Fixing US Broadband Would Cost $100 Billion

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "According to a new report from EDUCASE (pdf), it would cost $100 billion to wire the US with fiber optics and keep our infrastructure from falling behind the rest of the world. Specifically, they recommend what has worked in many other countries — government investment and unbundling — which are often criticized by free market groups, even though those policies have resulted in faster, better connections for smaller total costs. Ars Technica mentions in their analysis of this report that the President will be releasing a report on US broadband today, too."

yet more money

[LiquidCoooled (634315)]

yet more money which the US could afford if they stopped wasting it on playing war games.

Nice agenda, was Re:yet more money

[by Anonymous Coward]

Nice response.

Seriously, this would have cost 10% of that back in the '90s when we ALREADY PAID FOR THIS as part of the Telecom Act of 1994. The telcos simply have not delivered what they promised for receiving deregulation and all those tax breaks.

Or maybe this is where that imaginary $9B that Worldcom has went.

The FCC?

[ttfkam (37064)]

You mean the same FCC the majority of whose members are appointed by the president of the United States? Or how about the SEC that allowed all those baby bells to get back together again. The chairman of the SEC is appointed by the president as well.

You're right that Bush wasn't president from 1994-2000; however, the US was at the forefront of technology and internet access at that time. After the tech bust in 2000 (self-evidently obviously not Bush's fault since he wasn't president yet) there was the opportunity to invest in infrastructure and prepare for the eventual economic recovery. Instead Bush gave out tax cuts right and left. Nice idea for stimulus except that he gave mostly to the richest who, contrary to the revisionist history of the Reagan era, do not trickle those funds efficiently down to the working class. He then stacked the FCC, SEC, and many other agencies with party hacks who didn't know the first thing about the real world, only their ideology.

So yeah, basically Bush takes a fair amount of blame here. Sure he had help, but that doesn't excuse him. Sure he had other things to do, but that doesn't excuse him.

Other things he had to do:
  * Put someone competent in charge of FEMA
  * Read the reports from various agencies and his predecessor about some guy named Osama
  * Protect and defend the Constitution of the United States

Instead he spent time funneling money to his cronies and vetoing bipartisan child health care bills.

So now we have an infrastructure that is woefully behind and will take $100 billion to fix. Hurray us! Japan, South Korea, and other countries have faster speeds available than *anywhere* in the US. This isn't even an argument about per capita speeds or the fact that we've got a larger population over a larger area. Our fastest simply ain't that fast.

It's true that Congress takes its share of blame too. Lucky for my argument, it's been a Republican-controlled Congress since '94 and until very recently. There's been record government spending during Bush's tenure when he never vetoed a Republican bill (other than stem cell research funding) and yet we're still behind. Do the math.

Re:Protect and defend the Constitution of the USA

[slashqwerty (1099091)]

I find it ironic you say Bush didn't protect and defend the Constitution of the USA

Wow. You come up with one case where he may have done something in compliance with the constitution. Rest assured if his backers wanted that bill signed he would have signed it regardless of the constitution. The man has spent most of his presidency making a mockery of the constitution.

He has:

1. Suspended habeas corpus in violation of Article I, section 9 of the constitution.
2. Donated funds to "faith based" organizations in violation of the first amendment.
3. Conducted widespread surveillance on millions of phone calls and internet communications without a warrant in violation of the fourth amendment.
4. Barred prisoners from having a trial in violation of the fifth amendment.
5. He has violated every single provision of the sixth amendment.
6. Had people tortured in violation of the fifth and eighth amendments.

Re:yet more money

[Naughty Bob (1004174)]

$100 Billion is an inconceivable sum.

It's also 10 Months in Iraq (and that's 10 months above and beyond the ongoing cost of maintaining the world's most powerful army, so doesn't include the costs the US would incur if all those soldiers/tanks/bombs were sat quietly at home).

