FCC Gets Go-Ahead For Plan To Expand Rural Internet Access 156
The FCC's plan to use fees collected from big telecom companies to expand Internet infrastructure in rural parts of the U.S. was given a green light yesterday in Denver, by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Those telecoms maintained that the FCC's mandate did not extend to using the money to pay for Internet service, but a three-judge panel dismissed their challenge. From The Verge: "The FCC originally pitched the program as part of the Universal Service Fund in 2011, noting in a report a year earlier that approximately 14 million people did not have access to broadband. The Connect America Fund aimed to use a portion of customer bills in other areas of the country to build out broadband infrastructure, including cellular data networks in those areas. That would begin with $300 million at the start, and up to $500 million as part of an annual budget."
Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
Finally they stood up to the telecoms and now I trust them completely to ensure that the Internet will be free, open and available to everyone.
I've never understood the hate as of late.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC is soooo awesome for doing this!
To date, "Connect Americs" - type government programs managed to bring broadband Internet service to quite a few (though nowhere near a million) rural households... for an average of nearly $100,000 per household.
Your tax $ at work.
The intent may be good, but as usual, the government has fumble-fingered the whole operation, and made it cost somewhere around 20 times what it should have.
Re: (Score:1)
not your taxes. isn't the money from a surcharge on your cable/telephone bill....totally different slush fund.
Re: (Score:2)
the problem here is that if government was actually capable of overseeing things like this, it wouldn't be allowed to happen.
Now I get that you are blaiming private enterprise and praising government but lets seriously look at this. If a private enterprise had that kind of mismanagement, it would fire a lot of people, possible go out of business, and likely be sued by its shareholders. Government manages a project like that, and it is business as usual with critics being deflected at the outside group.
So, i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Barack Obama basically just gifted 4 billion in taxpayer money to the Telecommunications corporations."
The president doesn't give money, congress does. Blame them. Like during the Clinton era when congress gave billions to expand the internet to schools and the telcos gave themselves a big payday when they weren't buying each other and many rural schools don't have decent internet yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They will have to prove it!
Re: (Score:1)
Because property taxes on rural land doesn't subsidize services for people that live in the city, amirite?
Or are you that much of a fucking dumbass?
Agricultural Property tax breaks! (Score:3)
Given the enormous tax breaks given to "agricultural property" in Texas, I doubt there is any subsidizing at all going from rural to urban in this state. This is from 2005 (http://www.chron.com/news/article/Legislature-to-rethink-farmland-tax-breaks-1563193.php), but I don't think it has changed much since, "In suburban Austin, a 1,757-acre ranch owned by Michael Dell has what Travis County appraisers call a "well-managed deer herd" that reduces the ranch's market value of $74.8 million to an agriculture v
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Informative)
Because property taxes on rural land doesn't subsidize services for people that live in the city, amirite?
I work for a local government and am heavily involved in the property tax process. I'm sure like all things it varies by state, but here (South Carolina) I'd say that the urban subsidizes the rural even on property taxes.
For one, there's the plain and simple situation that large tracts of rural land are worth much less per acre than land in the cities. A 0.25 acre lot in town might be $30k whilst land out in the woods is less than $10k per acre.
Secondly, large tracts of agricultural land used for crops or timber are given an EXTREME tax break. Most of them pay taxes on less than 5% of the actual value of the land.
And last, serious tax breaks are given to "owner occupied" residential properties. Owner occupied properties are far more common in rural areas. Its not uncommon in the urban/suburban areas, but there are far more rental properties and such that end up paying nearly twice as much in property taxes.
I know in our specific locale its been an area of concern lately that a small urban area that is less than 10% of the size of the county generates more than 25% of the property tax revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So taxing property is the only way to pay those people who provide the services you use right now? We have no other way for government to collect money and make those payments?
