FCC Wants To Shift Phone Subsidy Funds To Broadband 211
An anonymous reader writes "FCC chairman Julius Genachowski revealed plans yesterday to overhaul the U.S. phone subsidy program and shift its focus to providing broadband access. He said, 'Broadband has gone from being a luxury to a necessity for full participation in our economy and society. If we want the United States to be the world's leading market, we need to embrace the essential goal of universal broadband, and reform outdated programs.' According to BusinessWeek, the program currently 'supports phone service to schools, libraries, the poor and high-cost areas.' Last year it spent $4.3 billion to provide support to over 1,700 carriers in high-cost areas. Genachowski hopes the change will put the U.S. 'on the path to universal broadband service by the end of the decade.'"
Open up the books (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd like to see what carriers would be getting, vs what we will continue to pay.
Fee hikes every year leaves me bouncing between two carriers that I hate, just because they're the only two in town.
Re:Open up the books (Score:4, Informative)
If you already have broadband it won't lower your fees. The program is to subsidize service in areas where it is currently too expensive for companies to wire (rural areas).
Re: (Score:2)
Please? My local WISP got bought out by a new one that claimed I wouldn't have to pay an installation fee, which was part of the deal. No, instead they decided to overcharge me for the first four months. When I called them on it they agreed to even refund me for the difference, and in the case they put a note "this is ONLY for Martin" ... And the final insult is that they are merely an AT&T reseller! AT&T literally owns all the fiber that runs into this valley, so it's ATT or a satellite. I would be
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I'm an auditor for the organization that this article is talking about; I specialize in auditing the telecom carriers. This would be a huge change, but it's definitely needed. There has been a shift away from traditional land line service to internet-based and mobile-based communications. The support that the schools and libraries, hospitals, and telecom carriers in high cost areas is used to fund broadband services already. Unfortunately, this change would mean higher costs for end-users but keep in mi
Re:Open up the books (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, much of the "taxes" on the bills are "regulatory recovery fees." It's a dodge by the phone and elec companies to make their services look cheaper and to blame to government for making them do the right thing.
Imagine if the local Walmart started charging you a fee for the merchandise, then a 3% "regulartory recovery fee" for having to install stormwater management so the neighboring property didn't flood, plus a 4% "federal corporate tax" fee, and a 6% "Local Property Tax recovery fee". It's a cost of doing business and gets built into the price of the goods.
Some of the taxes are real, like the 911 fee which (surprise) pays for a 911 operator to be standing by waiting to get your emergency call and route it to the appropriate emergency service provider (police, fire, rescue, etc.)
Everyone seems to be down on taxes, but nobody wants reduced services.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, much of the "taxes" on the bills are "regulatory recovery fees."
While this is true, I'm paying 3 times the "recover fee" amount in taxes (pulled my latest bill out to compare). The amount of tax on your bill greatly varies from state to state as well as town to town. When I moved a few years back, I noticed my bill went up. Apparently, the town I moved into has a monthly "Mobile Telecommunications Tax" that I have to pay.
the 911 fee which (surprise) pays for a 911 operator to be standing by waiting to get your emergency call [...] Everyone seems to be down on taxes, but nobody wants reduced services.
I have no problem paying that 75 cent tax, but what about the other seven dollars I'm paying in state and local taxes? As I pointed out above, my t
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that bad? We're paying for Walmart's property tax anyway, so why not make it clear where the money is going?
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the thing about reduced services - people generally point to services they don't use as a good place to "trim the fat," but never ask to pay the full price on the services they use. You may not need a 911 operator in your home town, but while you're on vacation in the country with your bride-to-be, it would suck to have something life threatening happen to her, and you not know the phone number. Or school - I rarely hear public school students (or their parents) asking to be directly billed the $16
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need a 911 operator at all times, I can call the police dispatch or fire department directly (just like before 911).
Ummm, just who do you think does the police and fire dispatch these days? Right, the 911 center. It doesn't matter if you use the 911 emergency number or the direct regular phone number, it goes the same place to the same people.
The only advantage to calling on a direct line is if you know the non-emergency number, and then the advantage is that they know it isn't an emergency and can ignore the call if they are busy.