Bargain. And remember, most of that money is flowing out of the US public purse, straight into the hands of... Bush's golfing buddies.

It's only the internet I suppose.

Re:yet more money

[vivin (671928)]

$100 Billion is an inconceivable sum.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means... *duck

Re:yet more money

[Skevin (16048)]

> $100 Billion is an inconceivable sum.

Not really. The MPAA decreed that a single downloaded CD is worth $1.5 Million. Therefore, you only need to transfer 66,667 albums through this network, and it's paid for!

Solomon

Re:yet more money

[realthing02 (1084767)]

I think "You keep using that word -- I do not think it means what you think it means." would be more appropriate. INCONCEIVABLE!

bad idea

[ILuvRamen (1026668)]

Okay first of all, if it's government run you know they're gonna spy on everyone everywhere with it. I won't be able to ping a website without it getting permanently logged. And secondly, if I recall, it'll take about the same $100 billion to fix our ridiculously outdated, inefficient, unreliable, unadapting power infrastructure too. I say we do that first. If my computer's got power at least I can play Oblivion but what can I do with no power and an internet connection?

Re:bad idea

[smooth wombat (796938)]

If my computer's got power at least I can play Oblivion but what can I do with no power and an internet connection?

Sex?

Re:bad idea

[discord5 (798235)]

If my computer's got power at least I can play Oblivion but what can I do with no power and an internet connection?

Sex?

That's NOT the correct way to use fibre-optic cable!

Re:bad idea

[4D6963 (933028)]

Without looking at pr0n? How?

Wait, you mean, you don't have any on your cell phone's micro SD card? Like, you know, emergency porn?

Re:bad idea

[greg_barton (5551)]

Okay first of all, if it's government run you know they're gonna spy on everyone everywhere with it.

As opposed to what's currently being done in the private sector?

When you have the president of the united states, in the state of the union address, demanding that private companies be exempt from current laws...are they really private companies anymore?

What is it good for?

[spleen_blender (949762)]

How much do we spend yearly on the pentagon again?

Re:What is it good for?

[TheWizardTim (599546)]

The most important part of the statement is taken from "1984" by George Orwell.

If you have $100 Billion to spend, and you build tanks, bombs and combat jets, you are helping the economy, but only a small amount. Once you use a bomb, it will not add value to the economy. When you build a combat jet, it will not add (much) to the future economy. A bullet shot, is worthless.

If you use that money to build a road, then people will use that road to go to school, work, and shopping. If you use that $100 Billion to build a network, people will read news, buy products, start businesses, and other net related acts. If you use that $100 Billion to build schools and pay for teachers, you get students the get better jobs, pay more taxes, add more to the economy.

I am not saying we should not fund our military. But saying that spending money on war helps the economy, well it does, but in the long run. By using that money to better the countries roads, power lines, water supply, hospitals, whatever, you will get a return on your investment.

If you borrow money to make a bullet, your money is lost forever. If you borrow money to build a road, then you will get your worth.

Re:What is it good for?

[Stiletto (12066)]

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

-Dwight D. Eisenhower

Re:What is it good for?

[TheWizardTim (599546)]

Read 1984.

That is the point of having a "war economy". People need to work. They get mad when they are not working. So if you employ people making tanks, bullets and bombs, they are "happy" because they have a job. But a tank is not going to make a person's life better they way a new public transportation system would. Again, I am all for funding the military. But if we don't have to be at war, building a new subway system will do better for the public then a aircraft carrier. Building a 777 is better then a F-22. All will bring an economic gain, when you pay the workers and for the parts, but once finished the 777 or the subway will continue to greatly add value. Yes repairs and spare parts for the military will add to the future economy, but moving thousands of people from point A to point B for work for fun will do better.

Re:What is it good for?

[spleen_blender (949762)]

Your ignorance in your statement is incredible. You don't know who I am or what I've done in the military. I am not going to further justify your assumptions on that topic.