Now I understand the concept of services provided but it isn't always the property owners demanding that or those services. I'm sure this move by the FCC is making some progressive wet dreams right now. I mean we now have government agencies who can simply expand their mandate "at will" by contriving connections to the old mandate tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I work for a local government and am heavily involved in the property tax process. I'm sure like all things it varies by state, but here (South Carolina) I'd say that the urban subsidizes the rural even on property taxes.
Your post is interesting. But without further statistics, I'm not sure how your statements are evidence the property tax money is flowing one way or the other.
For one, there's the plain and simple situation that large tracts of rural land are worth much less per acre than land in the cities. A 0.25 acre lot in town might be $30k whilst land out in the woods is less than $10k per acre.
As far as I'm aware, almost all property tax schemes have to do with the supposed "value" of the property, not the size. If you have a 10-acre wooded lot, you'll pay less taxes than the same lot with a giant mansion built on it with a swimming pool, private tennis court, etc. Similarly, if you buy a plot in a city, it may have a significantly highe
Re: (Score:2)
We're running about $3.5K/acre in Michigan for tiled ag land, volunteer fire dept., Sherrif has 2 cars on patrol, internet is either 4G or satelite and our electric grid is single phase.
That means some theft is justifiable (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Theft is wrong, and never justified. Income taxes are theft. Property taxes are arguably theft, although most things that are property taxed are not really necessary to own, as you can rent and avoid property taxes of the land, and you can simply not drive and avoid the property taxes on cars, and so forth.
Fix this one big injustice / sin of theft from the people by repealing the 16th Amendment and abolishing the Federal income taxes. These taxes were described by JFK as:
"The largest single barrier to
Re: (Score:1)
Theft is wrong, and never justified. Income taxes are theft. Property taxes are arguably theft, although most things that are property taxed are not really necessary to own, as you can rent and avoid property taxes of the land, and you can simply not drive and avoid the property taxes on cars, and so forth.
Fix this one big injustice / sin of theft from the people by repealing the 16th Amendment and abolishing the Federal income taxes. These taxes were described by JFK as:
"The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive.” John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963 "
Not only is abolishing the income taxes the right and moral thing to do, it would supercharge the economy.
I agree.
1. Abolish all taxes.
2. Shutdown the unfunded government.
3. Wait for Putin to arrive.
4. Profit!
Oh, BTW, Putin has some taxes for your to pay him.
Lowering taxes didn't supercharge the economy in the year 2000, now. Did it?
Whoops. Gotta go. Your mom's calling from upstairs and want to know if you need a snack.
Re: (Score:1)
Every time a politician wants to help the economy, they find a way to lower taxes, so _they_ know it works even if you don't.
No, don't abolish all taxes, just abolish all income taxes.
Lowering the taxes in 2000 did help the economy, although it was hard to tell after we were attacked in 2001 and had to spend huge amounts of money to ensure it didn't happen again (We had to kick the sh** out of our enemies.) Eliminating Federal income taxes _would_ supercharge the economy, as all those jobs that left our s
Re: (Score:1)
"Buying" an election? You mean when politicians propose to do what people want them to do is buying an election? I thought that was how it was supposed to work.
Texas has no State income taxes, and has one of the best economies in the USA. That's where the whole country should be coming from, stopping taxing our tools of industry, our corporations, out of existence or overseas. That will result in jobs for everyone.
OBTW, WHAT progressive taxation system? The poor pay 15.3% in payroll taxes from the 1st
Renting doubles property tax (Score:2)
most things that are property taxed are not really necessary to own, as you can rent and avoid property taxes of the land
When you rent, you likely pay double property tax because you have to compensate a landlord who cannot take advantage of the deduction for owner-occupied property that many localities provide.
you can simply not drive and avoid the property taxes on cars
To not drive, you have to live within reasonable cycling distance of your job, and that means higher property values, which means higher property tax folded into your rent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You argue against abolishing all taxes when I propose only to abolish INCOME taxes, which are theft and therefore immoral. Why is that?
Re: (Score:2)
There's no logical argument that makes INCOME taxes specifically "theft" that wouldn't apply to other taxes.
The bottom line is that we live in a society in which we have determined that a certain level of services must be maintained for all citizens. Those services must be paid for. Such payments must have funds, and those funds come in the form of taxes. No matter if income, sales, or property tax, all taxes must be paid under penalty of law, and are not "theft". Heck the entire concept and punishment o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306
"0.5 Megabits per second - Required broadband connection speed"
While I would say that 256kbps would be good enough for what determines "broadband", maybe I can concede with 512kbps. However, I think one problem with the modern web is the lack of efficacy toward low-end computers being able to load the modern web, let alone the issue with websites needing lots of bandwidth to load a page in reasonable time.
What would be a reasonable time to buffer a video one wants to watc
Buffering the whole thing in the early morning (Score:2)
What would be a reasonable time to buffer a video one wants to watch on Netflix? Assuming it works that way.
If worse comes to worst, reasonable would be ordering the movie one night, waiting for it to buffer during the unmetered 12 AM to 5 AM period that some satellite ISPs offer, and then watching it the next night. But Netflix has shown itself unwilling to allow an entire movie to buffer.
Re:Yes! (Score:4, Insightful)
Then go to some country where there are no taxes.
Assuming you can find this mythical make believe country, it would be a shithole with no public infrastructure.
you take for granted what your taxes buy you. ingrate.
Re: (Score:1)
I argue to abolish the income taxes and you act like I said we should abolish all taxes. Why is that?
Re: (Score:2)
It sure as shit does not. Urban property taxes are many times higher than rural.
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed. I am so grateful that the FCC required me to pay more in order to subsidize the lifestyle choices of other people
It would be so unfair if people were expected to deal with the consequences of their own decisions without coerced assistance from people that made more sensible choices.
Hi! Welcome to 2014 where humans live together in these things called 'societies'. Good thing for you, your opinion is in the minority otherwise social services that benefit us all like open internet, interstate roads, guaranteed postal services, unemployment benefits, socialized emergency services (fire, police, ambulance), etc wouldn't be possible.
There is plenty of reading to learn about societies so you better get started [google.com]
Re: (Score:1)
you're somewhat confused, the fire and police are done by local taxes. the ambulances are private except for the fire departments.
the internet is censored, monitored, and not distributed evenly nor even accessible in all places. it is made up of telco equipment of private companies that charge money to their customers. what's "open internet" mean?
postal service is in constitution but it is not absolutely needed anymore in this era of email and alternative private carriers. those out in the sticks with n
Re: (Score:3)
I need the post office, but I'm a small businessman who needs to ship things. I'm a job and wealth creator instead of a plebian like you. I quite like socialism for basic infrastructure. It enables me. You just take for granted all that you have due to "socialism".
I don't want to live in a world where the employees i'm trying to hire can't read or write because they didn't get a public education. I don't want to live in a world where I don't have a postal service to get my supplies in and my goods out. I
Re: (Score:2)
I'm calling BS on ya.
If you actually are a small business that heavily depends on the post office to ship stuff, you are likely nothing more than an Ebay seller who raids local yard sales and second hand stores in order to hike the price up selling on the internet while relying on people's good will to offer stuff cheaper to the poor and differences in the costs of living from one area to another.
First, the post office is constitutionally mandated as such are the roads. Take them completely out of the small
Re: (Score:2)
sorry, post office isn't socialism, only paying customers get to send mail
you should hire some south side Chicago public school employees, functionally illiterate because their teacher are too. public education not working so well in some very large places.
the world you desire is imaginary, pay people not to work and breed like maggots and they will make a criminal class and dangerous slums and always require more and more money. which is what is happening
electricity is made by private companies for payin
Re: (Score:2)
you are so funny, assisting police and not the citizens, that isn't socialism
those "public roads" the ambulances drive on are paid for with local taxes
the post office is for paying customers, not even supported by taxes
no, insurance only for those that held job and paid into system is not socialism.
