California Releases Broadband Status ReportMost wired State in the union still has major gaps... ( old news - 02:36PM Friday Jan 18 2008) tags: coverage · bandwidth · statsIn the lead up to the last State elections, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made broadband a central campaign platform and signed an executive order aimed at making California a broadband powerhouse. Among the improvements proposed by the order was the creation of a new task force that would advise the Governator on all things broadband. The panel consists of individuals from both the public and private sector. One of the task force's jobs was to get out into the State and map broadband penetration, and then provide solutions. Today the California Broadband Task Force released their findings. According to the group, California leads the nation in broadband penetration with 96% of the State able to get broadband. About half of all Californians have access to 10Mbps bandwidth -- primarily in urban areas as you might expect. Those findings put many States to shame, but unfortunately they still found a large gap between the State's haves and have-nots. The study found that 1.4 million rural Californians lack broadband of any kind, and barely more than half of all Californians have adopted broadband at home. The study found that only 24 percent of California households with incomes under $25,000 subscribe to broadband. The task force's solution to California broadband gaps came in the form of a seven step process: • Build out high-speed broadband infrastructure to all Californians
• Develop model permitting standards and encourage collaboration among providers
• Increase the use and adoption of broadband and computer technology
• Engage and reward broadband innovation and research
• Create a statewide e-health network
• Leverage educational opportunities to increase broadband use
• Continue state-level and statewide leadership Each one of these proposed steps is broken down in more detail in the task force's 84-page final report (pdf) for those interested. Among the suggestions to help fund deployment was the issuing of "broadband bonds," the creation of a "California Advanced Services Fund" to subsidize rollouts, and the allowance of localities to deploy service if the private sector does not deploy service to a particular region.
Related:- The FCC's Rose-Colored Broadband Glasses
- Global Data on Caps, Speeds & Prices
- European Study Says 8 EU Countries Top U.S. In Broadband
- New Broadband Data Shows U.S. To Be Thoroughly Mediocre
- Broadband Infrastructure Investment Would Have Ten Fold Payoff
- Investors Review Positive U-Verse Developments
- Report Issued on State-by-State Internet Speeds
- Massachusetts Signs New Broadband Law
|
 
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
edit:
January 18th, @02:21PM
| wow I think for Cali having a middle of the road guy at the helm it sure is doing pretty good! Can we just move California's government to Washington and let the governator fix everything? LOL oh yeah thats right he's from Austria... | |
|  | 
jhawk44
join:2006-10-19
USA | Re: wow NO WAY while I appreciate his broadband policies, I don't want the rest of Cali in the whole US. Let the nuts contain themselves in the Golden State, lol. | |
| | 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| said by Jerm  :I think for Cali having a middle of the road guy at the helm it sure is doing pretty good! Not quite. The fiscal situation in California is now worse than it was before Ahnuld took over.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | | | | The Way Out
join:2003-01-20 | Re: wow Yup. After Ahnuld came around, my UC college tuition shot up over 125%. I even got retroactively billed for quarters where government funding fell through.  | |
| | | | | 
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA | Re: wow LOL, ECONOMY SONS! | |
| | | | Samwoo
join:2002-02-15
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
edit:
January 20th, @06:09AM
| I hear that the sate can't actually collect much property tax (compared to their value). I hear they can't raise them over a certain percent yearly assuming that the property isn't sold.
hmmmmmm.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California···_(1978))
»www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A
The "full cash value" means the county assessor's
valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 tax bill under
"full cash value" or, thereafter, the appraised value of real
property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership
has occurred after the 1975 assessment
...
The full cash value base may reflect from year to year the
inflationary rate not to exceed 2 percent for any given year or
reduction as shown in the consumer price index or comparable data for
the area under taxing jurisdiction, or may be reduced to reflect
substantial damage, destruction, or other factors causing a decline
in value.