However, on the topic of the money, if we did not go on imperialistic rampages throughout the world, we could spend much less on defense and have just as competent a force for when military action is required.

Asshole. :)

Re:What is it good for?

[h4rm0ny (722443)]

Well speaking as someone outside the US, wouldn't it show greater concern for your troops to not send them out to get shot at?

Re:What is it good for?

[ArcherB (796902)]

Well speaking as someone outside the US, wouldn't it show greater concern for your troops to not send them out to get shot at?

There is a quote I'm familiar with, but I don't know where it came from:
The boats are safe in the harbor, but that is not what they are made for.

Re:What is it good for?

[ArcherB (796902)]

That's like saying you should yank the fire alarm just because it's there. Militaries exist just in case you really, seriously, undoubtedly need to go to war. They don't sit around as some sort of resource or plaything that you can just send into harm's way for the fuck of it.
--
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies.

My point was not, "We spent all this money building a military, may as well use it." My point was that people shouldn't bitch about soldiers being placed in harm's way; it's what they do. It is what they are trained to do. Believe it or not, it is what they WANT to do. Now I'm not saying that soldiers long to kill people, but when something breaks out, soldiers are chomping at the bit to be part of it. Nothing sucks more for a soldier to train for years to do a job, and when the time comes, he sits in the barracks while the company on the first floor goes to do that job. (Disclaimer, I was a soldier. I changed companies from A Co, where we were about to start testing on the brand new, super cool M1A2's, back to Bravo, who was going back to Kuwait.)

Now, of course, when you said They don't sit around as some sort of resource or plaything that you can just send into harm's way for the fuck of it. were you speaking of Iraq? I ask because of your sig, "In Repressive Burma...". I would find it odd that you would speak of "repressive Burma" and not realize that Iraq was just as bad or worse than Burma. In Burma, monks were placed under house arrest. In Iraq, Kurdish men women and children were gassed. It reminds of so many of those "Free Tibet" bumper stickers proudly placed next to the "chicken foot" peace sticker. I wonder, how do you free Tibet peacefully? I don't think you can. Just like we tried for 12 years and 17 UN resolutions to peacefully "Free Iraq". That didn't work out too well either. It took the US military about a month to do the same job. The stabilization will take a bit longer, of course, but it will be complete in much less time than it took the UN to fail.

Re:What is it good for?

[elrous0 (869638)]

They're all dumb kids that would've ended up in prison if a recruiter hadn't talked them into enlisting--right?

I'm a third generation military brat. Dad is career Army, so was my grandfather. And, having grown up around Army bases for the first 18 years of my life, I'd have to say that is actually not too far off. There are a lot of good people in the Army, it's true. But most of them are obnoxious kids who were too stupid to go to college and too irresponsible to hold down a civilian job. Sorry to spoil the "noble heroes of freedom" horseshit image that everyone who's never had to live around these pricks seems to have.

If you want a good picture of these noble heroes you idolize so much, might I suggest you head down to Fort Campbell and walk into any bar on 41A on any given night, or head down to Riverside Drive any weekend to see our brave professionals drunkenly hitting on 16-year-old girls?

Re:What is it good for?

[ArcherB (796902)]

If you want a good picture of these noble heroes you idolize so much, might I suggest you head down to Fort Campbell and walk into any bar on 41A on any given night, or head down to Riverside Drive any weekend to see our brave professionals drunkenly hitting on 16-year-old girls?

And how is this different than heading down to 6th Street in Austin Texas and seeing the college frat-boys drunkenly hitting on 16-year-old girls? Or the geeks who are drunkenly downloading pictures of 16-year-old girls and wishing they could hit on them?

For the record, I've been all three (soldier, college student and geek), and I have not hit on 16-year-old girls since I was 17.

I remember back when I was 16, fast food restaurant managers hitting on my 16-year-old girlfriends. It's just how some guys are.

Preview of President's report

[frovingslosh (582462)]

A preview of the report to come from the President today:

Tax breaks for the ISPs, particularly the telcos.

