Comments about ‘A bad federal Internet plan’

Yes, but I can't think of a better use for the Universal Service Fund.

I guess that is why we are ranked 20th in broadband access, communities have to start their own initiatives to acquire broadband before the the, normally sole provider offers to upgrade service, and why I can't even find a broadband connection in some places I travel. In fact, right now in my house I would like a faster connection, but the sole broadband provider who makes more off my slower connection is quite happy to not improve anything. Like health care, the free market will fix the interwebz any second now. Unless of course broadband access is delivered over a system that is guaranteed a monopoly... oh yeah, it is.

I'm sorry, but as of two years ago, the US was LAST among first world countries in broadband availability, speed, and cost. Backwards attitudes like this will lead the US to be a back-water in the global economy, unable to compete.

This story is so absolutely wrong. Free enterprise isn't interested in providing Internet access to anywhere not densely populated, and rural towns are dying without broadband. And "access to the Internet" isn't the same as access to broadband. If anything, the federal plan is bad because its speed target is what other countries have now, and its timeframe is 10 years from now. Put that in perspective, 10 years ago most people were still on dial-up and talking about baud rates of 3600 bps. This article is laughably misleading and simplistic. Unfortunately that seems to be the way most media is communicating these days, your demise can't come soon enough.

There are a lot of rural schools that would benefit from having fast internet. And the communities around the rural schools might just be able to provide some jobs for those children someday via high speed internet.

There are some educated people living in the sticks that would like to come of out the dark ages into the 21st century, but live in communities not large enough to be profitable for "free markets" to consider covering.

Just add this to the rest of Our"? government bad plans.

It's apparent that the private sector hasn't served us as well as the writer assumes when looking at American broadband saturation and quality levels compared to every other industrialized nation.

The ISP's and telco's refuse to change (whether it's adding wired / wireless data capacity, expanding service area, or even reducing wireless ETF fees) until the government steps in and puts a little heat on them. Competition will force service providers to change their act and get their houses in order.

Example: The areas that ATT and Verizon have deemed 'unprofitable' for high speed / modern data infrastructures because of sparse populations could benefit greatly from this plan.

In the rural area I'm from most people choose not to have internet at all, largely because dialup is pointless and high speed internet is ungodly expensive. All of these people would likely answer that they don't pay for internet "because they don't need it." OF course, if actually offered at a rate comparable to what can be found in large cities most would.

This article is a moronic rehash of an old argument that emerged both when electricity and phone-lines became the norm. Both saw the fleshing-out of their respective infrastructures by private industry in highly urban, high margin areas. Then, seeing rural areas as unprofitable, private industry stopped expanding. It took government intervention in both cases to get electricity and phone to rural people.

High speed internet will likely be as vital to education and development in the coming years as either electricity or phone. This will not happen in either poor or rural areas without the government. And these areas won't realize how vital it is till their communities dry up, just as in the aforementioned cases. Why don't you stop railing about things you don't grasp.

two thirds of Americans may be wired but you forget to mention that there is no competition in the broadband market. Verizon has its areas and the cable companies have theirs and they rarely overlap. Stale market conditions mean I don't get 100mbit up/down in my area is not available nor is any FTTH. The government needs to change that, since the corporations are unwilling. It is just a shame that i have to wait until 2020.

If the government is involved hopefully they will monitor the telecomunication companies so that they can't choose which web pages display in a timely fashion or at all based on how much they can pay. The cable companies don't like the idea of free internet because if they want the new york times or their own sites or whoever to come up faster than Deseret News or anyone else (or be accessible at all) they'll be able to. This is America. Every small website, or small business should have the chance to succeed or fail on its own merit. Not because Comcast has ramped their site and made the competition invisible. Net neutrality is essential for our basic right to information without discrimination. The internet levels the playing field as long as the government has the guts to step in and tell them, "This is America. This is a democracy. Corporations don't decide what's in the best interest of the people. Play by our rules or don't play here!"

How does it feel to be a useless corporate shill ?

Broadband should be available to everyone wirelessly. Private sector should be able to offer a better deal - they're already under-performing other countries. There's room for growth.

Your article is bad. Are you sure you're not a frontman for American ISPs? Are you paid by them?

The private sector "is doing a good job?" That's why Verizon is selling off its DSL markets by the truckload, using Reverse Morris Trusts and bankrupting the companies that purchase those markets? That's why FIOS installs have stopped? Why AT&T refuses to upgrade its networks, sticking with ADSL and 3G wireless that is overloaded?

The NTIA is an industry-paid lobbying group. Its results are extremely biased in the carriers' favor.

You then bring up UTOPIA, which would have worked fine, if it wasn't for corporate intrusion and lobbying against it. Carriers rally against any attempt at citizens to wire themselves, claiming it's unfair.... even though they refuse to wire those areas themselves. This happens all over the United States.

Face it, you're wrong. The industry is *not* responding to the markets. They are ignoring the markets, and just doing what they and their "need profits now, not tomorrow" investors think is right.

It's about time government stepped in and made them do something.

I disagree! Rural areas are left by the side of the road when it comes to Broadband. The phone company only spends money to hook-up heavily populated areas. I've asked Bell South when they were going to hook up my area 8 years ago, and to this day they still haven't done it. And it's not too fun waiting an hour and a half to download a 10 min. video. Everybody should at least have access to enough bandwith to watch a video and work without delay. At an affordable price.

With the way that are of our jobs are leaving, they will be installing high speed internet in freeway underpasses.

God forbid we had an informed populace that didn't get all it's information from Fox News. Because if that 30 percent plus group of people that have to deal with dial up, why they might see through the ceaseless, yammering lies of the Republicans.

The fact is, the Republican's biggest fear is people having access to real information, which is why they're horrified at the idea of Broadband for everyone, like most civilized countries. The Republicans want to give those folks in the telecommunications companies, the ones who give them all that money, the power to regulate the Net like they currently do Cable television. But they won't get away with it - all the tricks in the world isn't going to save the GOP. They might have a few little victories now and then, but they're doomed. And thank God too.

Free internet. That would be awesome! I don't like paying a monthly fee for using an infrastructure that was built with our tax money in the first place.

Even the emergency services provision is unnecessary. Public wireless internet is unreliable and prone to hacker's attacks. If the fire squad were to use it, they would be better off just using regular consumer-grade cell phone service.

I think it's a good idea to "websidize" the states. It may sound like a matter of pride, but heck.. we invented the dang internet~ we should be the most connected country (and with the fastest speeds) in the world.

Besides - it's getting hard for me to do World of Warcraft raids on my 7MB connection.

I cannot believe an American institution such as the Desert News ...could actually propagate such drivel. Although the implementation of a Federal Mandate may have a myriad of flaws. However the rest of us who "are not stupid enough " understand out our nation is at risk. If we can take the logical task in the truism "we are only strong as our weakest link" When it comes to broadband. The lack of development is due to the bad bets "the private sector made in regard to long distance and other technologies. We should have had nationwide wireless broadband 10 years ago...just like they do in Japan and Korea...They don't seem too bad off now. Saying this is a bad idea...would have been like protesting Eisenhower's development of the INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM... What a lousy idea that was ..lol!!!