Looks like California can only collect 1% (plus specific additions) taxes based on a value that is based on a 2% a year inflation of the "full cash value" of a piece of property.
so in reality a 200k house bought in 2001 could at best generate 2k of general income in 2001. In 2006 it would be valued at 650k and generate 2.2k
This is a good thing for homeowners in California. They don't have to bleed money just because their how has tripled in price.
This is an insanely good thing for long established companies because they pay taxes at a rate of 1% ancient prices + 2% every year since the ancient pricing | |
| | | | | 
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·MegaPath
 ·Cox VOIP
·Verizon west (ex G..
·ViaTalk
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
edit:
January 20th, @10:02AM
| Re: wow
Of course Medi-Cal doesn't pay the whole bill, hospitals are left paying the rest |
They passed Prop 13 because people were losing their homes to the government.
In your example, a house bought for $200K in 2001 (which there were very few) could pay $2000 in property tax, another $2000 in Mello-Roos fees (like one of mine), plus other small property based taxes.
Now that home is theoretically worth $800K to someone else and if resold would take in $10K a year in combined property taxes. The person who bought it and still owns it is making the same $60K (or close to it) but thanks to Prop 13 he won't lose his house to the government because his taxes didn't go from a few hundred a month which he could afford to a thousand a month which he couldn't.
Meanwhile thanks to the recent appreciation that has also been a LOT of churn so while some homes that were bought in 2001 are still owned by the same people, a lot aren't and pay these insanely high property taxes. Now that $800K house assessed for $10K is worth $500K but the tax assessor doesn't give a crap. Getting it reassessed lower takes an act of God. You want to put in a pool, they're out that day looking for more money.
A perfect example is a cop buddy of mine. Fresh out of the LBPD academy, he bought in the early 90's in Orange County, CA during the last housing depression. He bought a house for $210K, a payment he could barely swing but because he had saved since High School he had enough down to bring the payment down. Anyway thanks to the population boom and limited housing his house would have sold recently for over a million. But he's now a Detective with a local police department not exactly raking in the millions. Prop 13 is the ONLY reason he is able to keep his home.
The system works find so long as you don't have a legislature of drunken sailors increasing spending at rates FAR higher than combined population and inflation increased. They took the money they raked in during the Dot Com boom, created a ton of bloated new programs, now that all the Dot Com companies went bust, they're coming after Joe Taxpayer to fund it.
Also during that time their state union buddies got on the ballot propositions that forced a huge chunk of ANY new revenues to whatever the union brought proposition wanted. So even with new revenue, it couldn't be spent to bring down the deficits or spent on infrastructure. Add to that they want to give away the farm to illegals. According to the LA Times in LA County alone illegals cost the medical system over $300 million a year. The deficits the county system ran were in the $100M-$200M range and that is why they are closing hospitals right and left. It doesn't take a mathematics major to see that the influx of illegals are DIRECTLY responsible for hospital closures (60 hospital closures as of 2006) and everyone here is witnessing the complete decimation of the public school system that started with the first amnesty in the 80's. In some school districts (like Lake Elsinore Unified) they're even coming up with schemes to bus kids 15-20 miles into the schools dominated by illegals to try and artificially inflate the scores so they don't look so bad. Awesome.
This state rakes in over a hundred billion a year in tax revenue, a pheonominal rate of increase year to year. But the whores in Sacramento and their state employee union buddies swipe even more.
There is no revenue problem, it's an spending problem. Auhnold tried to fix it but unions spent millions and millions of their memberships' money on deceitful television ads to defeat the propositions that would have brought the out of control spending under some sort of reasonable control.
So here we are, years after Gray Davis created this latest monster in Sacramento we're still having to borrow to stay solvent with no end in sight. | |
| | | Zyniker
Zyniker
Premium
join:2004-12-25
Ann Arbor, MI
| Apparently some have forgotten that fiscal issues aren't the sole domain of the executive...oh, wait, that's right: the legislature makes the budget...
