$350 Billion May Be Needed to Extend Broadband

[exfileme]

America's Internet infrastructure will need more than the President's $7.2 billion according to the FCC.

$350 Billion May Be Needed to Extend Broadband : Read more

 

[frozenlead]

They best not be moving toward free internet access. Somehow I know they are, though...
The idea that the US even offers free TV is ludicrous. If you can't pay for it, you can't have it - don't expect everyone else to pay for it for you.

 

[superblahman123]

[citation][nom]frozenlead[/nom]They best not be moving toward free internet access. Somehow I know they are, though...The idea that the US even offers free TV is ludicrous. If you can't pay for it, you can't have it - don't expect everyone else to pay for it for you.[/citation]

Ummm... TV isn't free, some major networks broadcast their LOCAL channels at no charge, but by no means is it even close to being comparable to cable television. You obviously don't live in the US and don't know much about it.

The US deserves a huge internet overhaul, fiber optic technology is expanding and is doing nobody any good by staying a "theory to our problems." Some major internet carriers are expanding the use of fiber optic connections, especially Verizon with FiOS, but others like AT&T are slacking severely.

 

[doomtomb]

This should be a pretty big concern for everyone, most of us use the internet on a daily basis and depend on it for communications, some of us depend on it for porn >_> but really this is important. Lay the super fiber optic cables down, I don't care if those rural farm boys get internet or not, most choose not to but for the 96% that use the internet, we need more speed. The weakest bottle neck to any computer is the internet connection.

 

[warmon6]

[citation][nom]doomtomb[/nom]This should be a pretty big concern for everyone, most of us use the internet on a daily basis and depend on it for communications, some of us depend on it for porn >_> but really this is important. Lay the super fiber optic cables down, I don't care if those rural farm boys get internet or not, most choose not to but for the 96% that use the internet, we need more speed. The weakest bottle neck to any computer is the internet connection.[/citation]
Your right about that. Our network cards haven't reach full capacity and some of use has 5+ year old card that can use 100 mbps. 5 years later we only using (for the average high speed cable/dsl user) about 10% of that speed.

 

[Ciuy]

looool

 

[matt87_50]

[citation][nom]frozenlead[/nom]They best not be moving toward free internet access. Somehow I know they are, though...The idea that the US even offers free TV is ludicrous. If you can't pay for it, you can't have it - don't expect everyone else to pay for it for you.[/citation]


what are you talking about? the closest thing to free tv is paid for by ads.

as for free internet, internet is nothing like tv, the internet is the utility, its the infrastructure. the difference between other utilities is that you are not obviously consuming a resource that comes down the line (like water or gas) but it does take power to run the infrastructure that also needs to be maintained.

I doubt it will ever be free, but I hope it gets away from the rip-off telco models with all their "deals" and "packages" to be more like other utilities, where you pay a flat connection fee, then by the gigabyte/time used.

 

[cryogenic]

Well,
we clearly entered a new era where internet infrastructure costs are comparable to highway costs ? ^^

Broadband is the latest building block of our society, and is here to stay.

I wonder why don't they build networking utilities into new houses by default already.

 

[Guest]

i say we should spend whatever is needed to bring our internet infrastructure up to speed no matter the cost

 

[frozenlead]

There have been many articles in the past few years where whispers of free government Wifi have been about. That's what I'm referring to. Sure, advertising plays a role in broadcast TV, but the government also sports funding for it, too. Companies have no other incentive to broadcast TV, else; they don't make any money off of plans for it.
If companies like AT&T and Verizon need help upgrading their networks, that's a private matter - tax dollars should not be put to use here. If their cell networks are struggling, all that shows need for is new management. They should be able to predict network use increases.
The internet is not government owned - the government should not be spending money on it.

 

[falchard]

Wow talk about good pay. $360 Billion equates to $100 per square yard to cover the entirety of ground in the US. Something tells me they aren't going to cover every spec of ground with optical cables.

They really need a better central planner if you ask me.

 

[AdamB5000]

Where do we get the money when we have a multi trillion dollar deficit this year?

