republican-creole
site Search:


 
   
story category
Obama Will Spend $6 Billion On Broadband
Says a broader broadband plan will drop later...
by Karl Bode Thursday 15-Jan-2009 tags: legal · coverage · business · Politics
About $6 billion of the $825 billion national infrastructure plan proposed by the incoming Obama administration is going to be spent on broadband, according to a brief synopsis of the stimulus plan be circulated today in Congress. That's considerably less than many consumer advocates had hoped for, groups like the Free Press pushing for a broad broadband package somewhere in the range of forty billion dollars. The plan being circulated is painfully vague about how this money is to be spent, saying only this:

Wireless and Broadband Grants: $6 billion for broadband and wireless services in under-served areas to strengthen the economy and provide business and job opportunities in every section of America with benefits to e-commerce, education, and healthcare. For every dollar invested in broadband the economy sees a ten-fold return on that investment.

Speaking at the State of the Net conference this week, Obama policy adviser Blair Levin apparently insisted that any broadband infrastructure improvements in this initial broadband stimulus plan will be only a small part of the Obama Presidency's support of broadband development. He also insisted that any broadband stimulus system would be routed through "existing structures," presumably like the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s tiny Rural Development Broadband Loan and Loan Guarantee Program. But Levin insists the $6 billion was just the beginning:


In his remarks, he clearly tried to respond to these criticisms raised by us and others by suggesting (1) that the team is still tossing up a variety of ideas and nothing has been concluded and (2) there are two elements that need to be considered: (a) a short-term "stimulus" plan to get the economy churning and create new jobs and (b) a more comprehensive broadband policy.

Getting that national policy right is going to be a tall order. Any real plan to improve our broadband fortunes, if done right, will create intense competition, and subsequently -- piss off very powerful incumbent ISP lobbyists who very much like things just the way they are. That's why ISP lobbyists have been working very hard at selling Washington on bogus national broadband plans that look good, but are really designed to prevent more progressive telecom reform.

Even if planned correctly, implementation and enforcement would be key. The government doesn't exactly have a great track record when it comes to following up on how subsidies are spent, mapping broadband penetration, or holding incumbent ISP feet to the fire when they fail to reach deployment promises. There's plenty of room for skepticism here until a real, substantive plan is unveiled and implemented.

As an aside, you can read the full text of the full $825 billion plan here.

view: topics flat text 
Post a:
page: 1 · 2
firewire9999

join:2004-07-11
Livonia, MI

Funny article

Just makes me laugh at the opening line in the article "The economy is in a crisis not seen since the Great Depression."

Gee what about the crisis in early years of 2000-2001, Or early years 1991-1992 and lets not forget the really bad crisis when Jimmy Carter was in charge. With that era we had 20% plus interest rates and unemployment rate that was at 10% or better.

So tired of only way we can get things back on track is to have the government spend us into a bottomless hole. When majority of the problems were having now is because of our government.

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

Re: Funny article

said by firewire9999:

Gee what about the crisis in early years of 2000-2001, Or early years 1991-1992 and lets not forget the really bad crisis when Jimmy Carter was in charge. With that era we had 20% plus interest rates and unemployment rate that was at 10% or better.
Heh.

It's the same line, just used on succeeding generations of clueless youngsters (and forgetful adults) to garner support.

Remember the 1991-92 recession? "Worst economy in 50 years."
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000
I agree that spending isn't the answer to our problems (more like the cause of it), but then you go out to blame Carter for bad interest rates in the 80s? I don't think you understand how the economy works. The interest rate level was set to control inflation and the unemployment was due to recession in the 70s due to Vietnam spending and the oil crisis.

jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
Reviews:
·voip.ms

Re: Funny article

said by morbo:

The interest rate level was set to control inflation and the unemployment was due to recession in the 70s due to Vietnam spending and the oil crisis.
The latter of which was due to Jimmy Carter.

Carter painted himself into a the opposite corner of the same room we're in now. He couldn't lower interest rates because of runaway inflation; we've devalued our currency with ridiculously low interest rates and fortunately have spread the misery around the world so our currency isn't worthless. Yet. And inflation is in check for now.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction

join:2002-01-22
00000

Re: Funny article

Read your history books. It was Nixon's price controls that led to gas shortages in the first place. Carter lifted those price controls (that distorted the supply) so the market returned to equilibrium.

Carter can be credited with putting the thought of conservation into the minds of U.S. citizens to reduce dependence on foreign oil, while those on the other side of the aisle painted it as cowardly to conserve. Carter being blamed for the oil crisis and high interest rates is a political line that keeps the right delusional.