--
The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, the pessimist fears this is true. | |
| | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: wow said by Zyniker :Apparently some have forgotten that fiscal issues aren't the sole domain of the executive...oh, wait, that's right: the legislature makes the budget... The only way the governor can duck responsibility for the budget mess in California is if he vetoed each budget sent to him by the legislature and the legislature subsequently overrode his veto.
The governor, as well as the legislature, are responsible for the budget mess in that state. The only reason Ahnuld is being singled out is because he ran on the platform of restoring fiscal sanity to California.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | |
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud | Yeah, and the Executive signs it. There IS NO BUDGET without the Executive signing off on it.
Auhnold was our last line of defense against waste in Sacramento and he is little more than a speed bump. | |
| |
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud | Are you kidding? This state is totally bankrupt. You think spending in Washington is out of control, Sacramento makes Washington waste look like amateur hour.
You can have him, and take the hippie whores in the legislature too. | |
| | 
Hambone
Hambone
join:2007-08-11
North Hollywood, CA
 ·Sprint Broadband D..
edit:
April 5th, @04:56PM
| Yeah...sure!!! This DEM masquerading as a REP has managed to blow through the state's $4 billion reserve funds and then gone on to chalk up an ADDITIONAL $15 billion debt for Cali-forn-ya.
Arnold makes the former governor, Davis, look like a fiscal conservative. From where is Arnold going to find the money to subsidize broadband? Maybe from a Swiss bank account provided by the Mexican drug cartel. Can you spell... OPEN BORDERS?
Instead of going to Washington, Arnold should join his peers and continue his drug sucking and women groping where he rightly belongs... Columbia. | |
| | | | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Arnold is the biggest RINO in the country that 4% = 1.5 million people. That's more people than in 12 states and close to 3 others. | |
| | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| said by TK Junk Mail :My question is: with 96% coverage already, why have the state pay for more? Where does it say the state pays for it?
As to why, maybe because it's U.S. national policy that broadband be made available to 100% of the population, and CA has decided they actually want that policy goal to be realized in their state. | |
| | | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Arnold is the biggest RINO in the country said by PDXPLT :said by TK Junk Mail :My question is: with 96% coverage already, why have the state pay for more? Where does it say the state pays for it? See this link:
»www.calink.ca.gov/pdf/CBTF_FINAL_Report.pdf
And starting on page 54 of the PDF report, you will find some of the millions to fund the plans.
State infrastructure bonds
Calif Advanced Services Fund
Tax incentives for rural Calif
Calif Teleconnect Fund
Calif Rural Telecommunications Infrastructure Grant Program
AB 855/ Digital Divide Fund
Community Service Districts
etc.
etc.
You are looking at $100's of millions of taxpayer money
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| |
Skeedatl
Ah, push it - push it real good
Premium
join:2007-12-26
The Cloud | 'Cause he wants to make sure that the State is completely insolvent before leaving office. | |
| 
nightdesigns
Gone missing, back soon
Premium
join:2002-05-31
AZ
·Cox HSI
| Do low income families really want to pay for broadband? Sure only 24% of households with less than 24k/year have broadband, but it's not a priority for them. If they get broadband for $40/mo, that's still 2% of their yearly income. And that doesn't factor in the cost of a computer. If I made less than $24k/year, chances are there are a lot more important things that need that $40/mo.
--
This Space for Rent... | |
| | 
slashman
Don't do it . ..
Premium
join:2003-10-01
Batavia, IL | Re: Do low income families really want to pay for broadband? Agreed. Are they really lamenting that people at that level of income have no broadband? Sounds like the legwork for "now we need to provide free broadband for those poor people" | |
| | KraziJoe
join:2006-09-08
Alexandria, VA
·Comcast
| said by nightdesigns :Sure only 24% of households with less than 24k/year have broadband, but it's not a priority for them. If they get broadband for $40/mo, that's still 2% of their yearly income. And that doesn't factor in the cost of a computer. If I made less than $24k/year, chances are there are a lot more important things that need that $40/mo. Yeah, like $200 Sneakers, $1000 Rims and that shiny new Gun Rack... | |
| | | 
MrMoody
Under the black helicopters
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Re: Do low income families really want to pay for broadband? And don't forget, the internet can actually be used to MAKE money or get a higher paying job if you have some brains.