my assertions thus all have substance, while you prattle nonsense
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How many of those farmers are struggling "family farms" and how many are big agribusinesses or rich "gentleman farmers" reinvesting their millions? And while I'm at it, what about those ethanol mandates which are forcing the rest of us to buy their alcohol instead of food, and the subsidized water they all get out west? There was perhaps a time in the early 20th century where "rural electrification" and "universal phone service" may have made sense -- not any more. Sorry, the "noble farmer, man of the la
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Informative)
Oh horseshit. Do your research. 97 percent of farms in the US are family owned and operated. 2.2 million of them. Average farm family income is about 70K
http://www.fb.org/index.php?fu... [fb.org]
Re:Yes! (Score:4, Interesting)
97 percent of farms in the US are family owned and operated. 2.2 million of them.
[Citation Needed]
Your link just goes to an agricultural interest organization that doesn't cite anything.
I found another random agricultural interest group that claims 60% of family farms are "hobby" farms that don't contribute meaningfully to the market.
But you know what, it doesn't cite its sources either [thehandthatfeedsus.org] (PDF), beyond "USDA"
Either way, my understanding is that family farms are increasingly shifting towards contract farming, which effectively makes the "family" aspect a meaningless distinction.
How to Lie with Statistics (Score:5, Interesting)
... the important part is to pick the metric that you like:
First, we have our possible definitions of 'family farm' :
1. Farms operated by indvidual families
2. Farms owned by individual families
3. Farms owned or operated by individual families that produce agricultural products for sale
4. Farms owned or operated by individual families that aren't incorporated. (might be a death tax dodge, might be a huge corporatation that's tightly held)
5. Farms owned an operated by individual families that qualify as a 'small business'.
6. Farms under a given acerage.
And we can further modify what we're analyzing:
a. ...only those farms that produce agricultural products for sale. ...only those farms that produce food. ...only those farms that produce food intended for human consumption. (no sod or flower farms, feedstock for biodiesel) ...only those farms that produce food that contributes to the human food chain. (so allow hay, alfalfa and animal feed if grown for cows, but if the cows are to be dog food). ...only those farms that 'contribute meaningfully to the market'.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Then, we have our metric, selecting the definiton of 'family farm' that's most advantageous of what we're trying to show, comparing "family farms" to either "corporate farms" or to "all farms":
1. Percentage of the count "family farms"
2. Percentage of the acerage of "family farms" 3. Percentage of the acerage used for farming in a given year.
4. Percentage of the products produced by "family farms" (in tons)
5. Percentage of the products produced by "family farms" (in dollars)
6&7. Percentage of the food produced by "family farms" (tons / dollars)
8&9. Percentage of the food sold by "family farms" (tons/dollars)
Some of these, I'm not even sure which way the selection bias will be. (family farms might sell at farmer's markets and get a better price per pound ... or they might focus on herbs and things typically sold at higher margins that don't tend to be grown on a massive scale).
But like anything, you run all of the different combinations, and pick the one that gives you the answer to support whatever argument you're trying to make.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh horseshit. Do your research. 97 percent of farms in the US are family owned and operated.
Please give your figures in tonnage, or acreage, if you expect us to give one tenth of one shit. Thanks.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
I am so grateful that the FCC required me to pay more in order to subsidize the lifestyle choices of other people.
I love how people expect us to subsidize their internet access but nobody (sane) argues in favor of subsidies for wells and septic tanks, both of which are more costly than municipal water service. Access to clean water is actually essential to life, unlike internet access, or even electricity for that matter, but nobody expects suburban/urban people to subsidize water for rural folks, why should we have to subsidize their internet connectivity?
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Informative)
Probably because people actually can dig a well and a septic tank on their own and it works fine while internet is all or nothing unless you expect each individual to run a separate fiber to the nearest city.
Re: (Score:1)
No, I expect people to pay the actual cost to receive service at their location, not to treat the internet like the USPS that charges me the same to deliver a letter from PO Box 1 to PO Box 2 as it does to deliver it from New York to Hawaii.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you can expect the cost of food to go up.
