site Search:


 
   
story category
ISP Lobbyists Shape Broadband Stimulus Plan
Senate adds tax credits, eliminates network neutrality language...
by Karl Bode Tuesday 27-Jan-2009 tags: legal · business · Politics
Tipped by Romney2012 See Profile
At least $6 billion of Obama's $835 billion infrastructure economic stimulus package will be going toward broadband. However, different versions of the plan are working their way through the House and Senate, with the Senate today considering an amendment that would expand that total to $9 billion worth of grants. Unlike the House version, the Senate version would also give carriers a 10% tax credit for building out high-speed Internet ("defined as 5Mbps/1Mbps) in rural and underserved areas, and a 20% credit for those willing to bring "next gen" (defined as 100Mbps/20Mbps)speeds to existing areas.

Lobbyists are also working hard to eliminate all network neutrality protections tied to taxpayer money. Buried in the House version of the plan is a provision requiring that any government (technically taxpayer) 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 it appears that the Senate version of the plan contains no such network neutrality language. Meanwhile, Qwest lobbyists say they're disappointed by the plan so far:

“We continue to be disappointed,” said Shirley Bloomfield, Qwest’s top Washington lobbyist. She said the Denver-based local phone company operates in 14 Western states and can quickly put people to work digging trenches and installing fiber-optic lines in rural areas that lack high-speed Internet access.

Qwest recently wrote a love letter to the Obama transition team asking for money to be doled out to the states, who would in turn request bids from companies proposing to achieve 95% statewide availability of broadband that's 7Mbps or faster. Qwest failed to note that they've spent millions to prevent cities and towns across the country from wiring themselves with broadband.

view: topics flat text 
Post a:
me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO

If the take out the net nutrality I hope Obama vetos it.

If they wan't our money the NEED to stop skrewing us over.

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:1

Re: If the take out the net nutrality I hope Obama vetos it.

Then write him and tell him that's what you want.

Otherwise it's just the lobbyists talking.
me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO

Re: If the take out the net nutrality I hope Obama vetos it.

I would, but I don't know his e-mail.

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:1

Re: If the take out the net nutrality I hope Obama vetos it.

said by me1212:

I would, but I don't know his e-mail.
»www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Try your local congress critters as well. They even write back!
jc100

join:2002-04-10

Re: If the take out the net nutrality I hope Obama vetos it.

Write back they do...Listen they don't. It's like the used car salesman or even the new car dealership. They'll tell you anything to get you in the door (vote for them), and anything to make you feel as if you're point was heard (lie).
impalass1369

join:2007-09-11
Mercier, QC
whitehouse.gov

n2jtx

join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
said by fifty nine:

Then write him and tell him that's what you want.

Otherwise it's just the lobbyists talking.
Not to be pessimistic but lowly surfs that pay taxes do not get much attention even if they scream. Lobbyists rule the roost since they can get lots of money funneled to the re-election campaigns of these so-called "public servants".
lesopp

join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL

Re: If the take out the net nutrality I hope Obama vetos it.

That's why the current batch of elected c--k suckers should be referred to as "Pubic Servants"
nasadude

join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
maybe the lobbyists aren't trying hard enough; over at public knowledge,

»www.publicknowledge.org/node/1960

they say the following about the net neutrality parts in the bill:

quote:
None of the usual suspects offered amendments to strip the language, either during committee consideration or before the House Rules Committee for consideration on the House floor debate.
lastmile

join:2007-09-08
Robertsville, MO

Tax credits

Seems like they should offer 20% tax credits to bring broadband to underserved areas instead of improving speeds of the already-existing connections.

10% tax-credits to build-out rural and 20% to improve existing connections sounds flip-flopped. Seems like it would be more costly (thus more incentive) to build-out networks rather than upgrade the existing networks.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

Re: Tax credits

Same opinion here. There also needs to be a provision that tax breaks will only happen for revenue in said underserved/next-generation areas. I'm sure Qwest can wire a small part of Denver with fiber, then get a nice tax credit, under this plan...

Speaking of Qwest, what's funy is they don't even offer 7 Mbps service here at my place, well within city limits. If the gov't does such a thing, they should make it 5 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up to a university server, just to screw Qwest ADSL over.