I don't need things like trash pickup,
Then don't pay for the service. Oh, you get taxed so everyone pays for the trash pickup
Re: (Score:2)
Don't rush. Small towns are now taxing everything that moves, bites or squats in the mud. It is one of the easy ways for a government to keep up with inflation, the Joneses and whatever else. Hard to raise property taxes - takes an election. Hard to get any company that might pay taxes to move in since the economy is fubared.
So that leaves you, honest citizen, to pick up the slack.
There is nowhere to hide anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even know what little town you are blowing through let alone who actually has jurisdiction in that area,
If you knew how often the automatic distribution of 911 calls from cell calls fails in just that kind of situation, you'd not be so smug about this. Fortunately, those places where it fails are able to forward your call to the right jurisdiction and the response is only slightly delayed.
Just for example, if you are on the interstate outside the city limits, the response needs to come from the state police. If you are inside the city limits, the city may or may not have jurisdiction. Fire and ambulance are
Re: (Score:3)
Well, taxes on the wealthy are at pre-Depression era lows and the real runaways in this situation are the Teabaggers who are running around screaming about the deficit that their fucking heroes spent the last 30 years running up. Those of us who support raising taxes on the wealthy (a majority of Americans, by the way) are in this position because somehow Social Security (which does
Re:Open up the books (Score:4, Informative)
Well, taxes on the wealthy are at pre-Depression era lows and ...
And with the same truthfulness you could say we have the highest corporate in the world (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world it's 38% federal with an additional 12% state and doesn't count local taxes). It's not until you take part in all the nice tax loopholes that you get an equivilent tax rate that's at the record lows. Unfortunately since many businesses are small, they can't afford the tax lawyers to take advantage of all the nifty loopholes.
If you actually listen to Tea Party whole stance and what many speak about at the rallies, it's to lower the tax rate overall (lowering the 38% to something reasonable) AND to get rid of the loopholes. Allow the local computer store up the street to pay the same tax rate as Best Buy down the street.
I know it's hard to actually hear words through the shrieking, but I'm sure that even you equate someone stealing from you, with your liberty. It's a question of do you equate getting charged left and right for something as stealing. I pay my sewer bill every month, I expect that that money to go to the upkeep of the sewer system. To have the sewer company turn around and tell me that they are going to charge me an extra fee depending on how much non-grass area I have in my yard (thus assuming rain run off into storm system), after I'm already paying for my use of the sewer system. Me... I find thing close to stealing from me.
Re: (Score:2)
When Liberals start mentioning Soros(RICH hedgefund operator and convicted criminal) and GE (no corporate tax and buddy to Obama) then I'll listen to them . Until then, they are just Hypocritical Useful Idiots.
They aren't against Rich people, they are against rich people who don't think like them. There in lies the difference.
Re: (Score:3)
So much ignorance about the tea party, so many pathetic attempts at juvenile insults ("teabaggers"). You probably don't realize that established big-government, deficit-loving Republicans were the main targets of the Tea Party movement in the 2008 elections. In many instances, the incumbents and fat-cat party favorites did not win the primary nomination.
Re: (Score:2)
Conversely, the budget could be balanced by cutting those three things, and leaving everything else completely untouched.
Re: (Score:2)
However, Social Security is fully funded for the next 25 years. After that, a small increase in the SS tax by making rich people pay the current tax rate on income over $106,000 would keep it solvent many more years into the future.
Medicare is a problem and that is what the ACA is designed to fix. Hopefully the Republicans won't kill it before it can have a
Re: (Score:2)
ACA is not the panacea that liberals think it is. It isn't Health Care, it is just government regulation, control and will ruin American Medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
We need much stronger government regulation of prices and services similar to those of most other developed countries who manage to deliver much better quality health care and health outcomes for about half of the US cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Except you're selling false solutions to false problems. Our economic problems are caused by greed and regulatory capture, not "inefficiencies". And when you have a depressed economy, the only entity that can truly stimulate demand is government. As was proven with the New Deal and even more so with WWII.
Re: (Score:2)
A necessity? (Score:2)
How many degrees is that from a 'right'? Will 'three strikes and yer out' be the same as the death penalty?
Re: (Score:2)
It's exactly that, a necessity. I'm not sure why you are comparing it to the death penalty..well that's not true, I do know. It's because you're an ignorant ass.
If you want people to participate in society, then they need communication tools. And since rural area aren't profitable enough to corporation, the government gives them money specifically so rural area can participate.
Re: (Score:2)
It's exactly that, a necessity. I'm not sure why you are comparing it to the death penalty..well that's not true, I do know. It's because you're an ignorant ass.
If you want people to participate in society, then they need communication tools. And since rural area aren't profitable enough to corporation, the government gives them money specifically so rural area can participate.
I live in a rural area and the best speed I can get is 1.5mbps dsl. I used to get wdsl from a local provider but it was very unreliable. I have much slower speeds than people in town, but it's my choice. It doesn't keep me from "participating in society". We have several computers/devices in the house and the biggest hardship we have is that we can only have one video stream going at a time. I feel like I'm fully participating in the internet society - I bank online, buy stuff online, watch netflix, my
Re: (Score:2)
If you can get 1.5 mbps dsl, you're not in need of a broadband subsidy.
I can't get any wired internet faster than dialup, there are no WISPs around here, and while I was able to get no-cap 3G, it ain't exactly what I'd call cheap. I pay for it, because I'd go bonkers on dialup.
Banking online doesn't work reliably on dialup any more. It takes so long for most banks' pages to load, the security timeout trips before you can do anything.
I'm on 3G, theoretically 1.2mbps, and I can't stream Netflix. Heck, I can
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what affect this would have on that area if me and my friends in the same boat had the opportunity to live around the people we grew up with.
Apparently none, since you already have the opportunity to live there and have chosen to live elsewhere. You made that choice based on things you value, which you are free to do. You apparently didn't value what the effect of your presence would be enough to live there, but want us to subsidize you so you can.
... and I think those areas would get a real boost in opportunity if businesses where able to operate in these lower income areas of the country.
Many years ago, HP in this area understood the value of having their IT people online at home and paid for network lines there. They didn't do it out of the goodness of their heart, it was a busine
Re: (Score:3)
They don't cut your electricity when you burn DVD copies.
If all billing goes electronic and they cut your internet (to support a failing business model) then you cannot pay or even SEE your bills.
Bill collectors cannot even call you on your VOIP phone line.
Re: (Score:2)
Transportation is a necessity. They have no problem taking your license away for breaking traffic laws. Housing is a necessity, but your house can be condemned for code violations. Employment is a necessity, but you can become unemployed for any number of reasons.
If you lose your license you are inconvenienced. Maybe you have to take the bus or ask for a ride. Your days of just joyriding are over. You will be making far less trips than you used to.
If you lose your house you find somewhere else to live
That would explain Lightsquared... (Score:2)
...and the fast-path treatment they're getting from Obama's FCC.
Free smartphones for @AttackWatch!
Shouldn't this be legislated? (Score:2)
Oh please yes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That seems a remarkably stupid way to do such a thing.
Why subsidize companies who might or might not provide access when the government could just directly spend the money to build the infrastructure in the first place? They can then lease it out to the broadband companies to provide actual service. Though really that should be a state level decision, heck maybe you'd get different states trying different things and we'd all benefit from the resulting innovation (or even just from the resulting examples of
Re: (Score:2)
Your asking me to pay for your in-laws broadband internet access. Please tell me why they *need* it, thanks. I mean, you gotta come up with something better than, "I need to raise your taxes so it's faster to fix my in-laws laptop... heh.
You're asking me to pay for your water and sewer. Please tell me why you need it when you can just dig a latrine in the backyard. You need to come up with something better than "I need to raise your taxes (or utility rates) so you don't freeze your butt off in winter when nature calls."
Re: (Score:2)
I can answer those! woot. I drink water to survive, I use a sewer to to keep diseases from spreading (latrine in the backyard is illegal here). I ask again, what are they going to use the broadband for again? Oh, and yes, checking the ole' W-2, paying my share for water/sewage. Now answer my question please.
An internet connection, especially a high speed one, is just as essential today as other public utilities. It's more valuable than a telephone. If you're stuck with satellite or dialup, you're the connectivity equivalent of using an outhouse. Try loading any webpage with a dialup connection and see how long it takes. Even mundane tasks like paying the bills or surfing the web are almost impossible with a slow connection. You can pretty much forget about Skype conversations or any cloud-based services l
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you can't argue with liberals. It was a very simple question that your unable to answer. I used the terms survival and disease. Your using Skype and web page load times. Billions go to funding the post office, and your excuse is paying bills online? Last chance, prove that liberals are capable of answering the most basic questions without character attacks or dodging the question all together...