BF69
Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN

Re: Funny article

said by morbo:

Read your history books. It was Nixon's price controls that led to gas shortages in the first place. Carter lifted those price controls (that distorted the supply) so the market returned to equilibrium.

Carter can be credited with putting the thought of conservation into the minds of U.S. citizens to reduce dependence on foreign oil, while those on the other side of the aisle painted it as cowardly to conserve. Carter being blamed for the oil crisis and high interest rates is a political line that keeps the right delusional.
The hgh interest rates and oil crisises happened BEFORE Carter was even in office. Of course don't expect these kids here to know WTF they are talking about. I LIVED in the 1970's I remember the 70's.
jc100

join:2002-04-10

1 edit

Re: Funny article

My post got bumped down =(. Here it is so PNH can see.

You being from Michigan should know things are bad. Worst Economy in 50 yrs or Great Depression? Well it depends on how you quantify things. By Unemployment numbers, we're at the worst since 1992 When Bush Sr. Left us with a Mess. Any higher (which it most likely will climb past the 7.6 we saw then) and it'll be the worst since the 1981/1982 recession where unemployment capped at 10.8 percent. A number higher than 7.6 HAS NOT been since in 27/28 years. Yet, what is adding to this recession is the fact the Housing Crash, Massive Foreclosures, and Credit Crisis. Previous recessions happened based upon a slow down of activity. This one was brought on by EXTREMELY UNREGULATED lending practices that trickled down to every facet in our lives. Too many people were getting rich, to give a crap that things were going to crumble. Last, and not to forgo my previous point, numbers in this current recession don't speak the whole volume of problems.

I Don't know the work force in 1981/1982 but the population in 1980 was 226 million. Today, it's 300 million. That's a 75 million / 25 percent increase. So if one assumes the labor force is 50 percent of the population, then 113 million worked in 1981/1982 and 150 million work today. What's my point? It takes far fewer people to boost unemployment higher when population is low. Yet, more are affected when population increase. 7.2 percent of 113 million would be 15.7 million where as 7.2 of 150 would be 20.8 million. All things are relative and you must put them into context. You and PNH failed to do so.

KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
said by firewire9999:

Gee what about the crisis in early years of 2000-2001, Or early years 1991-1992 and lets not forget the really bad crisis when Jimmy Carter was in charge. With that era we had 20% plus interest rates and unemployment rate that was at 10% or better.
Having been through the last two, I'd say this is quite different. I can't speak for the late 70's, but I can theorize that IF the Government wasn't bailing out the banks and lubricating the credit markets and we were concerned with trying to balance the budget the the moment I think 20% interest rates would be in effect now as well!

Also, in the 70's, there was still the reassurance that the USA was the biggest strongest economy in the world, that we had major blue collar job strengths and that things would turn around.... I'm not so sure Americans are nearly as confident these days due to our enormous debt load and exporting of jobs, combined with the strength of countries like China and the European Union.

While I do believe we'll sauced in "bailing" ourselves out of the current crisis, the writing is on the wall: We simply cannot go on as we have done borrowing and spending more then we have.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
JimF
Premium
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA
[
said by firewire9999:

Gee what about the crisis in early years of 2000-2001, Or early years 1991-1992 and lets not forget the really bad crisis when Jimmy Carter was in charge. With that era we had 20% plus interest rates and unemployment rate that was at 10% or better.
It is a current myth of the right-wingers, as they try to cover up Ronnie's and W.'s economic mistakes, that there was a recession during Jimmy Carter's time in office. Actually, the recession was in 1982, during Ronnie's time. And it was due to the Iranian oil embargo, which occurred during Jimmy's time in office and lead to a lot of inflation. He addressed that by naming Paul Volcker to head the Federal Reserve board, the last really competent guy to occupy that post. Since then, it has been huge deficits during the Ronnie, Bush I and Bush II years, broken only by fiscal sanity during Bill Clinton's time in office.

And as another poster has pointed out, the good deregulation (of trucking and airlines) was brought by Jimmy Carter (remember Alfred Kahn?). The current nonsense of allowing the banks to speculate with our money, which gives true deregulation a bad name, was started later.
»www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-recession1982.htm
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1

1 edit

Re: Funny article

said by JimF:

[
said by firewire9999:

Gee what about the crisis in early years of 2000-2001, Or early years 1991-1992 and lets not forget the really bad crisis when Jimmy Carter was in charge. With that era we had 20% plus interest rates and unemployment rate that was at 10% or better.
It is a current myth of the right-wingers, as they try to cover up Ronnie's and W.'s economic mistakes, that there was a recession during Jimmy Carter's time in office. Actually, the recession was in 1982, during Ronnie's time. And it was due to the Iranian oil embargo, which occurred during Jimmy's time in office and lead to a lot of inflation. He addressed that by naming Paul Volcker to head the Federal Reserve board, the last really competent guy to occupy that post. Since then, it has been huge deficits during the Ronnie, Bush I and Bush II years, broken only by fiscal sanity during Bill Clinton's time in office.

