Broadband Infrastructure Meeting Standing Room Only Agencies in charge of $7.2 billion begin process... Today the three federal agencies tasked with distributing the $7.2 billion in broadband stimulus funds held their first public meeting on broadband, before they begin doling the funds out next month. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the Department of Agriculture and the FCC held their meeting in a 500-seat auditorium at the Commerce Department that quickly filled to capacity according to the Wall Street Journal. Interim FCC boss Michael Copps celebrated the occasion, according to a transcript provided us by one attendee: Together we have been asking for years, where is the policy for broadband? Where is the action? Where's the national commitment? Where's the beef? The fact that we are here today talking about President Barack Obama's bringing broadband to all corners of the country should be evidence enough for everyone here if you need any more evidence that change has truly come to Washington. Of course that remains to be seen, since as every news outlet that's covering this notes, a lot of details have been left undefined (such as the definitions of "unserved" and "underserved,"). Most of the hard questions went unanswered today because the answers don't exist yet. In other words, lobbyists will be busy over the next few weeks trying to manage the particulars, while playing economic stimulus keep away from their competitors (and municipal broadband projects).
|
 | | hmmm Lots of people with their hands out I imagine... | |
| | | How about this proposal? Raise prices or tax people who already have broadband to pay for infrastructure rollouts for people who do not have broadband. I think this would be a great idea, if I did not have broadband already.
I wonder how much $ will be spent to wire alaska? | |
|  |  PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | Re: How about this proposal? said by hoyleysox:Raise prices or tax people who already have broadband to pay for infrastructure rollouts for people who do not have broadband. That would be the universal service fund  | |
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | How about we raise prices and taxes for the people who want service and don't have it so that they can pay for the needed infrastructure? Why do we always have to leap towards welfare tactics for the "havenots" to get something that others already have? | |
| | | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Re: How about this proposal? "Why do we always have to leap towards welfare tactics for the "havenots" to get something that others already have?"
Because the liberal think its the government's job to pay for everything, I mean look at the house stuff we will have to pay for $600,000 so people making $30,000-$40,000 a year can have them because they just want them and deserve them because they are American. When will people learn just because we are American or just because we r a live does NOT mean we deserve ANYTHING, we DON'T deserve ANYTHING if we want it we should HAVE to work for it.
I do not have access to cable or dsl, but if the dsl co said every1 on my road had to pay for the installation if we want it I would be fine with that, NO higher taxes though, just pay to have the whatever built, then the ISP stars using it, but they do not get any cash untill we finish building it. Now if the cableco thats near by wanted us to build it I would have a problem with that as it is comcast they have a cap and throttle, where as embarq(the local telco) has no cap or throttle, not if CC has a plan with no cap even if it a business plan(do they have one if any1 knows please tell me) I could live with the throttle alone and would pay for the thing to be built as long as NO money goes to the ISP untill we pay some1 to build it and we pay the builder NOT the ISP. | |
| | | | | | Re: How about this proposal? Problem is that people are WORKING for 'it'. Sorry, this seems like two separate issues being shoved together. I do not agree with entitlement either. | |
|
| |
| |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | Re: The internet and roads during the 1800's very similar. Both are great ideas. | |
| | | |  Frankis chillingPremium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere | Re: The internet and roads during the 1800's very similar. said by Mr Matt:I came from an area where until the 1900's most of the roads were privately owned turnpikes. Every major road was a toll road. Travelers had to pay to use the road. That is how our Internet System has evolved. I had to read that twice because for a second I thought you were from nj. But then I noticed the 'until the 1900's part'.
--
At first I thought everyone on the highway was drunk but then I realized I was driving in Florida | |
| | | |
| Mce SaintPremium
join:2007-10-03
Saint Louis, MO Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Yeah, but . . . uh, the internet wouldn't exist at all if not for the Government creating it (see, DARPA and Arpanet). Fact is the "private internet" essentially got handed a gold egg laying goose without having to ever pay for it.