You've gone off the rails and completely lost me here.
I'm arguing that high speed internet is a de facto necessity that is more important than the telephone. Communication in today's society is very difficult without it, much like the telephone was 50 years ago. It's time the existing telephone subsidy be put towards providing high speed internet. Somehow, you're going on a rant about "liberals" and "character attacks."
Provider should be compelled to offer service (Score:5, Insightful)
The FCC needs to compel broadband providers to actually provide service in some instances. My parents live a mile off the road in a deep valley. The "mile off the road" part precludes cable because the cable company wants $15,000 to run line. The "deep valley" part precludes cell service and satellite. Literally, their only option is DSL, but BellSouth's local DSLAM has no free ports and they have refused to add a new one for several years.
We've raised the issue with the Tennessee Regulatory Commission (the TN service nominally in charge of overseeing utilities) and even they won't/can't do anything due to our braindead legislators handicapping them.
I can find 24 port VDSL2 DSLAM's on Google for $100 a port. I'm presuming AT&T, with their much larger negotiating power, can do even better. I'd be willing to buy the whole DSLAM for them, but they have no internal way of even handling that.
When the customer has no other option from whom to buy, there is no "free market". In that particular circumstance, the seller should be compelled to provide service.
Re: (Score:2)
The "mile off the road" part precludes cable because the cable company wants $15,000 to run line.
Its only $600 per household if there are 25 houses out there, which isnt that unreasonable.
If they moved into the middle of nowhere where few people live, then I say fuck 'em. Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
If by that you mean, consider it part of the cost of living out in the middle of nowhere, then I agree. Why should people who wisely chose to live in an urban area where utilities are cheap have to subsidize the lifestyles of people who live in rural areas?
As Thoreau would say, if you love nature, stay away from it.
Re: (Score:2)
Should electricity costs be subsidized for farmers also? And fuel for farm equipment? And feed for the animals?
The more we subsidize, the less they try to conserve, and we all lose.
Re:Provider should be compelled to offer service (Score:4, Funny)
My parents live 1 mile off the main road, on a creek rock drive way. There is only one other neighbor living on this road. It's still far cheaper to just buy AT&T a DSLAM, if they even had the internal procedure to do it.
They built this house back in 1985. It was their dream house (still is, and mine too), in a nice, quiet, secluded little valley. I'm led to understand that the Internet wasn't such a big deal back in 1985, and thus had no bearing on their purchasing decision at the time. I'm sure a lot of older, fixed income people are in similar circumstances, having purchased homes before the internet even existed.
You are an idiot. Seriously. You'd have to work harder to even be considered a worthy troll on FARK, much less here.
Re: (Score:2)
So your parents have enough wealth to have a dream home with a wilderness surrounding and only one neighbour. They share what sounds like a square mile of wilderness with only a couple of other people. Do we understand you correctly?
I bet they have a well and a septic tank and not municipal sewer and water from the water company as well. Right?
They understood that most utilities would not be running lines out into their dream home/wilderness retreat, right?
They have wealth and privacy far beyond
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to tell the difference between a libertarian and a troll on Slashdot, since they usually say the same things. If it wouldn't be too much of a strain, could you actually *READ* what I say before replying.
I'm not asking you to subsidize our lifestyle. I'm not asking for a single dime of your money. I'm willing to pay full market price for a 24-port DSLAM so my parents can get internet. I am simply asking that AT&T be compelled to get off their corporate duff and *PROVIDE SERVICE*. That'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The providers should be compelled to run those cables because they collected hundreds of billions in "FCC fees" which were supposed to be allocated specifically for that purpose, but the providers decided to pocket instead.
It is time to make them deliver what they have already been paid to deliver.
Re: (Score:2)
I swear you Libertard-trolls don't read....
I'm not asking you to install cable. *THE CABLE IS ALREADY THERE*.
I'm not asking you to buy me a DSLAM or pay to install it. *I'M WILLING TO BUY MY OWN DSLAM*.
I'm simply asking, since Bellsouth is a de facto monopoly, that someone compel them to provide service.
As I posted earlier, my parents built their house in 1985, way before the internet came along. By your same logic, you probably blame the pioneers back in the 1800's for not having the sense to build
Re: (Score:2)
I am not asking you to pay for my lifestyle. If you'd actually read, you'd notice that I *volunteered to pay the full cost for a whole 24-port DSLAM*, just so my parents can get internet.