And as another poster has pointed out, the good deregulation (of trucking and airlines) was brought by Jimmy Carter (remember Alfred Kahn?). The current nonsense of allowing the banks to speculate with our money, which gives true deregulation a bad name, was started later.
»www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-recession1982.htm
So, I was just imagining the double-digit inflation, and double-digit unemployment during the Carter years? I know I was young at the time, but old enough to remember the misery index. I forget, when was that term coined? Oh, yeah, 1976. Carter coined it to describe how bad things were under Ford, when it was at about 13.5%. Too bad for Carter that it hit 22% by the time Carter lost to Reagan. Yeah, those were good times. I love the fact that they had to rewrite the economics text books at that point - the Keynesians out there promised us that you couldn't have a stagnant economy AND rampant inflation. Keynes never met Carter - they had to coin ANOTHER term to describe the phenomenon of the late 70's - stagflation, anyone?
JimF
Premium
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA

Re: Funny article

said by JPL:

So, I was just imagining the double-digit inflation, and double-digit unemployment during the Carter years?
You didn't read the first part of my statement. That was due to the Iranian oil embargo, not Carter's policies. He got us out of the inflation by appointing Paul Volcker, who you apparently have not heard of. If we had someone like that in charge of the Federal Reserve today, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. Also, we need a president who does not congratulate himself for wasting $3T by invading the wrong country, or who ignores his constitutional responsibilities in regulating the financial institutions.
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1

2 edits

Re: Funny article

said by JimF:

said by JPL:

So, I was just imagining the double-digit inflation, and double-digit unemployment during the Carter years?
You didn't read the first part of my statement. That was due to the Iranian oil embargo, not Carter's policies. He got us out of the inflation by appointing Paul Volcker, who you apparently have not heard of. If we had someone like that in charge of the Federal Reserve today, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in. Also, we need a president who does not congratulate himself for wasting $3T by invading the wrong country, or who ignores his constitutional responsibilities in regulating the financial institutions.
Love the personal pot-shot. Yes, I know who Paul Volcker is. But since I'm an economic moron, please educate me - please explain HOW the oil shortages caused rampant inflation across the entire economy. Yeah, it'll cause some price spikes in a couple sectors, but those price spikes translate (generally) to reduced demand for said products and services, which should lead to deflation - not hyper-inflation.

Also, when you factor in inflation, our recent oil price spikes put our current run-up (prior to this latest pull-back) on par with oil prices during Carter's time in office. And yet, unemployment is nowhere near what it was at that point. And rather than have inflationary pressure, we're likely going through a period of deflation. So, please, educate me - please explain how the high price of oil at the time caused all the economic malaise under Carter.

Oh, and you do know that Volcker served until 1987, right. That put him as the Fed chair most of the way through the Reagan administration, who you also panned. So, please explain this logic to me - Carter was an economic genius for naming Volcker who himself righted the ship - but we had economic mistakes (per your first post) under 'Ronnie'. Wait! How is that possible! If the sainted Paul Volcker was still the head of the fed at that point, then how in the world could we have gone astray, in terms of monitary policy, under Reagan. Please explain that disconnect to me. I'd love to hear that one too.
JimF
Premium
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA

Re: Funny article

said by JPL:

Love the personal pot-shot. Yes, I know who Paul Volcker is. But since I'm an economic moron, please educate me - please explain HOW the oil shortages caused rampant inflation across the entire economy. Yeah, it'll cause some price spikes in a couple sectors, but those price spikes translate (generally) to reduced demand for said products and services, which should lead to deflation - not hyper-inflation.
More money chasing fewer goods produces inflation. Oil is used by a wide range of industries, so when the price of that goes up, so does the price of everything else that depends on it, which is a lot. The Federal Reserve chairmen prior to Volcker responded to problems in the economy by increasing the money supply, which produces more inflation.

Also, when you factor in inflation, our recent oil price spikes put our current run-up (prior to this latest pull-back) on par with oil prices during Carter's time in office. And yet, unemployment is nowhere near what it was at that point. And rather than have inflationary pressure, we're likely going through a period of deflation. So, please, educate me - please explain how the high price of oil at the time caused all the economic malaise under Carter.
The recession (and maybe a depression) that we are in due to W.'s policies have weakened demand so much that prices are falling. They fell during the Great Depression of the 1930's too, if you prefer that to the 1970 period.