Re: (Score:1)
Good. Let costs reflect reality, it's the only way a market oriented system can work. In any case, I would dispute that food prices are low because of rural-specific subsidies. They're low because of economy of scale, which is why I can't green bell peppers in the grocery store from anywhere besides California even though they'll grow in all 50 States. One would like to believe the current drought there would teach us the value of not putting all our eggs in one basket, but history suggests we'll forget
Re: (Score:2)
It seems the market has come to a sub-optimal solution in the case of the green bells then.
If food costs go up, expect to increase the budget for food stamps as well. All told, you're going to be out more than the 2-5 bucks a year the internet subsidy would have cost you.
Re:Yes! (Score:4, Interesting)
The telecoms lack even one electron volt of shame. Don't you think the main issue is that these telecoms filed a lawsuit to prevent millions from getting broadband connections? That their image is already so blackened, they don't worry how this might appear? How did rural folks become the bad guys for you in this story?
Re: (Score:2)
High-speed satellite internet works most anywhere on the planet. Wouldn't subsidizing the monthly price of that service be more cost-efficient to both parties than running fiber through many miles of trenches? It's not as if the FCC is mandating UHF
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did use an outhouse. I kind of still do. composting toilet... When I was growing up we had a gravity fed "well". It was a hole in the ground and a pipe running downhill to the house. We used to get tadpoles in our bath water. :D I miss those days sometimes. Nostalgia is a bitch, that log cabin was DRAFTY. Dad was a shit carpenter. :D
Thank FSM I got a good public education that enabled me to go to college (thank you government for helping me out there too) so I could get a great job and pay back far more
Re: (Score:2)
You very carefully chose your two utilities. Water and septic are the exceptions to the rule.
Electricity, roads, mail, telephone, and now internet, are exactly the opposite, and nobody (sane) argues against subsidies for those.
A person only needs 1 gallon of wat
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
With that mentality, the US would never have completed rural electrification nor rural telephone service .. with a net effect of some parts of the US having never gotten out of third world nation conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
some parts of the US *never have* gotten out of third world nation conditions.
http://www.economist.com/news/... [economist.com]
Re:Yes! (Score:4, Insightful)
So when everyone gives up farming and moves to the city where they can get internet, you'll be coll with that?
That would be so much better than an extra $2/year for internet.
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
The FCC is soooo awesome for doing this!
Indeed. I am so grateful that the FCC required me to pay more in order to subsidize the lifestyle choices of other people.
I've never understood the hate as of late.
Me neither. This is such a wonderful country. It would be so unfair if people were expected to deal with the consequences of their own decisions without coerced assistance from people that made more sensible choices.
Those "other people" are generally poor, and didn't chose to live where they do. We're not talking about the dude that lives in the estate outside of town... he'd just get a cellular modem. Most of the people without internet service today are in the rural south, appalachia, the rocky mountains, Indian reservations (the ones that didn't sell out to the casino gods), the dakotas, etc...
I understand that slahdotters are generally "me me me" but give me a fucking break. The small increase you'll see on your phone bill will pale in comparison to the increase later in your income taxes as all "those other people" go on welfare because they can't even access their local jobs website and there's no such thing as newspapers anymore. Crawl out of your miopic hole and view the world from somewhere more than 50ft from your doorstep.
Re: (Score:2)
Those "other people" are generally poor
No they aren't. Median household income for farmers was $87, 289 in 2011 [rt.com] and has gone up more since then. That is far higher than than the American overall median household income. This is NOT a case of the rich subsidizing the poor, it is the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
False [amazon.com].
Meanwhile, it would be better for the environment if rural people moved to the cities [boston.com]. Therefore, it's counterproductive to try to protect people from the consequences of their lifestyle choices, as the FCC is attempting to do by subsidizing broadband for rural residents.
Re: (Score:3)
30 billion for 30 years is 1 billion a year. divide by 300 million americans... $3. Total. a year. Ok, I get that the site didn't get built. It might have. Not everything succeeds. There were probably a lot of studies, some decent research, work was done. it's $3 a year to pay for nuclear waste disposal. Stop whining.
