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."
yet more money (Score:4, Insightful)
What is it good for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't they already get this money (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sorry for being captain obvious here (Score:4, Insightful)
Iraq (Score:4, Insightful)
Total Costs Must Account for Opportunity Costs (Score:5, Insightful)
Socialized Internet Access?!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
-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.
Re:Preview of President's report (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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:yet more money (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Ummm... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Of course they don't like it (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course the "free market" groups don't like it. They hate the idea of consumers getting more for less, because the lower cost is coming at the expense of corporate profits. That's because most of those "free market" people don't really want a free market at all. They hate government regulation when it keeps them from doing what they want, but they love it when it keeps new competitors from getting into the market. That's why they're so keen on local monopolies- the antithesis of free markets.
Re:Come on, this is BS... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah! The hundred-year-old wiring in many of the east coast cities are perfectly adequate for the task of 100mbit transmission speeds!
Re:Preview of President's report (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably because they can see first hand how their company is run, and it's usually not pretty.
Re:Sorry for being captain obvious here (Score:4, Insightful)
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:What is it good for? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Printing money devalues the dollar (Score:5, Insightful)
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:What is it good for? (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because you want fiber does not make it a better 'stimulus plan.' Besides, the bill has yet to pass Senate, so we could save a ton more... so optimistic, this one.
Re:What is it good for? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Fool Me Once (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there were subsidies to the telcos as well as tax breaks and incentives
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..
It isn't an arms race! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Fixing US Broadband? (Score:2, Insightful)
Everything worked. Sat TV? Check. Cell phone? Check. DSL line for his MacBook/AirPort? Check.
By all rights, that should be one of the least connected areas around. But they were just as connected as anywhere else.
We can quibble about 5MBps vs 20 (or 50), or the price. But for 'beyond dialup'...I'm not so sure how 'broken' it is in the US.
Re:Preview of President's report (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Sorry for being captain obvious here (Score:3, Insightful)
While I don't work for any long-haul installers, and your point about glass fiber is true (and likely always will be), I use plastic fiber all the time for single-mode applications. And for long intra-building connections, it works great. Plastic single-mode fiber would work just fine for individual hookups to a fiber-to-the-neighborhood type of drop. And if the hookup is less than 150m away, multi-mode fiber would also work and be cheaper (with cheaper transceivers and CPE).
Re:Preview of President's report (Score:3, Insightful)
Or the Enron era?
Re:What is it good for? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Printing money devalues the dollar (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Total Costs Must Account for Opportunity Costs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What is it good for? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sorry for being captain obvious here (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Socialized Internet Access?!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Total Costs Must Account for Opportunity Costs (Score:2, Insightful)
My point (hyperbole and all) is that the human sacrifices that command economies make are easily counted, because they all come out of one big portfolio. A free market is quite capable of failing to provide for people's needs, but to compare the two is very apples-to-oranges because the shortcomings of a market are taken a priori to be externalities.
Most simply, if we're going to count the Soviets' mistreatment of their citizens as part of the price of their space program, then we should count the fact that homelessness exists as part of the price of ours. Is that totally unreasonable?
Re:Been saying this for years. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds great. What do you do if you're unhappy with the service you get from the giant state-owned monopoly that actually provides your cable connection? Vote libertarian?
Most of the stuff people don't like about cable companies in the US results from the lack of local competition. Replacing all the local monopolies with one big super-monopoly (run by the government!) is hardly going to make that stuff any better.
Can't blame it on distance (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What is it good for? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Sorry for being captain obvious here (Score:1, Insightful)
Free markets forget that real people need real goods and when teh market disrupts - a minor thing in the free market model - people have tragedies. Outlandish? Replace copper in the past section with water. Natural resource, scarce, of public concern. Not a free market issue. A policy issue. And policy is best handled by government, not by corporations.
Re:What is it good for? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's NOT different. These are regular people, just like the kind you see anywhere else. They just happen to work for the military. They're not magically better than anyone else, they have all the same flaws you see in everyone around you.
So here's the recap:
Original poster put them on a pedestal.
Grandparent advises that they're just as fallible as you and me.
The point flies over your head.
Other idiots mod you up.
Re:What is it good for? (Score:5, Insightful)
--
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies.
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
-Dwight D. Eisenhower