Comments
FCC's Broadband Plan: What Would Steve Jobs Think?
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
NJ Mike
50%
50%
NJ Mike,
User Rank: Strategist
11/2/2011 | 5:37:13 PM
re: FCC's Broadband Plan: What Would Steve Jobs Think?
One of the questions OUG is asking is if this is a proper role for the federal, as opposed to state/local, government. The transit authorities you mention are state/local entities, so only people in that area are paying for them.
UberGoober
50%
50%
UberGoober,
User Rank: Strategist
11/2/2011 | 5:32:01 PM
re: FCC's Broadband Plan: What Would Steve Jobs Think?
Income tax WAS unconstitutional until 1913, but there's an amendment for that (16th). And yes, the Interstate System was originally called the National Defense Highway System, and there were plans for fallout shelters in bridge and overpass abutments; that led to a very good argument for its constitutionality. Those reasons are long gone, and it would be a hard thing to justify constitutionally today. The 'living Constitution' theory has given the government the right to do things that were never envisioned by the Founders; they intended the amendment process to handle changes. Emanations and penumbras and other legal fantasies lead to a scenario where the Constitution means anything you want, and then it has no meaning at all, and we lose its protections.

You will also note that there's not a big outcry to run Interstate highways to the front door of everyone who chooses to live in deepest rural North Dakota. State and county roads, and sometimes really long driveways or even personal airstrips, take care of those folks. With the road analogy, you could make a better case for the Feds building an Internet backbone than driving connectivity to the end users; after all, Interstates are limited access highways.
NJ Mike
50%
50%
NJ Mike,
User Rank: Strategist
11/2/2011 | 5:29:12 PM
re: FCC's Broadband Plan: What Would Steve Jobs Think?
Actually, I agree. Why do we send our money to Washington, for them to send it back to us (and they always send less back, they have processing fees).
NJ Mike
50%
50%
NJ Mike,
User Rank: Strategist
11/2/2011 | 5:25:59 PM
re: FCC's Broadband Plan: What Would Steve Jobs Think?
First of all, I lived in Montana for 7 years, so I do have some idea what conditions are like in other areas. (You are obviously ignorant about my backround and experience). Yes, I like to eat, and I pay for food to be transported from those rural areas (that is included in the price I pay). By living in a populated area, I have to put up with the overcrowding those rural subscribers don't have to. My daily commute to work involves more traffic then I ever dealt with in Montana. So I pay a price for the proximity of these services. No matter where you live, there are advantages and disadvantages, some monetary, some of convenience, and you can get in a big never ending cycle when groups have to start compensating each other for the disadvantages they all have.

In New Jersey, because of the demand for housing here, I pay a lot more for it here than I did in Montana, and I get a lot less. That is the cost of living here. You are obviously ignorant of that too.

Bottom line, you are ignorant that life is a series of tradeoffs, deal with it.
TreeInMyCube
50%
50%
TreeInMyCube,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/2/2011 | 2:58:57 PM
re: FCC's Broadband Plan: What Would Steve Jobs Think?
OldUberGoober's comment reflects a sentiment that underlies a lot of this discussion -- what is the proper role of government in this area of infrastructure? What is the role of for-profit companies? I see analogies to the interstate highway system, vs. state-owned toll roads, vs. local-maintained 4-lane roads. Are the various municipal transit authorities ( PA of NY and NJ, BART, MARTA, CTA as examples) part of the government, or private? It's a really murky situation. OUG, do you find the notion of federal income taxes unconstitutional as well? I thought that the Supreme Court had ruled on that idea, but I might be misremembering.

Part of the justification Eisenhower used for the federal role in the interstate highway system was national defense/security -- being able to move troops and tanks efficiently. That reason doesn't apply to nationwide broadband, but using taxes to promote a national infrastructure for learning and commerce is not so far removed from what the federal government is already doing in those areas.
UberGoober
50%
50%
UberGoober,
User Rank: Strategist
10/31/2011 | 8:19:56 PM
re: FCC's Broadband Plan: What Would Steve Jobs Think?
Looking at my Constitution I don't find the clause that allows the government to take money from me to build Internet connectivity for people who choose to live in a location where it is cost-prohibitive. And before you start whining about the REA, remember that that was a New Deal program instituted by a president who didn't let a little thing like the Constitution stand in his way.

If you want to run fiber out to the furthest user who wants it, get your state government to do it. They can, since "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." And if a million bucks worth of fiber generates $25 a month in revenue, well, your state's taxpayers can just subsidize it.

We can't afford to do everything for everyone. That way lies Greece...
lsatenstein
50%
50%
lsatenstein,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/29/2011 | 11:06:26 PM
re: FCC's Broadband Plan: What Would Steve Jobs Think?
Therefore the rural guys should stop paying a large share of Income tax, because they do not use the bridges and highways that take you to and from work.
lsatenstein
50%
50%
lsatenstein,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/29/2011 | 11:05:36 PM
re: FCC's Broadband Plan: What Would Steve Jobs Think?
Broadband or fibre is the way to go. Then at least with VOIP the rural folks would have telephone, and the web.

Great idea
Rubberman
50%
50%
Rubberman,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/29/2011 | 6:00:12 PM
re: FCC's Broadband Plan: What Would Steve Jobs Think?
We should be building out the entire country to 100mbps (or higher) ubiquitous broadband, assign everyone who wants it a personal phone # that can follow them everywhere on that broadband network. Until we get the system to that point, we are seriously throttling the potential for economic growth in this country. When I am at home, and turn off my cell phone, calls to my mobile number should be automatically re-routed to my home phone. If someone calls my home phone and I am on the road, the calls should be automatically re-routed to my mobile phone. Yes, with a considerable of futzing about (that I am likely to forget to do when I'm in a rush) I can do most of that now w/ call-forwarding etc, but it isn't the same, and additional charges accrue.

And on it goes. Personally, I'd like to live in a nice house in the country with a big garden and some woods to bird-watch in. I'm an IT consultant, so a lot of my work is from my home office. Unfortunately, current connectivity options when not in town (and sometimes not even then) are limited and expensive. Things need to change, and the major carriers are not allowing necessary changes in our communication infrastructure to occur, instead protecting their legacy income streams. Because they have a choke-hold on our current communication infrastructure and the cost to enter and compete in the market are so prohibitive for new players, this is not likely to change until they are required to.
ajones320
50%
50%
ajones320,
User Rank: Apprentice
10/29/2011 | 1:07:41 PM
re: FCC's Broadband Plan: What Would Steve Jobs Think?
I find it troublesome that phone (landline only I guess, not mobile?) and broadband users have to pay up so that big telcos with outlandish revenues can build infrastructure to be put into a position to rake in even more money. I am all for getting rural areas connected to the information superhighway, but the funding needs to come from those who will make money on it in the end. They will be the only ones who can recoup their investments. And those would be the telcos, but also companies that will gain a lot from farm sourcing. The government needs to stop enabling those companies who already make tons of money to make more tons of money and have the average Joe pay for making it happen.
As for the FCC plan, they should mandate that the networks built are top of the line, not something that is just a wee bit faster than dial-up.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>


Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek Tech Digest, Nov. 10, 2014
Just 30% of respondents to our new survey say their companies are very or extremely effective at identifying critical data and analyzing it to make decisions, down from 42% in 2013. What gives?
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Sponsored Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.