloading with bitorrent and trying to surf the web on your computer at the same time is making your internet seem slow. $60 for this call please." We can add more arguments to that, [agent]> "your wireless home network is broken please reboot your computer and router [customer]> "whats a router?" How hard is that?
VERY.
Were do we draw the line? The 10/1 ISP business model is dead. Customer support needs upgrading. The best way to charge the idiots is to bill them, then the good customers and the ISP will be happy.
sorry I will not fix your f^$*ing computer for just your monthly internet cost.

Edit; What I was trying to say is ISP's could spend it in the right place's. (instead of lawyers and Lobbyist)
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Don't deviate

said by a1_Andy:

Edit; What I was trying to say is ISP's could spend it in the right place's. (instead of lawyers and Lobbyist)
Not as long as you have idiot customers looking to sue the company, at their own fault and stupidity, in the first place. Any idea how many times an idiot customer that doesn't understand that they only buy internet access, nothing more, gets upset when they can't connect to the internet? .. and then complains when the company says "I can connect to your modem so please take a computer off the router, go direct to the modem" and doesn't want to? Any idea how many "expert/advanced" users won't reboot their modem becuase they are "far more advanced that the idiot minimum wage person on the phone" and refuse to do it, when many times that reboot actually fixes the problem?

No.. the attorney is much needed for the very reason that the consumer will always blame the provider for everything and is always seeking to recoup alleged damages.. with out definitions defined, the company would be open to every idiot looking to get paid.

Lobbyist, to SOME degree, are in fact important to the business as well. A business has a right to defend its interest too. However, the lobbyist often goes WAY too far. What many people forget, in their self driven hatred, is that companies have rights as much as the consumer.

I will agree that sometimes they cross the line a little too far when they don't need to.
tarpon
join:2004-01-07
San Jose, CA

tarpon

Member

If they build it

Does anyone see the obvious waste of money in the giant pork bill? Who says the most remote even want broadband, or would even use it?

This whole pork laden bill is a waste of another trillion of your children's money. It is not stimulus and will not stimulate anything. Even the CBO said as much.

Well, maybe not stimulate jobs, it will stimulate inflation that's for sure. Where do you think the government gets the money?

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Hooray For Change

Deficit spending is now officially cool again!
58483323 (banned)
Gurt me
join:2003-06-23
Normal, IL

58483323 (banned)

Member

Re: Hooray For Change

No.. that was made cool by Bush, who created the largest deficit in American history.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Hooray For Change

said by 58483323:

No.. that was made cool by Bush, who created the largest deficit in American history.
So why is Obama trying to top it?

Wasn't Obama all about change? This is more of the same. The same Democrats who rightfully whined about the deficits run up by the Bush regime now are rubber stamping the same spending requested by Obama.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Hooray For Change

Pnh.. wait a cotton pickin' second..

History shows that democrats tend to balance the budget while republicans deficit spend. That is a fact.

You're being VERY disingenuous or simply ignorant to the facts here when you stated "Why is Obama trying to top it?"... are you serious? What is he supposed to do? He was handed more than a turd.. he was handed the septic tank as well!

He could certainly hold a yard sale and sell off art work in the white house to raise money.. he could do a raffle.. lottery.. or a bunch of charity dinners and set the U.S. people up as the beneficiary charity.. So really.. what's he to do?

The funny thing is how they are/were fighting over the new treasury secretary.. in the end, it didn't matter did it? .. there's no money for him!

So, to fix the problem, he has to spend.. that is how you spur growth. The other solution is to suspend tax collection and let the people have money to spend and spur the economy. However, the gov still needs to operate and pay bills.. so even in that case, the treasury would have to print more fake money to pay IT'S bills.

I think you're going WAY overboard to slam Obama on "Change" when he CLEARLY is making change. Did you not see him freeze salaries of those making 100K or more? WOW! Ever seen that happen? He would freeze his own as well, but congress has control of that. Who knows, he might do that as well. He's already, as a so-called "ultra left wing liberal" with "the most liberal record", reaching across the isle to BOTH parties and work for the country, not the party. He's made that clear.

I am NOT a democrat, and I am NOT a republican.. I am a libertarian, and not a republican trying to, once again, hijack something to mask their true identity as many republicans are doing. I guess that means I'm able to make my own mind up.. and in this case, my mind hasn't been made.. but what I see so far of the man, he's making MOSTLY good effort/decisions to start to move the country.

AND, what you ALSO forget is that MUCH of this recession was driven by fear and doubt as well as loss of faith in government. Right now, 78% of the country approve of him and believe in him. Are you not clear or able to understand that right there, alone, he's got the public on his side? .. and that alone will instill faith into the public so they will stop sitting on money and spend a little bit again?