Nerdtalker
Working Hard, Or Hardly Working?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-02-18
Tucson, AZ
I couldn't agree more, ironically-named lastmile See Profile.

Paying money to upgrade networks to 5/1 or the other higher-end speed is great, but all that we're doing is subsidizing network upgrades that the ISPs have procrastinated about, lied about, and put-off for the past 5+ years.

In effect, taxpayers are paying for upgrades to network infrastructure which is likely already oversold, which they will proceed to pay for a second time in their soon-to-increase-due-to-the-economy monthly fees.

Yeah, that sounds like my USA!
--
"Some people never see the light till it shines thru bullet holes." -Bruce Cockburn

I'm testing Gmail's spam filters: Broadbandreports1@gmail.com
Spam: 12900+ messages currently using 406 MB.
lesopp

join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
But aren't tax credits pointless when
a) you don't have the needed billions in capital or credit
b) the ROI is greatly diminished when the "BUSH" tax cuts are tossed in a year or less

ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save

join:2005-10-17

didn't we already give them tax breaks???

Pretty sure during the 90s->00 we gave them huge tax breaks to deploy the next-gen but all they did was pocket the $$$
utahluge

join:2004-10-14
Draper, UT

Re: didn't we already give them tax breaks???

said by ftthz:

Pretty sure during the 90s->00 we gave them huge tax breaks to deploy the next-gen but all they did was pocket the $$$
Qwest failed to note that they've spent millions to prevent cities and towns across the country from wiring themselves with broadband.
Its to bad that if they were fined all they would is raise the prices. We just need to pass something through congress saying that prices will be fixed for 3 years after they get fined. AND in the mean time roll-out this "broadband improvement".

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:1

5/1 to rural areas?

They've got to be kidding.

Make it at least 10, if not 30 down. Maybe 5-10 up.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

Re: 5/1 to rural areas?

WiMAX can do 5/1. 5/1 works for 99.9% of internet applications today, even streaming HD video. 10 Mbps is much harder to do over WiMAX (though still possible). 30 Mbps would require a dedicated WiMAX circuit. 5-10 up would also require pretty much dedicated WiMAX throughput.

Fiber in rural areas? Meh, no.

Not that I wouldn't like it, but we have to be realistic here. Companies aren't going to roll out fiber to rural areas, though if someone isn't served by copper phone and they want phone service it'd be a good idea

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:1

Re: 5/1 to rural areas?

Doesn't have to be fiber (although that would be preferable). There are plenty of rural areas served by cable that don't have advanced services.
iansltx

join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2

Re: 5/1 to rural areas?

Makes sense. Though in rural areas where they only have analog cable, bandwidth is probably also freakishly expensive unless people actually use the internet in quantity...

DeathK
Premium
join:2002-06-16
Cincinnati, OH
I'd be happy to see 5/1. I only see ~1920/812 with ADSL from Cincinnati Bell. The service is 5Mbps/768kbps, but if you live any kind of distance from your CO you won't get it. I'd love it if they were forced to get the rated speed of the service to everyone.

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

1 edit

Faster Speeds! Hell Ya!

I'm glad that there's going to be a baseline to what Broadband stands for. My opinion, 256kbps is NOT broadband. Not even close. I think 5/1mbps should be the minimum.

It would force local companies (ahem.. MidRivers) to not charge a rather ridiculous amount for "Broadband" and to set a minimal standard. Not to mention they'd have to actually upgrade their old as hell network.

Hell, if White Space Broadband ever becomes a reality, it'll still be 3x faster than what my parents have, which is BS.

Now.. Hopefully our ISP will beef up their service accordingly.. Which would be awesome.. *drool*
--
Bresnan 15M/1M|Mine[P4HT 3.2GHz,2GB RAM,2x1TB HDDs,WinXP]|Wife's[P4 2.4GHz,1GB RAM,60GB HDD,WinXP]|Router[2xP3@1GHz,640MB RAM,18GB HDD,Allied Telesyn AT-2560FX,Kingston KNE100TX,2xDigital DE504,Compaq NC3131,iPro/1000DP,Blitz BWI715,Gentoo]

IowaMan
Premium
join:2008-08-21
Grinnell, IA
Reviews:
·Iowa Telecom
·Mediacom

Re: Faster Speeds! Hell Ya!