--
The public is a poor business manager. | |
| | | viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| said by KraziJoe :said by nightdesigns :Sure only 24% of households with less than 24k/year have broadband, but it's not a priority for them. If they get broadband for $40/mo, that's still 2% of their yearly income. And that doesn't factor in the cost of a computer. If I made less than $24k/year, chances are there are a lot more important things that need that $40/mo. Yeah, like $200 Sneakers, $1000 Rims and that shiny new Gun Rack... Everyone has their own priorities. Making fun of someone else's seems kind of lame to me. Plus, it opens you up for ridicule.
Not everyone feels they need broadband. My brother lives almost downtown Boise, has 7meg DSL and cable available to him, yet he sticks with dial-up. He says that if he has hi speed internet, he will spend to much time on it. He and his wife would rather be outside biking or working on cars or snowboarding, etc. | |
| | | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
| Re: Do low income families really want to pay for broadband? said by viperlmw :Everyone has their own priorities. Making fun of someone else's seems kind of lame to me. It is perfectly acceptable to pass judgement on the lifestyle choices for others when they want the government to force you to pay for said lifestyle.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | | | 
wruckman
Ruckman.net
join:2007-10-25
Northwood, OH | Re: Do low income families really want to pay for broadband? Agreed. KAPLAH! | |
| | | | | ender7074
join:2006-11-21
Saint Louis, MO
·AT&T Southeast
·Charter Pipeline
| said by pnh102 :said by viperlmw :Everyone has their own priorities. Making fun of someone else's seems kind of lame to me. It is perfectly acceptable to pass judgement on the lifestyle choices for others when they want the government to force you to pay for said lifestyle. QFT! | |
| | | | | viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| said by pnh102 :said by viperlmw :Everyone has their own priorities. Making fun of someone else's seems kind of lame to me. It is perfectly acceptable to pass judgement on the lifestyle choices for others when they want the government to force you to pay for said lifestyle. Huh? Who said anything about the government supporting anything? Are you implying that all low income households are supported by the government? I saw that nowhere in the post that is the subject of my reply. Just look at the subject line of this reply, and the post that began this thread and tell me where it states, or implies that low income families are supported by the government. I realize government subsidies are involved in the news article that started this thread, but this was not the thought behind the original post of this subject line. Go back and re-read. | |
| | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by nightdesigns :Sure only 24% of households with less than 24k/year have broadband, but it's not a priority for them. If they get broadband for $40/mo, that's still 2% of their yearly income. And that doesn't factor in the cost of a computer. If I made less than $24k/year, chances are there are a lot more important things that need that $40/mo. Well if that household contained 2 parents and 2 kids they would be entitled to $2900 in earned income credit refund and also have to pay $0 in income taxes. | |
| Test99
Premium
join:2003-04-24
San Jose, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·InPhonex
| Out Of Options I have some friends who live in the Sierra. They and their neighbors:
- Can't get DSL. The ILEC doesn't admit to having any plans to offer DSL.
- Can't see any of the satellites that offer broadband service. Judging by the reviews, they might not want satellite broadband anyway.
- Don't have line of sight to any wireless broadband providers.
- Can't get a signal from any of the cell phone data services.
Maybe they could get 144 kbps ISDN, but it costs over $100 per month. So they use dialup, which gives them 24 kbps at best.
The price you pay for living in a rural area is still quite high.