Oh, and you do know that Volcker served until 1987, right. That put him as the Fed chair most of the way through the Reagan administration, who you also panned. So, please explain this logic to me - Carter was an economic genius for naming Volcker who himself righted the ship - but we had economic mistakes (per your first post) under 'Ronnie'. Wait! How is that possible! If the sainted Paul Volcker was still the head of the fed at that point, then how in the world could we have gone astray, in terms of monitary policy, under Reagan. Please explain that disconnect to me. I'd love to hear that one too.
I didn't say we went astray due to monetary policies under Reagan during that period, but due to huge budget deficits. That is fiscal policy, which a president controls by his budget.
JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1

Re: Funny article

I'm trying to figure out where to start with this. First off, an increase in the price of a commodity (like oil) will make, as you correctly state, other products more expensive. If your cost goes up due to an increase in the price of a commodity you need to make that product, the price for that product will go up. Increased prices do one thing - and this is where I think you have it wrong - they REDUCE DEMAND. That's why stores have sales... reduce the price, and you increase demand. Reduced demand leads to... reduced prices! That's the way a normal business cycle works. Look at what's going on right now. People are spending less on everything. Why? One reason that we started down this road is because of oil prices. High oil prices caused a slow down in consumption, which caused a decrease in demand which caused deflationary pressure. That's a normal business cycle. I have to ask (yet again) - what the hell happened in the late 70's?

Second, you claimed that the economic ship got righted, thanks to Carter, because he nominated Volcker. I well understand that fiscal policy is controlled by the president. But you gave all the credit (as far as I can tell) to the economic recovery of the mid-80's to the fact that Carter nominated Volcker. Well, if just nominating Volcker (and thereby implementing Volcker's monetary policy) was enough to get the economy out of the toilet that it was in in the late 70's, then how the hell could things have been OTHER than rosy throughout Reagan's term? I was being a bit sarcastic on my question about this. On the one hand you appear to give ALL the credit for the turn-around to Carter's naming of Volcker (I didn't see you make any claims of Carter's fiscal brilliance, so I had to assume that it was simply his naming Volcker that made him an economic genius), but yet you claim that we had a recession in 82 thanks to Ronnie. But if fiscal policy played NO role in what happened under Carter, then how the hell can it have played such a big role under Reagan?

Or is it just possible (I know this is a stretch and all) that it's Carter's FISCAL policies that largely led to the doldrums that we were in during his tenur? Look at it this way, things got markedly worse between the time he took office until he lost in 1980. Who was to blame for that? Just the oil prices? Come on (again, I have to go back to the fact that oil prices were recently just as high and we didn't have anywhere near the malaise we had back in the late 70's). Finally I find it interesting that you blame (I believe it was your post) Nixon's policies on the economic slide that Carter had to endure, but then you turned right around and say that 1982 was a recessionary year - did it escape you that if Carter was inheriting Nixon's legacy, that just maybe Reagan inherited Carter's? A little consistency on this point would be nice - you can't claim that Carter was the victim of bad policy from a prior administration (giving the blame to Nixon), while exhonerating Carter from the downturn during Reagan's watch.

You can't have it both ways. BTW, I do agree that Nixon's price and wage controls were a large reason for the state of the economy under Ford. But that in no way exhonerates Carter for not turning that around. He had 4 years to do it, and the economy was considerably worse when he was done.
JimF
Premium
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA

Re: Funny article

said by JPL:

I'm trying to figure out where to start with this. First off, an increase in the price of a commodity (like oil) will make, as you correctly state, other products more expensive. If your cost goes up due to an increase in the price of a commodity you need to make that product, the price for that product will go up. Increased prices do one thing - and this is where I think you have it wrong - they REDUCE DEMAND.
Price is where supply and demand intersect. Increasing the price causes inflation (and in fact is the definition of it). That causes people to buy less. That is not "demand" however, which is the amount that people are willing to buy at a given price. You need to go back to Economics 101.

High oil prices caused a slow down in consumption, which caused a decrease in demand which caused deflationary pressure. That's a normal business cycle. I have to ask (yet again) - what the hell happened in the late 70's?
What happened in the 70's was inflation due to the oil price increase. Perhaps you mean the 80's? That was a recession.