I like the idea of 5 Mbps Minimum Broadband speed.
It is especially valuable in rural Iowa which has a choice of 3 Mbps Cable or 384k-1.5 Mb broadband (more if you want to pay the phone company $100 a month for FTTN 10 Mb)
Yes I know Mediacom has 8Mb but $45 a month in this economy is too much for me I'm quite happy with 3 Mb but 5Mb Minimum bring it on!
patcat88

join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1
said by Simba7:

I'm glad that there's going to be a baseline to what Broadband stands for. My opinion, 256kbps is NOT broadband. Not even close. I think 5/1mbps should be the minimum.
Don't you realize 256k is 2 ISDN circuits for 1/4 the cost? Its so much cheaper than $260 a mo ($130*2)! Its a great deal.

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

Re: Faster Speeds! Hell Ya!

Not really true.. At least with ISDN you can use data compression to help with transfer rates.

..you can also use the lines for other things besides broadband. You can't even use Vonage (or VoIP) with 256k internet.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service

What the **** good does it do handing money to large MegaCo

... and asking nothing in return but that they spend it on whatever this wish.

I'm all for economic stimulus, but this is starting to look like same old same old lobbyist feeding frenzy.

If they want to stimulate the economy by having people spend money, maybe they should try oh, let's see--- giving the people some money or maybe saving them some... (Tax break, anyone?)
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

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

Re: What the **** good does it do handing money to large MegaCo

Well we did that with the private banks and that worked great, right?

Oh wait a sec.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

1 edit
This isn't a stimulus package.. it's nothing more than a spending bill full of pet projects.. better yet, it really should be called "America's Ear Marks" bill... all earmarks..

Stimulating broadband? hah!

So.. it keeps some contractors to work.. I guess those people are going to be the key to jumping this economy? If the rest of the people can't "afford" broadband, then what good is building it?

Oh, I know.. maybe it was their first plan to spend 300 million in contraceptives.. or the millions of dollars in re-sodding the DC mall..

A trillion dollar spending spree for the dems... what a way stimulate the economy.

I gave hope to Obama, but sadly, 1 week later it simply looks like a group of dolts who think they know better how to spend everyone else's money.. and the worst part is, it's not with one voice they do it.. it's with many voices who all are speaking a different story.

I sure hope everyone enjoys their 1 trillion dollar broadband. We're not going to see tax breaks as we should.. rather, we that work hard get to fork over, I hear lately, $500 to those that aren't due refunds..

Socialists, be proud! ... this is your moment.

edit: I forgot.. don't forget about the 4 billion that wound up in the hands of executives at Meryl Lynch in bonuses for a failure well done, and, by the man who spent 1.2 million on remodeling his office so he could write those checks.. of course, Meryl didn't pay it, but now B of A needs more money after being slighted by this last minute move.

When is our government going to stop spending money, start cutting back, quit printing black checks and worthless money AND finally go after the people that have it and get it back? If they REALLY want some of our money back, .. um, Haliburton anyone?

People may say things bad about Fox New.. hell, I don't even buy all their nonsense.. BUT, I sure hope they stay on the corruption in government so people get the truth handed out about those living off the high hog of the tax payer.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000

1 edit

Re: What the **** good does it do handing money to large MegaCo

said by fiberguy:

A trillion dollar spending spree for the dems... what a way stimulate the economy.
you and all other Republicans would have had a point if the last 8 years under Bush and company didn't result in 6 trillion added to the national debt and the record deficits that accompany that debt.

Dems are big spenders? ha! George W. Bush: commander in chief during the biggest increase in government spending ever. how's that for hypocrisy?