--
50775@fwd.pulver.com | |
| | BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| Re: Out Of Options said by Test99 :I have some friends who live in the Sierra. They and their neighbors: - Can't get DSL. The ILEC doesn't admit to having any plans to offer DSL. - Can't see any of the satellites that offer broadband service. Judging by the reviews, they might not want satellite broadband anyway. - Don't have line of sight to any wireless broadband providers. - Can't get a signal from any of the cell phone data services. Maybe they could get 144 kbps ISDN, but it costs over $100 per month. So they use dialup, which gives them 24 kbps at best. The price you pay for living in a rural area is still quite high. They could always move. | |
| | | Test99
Premium
join:2003-04-24
San Jose, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·InPhonex
| Re: Out Of Options said by BF69 :They could always move. It's true that 1.4 million Californians could move. Houses in urban areas of California cost around $500,000, so the total cost of the move would be near one trillion dollars.
One of the insights of the digital revolution is that it's cheaper to move bits than atoms.
--
50775@fwd.pulver.com | |
| | | | 
skedeeeteen
@pacbell.net
| Re: Out Of Options 500,000?
Where are you buying a house in San Jose at 500,000? Is it a fixer uppper on the east side?
My 1400 square foot 44 year old home in South San Francisco is still worth 700k (down from 800k last year). And with property taxes nearing 7k, life is crazy. | |
| | | | | Test99
Premium
join:2003-04-24
San Jose, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·InPhonex
| Re: Out Of Options I was responding to the argument by BF69 and some other posters that people in rural California who can't get broadband could move. I used a nice round number for a house price to make the calculation simple. There are some houses within commuting distance of Sacramento that have DSL and cost less than $500,000. But to fulfill BF69's scenario would require almost one million houses, and there aren't nearly that many available.
I agree, $500,000 doesn't buy much of anything in San Jose. Strong demand coupled with zoning restrictions that limit supply have driven prices out of sight.
By arguing for a higher number, you are strengthening my case. Moving 1.4 million people from rural areas to urban areas would cost nearly one trillion dollars. We could probably rewire the whole country for far less than one trillion dollars.
My point is not to debate San Jose house prices, but to state the obvious: moving 1.4 million Californians is just about the most expensive broadband solution imaginable.
--
50775@fwd.pulver.com | |
| Techie714
join:2005-08-02
Anaheim, CA
·ViaTalk
|  Not That Great!
| |
| |
See 12 replies to this post | |
JSRoman
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Callahan, FL
| Anyone see a problem? "The study found that only 24 percent of California households with incomes under $25,000 subscribe to broadband."
Solutions-
• Build out high-speed broadband infrastructure to all Californians
• Develop model permitting standards and encourage collaboration among providers
• Increase the use and adoption of broadband and computer technology
• Engage and reward broadband innovation and research
• Create a statewide e-health network
• Leverage educational opportunities to increase broadband use
• Continue state-level and statewide leadership
The solutions do nothing for the 76% under $25k that don't get broadband.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil | |
| SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Yeah and as long as you're happy with ONE cable provider and ONE DSL provider in any given market, hey, Cali is an outstanding leader in BB penetration. But if you're looking for say, competition in any given market? Any place out of the country, even the 3rd world has a better deal.
The U.S. will never see any kind of substantive BB competition because money talks and buys off a lot of politicians, too. And writes really nifty reports our monosyllabic moron governor can sign his name too as well, apparently. | |
| |
Harold Greene
@rr.com
| Re: Yeah and Still waiting after all these years... for competitive dialtone.
We're on the verge of having NO DSL, just fiber, as soon as Verizon pulls the copper. That might be ok, quality-wise, but we can well expect prices to double once the threat of competition is removed. The iLECs have already raised feature prices twice in one year.
And no, cable does not constitute competition. Competition would have to be able to supply a connection that stays alive for more than an hour between resets. | |
| 
punker
deleted by moderator
Premium
join:2004-06-21
Palmdale, CA
clubs: | point less with TWC putting CAps it would take users an step back in time | |
| public
join:2002-01-19
Santa Clara, CA | What is "have available", what is "broadband" Many urban areas have black holes with no dsl.
