OFFLINE

In his State of the Union address last month, Mr. Obama called for securing high-speed wireless coverage to 98 percent of all Americans within five years. On Thursday, the White House released details of how he would spend billions of dollars for the plan, which also includes a high-tech wireless public safety system that would tie cities and towns together in the event of a national emergency like the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Under Mr. Obama’s proposal, which the White House maintains would also raise enough revenue to cut the deficit by $9.6 billion over the next decade, the government would nearly double the wireless spectrum available for mobile broadband. That would be achieved in part through “voluntary incentive auctions” in which broadcasters, who license the spectrum through the Federal Communications Commission, would release some of it back to the government, which would in turn sell it to wireless companies.

The administration calculates that the auctions, coupled with more efficient government use of the spectrum, would raise $27.8 billion in revenue over the next decade. But that figure depends on whether broadcasters cooperate, and it is difficult to know whether the administration’s calculations are correct.

“A plan such as this necessarily requires a lot of assumptions,” Matt Wood, associate director of the Media Access Project, a nonprofit advocacy group, said in an e-mail. “It is very hard to predict exactly how much money these auctions would raise, and how much will have to be shared with incumbent licensees. Thus, while these initiatives may be on the right track, questions remain as to whether this plan will work.”

Mr. Obama is also asking Congress to make a one-time investment of $5 billion to bring wireless coverage to rural areas, and is proposing to spend $3 billion of the spectrum proceeds on research and development into new wireless technologies. And the president is calling for a $10.7 billion commitment to support what the administration describes as a “nationwide wireless broadband network” for public safety.



okay, again, is this something the government needs to get involved in? there are just so many flaws with this plan it isn't even funny. first of all, the emergency broadcast system wasn't even used on 9/11, and i'm not sure how vital it is to the safety of some farmer in iowa to hear about a terrorist attack on the east coast. and even if he didn't have wireless internet, he would still find out some other way. what's wrong with good old fashioned wired internet, or television, or heck, the newspaper?

secondly, rural areas are just that - rural. it's not as if there are THAT many people in south dakota who NEED wireless internet. there aren't that many people in south dakota period.
if there was a high demand for wireless internet in rural areas, then providers would already have set up networks there.

thirdly, if obama says it will pay for itself, that makes me worry. i think we've heard that song before.

and lastly, why is it a necessity that billions of dollars worth of taxpayer money be used for this. like i said, if there's a market for this, then let the providers pay for it. they have enough money.

this guy just doesn't get that we're broke!

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Under Mr. Obama’s proposal, which the White House maintains would also raise enough revenue to cut the deficit by $9.6 billion over the next decade, the government would nearly double the wireless spectrum available for mobile broadband. That would be achieved in part through “voluntary incentive auctions” in which broadcasters, who license the spectrum through the Federal Communications Commission, would release some of it back to the government, which would in turn sell it to wireless companies.

BINGO!

And this, my friends, is the coup-de-grace ... how this administration will wrest control of the internet and it will cease to be free.

In a free society, businesses would build out the internet (as they've already done) based upon the efficient laws of supply and demand.  In an inefficient socialistic country, the government takes over (and is there ANY doubt about Obama's political leanings?)

Though I can see the FCC's Genachowski and his Marxist buddies drooling over this ... THIS HAS TO BE STOPPED.

I was born in a free country.  I want to die in one.

I hope everybody realizes how serious this is.

OFFLINE

We need look no further that the events that are taking place in Egypt right now (and that's just what we actually "hear" of it).  Stuff that is happening right here, right now in the good ole USofA could position the Obama machine to exercise that same kind of reaction to an "emergency" ... ie flipping the switch on the net, the "internet kill switch"

I don't know about you folks but I get a lot of my information and news from the internet *stomping feet* ... OHHhhhh, UMMmmmm ... thats the point  ! ...

"Our vigilance right now is the price of freedom."

OFFLINE

yeah, on the kill switch idea, is there any need for such a thing in a free and open society? what advantage could that offer to us, the people?

OFFLINE

This sounds like what I have to deal with at work: Folks move into positions to direct what technology will be used and then hire folks under them that also know nothing about the technology.... and the beat goes on.

