Obama's Goal: 98% of US Covered By 4G 324
alphadogg writes "Ninety-eight percent of US residents would have access to high-speed mobile broadband service within five years under a plan that President Barack Obama detailed Thursday. Obama's proposal, which he alluded to in his State of the Union speech last month, would free up 500MHz of wireless spectrum over a decade by offering to share spectrum auction proceeds with current spectrum holders, including television stations, that have unused airwaves. The cost of the proposal is likely to raise questions from lawmakers, and some backers of government broadband spending have already raised concerns that the plan would give money and spectrum to large mobile carriers."
Let's not let broadband history repeat itself... (Score:5, Insightful)
So I have to wonder if this will be very similar to the wired broadband initiatives done years ago which have only started to provide benefits to the people many years later and at a much higher cost than our tax dollars should have required?
And what is '4G'? Is this wireless broadband definition going to be rooted in 2011 or will it be an ever increasing amount which will be viable in 2025 or 2050?
The spectrum is owned by the PEOPLE Mr. President, not you, not the government, and certainly not those you license it to. If they are not performing up to the very flexible definition I am sure you won't create because it wouldn't be at all advantageous to the wireless carriers, can we remove that license from them immediately?
Yeah, I didn't think so. Let's rethink this before you do something insanely stupid and let 'broadband' history repeat itself.
A Better Goal (Score:0, Insightful)
100% of US having no poverty.
Re:More Bread & Circuses (Score:2, Insightful)
Does that mean if there's a power outage people's rights are being violated by the power company?
Re:Mobile... what about wired? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because building a wired infrastructure is a lot more expensive unless somebody creates a viable, cost effective network over power cables.
Not to mention that you don't even need a permanent home to have mobile broadband.
Re:Simple answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it is - just like federal highway administration. There are certain things that just can't be done on the small scale local government level. I am curious what you think the federal government's purpose IS if it isn't to take on national scale projects.
98% (Score:5, Insightful)
Coverage for 98% of the US is different than coverage for 98% of Americans.
You pay twice for it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More Bread & Circuses (Score:5, Insightful)
You've got the wrong Roman reference, actually. Communications access is economic infrastructure, like roads and aqueducts. Economic infrastructure pays for itself and increases the wealth of the nation.
Re:Great for middle-class employed people. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're either not familiar with smartphones and the costs associated with internet access (here's a clue - that landline you propose people replace with a smartphone is mucn MUCH cheaper than the wireless data plan) or you are one of the middle-class employed people that doesn't really understand how expensive this stuff actually is, and how unaffordable for the poor. If you do the math, you might find that a landline + an old modem (remember those?) is still more cost effective for internet access. Yeah, you don't get to stream 1080p video over a modem, but the expensive smartphone data plan can barely manage that either. You'd still be able to access essential services, though (if they haven't succumbed to bandwidth-consuming web 2.0 b.s.)
Your experience in India may be relevant, but you probably missed the part where the goatherders weren't being bent over a barrel by domestic telecoms to satisfy "maximizing shareholder value". I bet their costs were a fraction of what they would be in the U.S. In other words, your experience in foreign lands was largely irrelevant to the reality that people have to face in the country that the original post was referring to.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More Bread & Circuses (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that every time an initiative is launched to modernize the country and bring us up to speed with the other countries that have far surpassed the US, people cry foul? Why do they never do that when, oh I don't know, a WAR is about to be launched on a country that has nothing to do with anything?
Yes, these things cost money. And yes, that money is probably going to come from the people who pay taxes. But as far as subsidized plans go, this is a good one. This will actually help people. Not like subsidies for oil companies to drill up our oil and then sell it back to us at a massive profit. Or subsidies to private armies to fight our wars for us without those nasty checks and balances. Or subsidies to Israel that go straight into their oppression efforts.
I can totally get your reluctance to pay for things like this but it just strikes me as rather awful that we can spend THAT much money on right-wing causes and nothing on good initiatives like this.
But will it have a kill switch? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have been following Egypt even a little bit then you should be worried about any U.S. plan to implement an internet kill switch. So the question is: who is going to administer this nationwide 4G and will it have a kill switch built into it? Will there be market competition in the form of multiple carriers or will you only be able to get it in one place and therefore be subject to whatever useless rules they come up with? Law enforcement can already triangulate your cellphone's position with little effort.
Re:More Bread & Circuses (Score:2, Insightful)
I am actually surprised, too, that a site like this would be full of people who are so against this. Is this a tech site or Fox News forums?
I'm sure most everyone here would like to see ubiquitous high-speed wireless internet access for everyone. What some of us don't want is ubiquitous high-speed wireless internet access that's given to some people at a cost to other people. Others may be concerned about government control over the network. Now that it's ubiquitous and government controlled, little 10 year old Johnny who just got his new iPod touch can look at porn whenever he wants, and the government can't have that, because the children are our future! I know there are a lot of leftist here on Slashdot, but usually, when the government gets more involved in any venture, it involves a lot of bureaucracy, inefficiency & negative unintended consequences.
Re:More Bread & Circuses (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it bears Obama's name. They would complain about a new war, if Obama was the one starting it. They also complain about everything Obama does with the wars he inherited.
That said, plenty of people rallied, physically not just blogwise, to oppose the invasion of Iraq. The news media barely covered it. Shamefully I wasn't one of them, but I don't think their efforts should be forgotten.