I'm not asking you to subsidize me so much as a dime. I'm asking that AT&T be compelled to take the money out of my hand and provide the service I require because they are a de facto internet monopoly in our area. A free market only exists when the buyer has a choice from whom to buy.
Being a analytical guy, I was
Re: (Score:2)
I think the federal government should start with this idea: It may be the case, within a few year or decades, that broadcast radio and TV will go away. Standard telephone lines will go away. Cable networks will go away. And we will be left with one thing: the network that we call the Internet. Even physical travel and shipment of goods may decline in some cases
That may not work out to be true, but let's just start from that stipulation. Let's assume, in addition, that almost everyone will need Interne
Re: (Score:2)
When the customer has no other option from whom to buy, there is no "free market". In that particular circumstance, the seller should be compelled to provide service.
Or the buyer should be compelled to move to a location where there is service. That seems even fairer.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't a house, this is a home. My parents and I built it ourselves. I invested several years of my life doing that. I wouldn't trade it for all the gold in Fort Knox.
Why are all the liber-tards on Slashdot unable to comprehend simple English. *** I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO SUBSIDIZE MY LIFESTYLE ***. I am happy to pay the full price for a whole 24-port DSLAM, just so my parents can finally get internet. I'm not asking you for a single dime. I'm asking that AT&T be compelled to get off its
Re: (Score:2)
*** I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO SUBSIDIZE MY LIFESTYLE ***.
Yes, you are. Forcing someone to offer you a good or service (and you can bet good money BTW that they'll be forced to offer it well below cost!) is a subsidy. It's morally equivalent to forcing you to move to another "home" as to force a large business to provide a clearly profitless service.
Anything provided by government of monetary value, such as compelling someone to do something for you is a subsidy. In fact, compelling people to do stuff for you is not only a subsidy, but one of the most profitabl
Re: (Score:2)
It's already been subsidized by the miscellaneous "FCC fees" that you paid for many, many years. Those fees were supposed to be allocated specifically for expansion of broadband to every address but instead was pockete
Re: (Score:2)
It's already been subsidized by the miscellaneous "FCC fees" that you paid for many, many years.
Then let's eliminate the FCC fees.
Re: (Score:3)
Binkley's Law of Slashdot: Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from Libertarian.
This thread has taught me a lesson I will always remember.
Telcos already owe us 300 billion! (Score:2)
A past FCC person and a telco guy followed the money trail and found agreements were made, taxes and subsidies were given to the tune of a 300 billion telco scandal [newnetworks.com]. Just hold the past agreements accountable. But of course that won't happen. Hell my local congressman was head of the telecommunications subcommittee and always sided with his top donors - big telco, go figure.
Or put the 1996 telco reform back in effect, the one that demanded opening up the government mandated monopoly to competitors. This was
Re: (Score:2)
I had ISDN at their house when I was staying there (1999-2000). We tried to get it again a few months ago, but were told that they had removed the ISDN equipment from the local CO so they would have space to install DSL hardware. Apparently the state legislature voted last year to deregulate ISDN into a service that AT&T would no longer be compelled to offer, and AT&T has been burning the ISDN ships behind them as quickly as possible. At least that's what I was told.
Plus the general lack of av
Billions of Dollars (Score:2)
...have already been given to the telecom companies to expand broadband to under-served areas. I want to know where that money has gone - because it didn't go into expanding and improving broadband.
I have a wild suggestion and I actually don't believe I am suggesting this, as I dislike interference by the government in general, but... make all telephone and cable transmission lines national infrastructure. Virtually all of the current infrastructure built by the Bells and cable companies runs on or under wh
Re: (Score:2)
Right: the Phone is Obsolete (Score:2)
Then with the air waves stolen away. We all should be boycotting cell phone air time. Until we replace the piracy with our own roof top infrastructure.
So in reality there are no phones so it foolish to pay money for that.
No Taxation Without Representation (Score:2)
OK,"No Taxation without Representation" is not exactly what I mean. What I really mean is this: No subsidies without quid pro quo. If we're going to recognize it is a necessity and start handing them our hard-earned money, I want the public to get a big fat return on its money: I want common carrier restored -- the same level of protection from scrutiny and interference, public and private as mail or POTS.