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

Re: What the **** good does it do handing money to large MegaCo

said by morbo:

you and all other Republicans would have had a point if the last 8 years under Bush and company didn't result in 6 trillion added to the national debt and the record deficits that accompany that debt.
And the fact that Obama is trying to top this with even more debt is a good thing?
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service

Re: What the **** good does it do handing money to large MegaCo

said by pnh102:

And the fact that Obama is trying to top this with even more debt is a good thing?
The bailout began well before Obama took office, and is pretty much agreed on by both parties that it must be done to "save the economy."

The devil, of course, is in the details.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

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

Re: What the **** good does it do handing money to large MegaCo

said by KrK:

The bailout began well before Obama took office, and is pretty much agreed on by both parties that it must be done to "save the economy."
True, but I think you and I can agree that this has been a failure (as we knew it would be). The answer clearly isn't more deficit spending.

Watching the GOP push through such socialism was the final nail in the coffin for me. I quit the party shortly after the election because I got sick of watching the GOP act like Democrats. If I want to be represented by a Democrat, I will vote for one.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!

Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

1 edit
It took spending us to 120% of GDP worth of debt to get us out of the Great Depression and you're blowing a gasket because our current debt is the same as it was during Clinton and even Ike as a percentage of the GDP?

You free marketeers who got us into this mess in the first place need to get a grip. We tried it your way for 8 years and we saw how it worked out.

See 9 replies to this post
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
First off, morbo, I am not a Republican so you can get your narrow-minded 2-party system thinking mind out of your liberal back door. You clearly don't pay attention around here or you would know it. I make no bones about being neither republican or democrat.

Second of all, I will take my hat off to you. Apparently you ARE a democrat, based on your own logic (I use that term loosely) applied to your own post, and you think that one-upsmanship is acceptable and responsible form of government huh? So, Bush abused the public troff so it's okay for the dems, in the name of "change" of course, to out spend.. so what next? The Republicans are going to out-do the dems next? Do you EVEN SEE how stupid that sounds? That is SO kindergarten playground B.S. ... and spells out EVERYTHING wrong with government thinking today.

And, to give bush a TINY bit of defense... most of his spending went to the war that he waged in Afghanistan and Iraq. No matter where the war is/was being fought, in case you forgot, lib, we WERE attacked on 9/11 so there was going to be a big chunk of money spent to protect the U.S. ... further, you, like so many bandwagon cheerleaders forget.. the money spent today is not quite far outside of previous war-time spending, adjusted for inflation.

So before you get in here, in my face, with your weak rhetoric with your "yea but".. why don't you do some research, and ... quite frankly, grow up a little. ANYONE that justifies bad behavior by pointing to the other guy and saying "but he did it too".. show great weakness in your own argument, and, you should be embarassed.

... above all else.. YES. Dems are big spenders. You'd have to be blind to see that they are all over the gambit right now looking to raise taxes, in a recession which HISTORICALLY NEVER WORKS! and find things that are not yet taxed.. and tax it!

SOME spending is good, I'll agree, but stimulus from government spending HAS NEVER WORKED outside a war. What this tells you is that the government knows how to spend your money better than you.

Own up bro..

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000

Re: What the **** good does it do handing money to large MegaCo

i'm not a democrat. or republican. i've voted for 3 parties but claim allegiance to none.

i don't support the bailout. i didn't support the bank bailout. i don't support bailouts, period. i am a fiscal conservative. i believe in balanced budgets. i believe in spending less than you bring in by taxes.

what destroyed the Republican party is the rampant hypocrisy over the past 8 years. supposedly, the right is for lower taxes, smaller government, and less spending. according to your logic, that would make George W Bush a democrat. the only thing W did was to cut taxes, but to cut taxes without cutting spending is the equivalent of increasing spending. even in the midst of rampant increased spending due to the war, he pushed for tax cuts...and a stimulus. Both resulted in increased debt, which we continue to pay for every day. Under his watch, the debt increased something close to $6 trillion dollars. a Republican! big spender, big government! do you see the problem here? are Republicans so blind that they only see what they want to see?
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

Re: What the **** good does it do handing money to large MegaCo

I, like yourself, voted not with a party, but for the person on the ticket. The fact they have an R, D, I, L, or other letter next to their name is, in my view, their problem, not mine. I call parties "Unions for the Politicians"..