Take for example the 60 inch LCD panel that now resides on the wall in the training room. My management in their infinite wisdom decided that video conferencing was the way to go. They didn't like the resolution of the 12 x 8 foot screen the 5000 dollar projector was providing so they replaced it with the 60 inch LCD. Oh, the resolution was nice on the ole 60 incher --- but try to train folks on a program that are sitting more than 10 feet away from it. You might as well show a cartoon. But boy that video conference looks fabulous, all 4 they have a year. IDIOTS! Who freakin needs to see a face to understand spoken word?

Oh yeah, they get their "experts" to advise them, you know, the CEO's of telecoms --- who understand ZERO about the technology.

This is how the great ole USA is going. We suffer the whims of pompous fools who control the government and corporations.

OFFLINE

A few questions that come to my mind.

What if people don't have computers? Will they be required to buy one? If they don't have a computer, because they afford them, will they be given one? If so then by whom the Government? What will that cost?

What if people who do have computers, but don't want internet access in any way, shape, or form? Will they be required to get on line? What if they have a computer but it is so old that it is practically useless on the internet (I have a friend who still uses an IBM 8088, he only uses it for home inventories and bookkeeping) will they be required to get a new computer, then required to get on the internet?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Farmer Up:
A few questions that come to my mind.

What if people don't have computers? Will they be required to buy one? If they don't have a computer, because they afford them, will they be given one? If so then by whom the Government? What will that cost?

What if people who do have computers, but don't want internet access in any way, shape, or form? Will they be required to get on line? What if they have a computer but it is so old that it is practically useless on the internet (I have a friend who still uses an IBM 8088, he only uses it for home inventories and bookkeeping) will they be required to get a new computer, then required to get on the internet?

i do know that as a stipulation of the comcast nbc merger, that comcast is required to offer low cost computer devices to low income families.

OFFLINE

Except for the numbers, this is basically the FCC's Broadband Plan that they have been developing for a few years.  The Voluntary Incentive Auctions Act came out of subcommittee last year and is in the committee phase.  It did have bi-partisan support there... and the national broadcasters were looking at it somewhat favorably.

Now that it's called Obama's plan though, it'll have a bit of a rough time.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Farmer Up:
A few questions that come to my mind.

What if people don't have computers? Will they be required to buy one? If they don't have a computer, because they afford them, will they be given one? If so then by whom the Government? What will that cost?

What if people who do have computers, but don't want internet access in any way, shape, or form? Will they be required to get on line? What if they have a computer but it is so old that it is practically useless on the internet (I have a friend who still uses an IBM 8088, he only uses it for home inventories and bookkeeping) will they be required to get a new computer, then required to get on the internet?

i do know that as a stipulation of the comcast nbc merger, that comcast is required to offer low cost computer devices to low income families.

When the government was deciding if the merger was OK, there was some concern from competitor's about raising the rates.  Comcast countered with the offer to drop the price of internet service and subsidize computers for any of it's TV subscribers that also take part in the various area's school lunch program.  The government is just having Comcast keep their offer.  Now whether those eligible people can keep up with what will be charged for the television viewing habits they can receive the internet for about $10/month and a very basic computer for about $150.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Farmer Up:
A few questions that come to my mind.

What if people don't have computers? Will they be required to buy one? If they don't have a computer, because they afford them, will they be given one? If so then by whom the Government? What will that cost?

What if people who do have computers, but don't want internet access in any way, shape, or form? Will they be required to get on line? What if they have a computer but it is so old that it is practically useless on the internet (I have a friend who still uses an IBM 8088, he only uses it for home inventories and bookkeeping) will they be required to get a new computer, then required to get on the internet?

i do know that as a stipulation of the comcast nbc merger, that comcast is required to offer low cost computer devices to low income families.

Which we be eaten alive with viruses in less than two months and then be worth zero.

Maybe I ought to buy a motor home and travel the country fixing these low income machines? Maybe Obama will pay me to do it.

hehehe

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Keith Larson:

Now that it's called Obama's plan though, it'll have a bit of a rough time.

i wasn't crazy about it when it was the FCC's plan.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
yeah, on the kill switch idea, is there any need for such a thing in a free and open society? what advantage could that offer to us, the people?

No, if we truly lived in a free and open society ... we do not, and it's getting less so daily.  There is no advantage to "us" ... only to "them".