Well, if just nominating Volcker (and thereby implementing Volcker's monetary policy) was enough to get the economy out of the toilet that it was in in the late 70's, then how the hell could things have been OTHER than rosy throughout Reagan's term?
Because economic health is due to both monetary and fiscal policy. I never said it played no role in Carter's policy. Where did you get that idea? I merely pointed out that the huge deficits under Ronnie negatively impacted the economy. It transferred capital from normal civilian use to his huge military buildup mainly. As you will recall, that was the era when the U.S. semiconductor manufacturers lost out to Japan as a result. The car manufacturers did not do so well either. That is because the Japanese invested in the civilian side of the economy.

Or is it just possible (I know this is a stretch and all) that it's Carter's FISCAL policies that largely led to the doldrums that we were in during his tenur? Look at it this way, things got markedly worse between the time he took office until he lost in 1980. Who was to blame for that? Just the oil prices?
Carter's budget deficits were far smaller than Reagans, and total government spending was a lot less. The difference was the oil shock, as was well understood at the time.

Come on (again, I have to go back to the fact that oil prices were recently just as high and we didn't have anywhere near the malaise we had back in the late 70's).
We could be in a far worse situation now, and not just because of oil, but because of the collapse of the financial industry. That could make anything in the 70's look like small potatoes.

Finally I find it interesting that you blame (I believe it was your post) Nixon's policies on the economic slide that Carter had to endure, but then you turned right around and say that 1982 was a recessionary year - did it escape you that if Carter was inheriting Nixon's legacy, that just maybe Reagan inherited Carter's?
I did not mention Nixon at all. And it is not I who say that 1982 was a recessionary year, but the government.


BTW, I do agree that Nixon's price and wage controls were a large reason for the state of the economy under Ford. But that in no way exhonerates Carter for not turning that around. He had 4 years to do it, and the economy was considerably worse when he was done.
Well at least we agree on something. But whatever the state of the economy under Nixon, the Iranian oil embargo made it far worse. You have your choice to let inflation get out of control, or else control the money supply. Paul Volcker did the latter. Now you should be pointing out that that contributed to the recession in the 1980's, which is of course correct. But once inflation was under control, he then allowed the money supply to increase, which brought us out of it. However, the huge deficits due to excessive government spending (in spite of the rhetoric) caused long-term damage that is still being felt.
MrSpock29

join:2008-02-09
Hammonton, NJ

1 edit
said by firewire9999:

Just makes me laugh at the opening line in the article "The economy is in a crisis not seen since the Great Depression."

Gee what about the crisis in early years of 2000-2001, Or early years 1991-1992 and lets not forget the really bad crisis when Jimmy Carter was in charge. With that era we had 20% plus interest rates and unemployment rate that was at 10% or better.

So tired of only way we can get things back on track is to have the government spend us into a bottomless hole. When majority of the problems were having now is because of our government.
I like how now we have to bail out mortgages that have principals higher than the value. If that's the standard, then why aren't they doing that with car loans? lol

Drive a car off the lot and lose 25% of the value in minutes!!!!
I am sure all the other people who lived through real estate crashes are wondering where their check was.
jc100

join:2002-04-10

2 edits
You being from Michigan should know things are bad. Worst Economy in 50 yrs or Great Depression? Well it depends on how you quantify things. By Unemployment numbers, we're at the worst since 1992 When Bush Sr. Left us with a Mess. Any higher (which it most likely will climb past the 7.6 we saw then) and it'll be the worst since the 1981/1982 recession where unemployment capped at 10.8 percent. A number higher than 7.6 HAS NOT been since in 27/28 years. Yet, what is adding to this recession is the fact the Housing Crash, Massive Foreclosures, and Credit Crisis. Previous recessions happened based upon a slow down of activity. This one was brought on by EXTREMELY UNREGULATED lending practices that trickled down to every facet in our lives. Too many people were getting rich, to give a crap that things were going to crumble. Last, and not to forgo my previous point, numbers in this current recession don't speak the whole volume of problems.

I Don't know the work force in 1981/1982 but the population in 1980 was 226 million. Today, it's 300 million. That's a 75 million / 25 percent increase. So if one assumes the labor force is 50 percent of the population, then 113 million worked in 1981/1982 and 150 million work today. What's my point? It takes far fewer people to boost unemployment higher when population is low. Yet, more are affected when population increase. 7.2 percent of 113 million would be 15.7 million where as 7.2 of 150 would be 20.8 million. All things are relative and you must put them into context. You and PNH failed to do so.

exocet_cm
You delete it, I'll find it
Premium
join:2003-03-23
New Orleans, LA
kudos:2

$$$

Where does all the money for these projects and plans come from? Does the government just cut themselves a check?