The man has all the right ingredients to make a FAIRLY quick recovery.. the thing is, will he mix them together in the right amounts to make a good American Apple Pie again?

To be honest, I think Obama will wind up putting the country back on the right track.. who he is NOT going to bring on board are the far, EXTREME FAR right wing of America.. but that's only a given. Just as the ultra far left, they're never going to be happy unless it's 100% their way. So, unless you are FAR right or FAR left, I think it's too soon for you to be bashing anything. (not to mention, I thought the right didn't believe in bashing the leader of the country.. so don't start now)

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Re: Hooray For Change

said by fiberguy2:

History shows that democrats tend to balance the budget while republicans deficit spend. That is a fact.
Except Obama isn't "history." He is the president now. I fail to see how spending even more money that we don't have when we are in the hole $10 trillion is going to do anything to reduce our national debt. Obama's budget deficit is set to be the biggest in history, far bigger than any budget deficit set under Bush.
said by fiberguy2:

You're being VERY disingenuous or simply ignorant to the facts here when you stated "Why is Obama trying to top it?"... are you serious?
How am I being disingenuous or ignorant? The Democrats' economic stimulus plan will cost at least $850 billion. They themselves have said this.
said by fiberguy2:

What is he supposed to do? He was handed more than a turd.. he was handed the septic tank as well!
Perhaps he needs to put a halt to the reckless borrow-and-spend policies of the past 8 years.
said by fiberguy2:

He could certainly hold a yard sale and sell off art work in the white house to raise money.. he could do a raffle.. lottery.. or a bunch of charity dinners and set the U.S. people up as the beneficiary charity.. So really.. what's he to do?
These are not bad ideas either.
said by fiberguy2:

The funny thing is how they are/were fighting over the new treasury secretary.. in the end, it didn't matter did it? .. there's no money for him!
So we should just roll over and let an idiot who can't even do his own taxes right run the Treasury and by extension, the IRS? Of course given how Charlie Rangel and Al Franken, to name a few, have had significant tax problems in the past I can "see" why the current Treasury Secretary nominee is "qualified." I have to hand it to Obama though, he managed to find the one person who is even less qualified than Hank Paulson to run the Treasury. That takes talent.
said by fiberguy2:

So, to fix the problem, he has to spend.. that is how you spur growth.
That's silly. We've been spending and spending and spending even more and more and more money and it hasn't done anything to spur growth.
said by fiberguy2:

The other solution is to suspend tax collection and let the people have money to spend and spur the economy. However, the gov still needs to operate and pay bills.. so even in that case, the treasury would have to print more fake money to pay IT'S bills.
Why not cut government spending and reduce taxes? It has worked in the past and will work again now.
said by fiberguy2:

I think you're going WAY overboard to slam Obama on "Change" when he CLEARLY is making change. Did you not see him freeze salaries of those making 100K or more?
Saving a few tens of thousands of dollars on raises is far offset by spending close to a trillion dollars of money we do not have.
said by fiberguy2:

He's already, as a so-called "ultra left wing liberal" with "the most liberal record", reaching across the isle to BOTH parties and work for the country, not the party. He's made that clear.
LOL. On what major pieces of legislation did Obama "cross the aisle?" Obama's liberal record is well documented. There's no disputing it.
said by fiberguy2:

Right now, 78% of the country approve of him and believe in him.
I find that hard to believe considering that 47% of the country did not vote for him.
said by fiberguy2:

The man has all the right ingredients to make a FAIRLY quick recovery..
Again, deficit spending by government will never work to stimulate the economy. It never has, it never will. If it did, we'd have the world's strongest, fastest growing and most robust economy right now because we spend so much.
said by fiberguy2:

(not to mention, I thought the right didn't believe in bashing the leader of the country.. so don't start now)
I thought "dissent was patriotic."
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2

Premium Member

Re: Hooray For Change

All of your response doesn't matter since you evaded the one simple question I posed to you.. and YES, the past DOES matter.

Bush came into office and complained that he was handed a turd of an economy.. even thought we actually had a surplus. I won't even get into what I think Bush did right or wrong or what happened on his watch.. even thought the buck stopped with him.

However, as I said.. HOW do you expect Obama, who JUST took over, to get things going again? You're a republican, you should get this.. it TAKES MONEY to MAKE MONEY.