A hands off business approach, let them do with the money (and the consumers, a.k.a. taxpayers) whatever they want.

Re:Preview of President's report

[jmorris42 (1458)]

> Tax breaks for the ISPs, particularly the telcos.

Tax breaks for any industry sucks. So I oppose these.

> A hands off business approach, let them do with the money (and the consumers, a.k.a. taxpayers)
> whatever they want.

This would be exactly right if not for one glaring problem. The government can't take a hands off approach to government created and controlled monopolies. In the US today, competition is defined as two government chartered monopolies fighting each other through a maze of government regulation. In one corner, weighting in at eight hundred pounds, is the Phone Company! A truly formidable government monopoly almost a hundred years old. And in the other corner, weighing in at six hundred pounds, is the new scrappy government monopoly, the Cable Company!

What needs to happen is a new breakup, but done right. Recognize where the monopoly actually exists and can't really be fixed. The last mile. Break that part of both the phone and cable company off and leave them government chartered monopolies. Utility companies who own and operate the physical plant from the end user, through the government granted right of ways to the central office/plant. But forbidden to offer ANY actual service over it, instead forced to sell access to all at non-discriminatory prices.

As for the thrust of this slashdot post, whinging for a government run Internet.... no fscking way! If you utopians think a government run Internet would be net neutral think again. A network run by the same assholes who gave us the DMCA in the first place is going to let 'yall sit around all day running bittorrent and happily building out ever more fiber for ya to do it on? Riiight.

Re:Preview of President's report

[imgod2u (812837)]

But the rest of us continue to pay taxes (and will probably pay more to make up for the lost in tax revenue)? It's constantly amazing how many people can actually argue with a straight face that the poor corporations should pay less taxes "because it's easier to make a profit" and that they, generously, will pass those profits onto you the employee. As if a corporation running business is actually more important than having employees working and consumers spending. Trickle-down economics is a load of crap our rent-a-legislators and their buddy rich folks use to convince the masses that, somehow, taxing the rich less than the middle class is actually beneficial.

Middle class spending (i.e. not being taxed to death) is what drives business and the economy. I will agree that taxing a corporate entity may not be the best solution as really, you should be taxing the shareholders. If this discourages all the traders on Wall Street they can go find other jobs just like everyone else and still pay taxes. Hell, it might leave only the prudent investors who aren't just looking to make a quick buck overnight but actually invest in businesses in the long haul behind. Then maybe we won't have this volatile gotta-raise-the-bottom-line mentality that corporate CEO's use to gain short-term profits but sacrifice any long-term business growth.

Re:Preview of President's report

[Surt (22457)]

The real solution is to tax wealth rather than income, so that investment becomes the best strategy for tax avoidance.
It also just happens to be fairer: you get taxed in proportion to what the government is keeping the poor people from taking away.

Correct me if I'm wrong

[UnknowingFool (672806)]

. . . but didn't we already pay $200 billion to get 45Mb/s fiber starting in the late 90s? I seem to remember how the telecomes complained that they didn't have the money to do it. And Congress passed the Telecom Act of 1996 to allow them to charge fees to help fund an infrastructure upgrade. Ten years later we barely have fiber and that fiber is dramatically slower and more expensive than promised. And you have to pay for it to be installed.

Re:Correct me if I'm wrong

[Citizen of Earth (569446)]

but didn't we already pay $200 billion to get 45Mb/s fiber starting in the late 90s?

Yes, it was the biggest rip-off in history. The telecoms took the money, didn't produce anything useful, and were never held to account.

Didn't they already get this money

[hansamurai (907719)]

Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't the cable companies, et al. already receive many billions of dollars from the government that they have seemed to squander away on their CEOs and crappy advertisements?

Iraq

[greg_barton (5551)]

Yes, it's appropriate.