Yes, I know the population changed and my math isn't perfect. It's napkin math. You still made it out to be a huge theft. It's $3. You're an anonymous whiner.
Re: (Score:2)
um...the point he was making was that we paid $3/year for nuclear waste disposal, and WHAT WAS PROMISED DID NOT HAPPEN.
So, please, send me $4/year for fairy protection. Why not? after all, it's only $4. What does it hurt?
I hate that nonsense. You see it continually in California,every year, like clockwork: "Vote for this , it will save the schools!". Then, once it passes, next year: "Oh, we forgot, we also need the following". Continue this pattern every year.
My local elementary school recently used it's ma
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I get the worst of both worlds. I live in a rural area (average one house per 10 acres) on the very edge of a county that is considered part of the DC Metro area. I pay the relatively higher property taxes, gas taxes, sales taxes, have to get emissions tests on my car, pay high property tax rate on my cars etc. AND I have one cell tower in the area that gets me about 1 bar of signal, well and septic systems, my own propane tanks, power that is a single set of lines for miles that just ends at the last ho
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
I take offense at that "sensible choices" crack. It's a really !@#$ing annoying myth that poor people are poor due to their own choices. I know a lot of poor people that work WAY harder than you ever will. I grew up dirt poor. I got help from the government with food, education, etc. I got lucky, and made it, and I've payed back what I took in help, and then some...
You're basically just putting other people down, and doing so against people you don't like. It's a sterotype, and a myth, and your attitude says more about your lack of empathy than it does about those non existant people that "didn't make sensible choices and don't want to deal with the consequences".
I'm old enough to see that a VAST majority of people make pretty shitty decisions all the time, and that pretty much everyone has no idea how to live their lives. Everyone's making it up as they go along. Naturally, all of YOUR decisions are excellent ones, I'm sure. You've never had help from anyone in your whole life when things didn't work out.
It's always "those people" over there that are ruining everything.
Ahh the real reason Net Neutrality is built (Score:5, Funny)
Fed: Here is some tax payer money. Now promise you will use it for rural Iowa where people pay $300 a month for a 640kb connection.
ISP: Oh yeah we promise. Thanks Uncle Sam!
Fed: Uh 3 years has happened where is the new infrastructure that the hard working tax payers paid for?
ISP: NO! We do not want to spend it. Screw you! We gave it to the CEO and shareholders so we could keep our bonuses.
Fed: What?! We had a deal. Why aren't you ...
ISP: Oh look at that ... big Ku CLUNG and a huge bag of money lands ... I was wondering what happened with that money that the tax payers gave us. It appears to be on your desk sir
FED: Oh then I see. Hmm perhaps we need a real expert to hear your case then. Someone with close ties and is on your payroll to tell us you need to steal more tax payer money?
ISP: Ahh good idea. Hire me. I work as a lobbyest and as you know I am quite clumsy and keep dropping these bags of free speech everywhere I go too. Oh boy got to watch that.
Fed: LOL. Ok we can't keep giving you money though. So what can we do
ISP: I know lets rip off other people then. You see we charge too much as it is and we also charge people who want to host and stream. What if we tripple charge all over the place. Then more bags of free speech might just keep falling out if I am not careful.
Fed: Praise Obama and worship Henry Reid so I can keep my job after 2014 and you have a deal!
ISP: Got it ... shakes hands
Re: (Score:2)
"ISP: NO! We do not want to spend it. Screw you! We gave it to the CEO and shareholders so we could keep our bonuses."
FED: -:FBI/Swat arriving:- -- In response to the previous and on-going investigations and your current response you're all under arrest. Your business and all your wealth(including personal/family/close friends/mistresses) is confiscated. Your corporate charter is revoked. And when the courts finish ruling the way we tell them to and running roughshod over your o
Re: (Score:2)
Uh that didn't happen.