I too believe in balanced budgets.. I am fiscally 'responsible'.. i don't even call myself conservative since that term, too, is muddy. I don't really believe in spending less than you take in with out refunding that money not spent to the people in form of a tax reduction the following year. There has to be a line that you can cross on either side, to a point. Its impossible to spend less than you budget every year or not go over the budge, BUT SOME.. but, part of budgeting is to be able to carry over habits into another term in order to balance.

Yes, I do agree with you. The R's killed their party.. well, Rove did, actually. He interjected religion into the party as a way to garner votes for his man, and did something that never should have happened (and proves another point) .. he crossed religion into politics which is exactly why our founding fathers tried to put up boundaries on that..

Also, if you do your history, you will find that the roles of the D's and the R's have actually meant different things in the early part of the last century.. and will probably change again.

There is one thing, however, that is true to this day. Dems like to tax and spend their way out of a problem and they try to balance the budget. The repubs like to do deficit spending which is a ponzi scheme on Americans. It can't be sustained for very long. You borrow too much money this way, or you cut too many services so that people can pay for their own toys, but government services, which some ARE required for society to function, get cut, and the growth in the nation slows.

One thing the parties have yet to understand is that they are BOTH radical in their thinking and that they need to come to the middle for it to work. However, while they're busy calling muslims radicals, they forget that they, themselves, are radicals as well, just in a different way. Some of what both parties stand for does work. Where it fails EVERYTIME is when they think that they have capital to spend by the american people and start doing their pet projects.

No matter WHO is in power, and no matter what their platform is.. there are only so many jobs that belong to the federal governmnet (protect our borders - often not done, ensure interstate commerce - very bastardized, and protect the constitution - which is nothing more than a welcome mat any more.) Getting involve din abortion, marriage, education, and all this other crap is not the job of the federal government. People have forgotten that.

You and I actually do see things eye-to-eye after reading this message. Maybe our ways of speaking it can come off hastily at times. However, there is one thing I am NOT and that is someone that follows any party. Bush was not a republican.. he was a kindergarten drop-out.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
said by fiberguy:

SOME spending is good, I'll agree, but stimulus from government spending HAS NEVER WORKED outside a war. What this tells you is that the government knows how to spend your money better than you.
Actually, it's the only thing that has ever worked. Problem is you don't get something for nothing. You trade pumping up the economy for increasing debt load.

The argument has always been "We'll pay it back when the economy is going good again.". Well, you see how that's worked out.... From Reagan on, we've done this, increase spending or cut taxes (and usually both) to "fix" recessions, but we've never ever made much effort to pay it off, we just have let it ride, let it ride, and it's grown larger and larger and larger.

Just paying interest is now costing the Government well over a 3rd of the total budget and soon will be half.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
Plus, it's convenient now to lay this all on Obama, facts be damned. Even though he is weeding out a lot of crap, too.

This idea of "Let's just stimulate by spending tons of money on everything" is pretty retarded.

If they want to pump money into the economy, they should either 1) Give it to the consumers, or 2) Spend it on capital infrastructure improvements only. They shouldn't allow various industries to line up to make a huge take for little or no gain to the taxpayer.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

See 16 replies to this post

wruckman
Ruckman.net

join:2007-10-25
Northwood, OH

blah

Every time he pushes for something stupid, makes a speech, or I see a picture of him I just want to punch something. Maybe his stupid face.

ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN

1 edit

Fiber is the future, plain and simple

I honestly wish it was alot more than even $20 billion ..U.S broadband infrastructure is in sad shape, and companies like Comcast need to go fiber..fiber is the future so why keep sticking with Docsis?

Yes there's Docsis 3 coming (someday maybe?) ..hell I haven't even got the 12/2 upgrade yet..

But fiber is the way to go.

If D3 was an answer to fiber..why does Comcast still have their 250GB monthly cap on their D3 speed tiers (22/5 and 50/5?)

Simba7
I Void Warranties

join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT

Re: Fiber is the future, plain and simple

Um.. Do you really want an explanation on WHY Comcrap does what they do?

PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

Things Never Change

I find it unsurprising and entirely anti-climatic to see that once again, things never change.