Fool Me Once

[HunterZ (20035)]

From the discussion at Ars Technica:

Originally posted by aix:
WTF!!! :mad:

We already paid 200 billion for fiber optic to the home, but never received it. Just search for "200 billion dollar broadband scandal". But here's a clip:

Starting in the early 1990's, the Clinton-Gore Administration had aggressive plans to create the "National Infrastructure Initiative" to rewire ALL of America with fiber optic wiring, replacing the 100 year old copper wire. The Bell companies - SBC, Verizon, BellSouth and Qwest, claimed that they would step up to the plate and rewire homes, schools, libraries, government agencies, businesses and hospitals, etc. if they received financial incentives.

Kushnick's "$200 Billion Broadband Scandal" says the government was promised 86 million households with fiber wiring delivering bi-directional 45 Mbps speeds, capable of handling 500 channels by 2006. He calls it a fraud case, with deft omission in the annals of the FCC, that cost households at least $2000 a piece but got nothing in return.

I think there were subsidies to the telcos as well as tax breaks and incentives .... and what do have to show for it ??

BUPKISS! Freaking nothing, zilch, nada, zip, zero, goose egg, F%&KING damn 20th place :mad: :confused:

And yes I'm going to point out it was the dems who were in the seat when this happened. Only to show that both parties are really different sides of the same coin.

Originally posted by :
I'll ignore the billions spent, and the billions we still have to spend in Iraq...

I'll ignore the other major issues that maybe this country needs to spend 100 Billion on first...

And now, baring all of that...
*WHAT THE FUCK*
Any of you know this story?
http://www.teletruth.org/ [teletruth.org]http://www.teletruth.org
http://www.teletruth.org/PennBroadbandfraud.html [teletruth.org]http://www.teletruth.org/PennBroadbandfraud.html
http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm [newnetworks.com]http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm

In short, Verizon, ATT, SBC and the other big TeleComs were supposed to do this, FOR US, in the last 10-15 years.

They got major tax breaks and government handouts to do this.
So where is it?

 

16th in the World in Broadband

This is one of the largest scandals in American history.

        * By 2006, 86 million households should have been rewired with a fiber optic wire, capable of 45 Mbps, in both directions. -- read the promises.
        * The public subsidies for infrastructure were pocketed. The phone companies collected over $200 billion in higher phone rates and tax perks, about $2000 per household. ....

and more from --> http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm [newnetworks.com]http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm

Reports like this piss me off, cause the first thing I think of, knowing the history of How we're already supposed to have fiber to the home, is who paid for the report? and what is it really asking for?

Hear hear! I can't believe noone brought this up sooner, or even in the article. There's pretty much no hope at this point for the US to have a globally competitive broadband Internet infrastructure.

Re:Fool Me Once

[Lumpy (12016)]

I think there were subsidies to the telcos as well as tax breaks and incentives .... and what do have to show for it ??

Hidden Bandwidth caps, data manipulation, throttling, filtering, traffic shaping, release of our private info to the RIAA, less service quality, higher pings, higher latency, more jitter and finally. Promises they cant keep.

They spent that money, just not on what everyone though it was for..

Total Costs Must Account for Opportunity Costs

[CodeBuster (516420)]

which are often criticized by free market groups, even though those policies have resulted in faster, better connections for smaller total costs.

The same criticisms were leveled at the United States when the Soviet Union was, for a time, "ahead" in the space race, but when one considers the difference between the market and central planning (i.e. government control) it is easy to see how things can, in some instances be done more quickly by the command and control method rather than the market. It is sometimes easier to get things done when you can tell people what to do and force them to do it while disallowing any dissent or alternatives. However, one must be more careful about the total costs of central planning command and control vs the market approach. The Soviets had many firsts in the space race, but in return other parts of the economy suffered tremendously and people went without a lot of things, some of them necessities, so that additional resources could be poured into the government run space program. In the same fashion one must consider the opportunity costs [wikipedia.org] of government spending and control. If the government increases taxes or debt to build out the system quickly then that spending takes away from immediate or future alternative investments of those funds by the private sector. Generally speaking, the more often the government does this the more funds are diverted and the opportunity costs spiral ever higher as we give up increasing amounts of alternative goods and services in exchange for what may turn out to be a fast (hopefully, but even that is not guaranteed when one factors in innate government inefficiencies) but ultimately very costly rollout of better high speed networks, or faster progress in the space program, or whatever else the national attention is focused on at that moment. Beware when advocates of government spending proclaim lower total costs. They are frequently neglecting the opportunity costs in their analysis of the costs.

Re:Total Costs Must Account for Opportunity Costs

[spazdor (902907)]

The Soviets had many firsts in the space race, but in return other parts of the economy suffered tremendously and people went without a lot of things, some of them necessities, so that additional resources could be poured into the government run space program.

People go without necessities in a free market all the time. The difference is that in a market economy, they can be blamed for their own plight. We starved plenty of kids in order to beat the Russians to the moon, it just wasn't so obviously the government's fault.

Re:Total Costs Must Account for Opportunity Costs

[spazdor (902907)]

a free market has no responsibility to provide for people's needs in the first place.

Nor has it any responsibility to explore space.

Would you prefer, then, to compare the achievements of the Soviet space program against the achievements of those American space flights which were strictly entrepreneurial in nature and did not receive any federal funding? If not, we're still talking apples and oranges.

Socialized Internet Access?!!!

[mpapet (761907)]

Americans for the most part are perfectly willing to suffer for the "free markets" rationale.

-Mobile phones (multiple, incompatible networks)
-Health care
-Data infrastructure

In other areas, we are quite happy to nationalize,
Railway services
Interstate highways. "free" too.
Social Security (just try being the elected grinch that cuts that program)
and most recently, education with no child left behind.

Depending on your politics, some of these issues cannot be discussed with any civility whatsoever.
 

That sounds about right...

[Toasty16 (586358)]

Seeing as the telecoms gained about $200 billion in increased fees and tax breaks since AT&T's breakup in 1984. That money was supposed to be used to upgrade the entire nation's infrastructure from copper wiring to fiber optics, but was instead used to pad the pockets of executives and shareholders. Find out more here [newnetworks.com].

That is the fun part about this

[WindBourne (631190)]

Everybody talks of tax breaks and say that it will help, but only in specific cases does it do so. For example, when 9/11 occurred, W. paid the airlines a load of money post 9/11. It was to be used to help the airlines recover. Instead, it was sent directly to the CEO bonuses as well as stockholders. After that, the airlines had tough times, so was given more tax breaks. Instead, we (America) should have offered to pay 80% of the ticket costs for domestic traveled, and then dropped it monthly (60-40-20-0). It actually would have been much cheaper to America AND would have gotten a lot of ppl to get over their fears. The Tax breaks that W. gave to the oil company has not helped one bit. They actually targeted the large companies who have been drilling at the same rate as before. It is just that they have bigger profits. If America really wants to make a difference on this, then what is being suggested now should be skipped. Instead, it should be to minimize the monopoly. It should be JUST from the house to the green box. Once that is done as fiber, then allow anybody to hook up.

Why should be buy it TWICE!?!

[Picass0 (147474)]

If you pay a phone bill, you've been paying for internet infrastructure for years. You've been paying for this for years.

Instead of double dipping and asking for more money to upgrade/create internet infrastructure why don't they start spending the money they already collect IN THE RIGHT PLACE?

FEDERAL UNIVERSAL SERV FUND
http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/universal_service/welcome.html [fcc.gov]
The goals of Universal Service, as mandated by the 1996 Act, are to
promote the availability of quality services at just, reasonable, and
affordable rates; increase access to advanced telecommunications
services throughout the Nation; advance the availability of such
services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural,
insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to
those charged in urban areas. In addition, the 1996 Act states that all
providers of telecommunications services should contribute to Federal
universal service in some equitable and nondiscriminatory manner; there
should be specific, predictable, and sufficient Federal and State
mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service; all schools,
classrooms, health care providers, and libraries should, generally, have
access to advanced telecommunications services; and finally, that the
Federal-State Joint Board and the Commission should determine those
other principles that, consistent with the 1996 Act, are necessary to
protect the public interest.