We actually *did pay* ISPs to offer broadband for rural communities.
They stole the money and then refused unless Net Neutrality was over turned. We caved in and hired a lobbyist to watch itself and now they are caving in 3 years later after they got their way.
You doing it? Yes, you are not rich and would be arrested as since you are not a job creator you are not important and do not have the big pockets of free speech to have the FBI treat you differently
Re: (Score:2)
But but but (Score:1)
But That is (Score:1)
Socialism !! Wont any one think of the capitalists! Isnt being able to read the bible every night by whale oil lantern enough?
So much competition the government has to build it (Score:1)
The lawless market has spoken!
Just nationalize it already (Score:1)
Why be hypocritical? We have a government that regulates every aspect of it, and occasionally is itself in the business of providing the same service that companies are. It's a fascist wet dream; just call it what it is and be done with it.
Re:Just nationalize it already (Score:4, Interesting)
That was anything but a "fascist wet dream". Today's pretense of a market is, though. Obviously I prefer an open, competitive market but that's not what we have.
Re:Just nationalize it already (Score:4, Informative)
we got very good service as a whole, with reasonable rates
How old are you? Are you old enough to remember the concept of "long distance"? Of paying $0.10/min - $0.25/min for the privilege of calling your friends and family across the country? Rounded up of course. Don't tell me Ma Bell had "reasonable rates". Their rates were highway robbery even with the technological limitations of those days.
Innovation and regulated monopolies don't go hand in hand either. The theoretical underpinnings of what we now call DSL were well known in the 50s and workable technology was field tested by the 80s. It went nowhere because AT&T saw it as a threat, we can't sell dedicated data lines if we bring data and voice in on the same pair. That technology was left to collect dust on the shelf until DOCSIS was on the horizon and they realized they had a competitor.
Re: (Score:2)
How old are you? Are you old enough to remember the concept of "long distance"? Of paying $0.10/min - $0.25/min for the privilege of calling your friends and family across the country?
Yep. I sure do.
At the time, did YOU bother to check what the rates were in other countries where there was "competition" in the landline phone markets? It cost 3 times as much, and sometimes you couldn't even call your neighbor because they were using a competing service that wasn't electrically compatible.
Re:Just nationalize it already (Score:4, Informative)
Memory is often viewed through rose-tinted spectacles. Do you remember that SNL sketch, with the line "We're the phone company and we don't care"? Today, we have crony-capitalism, which isn't any better than fully regulated. The FCC rolled over when incumbents made it impossible for CLECs to compete. If the FCC had had some backbone then, there might be a competitive landscape now.
On a related note, I don't understand why the broadcasters (NBC excepted, of course) are not up in arms about the proposed Comcast/Time Warner merger. The merger will give the combined entity more negotiation power against the broadcasters.
Re: (Score:2)
Memory is often viewed through rose-tinted spectacles. Do you remember that SNL sketch, with the line "We're the phone company and we don't care"?
Yes, I certainly do. But what my memory is "viewed through" is University economics courses back when landlines were still the norm.
I studied the economics of our "natural monopoly" phone system vs. other countries where they had "competition" in the landline phone business. And in comparison, ours kicked ass. (Nobody is claiming it was perfect. But relatively speaking, it was very damned good.)
Then, later, in business law, one of our case studies was the breakup of Ma Bell. The whys and wherefores, a
Re: (Score:1)
They were that way, until telecoms lobbyists had it their way and got telecom providers/ISPs (who are often one and the same) delegated as "information services" with all of the accompanying lack of regulation forthwith.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Likely because many people are cutting the cord and getting most of their entertainment from the internet and broadcast stations.