How it managed to find its way through the Senate stripped of its customer protections is no surprise to me. It's happened before. It will happen again. I guess our tax dollars will once more be thrown away to the companies and as usual, we'll all hope for the best. Here's some more money to Comcast for them to continue to cap their users at 250GB and employ ridiculous shaping on their lines (70%? That's a joke...). Might We'll even see a rise in prices on a more-than-regular basis to boot. Here's some more money for all the incumbent ISPs to continue to play bully and spend millions of dollars (About to be handed to them on a silver platter) to block the formation of new ISPs in the area whether private or municipal. If by some chance that is not blocked, the other few million will go towards advertising to try and discredit the service (See: Time Warner, Charter, and Comcast).

Point being, nothing changes. Nothing will change. It's that simple.

See you once again for another stimulus in 10 years or so when nothing has changed. We'll be right back here with everyone scratching their heads like "what happened?".

Or who knows, maybe I'm wrong and we'll see a miracle happen.

ztmike
Mark for moderation
Premium
join:2001-08-02
Michigan City, IN

Re: Things Never Change

said by PapaMidnight:

Here's some more money to Comcast
This money is supposedly going towards only consumers with no broadband ISP available to them.

PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

Re: Things Never Change

Likewise, we've all heard that one before. And if I'm not mistaken, the money is to provide incentive for ISPs to build out broadband to lesser populated areas.
CHTRNOCTECH

join:2008-11-26
Saint Peters, MO

1 edit

xx


nm

bob1978

@charter.com

approval from:
patcat88 See Profile

Stimulus?

How is putting the taxpayers further in debt to give money to corporations and special interests stimulus? How is using that same money to give to taxpayers who have to pay it back in the future stimulus? Do we get another stimulus to pay off this stimulus? Where's the magic money tree?

Wouldn't a stimulus be cutting spending, paying down our debt, and then cutting taxes and eliminating most of the federal government? That would stimulate the private sector BIG TIME to get the income tax off our backs. Instead we're just kicking the can down the road. $63+trillion in debt (national debt + entitlements), $400+billion in interest paid on the debt paid in '08, and now we're going to go deeper into debt to "stimulate" our economy. Stupid.
»mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat.htm

Yes, it would suck to do nothing and we will face double-digit unemployment, but by propping up a system that should fail due to unsound fundamentals we will see YEARS of double-digit unemployment, similar to the six years of unemployment not falling below 14% after FDR's New Deal was passed. What did they expect when they were propping up prices of assets that should fall in value?

Debt-based financing, fractional-reserve banking, and monetary/credit expansion got us into this mess and now it's supposed to solve the same problems it created.

Good thing Obama is tightening up those lobbying rules.

"I, Barak Obama, will promote transparency in government and limit lobbyists' influence on matters that they lobbied for. Now, if you'll please cover your eyes and ears while chanting 'Yes We Can', I'm going to appoint William 'Merchant of Death' Lynn of Raytheon 'We Blow Sh*t Up & Kill People' Inc.™ as my new Deputy Defense Secretary."

I should be writing Obama's speeches. At least they would be truthful.

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTgobtv8scI

See 8 replies to this post

kieranmullen
Premium
join:2005-12-12
Portland, OR

?

Does the plan sound a little like.... WRITE CHECK TO VERIZON?

cuthimsomslacke

@ameritech.net

Oh pleeze

Oh pleeze, you armchair GOP economists should get a grip. We had 8 years of GOP initiatives, and you think the same "hands off less government less taxes" fix will help us? You NEED a cash infusion to get started. He has a team working for him and he even said we may not get out of this even in his 4yr term. What do you expect for going to war is cheap? Please, even Obama can mess up and he WOULD NOT be near as bad as Bush ever was. Give him his 4yrs and let's see where we are then.