DarkLogix
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

Re: $$$

Yes they just cut a check and we (the taxpayers of the US) will foot the bill at some point

just tak it on to the 6+Trillion they've squandered so far
wozz007

join:2008-09-09
Greensburg, PA

Re: $$$

They are paying us with our own money, typical government reasoning.
jc100

join:2002-04-10

Re: $$$

No. They are paying us with BORROWED money. We're in debt to others at this point. No more left from home less we tax more. Cant turn blood from a turnip.

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:1
said by exocet_cm:

Where does all the money for these projects and plans come from? Does the government just cut themselves a check?
They will steal it from us either through tax increases, borrowing from China or simply printing more.

Luwigie
Premium
join:2002-06-06
East Lansing, MI

Re: $$$

said by fifty nine:

They will steal it from us either through tax increases, borrowing from China or simply printing more.
It doesn't work like that. Every dollar that is printed is one more in circulation and thus each is worth less. Printing trillion dollar bills doesn't work. It has to come from China or all of us willing tax payers >.>

DarkLogix
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

Re: $$$

Well not every dollar
they also destroy dollars as well
so if they print 1 and destroy 1 the balance is maintained

and China doesn't want to loan us anymore

DrModem
Premium
join:2006-10-19
USA
kudos:1

Re: $$$

said by DarkLogix:

Well not every dollar
they also destroy dollars as well
so if they print 1 and destroy 1 the balance is maintained
Would be great if it worked out that way.

Thing is, they don't destroy them.

DarkLogix
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

Re: $$$

They do destroy some but only old dollars
and they always print replacement

why do you think you rearly see a bill from the 80's
I think its around 10-20 years old they "retire" the bills and print replacement

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:1
said by Luwigie:

It doesn't work like that. Every dollar that is printed is one more in circulation and thus each is worth less.
That's kind of the point I was making. It's the hidden tax.

Don't say it can't happen. The brits were considering doing exactly that last week, i.e. printing more money.

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

1 edit
said by exocet_cm:

Where does all the money for these projects and plans come from? Does the government just cut themselves a check?
Don't worry. We'll save plenty because Obama has indicated he'll close Club Gitmo and he wants to keep Osama Bin Laden "in a cave somewhere" if he can't capture or kill him. Though I do remember Obama criticizing Bush for not doing enough to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden... maybe my memory is fuzzy.

»www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28624679/

»www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/···85.shtml

I suppose Obama could use the money that his future Secretary of Treasury paid in back taxes and interest to pay for this too.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!
Pv8man

join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN

Re: $$$

Oh yes, he clearly meant that he wants bin laden to stay hiding in a cave forever.
Ya, like that statement was not a spin.

By the way, his treasury pick already took care of that and paid all the standard penalty fees. Was it a mistake? was it on purpose? That I do not know.

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

Re: $$$

said by Pv8man:

Oh yes, he clearly meant that he wants bin laden to stay hiding in a cave forever.
Ya, like that statement was not a spin.
If you read the linked interview you will see it is a direct quotation.
said by Pv8man:

By the way, his treasury pick already took care of that and paid all the standard penalty fees. Was it a mistake? was it on purpose? That I do not know.
Of course. I am sure every other US taxpayer who made "honest mistakes" on their taxes got the same kind of sweetheart deal too.

Sorry, but if you're going to be running Treasury and are either too incompetent to manage your own finances correctly and ensure taxes are paid (especially when there are so many ways to get professional help to do it), or you are cheating on your taxes, then you need to find a different job.

Considering that the current guy running Treasury isn't exactly doing a good job at the moment, I think we'd be better served having someone who knows what they are doing running that department.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012!

Romney2012
Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe in
Premium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
Here is a summary I put together by excerpting parts of the US News & World Report story. It shows all the major expenditures:
»tkjunkmail.blogspot.com/2009/01/···825.html
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
How about that nice $250 billion that magically disappeared...
Flash

join:2004-02-01
Spokane, WA
from the magic money tree!

HotRodFoto
Premium
join:2003-04-19
Denver, CO

And meanwhile

Bank of America just said they need Billions to buy Merrill Lynch.....go figure
--
Capturing the images of Colorado
»jdebordphoto.com

DarkLogix
Premium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3

Re: And meanwhile

LOL
didn't we just bail Lynch out? and they spend it allready?

(I need $5Trillion so I can um I don't know buy Comcast or something)j/k
me1212

join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO

Re: And meanwhile

I know lol. Um Mr. Obama, I need 4T so I can um... buy comcast and make them um... be everywhere on earth../lol.

Rothan Tik
Premium
join:2000-11-07
Danvers, MA

bah

Project Mayhem seems like a better idea every day.

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

Wheres it going?