I know people who have netflix and Hulu accounts and do not even bother with broadcast TV. They have the ability to, but don't see the need until some local emergency comes around and even then rely mostly on radio. I do the same, I cut cable out 6 years ago and watch what I want on the network's web portal, hulu, broadcast channels, or some streaming site. 200+ channels of reruns
Re: (Score:2)
Ma Bell charged ASTRONOMICAL rates, particularly for long-distance calls. They also rented out phones, the same way cable/satellite companies rent converter boxes, hard-wired them to your wall, and would sue you if you dared to connect a different phone to your phone line. That's why we had "acoustic coupler
Re: (Score:2)
Why be hypocritical? We have a government that regulates every aspect of it, and occasionally is itself in the business of providing the same service that companies are. It's a fascist wet dream; just call it what it is and be done with it.
That sir is socialism! We in America prefer freedom thank you very much!
Sincerely,
Verizon CEO
Cellular wireless - really? (Score:1)
Federal Aid Road Act of 1916 (Score:4, Insightful)
We understood that the Commerce Clause [wikipedia.org] authorized Congress to construct interstate highways. The web is the interstate highway of the 21st century and the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to invest in a functioning web for all U.S citizens just as much as it did for highways. The FCC doesn't have a vote.
It is of the most fundamental importance that the United States should think in big pieces, should think together, should think ultimately as a whole. [dot.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Great read, thank you. Also, yes.
Re: (Score:3)
What you said was totally correct but almost entirely irrelevant, the question here was the scope of FCC's mandate. Just because people start using email instead of snail mail doesn't mean the USPS's mandate changes. The ones who build interstates and manage cars don't automatically become the federal aviation administration when people started flying. I'm not in the US but the work I do is narrowly mandated by our parliament, sure they could change the law - actually it's an administrative provision pointe
Who builds it ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Back when the Universal Sevice Fund was created for rural POTS, that was a heavly regulated and well defined service. So when the government mandated redistribution of funds for the telecoms (actually only the one back then) to build rural systems, they knew what they'd be getting.
Broadband Internet service is poorly defined. Lacking any sort of network neutrality (and other common carrier regulations), there is no telling what exactly will get built and once built, what people in rural communities will be able to do with it.
They should name this the Take The Money and Run Plan.
Re: (Score:2)
The Internet will likely replace cable TV
One can hope, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Much of the justification for the AT&T/Direct TV merger is to give the merged company more leverage with content providers. Streaming TV puts the power in the hands of the consumer and makes the physical transport layer a commodity.
I would have liked to see the merger made conditional on a shift to a la carte programming, at least on AT&T's terrestrial systems. Handing that much control over from a cable company to customers isn't going to happen without
Rural Areas (Score:1)
Some people save money by moving to remote areas. Then others have to subsidise them by paying all kinds of fees to that they get access to stuff in their cheap, remote areas.
Re: (Score:2)
You can thank the Electoral College which gives rural states more relative power than populated states. Plus, rural areas tend to have older voters, who are more likely to show up at the polls because many are retired and have time.
We keep reading of these (Score:2)
Rural Bandwith (Score:2)
Is this the slow lane?
Nothing for something (Score:1)
I'm so glad the FCC is looking out for the public interest.
friends (Score:2)
Another bridge to nowhere (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The people that feed you
Re: (Score:2)
v
The people that feed you
Sir, we do NOT grow Cheetos! If someone want to do unnatural things with corn, well, as long as it's off the farm first then that's their lookout... Everyone knows trolls are covered in Cheetos dust and Doritos crumbs, but they didn't get it from us!
Re: (Score:2)
v The people that feed you
Sir, we do NOT grow Cheetos! If someone want to do unnatural things with corn, well, as long as it's off the farm first then that's their lookout... Everyone knows trolls are covered in Cheetos dust and Doritos crumbs, but they didn't get it from us!
I'm pretty sure Monsanto was involved in some way.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure Monsanto was involved in some way.
That's why the dust won't stick to the Cheetos... non-stick corn.
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds to me like they're finally admitting that this is a basic service that everyone should be provided with.
I wonder how much longer it will take before they regulate it as such (as a utility).
The thing is that the FCC (US government agency that regulates telecoms) can do that. It's what the whole Title II reclassification thing is all about. http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com] Which is why the lobbyists and congress are freaking out. https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com]