FEDERAL UNIVERSAL SERV FUND PRIVATE LINE
http://www.shore.net/support/usf.html [shore.net]
The Universal Connectivity Charge is 9.25% of state-to-state and
international long distance charges, and on Internet circuits. (ATM,
Frame Relay, Private Line, Internet Access and SDSL)
[NOTE: This may be the local number portability surcharge - ED]

E911 SURCHARGE
http://www.legis.state.ia.us/GA/79GA/Legislation/HF/00200/HF00279/Current.html [state.ia.us]
The surcharge shall
3 21 be collected as part of the access line service provider's
3 22 periodic billing to a subscriber. In compensation for the
3 23 costs of billing and collection, the provider may retain one
3 24 percent of the gross surcharges collected. If the
3 25 compensation is insufficient to fully recover a provider's
3 26 costs for billing and collection of the surcharge, the
3 27 deficiency shall be included in the provider's costs for
3 28 ratemaking purposes to the extent it is reasonable and just
3 29 under section 476.6. The surcharge shall be remitted to the
3 30 E911 service operating authority county auditor or the
3 31 auditor's designee of the county in which the subscriber
3 32 resides for deposit into the E911 service fund quarterly by
3 33 the provider. A provider is not liable for an uncollected
3 34 surcharge for which the provider has billed a subscriber but
3 35 not been paid. The surcharge shall appear as a single line
4 1 item on a subscriber's periodic billing entitled, "E911
4 2 emergency telephone service surcharge". The E911 service
4 3 surcharge is not subject to sales or use tax.

SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE TAX
http://www.state.ia.us/tax/educate/78511.html [state.ia.us]
IOWA SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE LOCAL OPTION TAX
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

FEDERAL TAX
This should be the federal excise tax

STATE/LOCAL TAX

FEDERAL ACCESS CHARGE
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/accesschrg.html [fcc.gov]

Instant Payback Economic Stimulus

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

$100B spent on improving US broadband infrastructure would have instant payback in the US economy. First, most of the labor would be Americans, so the expense would create jobs. Second, the US still has most of the industry making most of the profits on the kind of broadband equipment we're talking about. There's no reason that the purchases couldn't prioritize vendors which keep more of the money paid them inside the US.

And that labor and equipment expense would make US labor and equipment compete to get it, and improve their quality offering, which makes them more competitive overall. It would jerk lots of talent and productivity away from lots of less productive efforts, like pursuing BS defense and "homeland security" contracts that wind up sending lots of profits overseas, lots sunk into rich pockets that pay either little/no taxes (especially the corporations), or even ship those profits offshore.

And it would boost America's workforce of exactly the kind of skills and products the rest of the world is looking for now. That are already associated with the "America" brand, since everyone still remembers we invented the Internet.

And then of course we'd have all the economic value of actually using that broadband infrastructure to produce even more, to make even more money with it (including designing and deploying the next $100B in broadband buildout).

It's as if the US invested $billions in the auto industry back during the Great Depression. Which is exactly what we did, by joining WWII which demanded $billions in cars, trucks, tanks, planes, and ships. But this time we're not going to send them all out to be destroyed, and to destroy the territory we'd capture when we win. Instead we'd increasing the value of everything we got to buy with our increasing profits, and bringing the world together instead of blowing it apart.

Congress is about to pretend to stimulate the economy with about $65B sent out in little $600 checks to every taxpayer. Who will mostly spend it on gas and Chinese-made TVs and crap. If they were really visionary, and really wanted to boost the economy, they'd make local governments and corporations match that expense only 1:2, and actually rebuild this country as the 21st Century is so clearly begging us to do.

