Fixing US Broadband Would Cost $100 Billion 484
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."
Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Fool Me Once (Score:5, Informative)
WTF!!!
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
BUPKISS! Freaking nothing, zilch, nada, zip, zero, goose egg, F%&KING damn 20th place
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.
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?
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.
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?
Re:Sorry for being captain obvious here (Score:5, Informative)
Nice agenda, was Re:yet more money (Score:5, Informative)
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.
That sounds about right... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sorry for being captain obvious here (Score:4, Informative)
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:Correct me if I'm wrong (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Why should be buy it TWICE!?! (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Re:What is it good for? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, as to what is officially acknowledged by the DoD Budget Office... I can't say I understand the differences between Direct Budget Plan, Budget Authority, and Outlays exactly, since the chart includes this year, and they must all be estimates of something then, but I'll give you the lowest numbers, which are marked Outlays.
FY 2006 : 499.277 Billion (what a bargain, a whole empire for only 499 instead of the usual 500)
FY 2007 : 516.508 Billion
FY 2008 : 459.754 Billion
You were probably asking a rhetorical question, but in case someone wanted to know, I looked it up.
Re:Total Costs Must Account for Opportunity Costs (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it is. Why? Because western governments and economies aren't meant to provide for people. The whole basis of a capitalist system is the idea that you are responsible for yourself. If you fail to provide for yourself that's not the government's fault, it's your own. When you starve, you have only yourself to blame. In a communist system, on the other hand, people starving becomes the responsibility of the government because the government controls every aspect of their lives, and of the economy. A communist government does not allow you the means to provide for yourself, so they automatically become responsible for you.
How can you possibly not understand the difference?
you ought not say retarded (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Protect and defend the Constitution of the USA (Score:5, Informative)
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: