<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_07_2318220</id>
	<title>FCC Wants More Time To Craft Broadband Plan</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1262873220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>adeelarshad82 writes <i>"Julius Genachowski, Federal Communications Commission Chairman, has sent out a letter to Congress <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357846,00.asp">requesting more time</a> for the commission to deliver its national broadband plan. According to the stimulus bill passed in early 2009, the FCC was  to come up with a plan to provide all citizens with access to broadband services and deliver it to the committee by February 17, 2010. Even though an <a href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2357231,00.asp">outline</a> of the plan was released last month, FCC is requesting till March 17, 2010 to finalize the plan."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>adeelarshad82 writes " Julius Genachowski , Federal Communications Commission Chairman , has sent out a letter to Congress requesting more time for the commission to deliver its national broadband plan .
According to the stimulus bill passed in early 2009 , the FCC was to come up with a plan to provide all citizens with access to broadband services and deliver it to the committee by February 17 , 2010 .
Even though an outline of the plan was released last month , FCC is requesting till March 17 , 2010 to finalize the plan .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>adeelarshad82 writes "Julius Genachowski, Federal Communications Commission Chairman, has sent out a letter to Congress requesting more time for the commission to deliver its national broadband plan.
According to the stimulus bill passed in early 2009, the FCC was  to come up with a plan to provide all citizens with access to broadband services and deliver it to the committee by February 17, 2010.
Even though an outline of the plan was released last month, FCC is requesting till March 17, 2010 to finalize the plan.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30704970</id>
	<title>UK wants to do this</title>
	<author>NSN A392-99-964-5927</author>
	<datestamp>1262975820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The UK gov wants everyone online in replacement for ID Cards. Yes that is right, you get spied upon and the law is an ass. Any law can now be passed in the UK if it is deemed within the "Publics Interest".  We are not allowed to vote on laws anymore, it just takes a decision on behalf of the gov to make up your mind for you and to pass such a law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The UK gov wants everyone online in replacement for ID Cards .
Yes that is right , you get spied upon and the law is an ass .
Any law can now be passed in the UK if it is deemed within the " Publics Interest " .
We are not allowed to vote on laws anymore , it just takes a decision on behalf of the gov to make up your mind for you and to pass such a law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UK gov wants everyone online in replacement for ID Cards.
Yes that is right, you get spied upon and the law is an ass.
Any law can now be passed in the UK if it is deemed within the "Publics Interest".
We are not allowed to vote on laws anymore, it just takes a decision on behalf of the gov to make up your mind for you and to pass such a law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30691214</id>
	<title>Re:What can they actually do?</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1262890800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The #1 thing they can do is to seperate content from transport. Ban anyone from offering both internet access AND content (such as Cable TV).</p><p>Right now the Cable providers like Comcast and Warner have a vested interest in making sure people CANT get decent throughput and access to the increasing number of options for "TV" content online (legal and otherwise). Take away the conflict of interest where the cable companies deliberatly want to stop Hulu, BitTorrent, YouTube etc in order to prop up the business model of Cable (both the service and the channels) and things may improve.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The # 1 thing they can do is to seperate content from transport .
Ban anyone from offering both internet access AND content ( such as Cable TV ) .Right now the Cable providers like Comcast and Warner have a vested interest in making sure people CANT get decent throughput and access to the increasing number of options for " TV " content online ( legal and otherwise ) .
Take away the conflict of interest where the cable companies deliberatly want to stop Hulu , BitTorrent , YouTube etc in order to prop up the business model of Cable ( both the service and the channels ) and things may improve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The #1 thing they can do is to seperate content from transport.
Ban anyone from offering both internet access AND content (such as Cable TV).Right now the Cable providers like Comcast and Warner have a vested interest in making sure people CANT get decent throughput and access to the increasing number of options for "TV" content online (legal and otherwise).
Take away the conflict of interest where the cable companies deliberatly want to stop Hulu, BitTorrent, YouTube etc in order to prop up the business model of Cable (both the service and the channels) and things may improve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690678</id>
	<title>Re:What can they actually do?</title>
	<author>k8to</author>
	<datestamp>1262883060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Segment the data transport and data service industries?</p><p>A T1 is data transport.  Cable is data transport.  These things get bits from a to b.</p><p>TCP/IP, DNS, email, web hosting, etc etc<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. these are all data services.<br>I'd simply declare you can't be both, or you can't be the data service if you're near-monopoly data transport, at least in that area/segment/etc.</p><p>This would foster<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. competition.</p><p>It's so hard for the corporatists to grasp that regulation is often a positive economic force.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Segment the data transport and data service industries ? A T1 is data transport .
Cable is data transport .
These things get bits from a to b.TCP/IP , DNS , email , web hosting , etc etc .. these are all data services.I 'd simply declare you ca n't be both , or you ca n't be the data service if you 're near-monopoly data transport , at least in that area/segment/etc.This would foster .. competition.It 's so hard for the corporatists to grasp that regulation is often a positive economic force .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Segment the data transport and data service industries?A T1 is data transport.
Cable is data transport.
These things get bits from a to b.TCP/IP, DNS, email, web hosting, etc etc .. these are all data services.I'd simply declare you can't be both, or you can't be the data service if you're near-monopoly data transport, at least in that area/segment/etc.This would foster .. competition.It's so hard for the corporatists to grasp that regulation is often a positive economic force.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690304</id>
	<title>You know a month isnt that much time</title>
	<author>jhoegl</author>
	<datestamp>1262878260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A month isnt that much time based on the subject matter. This is something that may stay around for as long as 50 years, so please take your time, and for fuck sake get it right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A month isnt that much time based on the subject matter .
This is something that may stay around for as long as 50 years , so please take your time , and for fuck sake get it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A month isnt that much time based on the subject matter.
This is something that may stay around for as long as 50 years, so please take your time, and for fuck sake get it right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30709510</id>
	<title>Re:How can they do this on any timeline?</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1263029880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Personally, it would be interesting to see internet access become a utility.  It wouldn't matter how it's delivered, and would be a fixed price for a fixed bandwidth.  Put it back on the service providers to deliver it however they want.  That would leave them with profits on the easy to service customers, and taking losses on the hard to service customers.  That's how phone service works.  If you live in the boonies, they don't charge you extra monthly costs.  They don't charge any different if they have to install poles down the street or just punch down the right wires in the basement of the apartment complex.</p><p>On the down side, the Telcos have figured out how to monopolize this and screw the customer.  It would also discourage anyone but larger companies from delivering Internet connectivity, and put a damper on inovations in new methods of delivering that service.  Similar to how a local community well becomes a public utility once you're service more than x number of homes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , it would be interesting to see internet access become a utility .
It would n't matter how it 's delivered , and would be a fixed price for a fixed bandwidth .
Put it back on the service providers to deliver it however they want .
That would leave them with profits on the easy to service customers , and taking losses on the hard to service customers .
That 's how phone service works .
If you live in the boonies , they do n't charge you extra monthly costs .
They do n't charge any different if they have to install poles down the street or just punch down the right wires in the basement of the apartment complex.On the down side , the Telcos have figured out how to monopolize this and screw the customer .
It would also discourage anyone but larger companies from delivering Internet connectivity , and put a damper on inovations in new methods of delivering that service .
Similar to how a local community well becomes a public utility once you 're service more than x number of homes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, it would be interesting to see internet access become a utility.
It wouldn't matter how it's delivered, and would be a fixed price for a fixed bandwidth.
Put it back on the service providers to deliver it however they want.
That would leave them with profits on the easy to service customers, and taking losses on the hard to service customers.
That's how phone service works.
If you live in the boonies, they don't charge you extra monthly costs.
They don't charge any different if they have to install poles down the street or just punch down the right wires in the basement of the apartment complex.On the down side, the Telcos have figured out how to monopolize this and screw the customer.
It would also discourage anyone but larger companies from delivering Internet connectivity, and put a damper on inovations in new methods of delivering that service.
Similar to how a local community well becomes a public utility once you're service more than x number of homes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690920</id>
	<title>What;'s next, Ponies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262886000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After we first make sure that everyone has access to broadband, we can give them computers to use on it.  Then software.</p><p>After a while, we can make sure everyone has a pony, too.</p><p>How many people want broadband that can't get it now?  Move or pay the price.   No one should pay so you can live in stumblefuck and get the benefits of urban living.  Sorry, I'm not buying you a pony.</p><p>Yes, many places are stuck with shitty providers and no choice.  That's a different issue, and I'd like to see something done about that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After we first make sure that everyone has access to broadband , we can give them computers to use on it .
Then software.After a while , we can make sure everyone has a pony , too.How many people want broadband that ca n't get it now ?
Move or pay the price .
No one should pay so you can live in stumblefuck and get the benefits of urban living .
Sorry , I 'm not buying you a pony.Yes , many places are stuck with shitty providers and no choice .
That 's a different issue , and I 'd like to see something done about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After we first make sure that everyone has access to broadband, we can give them computers to use on it.
Then software.After a while, we can make sure everyone has a pony, too.How many people want broadband that can't get it now?
Move or pay the price.
No one should pay so you can live in stumblefuck and get the benefits of urban living.
Sorry, I'm not buying you a pony.Yes, many places are stuck with shitty providers and no choice.
That's a different issue, and I'd like to see something done about that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690242</id>
	<title>Don't shoot for all, shoot for 3+ nines</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1262877420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a lot easier to come up with a plan to serve 99.9+\% of the population than 100\%.</p><p>If 300,000 Americans can't get broadband due to location, those 300,000 people are probably also lacking access to other very important things like emergency rooms and the like.</p><p>300,000 is too many to be without Internet, maybe 3,000 or 3,000 is more acceptable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a lot easier to come up with a plan to serve 99.9 + \ % of the population than 100 \ % .If 300,000 Americans ca n't get broadband due to location , those 300,000 people are probably also lacking access to other very important things like emergency rooms and the like.300,000 is too many to be without Internet , maybe 3,000 or 3,000 is more acceptable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a lot easier to come up with a plan to serve 99.9+\% of the population than 100\%.If 300,000 Americans can't get broadband due to location, those 300,000 people are probably also lacking access to other very important things like emergency rooms and the like.300,000 is too many to be without Internet, maybe 3,000 or 3,000 is more acceptable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30692930</id>
	<title>Re:Why wait, we already know the answer</title>
	<author>True Grit</author>
	<datestamp>1262956440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It will be just like telephone and now health care.  The people who want the service enough to buy it will be taxed to provide the service for people who don't care enough to buy it</p></div><p>Wait, is there someplace thats getting free telephone service?  Where?  I wanna move there!</p><p>How typical.</p><p>Hint:  the telephone subsidy is much like the expansion of the USPS back in the old days.  It was not to make it free for anyone, but just to make it *available* to everyone.</p><p>And if you don't get why extending mail and telephone was considered so important, why not read some of the history of those times.  A large country thats disconnected and out of touch with itself could never move beyond the 2nd-world stage... never become what we are now.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It will be just like telephone and now health care .
The people who want the service enough to buy it will be taxed to provide the service for people who do n't care enough to buy itWait , is there someplace thats getting free telephone service ?
Where ? I wan na move there ! How typical.Hint : the telephone subsidy is much like the expansion of the USPS back in the old days .
It was not to make it free for anyone , but just to make it * available * to everyone.And if you do n't get why extending mail and telephone was considered so important , why not read some of the history of those times .
A large country thats disconnected and out of touch with itself could never move beyond the 2nd-world stage... never become what we are now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will be just like telephone and now health care.
The people who want the service enough to buy it will be taxed to provide the service for people who don't care enough to buy itWait, is there someplace thats getting free telephone service?
Where?  I wanna move there!How typical.Hint:  the telephone subsidy is much like the expansion of the USPS back in the old days.
It was not to make it free for anyone, but just to make it *available* to everyone.And if you don't get why extending mail and telephone was considered so important, why not read some of the history of those times.
A large country thats disconnected and out of touch with itself could never move beyond the 2nd-world stage... never become what we are now.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30829012</id>
	<title>Ok I hope for broadband in rural areas</title>
	<author>AMDuser</author>
	<datestamp>1263930960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can across this today and I decided to but in my 2 cents. Recently I moved from a town that had DSL and Cabel internet. To a rural area I did check for DSL and it was available but by the time I got moved and a mailing address all the slots got filled for DSL at the switching station because the telecom does not want to update the switching station to get more slots and I have Dial-up right now I have been waiting for DSL for over 3 months. When I moved and got stuck on Dial-up I had to give up PC Gaming, Playstation 3 Gaming, Ventrilo, Podcast, Internet TV and Radio like TWiT Live, youtube, manageing a Podcast Site, and a PC Backup Service. So I hate being on Dial-up and satellite I would hit the threshold of 17GBs a month from one company for traffic and you can't game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can across this today and I decided to but in my 2 cents .
Recently I moved from a town that had DSL and Cabel internet .
To a rural area I did check for DSL and it was available but by the time I got moved and a mailing address all the slots got filled for DSL at the switching station because the telecom does not want to update the switching station to get more slots and I have Dial-up right now I have been waiting for DSL for over 3 months .
When I moved and got stuck on Dial-up I had to give up PC Gaming , Playstation 3 Gaming , Ventrilo , Podcast , Internet TV and Radio like TWiT Live , youtube , manageing a Podcast Site , and a PC Backup Service .
So I hate being on Dial-up and satellite I would hit the threshold of 17GBs a month from one company for traffic and you ca n't game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can across this today and I decided to but in my 2 cents.
Recently I moved from a town that had DSL and Cabel internet.
To a rural area I did check for DSL and it was available but by the time I got moved and a mailing address all the slots got filled for DSL at the switching station because the telecom does not want to update the switching station to get more slots and I have Dial-up right now I have been waiting for DSL for over 3 months.
When I moved and got stuck on Dial-up I had to give up PC Gaming, Playstation 3 Gaming, Ventrilo, Podcast, Internet TV and Radio like TWiT Live, youtube, manageing a Podcast Site, and a PC Backup Service.
So I hate being on Dial-up and satellite I would hit the threshold of 17GBs a month from one company for traffic and you can't game.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30691894</id>
	<title>Re:Why they need the time</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1262942460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think they should just create a policy that says you can only refer to internet connections slower than 10Mbps as "dial up" or "Low-Speed Broadband" with those words no less prominently displayed than any other text in any advertising.  Then regularly, every 5 years, re-evaluate the "minimum" level for this distinction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they should just create a policy that says you can only refer to internet connections slower than 10Mbps as " dial up " or " Low-Speed Broadband " with those words no less prominently displayed than any other text in any advertising .
Then regularly , every 5 years , re-evaluate the " minimum " level for this distinction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they should just create a policy that says you can only refer to internet connections slower than 10Mbps as "dial up" or "Low-Speed Broadband" with those words no less prominently displayed than any other text in any advertising.
Then regularly, every 5 years, re-evaluate the "minimum" level for this distinction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690358</id>
	<title>Simplify</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1262878860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With something this big why does it have to be such a concrete deadline. Couldn't they work it out into phases and release the phases. Its not like the town plan will benefit if their trunk has to be reworked.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With something this big why does it have to be such a concrete deadline .
Could n't they work it out into phases and release the phases .
Its not like the town plan will benefit if their trunk has to be reworked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With something this big why does it have to be such a concrete deadline.
Couldn't they work it out into phases and release the phases.
Its not like the town plan will benefit if their trunk has to be reworked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30692416</id>
	<title>Re:What can they actually do?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1262949360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't want to pay for my neighbor to download Zombie Strippers off the internet</p></div><p>Yes you do.  That website has costs.  If the strippers aren't given enough -very expensive- artificial brain substitute, THEY WILL KILL US ALL.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to pay for my neighbor to download Zombie Strippers off the internetYes you do .
That website has costs .
If the strippers are n't given enough -very expensive- artificial brain substitute , THEY WILL KILL US ALL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to pay for my neighbor to download Zombie Strippers off the internetYes you do.
That website has costs.
If the strippers aren't given enough -very expensive- artificial brain substitute, THEY WILL KILL US ALL.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690896</id>
	<title>It's Easy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262885580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want an all encompassing plan, it's easy. Simply require all telecommunication companies be required to keep the promises they made in the 90's. It shouldn't cost the government anything, the telecommunication companies have already been paid for this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want an all encompassing plan , it 's easy .
Simply require all telecommunication companies be required to keep the promises they made in the 90 's .
It should n't cost the government anything , the telecommunication companies have already been paid for this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want an all encompassing plan, it's easy.
Simply require all telecommunication companies be required to keep the promises they made in the 90's.
It shouldn't cost the government anything, the telecommunication companies have already been paid for this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30699712</id>
	<title>Re:Simplify</title>
	<author>Unequivocal</author>
	<datestamp>1262943960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Congress funded this as part of ARRA and put a hard deadline on it in the legislation. As it turns out, having a hard deadline is a good thing, b/c it forces all the political monkeys to do their craziness within a fixed window of time. Political monkeys will swing from the branches, chatter and eat bananas for as long as you let them, so a deadline is really valuable for this type of work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Congress funded this as part of ARRA and put a hard deadline on it in the legislation .
As it turns out , having a hard deadline is a good thing , b/c it forces all the political monkeys to do their craziness within a fixed window of time .
Political monkeys will swing from the branches , chatter and eat bananas for as long as you let them , so a deadline is really valuable for this type of work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Congress funded this as part of ARRA and put a hard deadline on it in the legislation.
As it turns out, having a hard deadline is a good thing, b/c it forces all the political monkeys to do their craziness within a fixed window of time.
Political monkeys will swing from the branches, chatter and eat bananas for as long as you let them, so a deadline is really valuable for this type of work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690212</id>
	<title>I want more time to craft a big fat dump!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262877120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...but I'm running late and I have to get to work<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but I 'm running late and I have to get to work : - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...but I'm running late and I have to get to work :-(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690488</id>
	<title>Re:What can they actually do?</title>
	<author>rastilin</author>
	<datestamp>1262880420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> No one likes subsidizing "Zombie Strippers". But people don't like using library computers either, it's unpleasant and a hassle; which is the opposite of letting people have easy access to information. Also, there are things you can't look up while other people are around, politics, sex-ed, Iranian marches, etc... You can't do your banking, and it's embarrasing to talk to family and close acquaintances while on a big screen that everyone can see. Also, you can't run your own software like Linux updates, Freenet or yes, Gaming. I don't mind subsidizing people's online gaming either, it's not that expensive and people enjoy it a lot. <br> <br> Having to share an internet kiosk an hour from your house isn't the same thing as having internet access when you want it. It's a pale imitation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No one likes subsidizing " Zombie Strippers " .
But people do n't like using library computers either , it 's unpleasant and a hassle ; which is the opposite of letting people have easy access to information .
Also , there are things you ca n't look up while other people are around , politics , sex-ed , Iranian marches , etc... You ca n't do your banking , and it 's embarrasing to talk to family and close acquaintances while on a big screen that everyone can see .
Also , you ca n't run your own software like Linux updates , Freenet or yes , Gaming .
I do n't mind subsidizing people 's online gaming either , it 's not that expensive and people enjoy it a lot .
Having to share an internet kiosk an hour from your house is n't the same thing as having internet access when you want it .
It 's a pale imitation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> No one likes subsidizing "Zombie Strippers".
But people don't like using library computers either, it's unpleasant and a hassle; which is the opposite of letting people have easy access to information.
Also, there are things you can't look up while other people are around, politics, sex-ed, Iranian marches, etc... You can't do your banking, and it's embarrasing to talk to family and close acquaintances while on a big screen that everyone can see.
Also, you can't run your own software like Linux updates, Freenet or yes, Gaming.
I don't mind subsidizing people's online gaming either, it's not that expensive and people enjoy it a lot.
Having to share an internet kiosk an hour from your house isn't the same thing as having internet access when you want it.
It's a pale imitation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30698496</id>
	<title>Re:What can they actually do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262982240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>hello<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...since everything is moving to internet from phone to television, radio, etc.  Moving to coast to coast broadband/wifi will move us closer to a better communication age.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>hello ...since everything is moving to internet from phone to television , radio , etc .
Moving to coast to coast broadband/wifi will move us closer to a better communication age .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hello ...since everything is moving to internet from phone to television, radio, etc.
Moving to coast to coast broadband/wifi will move us closer to a better communication age.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30692190</id>
	<title>Re:What;'s next, Ponies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262946660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A number of years ago, I'm sure the same things could have been said about sewage, running water, natural gas, and electricity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A number of years ago , I 'm sure the same things could have been said about sewage , running water , natural gas , and electricity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A number of years ago, I'm sure the same things could have been said about sewage, running water, natural gas, and electricity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690874</id>
	<title>How can they do this on any timeline?</title>
	<author>swb</author>
	<datestamp>1262885280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't serving "everyone" have daunting technical/physical challenges, if not financial ones at a minimum?</p><p>How does an extra month give you a good answer that's not completely unrealistic -- "just run fiber to everyone's house" -- and impossibly expensive?</p><p>That being said, I'm not against broadband/networking being invested in by the government, for the same reasons I'm not against the government building roads.  It's a common thing we all need good, local access to.  You benefit from roads, even if you don't personally drive -- it enables economic activity, enables things &amp; people to move easily, etc.  Municipal fiber infrastructure makes sense and can pay for itself.</p><p>I don't see how meeting everyone's needs can be done responsibly, though, and wouldn't want to see some of the excess paid for (eg, individual people living in remote areas requiring 10s of thouands of investment to get high speed internet access) at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't serving " everyone " have daunting technical/physical challenges , if not financial ones at a minimum ? How does an extra month give you a good answer that 's not completely unrealistic -- " just run fiber to everyone 's house " -- and impossibly expensive ? That being said , I 'm not against broadband/networking being invested in by the government , for the same reasons I 'm not against the government building roads .
It 's a common thing we all need good , local access to .
You benefit from roads , even if you do n't personally drive -- it enables economic activity , enables things &amp; people to move easily , etc .
Municipal fiber infrastructure makes sense and can pay for itself.I do n't see how meeting everyone 's needs can be done responsibly , though , and would n't want to see some of the excess paid for ( eg , individual people living in remote areas requiring 10s of thouands of investment to get high speed internet access ) at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't serving "everyone" have daunting technical/physical challenges, if not financial ones at a minimum?How does an extra month give you a good answer that's not completely unrealistic -- "just run fiber to everyone's house" -- and impossibly expensive?That being said, I'm not against broadband/networking being invested in by the government, for the same reasons I'm not against the government building roads.
It's a common thing we all need good, local access to.
You benefit from roads, even if you don't personally drive -- it enables economic activity, enables things &amp; people to move easily, etc.
Municipal fiber infrastructure makes sense and can pay for itself.I don't see how meeting everyone's needs can be done responsibly, though, and wouldn't want to see some of the excess paid for (eg, individual people living in remote areas requiring 10s of thouands of investment to get high speed internet access) at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690398</id>
	<title>What can they actually do?</title>
	<author>Seor Jojoba</author>
	<datestamp>1262879280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm asking this seriously, not rhetorically.</p><p>They have a budget of $7.2 billion for grants.  It seems like they could wi-max a bunch of major cities, but not the whole US.  Or maybe they just want to make the internet "affordable"--not necessarily free.  Subsidize people's ISP service?  Ugh.  I don't want to pay for my neighbor to download Zombie Strippers off the internet.</p><p>I do like the emphasis on making things competitive.  There are a lot of us that have just one practical choice for broadband, either the phone or cable company.  And then there is maybe some not-really-high-speed 3G/GPRS solution available.  But without knowing details, I don't see how they encourage competition when there is a monopoly on wired or wireless access.</p><p>Seriously, what useful thing can the FCC do here?</p><p>Here is my plan: Make sure all the schools and libraries have got broadband-equipped computers to match demand.  Let people that can't afford home internet ride the bus down to the library or stay after school.  This is probably 90\% covered already.  It's too boring and unambitious of a plan to be very interesting, but it would do just fine.  You'd have plenty of change left over from that $7.2 billion--go stimulate something else more useful with it, i.e. education, mass transit.  We don't need to make sure every person is connected to a high-speed multimedia wonderland all the time for free.  The emphasis should be on education and basic needs like typing up resumes, checking your e-mail, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm asking this seriously , not rhetorically.They have a budget of $ 7.2 billion for grants .
It seems like they could wi-max a bunch of major cities , but not the whole US .
Or maybe they just want to make the internet " affordable " --not necessarily free .
Subsidize people 's ISP service ?
Ugh. I do n't want to pay for my neighbor to download Zombie Strippers off the internet.I do like the emphasis on making things competitive .
There are a lot of us that have just one practical choice for broadband , either the phone or cable company .
And then there is maybe some not-really-high-speed 3G/GPRS solution available .
But without knowing details , I do n't see how they encourage competition when there is a monopoly on wired or wireless access.Seriously , what useful thing can the FCC do here ? Here is my plan : Make sure all the schools and libraries have got broadband-equipped computers to match demand .
Let people that ca n't afford home internet ride the bus down to the library or stay after school .
This is probably 90 \ % covered already .
It 's too boring and unambitious of a plan to be very interesting , but it would do just fine .
You 'd have plenty of change left over from that $ 7.2 billion--go stimulate something else more useful with it , i.e .
education , mass transit .
We do n't need to make sure every person is connected to a high-speed multimedia wonderland all the time for free .
The emphasis should be on education and basic needs like typing up resumes , checking your e-mail , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm asking this seriously, not rhetorically.They have a budget of $7.2 billion for grants.
It seems like they could wi-max a bunch of major cities, but not the whole US.
Or maybe they just want to make the internet "affordable"--not necessarily free.
Subsidize people's ISP service?
Ugh.  I don't want to pay for my neighbor to download Zombie Strippers off the internet.I do like the emphasis on making things competitive.
There are a lot of us that have just one practical choice for broadband, either the phone or cable company.
And then there is maybe some not-really-high-speed 3G/GPRS solution available.
But without knowing details, I don't see how they encourage competition when there is a monopoly on wired or wireless access.Seriously, what useful thing can the FCC do here?Here is my plan: Make sure all the schools and libraries have got broadband-equipped computers to match demand.
Let people that can't afford home internet ride the bus down to the library or stay after school.
This is probably 90\% covered already.
It's too boring and unambitious of a plan to be very interesting, but it would do just fine.
You'd have plenty of change left over from that $7.2 billion--go stimulate something else more useful with it, i.e.
education, mass transit.
We don't need to make sure every person is connected to a high-speed multimedia wonderland all the time for free.
The emphasis should be on education and basic needs like typing up resumes, checking your e-mail, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30692432</id>
	<title>Re:What;'s next, Ponies?</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1262949600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After we first make sure that everyone has access to broadband, we can give them computers to use on it. Then software.</p><p>After a while, we can make sure everyone has a pony, too.</p></div><p>No matter where you live you have a choice in computers, software, and...er... ponies, to fit your budget.  The same is not true of broadband.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After we first make sure that everyone has access to broadband , we can give them computers to use on it .
Then software.After a while , we can make sure everyone has a pony , too.No matter where you live you have a choice in computers , software , and...er... ponies , to fit your budget .
The same is not true of broadband .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After we first make sure that everyone has access to broadband, we can give them computers to use on it.
Then software.After a while, we can make sure everyone has a pony, too.No matter where you live you have a choice in computers, software, and...er... ponies, to fit your budget.
The same is not true of broadband.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30693290</id>
	<title>Re:Power and Frequency != INTERNET</title>
	<author>Jeian</author>
	<datestamp>1262959920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The reason it's taking so long is because the FCC is supposed to regulate power and frequency, not the INTERNET.</i> <br>
<br>
"For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as <i>to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide <b>wire</b> and radio <b>communication service</b> with adequate facilities at reasonable charges</i>, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the 'Federal Communications Commission', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter." - 47 U.S.C. 151</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason it 's taking so long is because the FCC is supposed to regulate power and frequency , not the INTERNET .
" For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available , so far as possible , to all the people of the United States , without discrimination on the basis of race , color , religion , national origin , or sex , a rapid , efficient , Nation-wide , and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges , for the purpose of the national defense , for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications , and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication , there is created a commission to be known as the 'Federal Communications Commission ' , which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided , and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter .
" - 47 U.S.C .
151</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason it's taking so long is because the FCC is supposed to regulate power and frequency, not the INTERNET.
"For the purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the 'Federal Communications Commission', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter.
" - 47 U.S.C.
151</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690588</id>
	<title>The internet does exist outside of the USA.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262881560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nothing in the text of this item specifies the fact that it's related to the USA. Just saying "Federal", "Congress" or "national" doesn't imply it's American. Believe it or not folks, the internet does actually extend beyond Hawaii.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing in the text of this item specifies the fact that it 's related to the USA .
Just saying " Federal " , " Congress " or " national " does n't imply it 's American .
Believe it or not folks , the internet does actually extend beyond Hawaii .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing in the text of this item specifies the fact that it's related to the USA.
Just saying "Federal", "Congress" or "national" doesn't imply it's American.
Believe it or not folks, the internet does actually extend beyond Hawaii.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690846</id>
	<title>Re:What can they actually do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262884920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't worry they'll just redefine "broadband" to include the high-latency, low upstream crap satellite ISPs have; and instantly every American will have broadband.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry they 'll just redefine " broadband " to include the high-latency , low upstream crap satellite ISPs have ; and instantly every American will have broadband .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry they'll just redefine "broadband" to include the high-latency, low upstream crap satellite ISPs have; and instantly every American will have broadband.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690330</id>
	<title>My two cents</title>
	<author>Antony-Kyre</author>
	<datestamp>1262878500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Define broadband. Would one mbps down be sufficient enough?</p><p>Is their goal simply to make sure people have adequate bandwidth to reasonably surf the Internet? Not necessarily streaming TV shows, but perhaps when it comes to news clips (with a bit of buffering).</p><p>Also, VoIP comes to mind, but I'm unsure what my opinion is on that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Define broadband .
Would one mbps down be sufficient enough ? Is their goal simply to make sure people have adequate bandwidth to reasonably surf the Internet ?
Not necessarily streaming TV shows , but perhaps when it comes to news clips ( with a bit of buffering ) .Also , VoIP comes to mind , but I 'm unsure what my opinion is on that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Define broadband.
Would one mbps down be sufficient enough?Is their goal simply to make sure people have adequate bandwidth to reasonably surf the Internet?
Not necessarily streaming TV shows, but perhaps when it comes to news clips (with a bit of buffering).Also, VoIP comes to mind, but I'm unsure what my opinion is on that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30693650</id>
	<title>Re:Why wait, we already know the answer</title>
	<author>jimmy\_dean</author>
	<datestamp>1262962500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're absolutely right. When will people wake up and realize that the government providing everything is no panacea. It takes from those who have some, to those who don't want to have (or some legitimately who do, but can't afford). This is evil and creates class warfare. In the meantime, we all give up more and more of our freedom and liberty all in the name of "fairness." Of course this is not fair at all, it's a manufactured wrong against the natural order.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're absolutely right .
When will people wake up and realize that the government providing everything is no panacea .
It takes from those who have some , to those who do n't want to have ( or some legitimately who do , but ca n't afford ) .
This is evil and creates class warfare .
In the meantime , we all give up more and more of our freedom and liberty all in the name of " fairness .
" Of course this is not fair at all , it 's a manufactured wrong against the natural order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're absolutely right.
When will people wake up and realize that the government providing everything is no panacea.
It takes from those who have some, to those who don't want to have (or some legitimately who do, but can't afford).
This is evil and creates class warfare.
In the meantime, we all give up more and more of our freedom and liberty all in the name of "fairness.
" Of course this is not fair at all, it's a manufactured wrong against the natural order.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690602</id>
	<title>Why wait, we already know the answer</title>
	<author>NaCh0</author>
	<datestamp>1262881740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will be just like telephone and now health care.  The people who want the service enough to buy it will be taxed to provide the service for people who don't care enough to buy it on their own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will be just like telephone and now health care .
The people who want the service enough to buy it will be taxed to provide the service for people who do n't care enough to buy it on their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will be just like telephone and now health care.
The people who want the service enough to buy it will be taxed to provide the service for people who don't care enough to buy it on their own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30699634</id>
	<title>Re:Why they need the time</title>
	<author>Unequivocal</author>
	<datestamp>1262943600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have no idea how close you are. The FCC building in DC had a very slow connection up until about a month ago. Now it's a relatively zippy 8mbs (same as home cable service mind you). But it was sub 1-mbps before that which was a joke for downloading even moderately sized PDF's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have no idea how close you are .
The FCC building in DC had a very slow connection up until about a month ago .
Now it 's a relatively zippy 8mbs ( same as home cable service mind you ) .
But it was sub 1-mbps before that which was a joke for downloading even moderately sized PDF 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have no idea how close you are.
The FCC building in DC had a very slow connection up until about a month ago.
Now it's a relatively zippy 8mbs (same as home cable service mind you).
But it was sub 1-mbps before that which was a joke for downloading even moderately sized PDF's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690370</id>
	<title>Power and Frequency != INTERNET</title>
	<author>myspace-cn</author>
	<datestamp>1262878980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason it's taking so long is because the FCC is supposed to regulate power and frequency, not the INTERNET.  So this will be a whole new bonanza to exploit.  Oh and while your here, please make a note the FCC's original mission statement is missing. Could it be because they failed and the "public spectrum" is now "corporate owned?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason it 's taking so long is because the FCC is supposed to regulate power and frequency , not the INTERNET .