Well, on the public side, the same level we would have if the Bill of Rights were still being observed.
LTE (Score:2)
The right way to overhaul subsidies... (Score:2)
The right way to overhaul these subsidies: eliminate them. Why should the federal government be paying for people's Internet access?
If there are truly issues in particular localities, then it's a job for the towns, counties, or even the states. The federal government has zero business interfering here...
How the FCC defines broadband (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And which would still be twice what I'm getting now. At least I finally got my bill reduced from $75 to $48. That's actually quite reasonable for broadband, if I had it. In theory my speed is supposed to increase later this year. Not holding my breath.
Re:Business subsidies need to be revisted (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess it's okay for the FCC to give money to telephone but not to broadband? But you know, I guess this will help to end the argument that "the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction" over the internet in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Broadband IS Telephony ... and more. It is Communication, you know, as in "Federal Communication Commission". My broadband has proven more reliable than my POTS line.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course... and you are preaching to the choir here. I fail to see a real difference especially since much of the telephone system is now done over the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
But then again, I never heard parties say "we need government to stop giving subsidies to business..."
You're listening to the wrong parties. http://www.lp.org/platform [lp.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Libertarians have the solution, but it is a painful one to those dependent upon the Nanny State and her tit.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Name one thing I use that I don't pay for, and I'll name three that I pay for and will never use. I'll gladly give up the one in exchange for everyone else giving up the three.
Yeah, it will be painful, but that doesn't mean it isn't good. Surgery hurts, but it is better than dying. We're just on a Morphine drip now, dulling the pain while ignoring the death that is coming.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, it's time to stop paying the rapists."
Don't be an idiot, stop using hyperbole, and try to figure out why there are subsidies.
The 2 you mention are pretty good ones.
The phone subsidies help ensure everyone can communicate and participate in society. This is good.
The Corn Subsidies help ensure we have a stable food supply. This is also good.
Re: (Score:2)
Corn subsidies help ensure votes in Iowa and other corn growing states. We also pay farmers not to grow corn for food usage. We also ensure them a great ethanol market with the 10% ethanol requirements in our gasoline pumps.
Other subsidies include milk and eggs. While you might think this is the best thing ever, it removes consumer choice. You are already paying for it. Don't consume milk products, eggs, or corn for either allergies or personal ethics? Too bad sucker, you're going to pay more for your alter
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Various actual corn production subsidies seem to total about $3 Billion this year, down from $3.7 Billion last year, and an extraordinary high of $10.1 Billion in 2005. Corn ethanol subsidies this year will amount to about $5 Billion. Maybe more.
I'm not at all in favor of subsidizing corn for fuel. This makes no sense. Stablizing food prices is attractive, consider the dairy industry in particular as a fairly good example. Ethanol? Nope.
Subsidizing telephone service made sense when the telephone was the
Re: (Score:2)
The phone companies have been sucking off the government teat since their inception for the most part.
I think
Re: (Score:3)
I guess you've never heard of the tiny towns in the Louisiana swamps that still don't have landline telephones?
Those towns are so out of the way, there's no profit in providing phone service. The idea of the universal telephone fee was to save up enough money so towns like that get connected to the rest of the world. We did the same thing with electrification in the 30s and 40s. It works. Every now and again, there are news stories about some small podunk town getting phone lines for the first time.
Switchi
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a price point where it simply isn't worth the cost to subsidize service?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since landline telephone service is no longer as important, it makes sense to shift the priority from giving those people landline phone service to broadband internet access.
Telephone service is more important than broadband. Telephone service is how you call 911.
It costs more for broadband than for a simple copper pair for POTS. There is no justification for the extra expense.
Subsidies are not universally a bad thing. This is a service that would not otherwise be provided because of the high cost.
By "this", you mean broadband. It's a shame that people won't get broadband, but hardly earth shattering or life threatening. POTS, OTOH, is important. And, as you admit, lower cost.
There are some folks who will never get broadband service of any kind unless we spread the costs of providing it across society.
And? So what? There will be lots of things that people won't be able to afford if nobody buys it for them. Should "I can
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't just "Get the government out of business" (think Solyndra) but also get Business out of Government (No more Lobbyists). I want to hear more politicians talk about Liberty (thanks Ron Paul) more.