Re:Sorry for being captain obvious here

[timmarhy (659436)]

what distance can copper do 10gbs? 100meters? dont' make me laugh.

Re:Sorry for being captain obvious here

[imgod2u (812837)]

Copper is not as flexible, has shorter range, and more susceptible to noise than fiber. A copper infrastructure would require more repeaters, hubs and insulation around the entire network and it would be less reliable due to EM interference and require protection against lightning and such. Fiber has none of these problems and is advantageous in every way except (currently) cost. Plastic fiber hopes to solve this last problem.

Re:Sorry for being captain obvious here

[statemachine (840641)]

Fiber has none of these problems and is advantageous in every way except (currently) cost. Plastic fiber hopes to solve this last problem.

We've had plastic fiber for several years now. However, it is not the material itself that costs so much, it is the installation.

Re:Sorry for being captain obvious here

[click2005 (921437)]

Also, fiber is likely to get cheaper as its used more, copper will go up in price as more of the world gets net connected and reserves fall.

From Wikipedia:

The Earth has an estimated 61 years of copper reserves remaining. Environmental analyst, Lester Brown, however, has suggested copper might run out within 25 years based on a reasonable extrapolation of 2% growth per year.

Re:Sorry for being captain obvious here

[Gospodin (547743)]

That's truly the beauty of the free market. If copper starts to get scarce, the price goes up. This allows copper mining companies to invest more money to find new sources or extend existing ones. If that doesn't work, then the economics of recycling become more favorable. And if that doesn't work, then the economics of replacing copper with a cheaper alternative become favorable. Given all this, it's nearly impossible to actually run out of copper.

Beyond that, though, the price of copper declined significantly between 1970 and today. Granted, 1970 was a local maximum, but the current inflation-adjusted price is under half what it was then. We're not running out of copper any time soon.

It isn't an arms race!

[EmbeddedJanitor (597831)]

"Falling behind the rest of the world". What crap!

Keeping up to date with the cutting edge is far too complicated and expensive, which is why telecom has always happened in stages. Once installed, you're pretty much stuck in a time warp until there is a huge motivation for the next big upgrade.

Take a look at the telecom in Germany. They got bombed to crap during WW2 and then installed the latest telecom during the war recovery. Pulse dial phones. Cool!. The USA big upgrade happened later (1960s/70s) and was all tone based. In the late 1980s/early 1990s computer telephony really struggled in Germany because pulse dialling is far less reliable (it's very reliable at the exchange, but not at all reliable at the listening party) but DTMF worked pretty well.

This is the reason why Kenya has better cell phone coverage than USA.

Re:Ummm...

[Daniel_Staal (609844)]

The market can't demand anything that isn't offered. In this case, there is essentially no compitition in most of the USA for internet providers. The way the market would demand something is by having people switch to faster providers, showing they are willing to spend the money for speed. In which case companies would then try to make their networks faster, to attract more customers.

But in the US, there is no one to switch to. So the market can't demand anything.

'Unbundling' as they call it in the article is always painted as anti-capitolistic, and as ending market forces. In fact, it is the opposite: It would allow market forces to work again, by giving people a choice of networks.

Printing money devalues the dollar

[Radon360 (951529)]

If you put more currency into circulation, the value of it decreases. As the value decreases, things purchased with it become more expensive (inflation). Printing cash to get us out of the hole would do nothing more than crash the economy (the world's, since so many other countrys' economies are inseparably tied in with the US Dollar).

Economics has a way of biting every "get of debt quickly" scheme in the ass.

Re:Printing money devalues the dollar

[bberens (965711)]

The difference, IMHO, is short term vs. long term. A war creates a lot of jobs in the short term, defense contractors, military personnel, etc. Building 'cheap' communications infrastructure in the U.S. would positively affect every business in the country for decades.