You said that "OBAMA'S DEFICIT" is expected to be the biggest. Dude, again, I didn't think republican's smoked pot, so why are you? Obama hasn't spent a dime yet. You're prejudging the man who's asking to spend about 1 trillion.. take a guess at how much Bush has spent? We're about 10 trillion in the hole, right? So far, by my counts, and well, EVERYONE'S count.. that's all him buddy. When Obama pushes up past about 19 trillion, and we have a for-sale sign on the white house and the rest of the countries assets, then we'll talk about the deficit. (seriously. I can't stop laughing at that one)

Dude, let me say thing, you're a party liner, we get it. MOST intelligent people also know that party lines get you no where. So do us a favor and take it to the red room.

You're no better than Fox news and their fear mongering "news" reporting and telling everyone that the world will end if Obama takes the office. You have NO idea what he's going to do yet, just as we didn't know when Bush took over. I don't care to talk about What-if's in politics becuase it hasn't happened. That's the job of an analysist to which you are not.

And, as for cutting spending and reducing taxes.. it's worked in the past huh? Show me the same conditions as we face today, that were in the past, where that worked and we'll talk. (It makes great talking points though.. ) Some of you people think that we only have a few conditions that the country can be in.. well, I'm here to tell you you're wrong. The reason why we don't get out of some of these messes is becuase people, such as yourself, enjoy looking to the past for the answer. Such as "Well, when we had X going on Regan did Y" .. Guess what.. it didn't work well for Regan, it was a quick fix.. much of what we're seeing today is a direct result of Regan's destined to fail policies carried on through Bush 43. The economy is not as SIMPLE as you'd like to think it is.. yet, you're trying to apply a simple approach. Good job.

You're attempt to mock everything that is going on as trivial actually makes me want to vomit, among other things, but I'll be nice. Your piss poor attitude is part of the reason why this country is in the shitter. You sit here and trivialize him freezing salaries? Are you really that ignorant to how things work in a society? I guess when times are tough, and we all have to make "sacrafices" cutting and freezing salaries is "no big deal" .. it's "jst a few dollars".. go rent the movie "Dave." Cutting has to come all around.. it adds up.. you yourself said "cut spending".. well, buddy, what do you think government jobs are? Charity?!

I'm going to simply end my reply with the very same BS that your republican party did in 2000, 2002, and 2004.. YOU LOST THE ELECTION.. get over it, move on.

78% of the people do approve of him.. even Fox News surveys state that.. you believe what you want.. okay?

Your desire to push talking points to do interest/amuse me.

I'm simply going to say it now.. you're an ultra right wing nut job who gets his rocks off on being ignorant for a few laughs. The man just took office and you're already bashing the man.. I thought you Republican's had more decorum than that.. yet you play the same Fing games as you say the dems do. Maybe it's time for you to just grow up and get a life... and realize that it's people like you that are the problem. I mean seriously, I'd say FAR more to you here, right now, but the mods are already going to have a field day with my post.. and trust me, I'm holding WAY back.. becuase people like you disgust me. Even your own party doesn't agree with you right now.. grow up. You lost for good reasons.

n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY

n2jtx

Member

Just Give Them The Money

[SARCASM]
Just give them the money with no strings attached so that in six months the politicians can all shake their head and wonder where the money went and why nothing has changed. This will also allow the telecoms to give sorely needed bonuses to their top-level executives, all paid for by the taxpayers. Then they can have hearings and blue ribbon investigation panels but ultimately vote to give even more money to the companies hoping they will "get it right" this time. After all, by doing it this way, our elected officials give the appearance of doing something without really doing anything at all!
[/SARCASM]

marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO

marigolds

MVM

How much goes to broadband?

Of the commerce provisions, $1B goes to voice wireless and wireless broadband, with a minimum of 25% going to voice wireless in unserved areas. $1.825B goes to basic broadband in unserved areas and advanced broadband in underserved areas, with a minimum of 25% going to basic broadband. Unserved areas get a priority.
Of that $1B and $1.825B split, up to 20% can be transferred between the programs. That means $565M can be transferred from the broadband program to the wireless program.
Worst case scenario for broadband? $1.565B goes to voice wireless in underserved areas. $0 goes to wireless broadband. $1.26B goes to basic broadband. $0 goes to advanced broadband.
This is what happens if there is at least $1.565B in eligible voice grants applications and $1.26B in eligible basic broadband applications because of the way priorities are structured in the bill.

TiredAmerican
@charter.com

TiredAmerican

Anon

Net Neutrality and all the other fears

Net Neutrality is a fancy phrase that says "we don't have enough stinking bandwidth" to let all traffic flow at the same speed.
I agree, raise the bandwidth requirements to 100Mbs up and 100Mbps down and you don't have any "Net Neutrality" argument.

OH YEAH, I forgot. if you choke off access points with DSL or some derivative of DSL, then you can keep traffic down to a minimum. Come on Washington, make up your mind which side of your mouth you want to talk from