The report does not mention if have available means customers can pay $400k buildout to have $800/Mo T1 as broadband.
So what exactly does have broadband available mean??? | |
| | benc
Premium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL
·Charter Pipeline
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Callcentric
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: What is "have available", what is "broadband" said by public :Many urban areas have black holes with no dsl. The report does not mention if have available means customers can pay $400k buildout to have $800/Mo T1 as broadband. So what exactly does have broadband available mean??? I've always wondered about that. I have my own definition, but some may disagree with me.
Cost: Less than $100/mo.
Set-up: Less than $100/one-time.
Speed: At least 768kbps download, and at least 128k upload. This is the actual speed you're getting, not the rated speed. The individual link must also have this speed, so using Dual WAN to achieve this doesn't count.
Latency: Must be under 150ms most of the time, if you conduct a speed test with a server at your nearest urban center.
Caps: Either 90GB/mo.(a.k.a. 3GB/day) or higher
Other traits: It's always-on.
These definitions, even if you disregard cost, eliminate satellite, VZW EV-DO (5GB/mo. cap), EDGE, and ISDN. None of these choices are what I consider broadband, due to restrictions, either artificial (VZW EV-DO and satellite) or technical (EDGE, ISDN).
If my budget was "the sky's the limit" (I wish), then I'm sure that regardless of where I live, if I paid the telco enough money, they would run a fractional OC3 line out to me. A full OC3 is 155.52Mbps, so a fractional OC3 could be 51.84Mbps symmetrical (or 103.68Mbps). | |
| | |
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
| Re: What is "have available", what is "broadband" If you can't get broadband: Just start your own Wireless ISP with a few neighbors. Start out with a simple T1 and 5-15 people. Run a linux box with traffic shaping as the router, and you'd be surprised at how far 1.5mbit will go when people are used to dialup. | |
| | | | benc
Premium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL
·Charter Pipeline
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Callcentric
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: What is "have available", what is "broadband" Or better yet, get a T3 (44.6Mbps) or a fractional OC3 (51.84Mbps). Offer 3.0M symmetrical, with a 512k guarantee, for $100/mo. At 512k, one can serve 100 users using a fractional OC3. At $100/mo. and 100 users, that's $10K/mo., which should be enough to pay for the OC3, the equipment (if you get a loan), and (hopefully) salary for a network admin.
The trick is to get 100 people to commit to pay $100/mo. If the alternative is just dial-up, I know I'd jump all over that.
This also assumes that no oversubscribing takes place (each user can download 512k simultaneously). That's more than what could be said about most ISPs.
As it's doubtful that every single of those 100 users will use the Internet at the same time, chances are, they'd get 3.0Mbps most of the time. | |
| 
RR Conductor
'Boarrrd
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Redwood Valley, CA
·Comcast
| A few goofs in the unserved communities Here in Mendocino County, the towns of Laytonville, Covelo and Potter Valley have wireless broadband via Willits Online »www.willitsonline.com , yet they listed them as unserved. The rest of it is spot on for our county, Comcast serves the most with AT&T/Pacific Bell serving the next most. Only one cell provider, Edge Wireless (AT&T Affiliate), has 3G here, and it's only in Ukiah, Verizon, US Cellular and Metro PCS have yet to turn on 3G. This is a VERY rural county (3800 sq.miles, only 88,000 population) by the way.
--
»www.freighrailworks.org
Galesburg,IL RailCam »205.245.189.161:1100/
»www.amtrak.com
»www.amtrakcalifornia.com
»www.up.com
»www.bnsf.com
»www.metrolinktrains.com
»www.cctrailroad
»www.utu.org | |
| | | |
|
|
Arnold is the biggest RINO in the country