christcorp
Premium
join:2001-05-21
Cheyenne, WY
kudos:1

typical government

The government has no business at all spending tax dollars on providing broadband. Every citizen of the country has access to the internet. At least to the level of dial-up. Broadband is not needed. Broadband is a luxury not a necessity. There isn't one thing that broadband offers that can't be done on dial-up; just slower. Being able to play games or stream music and videos is not the help that poor people need. With the size of the debt and all the bail outs to try and save jobs/savings (Another mistake); they definitely don't need to be spending more. Of course, a stimulus bill is just an excuse for politician to find pork projects to spend money on. And the Net neutrality issue is another POS. As long as people are conned into believing that all traffic on the internet should be treated equal and compete evenly, technology will stall and time sensitive services will continue to suffer. But then there are those who believe that the answer is more bandwidth. If packets were allowed to be prioritized based on CONTENT, billions of dollars wouldn't need to be spent on providing 50mb service to customers. Between prioritization, different protocols, different transport muxing, and other technologies, people could do all the streaming, gaming, downloading, etc... that they'd want with using a lot less bandwidth than they use now. But, because this technology isn't allowed to evolve because of the net neutrality crowd, the answer is to just keep adding bandwidth which means a lot more money. And now we're going to use our tax dollars to give a luxury to the poor. Yea, good start for this new administration.

See 6 replies to this post
tmc8080

join:2004-04-24
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

Got an idea...

Sorry, but this puts lobbyists out of a job...

Have ISP's put their ideas in writing and send them to washionton dc.. I don't want to see millions of ISP's dollars wasted on lobbyists just so they can get taxpayer money for something they should be doing in their own self interest (expading their footprint, upgrading service). Then publish the ideas so everyone can see what these a-holes want to pull over on the American People. This should be an ISP consumer directed funding, not an ISP christmas bag of freebies manipulated by DC lobbyists. Every single cent should be so that consumers benefit... not that the likes of Comcast or BumbleQwest can do the minimum and expect great handouts.. they have to "work" in consumer's best interest for this money. Milking antiquated technologies and imposing arbitrary limits on access for the same or higher prices reeks of the same snobbery that we've seen with the 3 CEOs going to washington in corporate jets to ask for bailout money.

And without furher adeu, let's see Verizon compete head to head in Comcasts backyard with FIOS... I'm sure the 250gb data limits will stand a great chance of remaining Comcasts policy in Philidelphia. / Sarcasm

My wish list by the end of the year...

$50 prepaid unlimited cell phone service coast to coast with every carrier (including all features formerly charged extra for included, ie text, web, data). No additional taxes imposed. This gives Sprint some competition.

A timetable for remaining cable carriers deploy docis 3.0 and implement 25mbit entry level (50 - 100mbit premium) service across 100% of that footprint. (1-9 years max). Don't skimp on the upstream either!

Data limits are gone... sorry, they have to go. Some peak time throttling may be necessary, but again.. this is a matter of upgrades to make aggregate bandwidth as good or better then FTTP provisioning.

02/17/2010, ALL docsis modems are replaced by docsis 3.0 modems. That date is arbirary.. could as well be 01/01/10, but cable companies are lazy, and there will be holdouts who own their own modems.

Last but not least... in my backyard.. Verizon offers a 15/2 internet & voip package for $59.90 as a bundle, and $89.95 with tv (then our local consumers can compare the services apples to apples and see which is better). Sometimes a nudge is all that is needed to make Cablevision start splitting nodes when they should. Competition could further reduce this price to $49.95 for internet & voice.
SuperWISP

join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

Don't fear the ISP lobbyists; fear the Google lobbyists

What we really have to worry about is not the lobbyists from ISPs but rather the lobbyists from Google. Google has been buying so-called "public interest" groups inside the Beltway, including Free Press, Public Knowledge, and Media Access Project, and has been sending their lobbyists out to lobby for regulation of the Internet (which they call "network neutrality" -- even though it's not neutral at all; all of the specific measures they advocate favor Google). We don't want a regulated Internet. Once the nose of the regulatory camel is in the tent, government will engage in censorship and other restrictions that will harm all of us.

nek

@spcsdns.net

Net Neutrality

You had a regulated Internet until 2005. How bad was it? It was regulated as a common carrier just like phone service. A lot of innovation took place in the time the Internet was regulated probably more than is taking place now because it was then a totally level playing field for all including startups. Both Google and Yahoo were started on a regulated Internet.

Monday, 04-Jun 22:12:17 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.