We're throwing around 'hundreds of billions' these days like it's pocket change. Enough already.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]AdamB5000[/nom]Where do we get the money when we have a multi trillion dollar deficit this year?.[/citation]

its ancient Chinese secret.

 

[Regected]

What ever happened to free markets doing their thing? If the demand for a product is there, and the government steps out of the way and does not add any barriers to entry, an entity will come about to fill the need. Big business are just looking for handouts from the government to pave the way for their profits. Contrary to what popular opinion maybe, even if the government does not stick its hand into everything, stuff will get done; it will cost less and be of higher quality.

 

[Square_Head]

[citation][nom]doomtomb[/nom]Lay the super fiber optic cables down, I don't care if those rural farm boys get internet or not, most choose not to but for the 96% that use the internet, we need more speed.[/citation]

Piss off dude, seriously. I AM a rural farm boy. I was out discing the fields today. And we do need more infrastructure. We need to lay down more fiber optic lines to connect rural towns to smaller cities to larger cities. More of everything should be the motto. I'm using a special wireless receiver to connect to the tower in town (10 miles away). I have piss poor speeds as well, but its a function of not having high speed lines in place.

The FCC isn't talking about laying fiber optics to every household in America (though it would be nice). They are talking about expanding the number of cables that comprise the backbone of the internet. High speed internet service is nearly becoming as important as having electricity. I would love to have a 1Mbit connection out here. Right now I'm rather slow with a 256kbit connection. But really... how fast does everyone need to download? I'd say 5Mbit is pretty fair standard speed that people should have access to.

It seems to me that people are bitching waiting 30 seconds to complete a 500MB download, That the download should be instant if not already on their HDD.


More over, whats the big deal about paying for internet service? Do you pay for electricity based on how much you use? How about water? Duh!!! The more internet bandwidth you use, the more you should pay. Lets expand the size and scope of the internet cables so more people can have access at faster speeds than dial-up.

 

[renato2009ny]

Cryogenic 10/01/2009 1:34 AM
Hide
-0+

Well,
we clearly entered a new era where internet infrastructure costs are comparable to highway costs ? ^^

Broadband is the latest building block of our society, and is here to stay.

I wonder why don't they build networking utilities into new houses by default already.



As a Cable Guy Here in NY,Most NEW Houses or Building already have A Telephone,Cable and a Ethernet cable in each Room.Only Old House/buildings that u have to Wire for Internet.

 

[gekko668]

If we stop funding the war in middle east, I'm sure we have more than enough money to upgrade the U.S's internet infrastructure.

 

[acecombat]

[citation][nom]superblahman123[/nom]The US deserves a huge internet overhaul, fiber optic technology is expanding and is doing nobody any good by staying a "theory to our problems." [/citation]

Try being in Australia...there's like less than 2% of the population with access to fiber. For the majority of the population we have access to 1.5mbit at most (And that is waaay overpriced)...And a decent portion can't even get broadband :O

 

[megamanx00]

Yeah, first of all this is like way overdue. Second, I'm not sure how much I trust any numbers like that from the FCC. Despite calls for Net Neutrality and upgrading our internet service to be on par with the rest of the world, the FCC has largely put it's hands over it's ears going "la la la...". How can you trust someone who's been so uninvolved to give a reliable number here? I honestly think they just pulled this one out of their ass.

Rather than the government paying for these upgrades so that ISPs can make an even bigger profit, the FCC should be working on allowing small ISPs to enter the market and compete which would force the bigger ISPs to upgrade their speeds and lower their prices. Allowing low speed (2x as fast as dial up is still slow )free municipal Wi-Fi sure would be a good start.

 

[bmxmon]

The internet is a communication device used in the US, basically open to anybody, so I'm sure that qualifies it for government control.

I'm a Mass Communications student, journalism and all that BS. Anyway, Americans have a right to free communications, it is designed to keep the citizens informed. That is why you can pick up local TV news and radio for free. The government knows it is not free, that's why there is advertising.