Nothing is too big to fail, if it sucks let it fail. Screw those that got us into this mess.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not subsidizing the business, they are subsidizing customers who would otherwise not have service. The electric/phone/broadband company is not going to run miles of wire to an individual house for the same $40/mo someone in a city is paying. The cost to the customer would be astronomical. So the government (via taxes on your phone/electric bill) pays the companies to do that on behalf of the customers. The alternative is that those customers go without those services, and we as a nation have de
Re: (Score:2)
You're reading it wrong, to a certain extent. The reason the subsidies exist is not to line the pocket of the corporations, but to pay them to put in service where it would otherwise be impractical (from a business standpoint). Call it welfare or socialism or whatever you want - it's there to make the financial burden of "necessities" on the far-flung communities in the US less onerous.
If you want to make the argument that if you live out in the sticks, you should pony up the $50,000 to string a telephone
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, every time I hear various parties say "get government out of business" and all that, I think "okay... maybe... but some regulation is needed because when there isn't, big business ends up raping the country." But then again, I never heard parties say "we need government to stop giving subsidies to business..."
I think the next time I see the argument "keep government out of business" I will ask what their position is on subsidies to business is.
As it turns out, there are far more subsidies going on than any of us are collectively aware of. I am well aware of corn subsidies and the like, but telephone subsidies? That's news. Seems the phone business is a huge public rapist and they are getting subsidies too?
Yeah, it's time to stop paying the rapists.
You make a good point, and many conservatives would agree with you. Subsidies aren't free market. If you subsidize something, that will tend to cause more production than the free market would dictate. The consumers will buy more and pay a lower price, while the producers sell more at a higher price. It almost sounds good except that the subsidy has to come out of the consumers' pockets in some way, so they (as a group) are actually paying more than they would have for something they wouldn't have wante
Re: (Score:2)
They'll typically be against the subsidies, as well. Why do you think this is an interesting question?
Re:So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. I'd go for this plan on one condition: That large ISPs (e.g. Comcast sized or so) are forced to do what AT&T was forced to do back in the 1950's or so - string out a reasonable broadband speed to even the most remote rural area, upon request, at a fixed price ceiling. Then I'd demand that independent and random sampling be done (both in-town and out) to insure that speeds and quality are consistent nationwide. Finally, set up a hotline or similar means by which consumers can lodge complaints, and for each valid and provable complaint, the ISP has to pay back a fixed sum of money to the FCC - low enough to not kill the system immediately, but high enough to get their attention.
No improvements, no money.
Re: (Score:3)
People in the c
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe the country wants food, and figures that the people who grow it ought not have to do without modern necessities in order to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I know- not the main argument here, but:
satellite internet != broadband
its marginally better than dialup for a couple of very select things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean he answered your Concerns.
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand that one of the concessions given to AT&T for mandating tariffed services was a guaranteed monopoly in those areas, right?
I'm not suggesting this is bad. The capital costs of deploying services like these to rural areas can be prohibitive. The monopoly guarantee allows the carrier to amortize the cost over a long term without fear of losing money.
Though today the inflation-adjusted costs should be lower because of the viability of wireless communications means many fewer miles of burie
Re: (Score:2)
This is always a ridiculous argument. Capital takes risk in hopes of reward. What you're actually saying is that no private capital considers the potential reward worth the risk to the capital, therefore it is tay payers who should bear the risk, in the form of government forced monopolies (ie govenment taking away yo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
So how about you explain why Comcast and Qwest lobbied the hell out of the Utah legislature in 2002-3, when a few towns got together and decided to put together their own municipal Internet network, often in areas that both companies avoided provisioning like it were the plague?
Roads (Score:2)
The Government is our democratic institution FOR AND BY THE PEOPLE and until people realize that and defend it instead of hating democracy it'll die and only represent the powerful (and those they sucker,) as it does today. If you hate government conceptually (as is a popular thing to do today) then you hate democracy. If you hate our corrupt government which is no longer a functioning democracy that is a different matter; too many people get confused.
Public land is the basis for our roads, phone, cable, s
Re: (Score:2)
And yet you moved there so clearly high speed internet isn't as important as other factors to you. So the rest of us should pay so that you can have something that you clearly don't prioritize that highly anyway.
I live in the middle of a big city... no backyard... in the middle... in the god damn middle. It's about time there was a government subsidy to supply me with a backyard, a fishing stream, and a corn field for the kid to walk through.
Yeah, because... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)