So who is getting this 6 billion? Is this going to prop up local fiber ISP's? Or just the big ISP's are going to be getting this..and probably wasting it away..

wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace

join:2004-08-07
New York, NY

Re: Wheres it going?

said by ztmike:

So who is getting this 6 billion? Is this going to prop up local fiber ISP's? Or just the big ISP's are going to be getting this..and probably wasting it away..
See my comments below. I would have no problems if conditions were attached so that only smaller providers got money to build actual networks. This would (hopefully) quickly usher out the era of UNE-P madness that has ruined our telecom sector since 1996.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности

knightmb
Everybody Lies

join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
said by ztmike:

So who is getting this 6 billion? Is this going to prop up local fiber ISP's? Or just the big ISP's are going to be getting this..and probably wasting it away..
I hope some of it comes to me. With only $1 million, I could blanket the entire county (including all rural areas) with wireless broadband. I sure hope that AT&T, Comcast, etc. don't all funnel the money directly into their retirement accounts.
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data

noc3x

@charter.com

Re: Wheres it going?

said by knightmb:

I hope some of it comes to me. With only $1 million, I could blanket the entire county (including all rural areas) with wireless broadband.
That would be a $1M lie. But then again, you would be $1M richer. I expect there would be a line of "small providers" with similar "promises"

knightmb
Everybody Lies

join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN

1 edit

Re: Wheres it going?

said by noc3x :

said by knightmb:

I hope some of it comes to me. With only $1 million, I could blanket the entire county (including all rural areas) with wireless broadband.
That would be a $1M lie. But then again, you would be $1M richer. I expect there would be a line of "small providers" with similar "promises"
Experience trumps logic
It's the difference between thought experiments and actually doing it. I wouldn't quote it if I hadn't already spent a year doing live test and surveys to confirm what equipment it would take and technical setup to achieve the goal.

phoneboy3

@shawcable.net

approval from:
KrK See Profile

I sure hope they 'piss off' entrenched ISPs

If they do manage to "piss off very powerful incumbent ISP lobbyists" then you KNOW they are doing something right!

wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace

join:2004-08-07
New York, NY

Broadband "plans" will end up hurting the consumer

I am not sure why this isnt discussed more, but any sort of national broadband "plan" will only hurt the consumers. Let me outline why, in four simple steps.

1) Government says to all cable co's and telco's that they need to serve X% of the population within X years.

2) Said companies realize this will cost them billions, so they lobby and sue to prevent it.

3) Overbearing government forces the issue, and the providers spend billions against their will.

4) Providers now serve many more people, however they pass on the cost of expansion to you and I (in rate increases, etc.)

The above will never work, and will only cause big problems and increase costs for everyone. NOW here's my solution. Instead of forcing the incumbent providers to do anything, the government should take that $6 billion and offer it as incentives to competitive providers (hear that CLEC's?) who promise to (get ready for it...) build their own network! To begin with, this would actually give CLEC's some viability, and put the "resale mafia" out of business. CLEC's that actually have a solid business plan would have access to millions of dollars to put actual infrastructure in the ground. This would in turn create competition, which provide for lower rates to consumers. It would also have the side effect of creating many more jobs for the newly expanded CLEC's and regional providers that step up to the plate.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности

See 6 replies to this post
caco
Premium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK

Suggestion

Before the spend a dime they need a detailed map of areas that can and can't get broadband and the speeds that are available.
--
»www.seabee.navy.mil

Duramax08
A Challenger Appears
Premium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX

Re: Suggestion

I dont have broadband in my area...

woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA

hmmmm....

all I have to say about all this is

BOHICA
--
BlooMe

Romney2012
Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe in
Premium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4

Re: hmmmm....

said by woody7:

all I have to say about all this is

BOHICA
»www.urbandictionary.com/define.p···.H.I.C.A
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
voipdabbler

join:2006-04-27
Kalispell, MT

Hmmmmmm

Well, if they only want $6 billion for a nationwide broadband plan, then they aren't planning on doing much. One thing that the media (including Broadband Reports) needs to focus on, and it should go hand-in-hand with any "nationwide" broadband plan, is a nationwide Internet security plan. It bothers me that we're allowing important, if not critical, utility and other public infrastructures to move to a platform (Internet) that is very vulnerable to remote attack. Much needs to be done to make it more secure before we wake up and find ourselves completely vulnerable to remote foreign attack. And if you think it's not a real world concern, here's a link to an article you should ponder; it's about the possible role of the Chinese army hacking into public utilities via the Internet in a major power outage that occurred in the eastern US and Canada several years ago. »www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazi···6948.php

And another article that's food for thought about moving so much of the infrastructure of our commercial and public sectors to the net. . »www.securecomputing.net.au/News/···cks.aspx

PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

1 edit

Lack of Faith Disturbing

Due to my extreme lack of faith in the federal government to provide any form of consumer protection or legitimate enforcement since every single congressman / congresswoman seems to be out to get there's - and it's not exactly as if the FCC has shown itself to be the shining knight, especially after their enforcement over Comcast, or rather lack thereof. So you'll understand if I take this announcement and don't believe that it will help me see anything other than Comcast in my neighborhood for the next 5 years, or Verizon... if they ever build out, because you know, those darn incumbent Cable areas just aren't profitable... Never mind that 50-70% of the homes here have a satellite dish on top of their roof's for either DirecTV or Dish Network. Nope... no chance of profitability there. Only about a hundred or so households willing to switch to any form of competition at the drop of a hat.
rdmiller

join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA

$6 billion is too much

Spending any taxpayer money so contractor-hired illegal immigrants can work 16/7 digging trenches in the ground seems like a stupid way to stimulate the economy.
tmc8080

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

Sweet Apple Pie

Please tell me that alot of this money will go for municipal deployments instead of a massive gravy train for incumbent carriers... local municipalities care about their towns & customers and will hire local workers. For profit companies care about return on investment at any cost. The alternative.. having minority carriers bid for contracts.

Who?

Rcn, Earthlink, Covad, etc

You could even bring to the table Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc.

The technology: latest generation fiber & wireless depending upon needs of the community.
shapiro44

join:2004-03-01
Highland, NY

Hurray, Broadband for all

Hurray, Broadband for all

fiber_man
Things Happen For A Reason
Premium
join:2001-01-27
Port Saint Lucie, FL
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse

Not Enough.

That amount would not even cover the cost of digging all of the trenches to each home in several states. Much less the fiber cables themselves.
If the labor started hitting telco, cable tv, power cables the price goes way up with the contractors passing the fines and repair cost to the taxpayers.

How much red tape and cost would they hit getting the permits local, state, etc..

Then how about the customers that complain about their yards and streets being dug up. Replacing plants,trees,grass,etc. Then think about the equipment that would have to be placed the use the fiber. Many articles here about Vrads alone come to mind. More cost for more permits for easements,rows,etc. to place said equipment.

I know people here will disagree with me on this. But copper will be around for another 20 years or more. Their are copper cables still working from the early 1900's around here. As long as the maintenance of these cables is done they have shown the last a long time be it twisted copper pairs or coax. The cable itself usually is not the problem of many troubles. It is the connections that have failed in most cases.

--
GO NOLES!!
SuperWISP

join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY

Subsidize consumers, not incumbents

The best way to ensure that incumbent telephone and cable companies don't take the money and run is simple: Give the money to unserved or underserved consumers -- as vouchers -- to spend on broadband. The consumers will then create demand, and this in turn will provide an incentive for providers to build out to them. Under this scheme, the best provider will win, regardless of size -- and no one who fails to build out will get any of the money. Simple.

Zen6

@rr.com

simple economics

By printing all this money and borrowing from other countries we have doomed future generations to higher unreasonable taxes as well as a dollar devalued.
decifal

join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..

slushy

What happened to the idea of using the slush funds for network buildouts? I mean hell if we don't have enough teleco phone service built out yet.. WE probably never will.. WE need fiber! And lets start with people that don't have squat first.. I'm tired of city's getting the gold,, followed by subdivisions, then by the time they get ready to buildout to other areas (( not rural damn you)) they come up with something else and start over (( dsl, then uverse for example ))..

Bellsouth was expanding DSL pretty steadily.. And I was told, I was going to obtain it at one point.. But then the att purchase, and uverse and all hope is shot to hell in a hand basket.. It seems like i'm in a service gap hole.. Theres demand, but they are not sure which county to give us data feed from (( my RT is boardered by 3 county's... its nuts ))..

Least comcast has appeared a couple miles out.. Maybe they will continue to come my way in the future.. First one to service me with a mostly reliable service keeps my buisness..
margaf77

join:2000-12-22
Bayonne, NJ

I want to believe but...

The industry is doing everything to stifle just what Obama is promising. I hope he has the right people in the positions that matter and things change.

There is no good reason the US doesnt have 95+% broadband penetration.

FastiBook

join:2003-01-08
Newtown, PA

Depression?

Only depression is when i look at all the price gouging, layoffs, fare increases and service cuts and the like in the name of "trimming costs". I got news for you, it takes money to make money. Spending less just means less can be made. Basic economic principal!

- A
--
LETS GO METS!

Monday, 04-Jun 22:16:27 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.