I considered myself one of the unserved or underserved in broadband (only two "choices" mobile broadband or satellite).
And guess what, I already pay oodles in taxes. To the tune of about $35,000 in federal income taxes alone last year (2008). Part of those taxes will go to buy F-22 Raptor airplanes . . . for which I'm not sure I personally see much benefit (seeing that the Raptor hasn't been used in either Iraq or Afghanistan). If there's a benefit to me from buying more Raptors, it's a really, really indirect and intangible one.
So, I'm not sure that I find much objectionable to spending some of that tax money on things that benefit me more directly (even if it doesn't benefit you directly all that much) by rolling out TRUE broadband to more areas. The indirect benefit to you (or others who don't benefit directly) from deploying true broadband to those of us who don't have it is a bigger internet market - we underserveds will consume more broadband (meaning more media, music, movies, etc.) we'll watch more ads and shop for more stuff. Not only that, we might find new and productive ways to use the internet - ways *you* have not. Not all the "smart" people live in urban centers.
Growing the broadband pie means more pie will be sold to ALL of us. And growing the size of the pie is a legitimate concern for the Government.
I think that's an idea even conservatives can get behind. | |
| | | | | Re: The internet and roads during the 1800's very similar. It goes much further than that. The main infrastructure companies (i.e. AT&T) wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the government "incentives" and monopolies given to them to begin with to build even the original copper network. Therefore, the infrastructure is already owned by the public, we just forgot. | |
|
 Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 |  What happened at the meeting today
The kick-off public meeting to determine how two U.S. government agencies should spend about US$7 billion to improve broadband deployment across the nation produced more questions than answers.
...officials with agencies overseeing the programs, when asked how the programs would be structured, answered "we're not sure yet," or "we're seeking your input."
But officials with the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Rural Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, told the crowd they just beginning to work on details of much of the program, including a definition for "underserved".
The NTIA, which was allocated $4.7 billion for broadband programs in the economic stimulus bill, plans to give out three rounds of grants, with the first round coming between April and June, she said.
...RUS, with about $2.5 billion to allocate, will also have three rounds of grants and possibly loans, with a funding notice coming out within 60 to 90 days,...
...along with the FCC, will hold a series of public meetings this month to gather comments....
When the session got to Q&A, the predominant answer was "We will be looking in to that".
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | Re: What happened at the meeting today said by Romney2012:When the session got to Q&A, the predominant answer was "We will be looking in to that". I am glad we finally have someone with answers.
--
DSLr Mafia Member. | |
| | | | said by Romney2012:» tech.yahoo.com/news/pcworld/2009···nanswersBut officials with the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Rural Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, told the crowd they just beginning to work on details of much of the program, including a definition for "underserved".
Hopefully with their definition of "underserved" they should be looking into the consideration that broadband should meet some minimum requirements such as bandwidth, latency and usage.
Satellite is a long way from what many would consider to be broadband despite its availability. | |
| | | | And that's okay unless that's all they EVER do. Maybe they should be able to know what kind of questions should be asked so that they can be prepared to answer them. Eh, I don't trust the government to do anything right. | |
|
 repent
join:2007-04-05
Catlettsburg, KY | ..... I guess the US will NEVER get ahead of the game in broadband, this money will just go to CEO parties, and bonuses, while I have to settle for 1.5MB DSL, because I live 7 miles from town. What a joke. | |
| | Core0000Premium
join:2008-05-04
Somerset, KY Reviews:
 ·New Wave Communi..
| Re: ..... Hey that's pretty freaking good for that distance...
I live like a mile, maybe mile in a half, away from the phone company..next to several medium size businesses, and the best I can get is.. a lousy 2.5 megs.. down. I pay for 3..
sucks. | |
| | me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Atleast you got that I live 5(or less)mi from an town with DSL and I cannot get DSL only wireless. 512/128 for $45 | |
|
| |
|
|
·
·
The internet and roads during the 1800's very similar.
The government must understand that the Internet Network is privately owned by that ISP's and broadband service providers.