So this will be a whole new bonanza to exploit .
Oh and while your here , please make a note the FCC 's original mission statement is missing .
Could it be because they failed and the " public spectrum " is now " corporate owned ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason it's taking so long is because the FCC is supposed to regulate power and frequency, not the INTERNET.
So this will be a whole new bonanza to exploit.
Oh and while your here, please make a note the FCC's original mission statement is missing.
Could it be because they failed and the "public spectrum" is now "corporate owned?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30709456</id>
	<title>Re:Don't shoot for all, shoot for 3+ nines</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1263029400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a lot easier to come up with a plan to serve 99.9+\% of the population than 100\%.</p><p>If 300,000 Americans can't get broadband due to location, those 300,000 people are probably also lacking access to other very important things like emergency rooms and the like.</p><p>300,000 is too many to be without Internet, maybe 3,000 or 3,000 is more acceptable.</p></div><p>That's the entire reason for this plan.  A fair percentage of the US consumers don't have a viable option for high-speed internet access.  Being in a remote location can certainly rule out DSL, cellular, cable, or even satellite.   Satellite internet access is probably the easiest to deploy in remote locations, but its pricey with upfront equipment costs and high monthly fees.</p><p>Proximity to emergency services isn't really related.  As an example, so you live a mile outside of town in a sparsely populated area in a hilly area.  The telco probably hasn't upgraded their CO for DSL since they'll never get enough users to pay back the equipment cost.  Cable won't go out that far for the same reason.  Cell service might be non-existant. Satellite might not be workable due to a poor view of the southern sky.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a lot easier to come up with a plan to serve 99.9 + \ % of the population than 100 \ % .If 300,000 Americans ca n't get broadband due to location , those 300,000 people are probably also lacking access to other very important things like emergency rooms and the like.300,000 is too many to be without Internet , maybe 3,000 or 3,000 is more acceptable.That 's the entire reason for this plan .
A fair percentage of the US consumers do n't have a viable option for high-speed internet access .
Being in a remote location can certainly rule out DSL , cellular , cable , or even satellite .
Satellite internet access is probably the easiest to deploy in remote locations , but its pricey with upfront equipment costs and high monthly fees.Proximity to emergency services is n't really related .
As an example , so you live a mile outside of town in a sparsely populated area in a hilly area .
The telco probably has n't upgraded their CO for DSL since they 'll never get enough users to pay back the equipment cost .
Cable wo n't go out that far for the same reason .
Cell service might be non-existant .
Satellite might not be workable due to a poor view of the southern sky .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a lot easier to come up with a plan to serve 99.9+\% of the population than 100\%.If 300,000 Americans can't get broadband due to location, those 300,000 people are probably also lacking access to other very important things like emergency rooms and the like.300,000 is too many to be without Internet, maybe 3,000 or 3,000 is more acceptable.That's the entire reason for this plan.
A fair percentage of the US consumers don't have a viable option for high-speed internet access.
Being in a remote location can certainly rule out DSL, cellular, cable, or even satellite.
Satellite internet access is probably the easiest to deploy in remote locations, but its pricey with upfront equipment costs and high monthly fees.Proximity to emergency services isn't really related.
As an example, so you live a mile outside of town in a sparsely populated area in a hilly area.
The telco probably hasn't upgraded their CO for DSL since they'll never get enough users to pay back the equipment cost.
Cable won't go out that far for the same reason.
Cell service might be non-existant.
Satellite might not be workable due to a poor view of the southern sky.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690242</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30691946</id>
	<title>Re:My two cents</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1262943000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can't define "Broadband" because they will advertise "Hi-Speed" or "Ludicrous Speed" internet... you need to define a term that anything slower than X should be called.  I would suggest that any internet connections of less than 10 Mbps be referred to as "Low-Speed Broadband" or "Dial-Up Internet" and that those expressions must be in a font and size that matches any prominent text in the advertising.  And that the minimum be reviewed (and can only go up) every 3-5 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't define " Broadband " because they will advertise " Hi-Speed " or " Ludicrous Speed " internet... you need to define a term that anything slower than X should be called .
I would suggest that any internet connections of less than 10 Mbps be referred to as " Low-Speed Broadband " or " Dial-Up Internet " and that those expressions must be in a font and size that matches any prominent text in the advertising .
And that the minimum be reviewed ( and can only go up ) every 3-5 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't define "Broadband" because they will advertise "Hi-Speed" or "Ludicrous Speed" internet... you need to define a term that anything slower than X should be called.
I would suggest that any internet connections of less than 10 Mbps be referred to as "Low-Speed Broadband" or "Dial-Up Internet" and that those expressions must be in a font and size that matches any prominent text in the advertising.
And that the minimum be reviewed (and can only go up) every 3-5 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30691992</id>
	<title>I've always wondered why they can't do it this way</title>
	<author>loki.TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1262943660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't the Teleco's offload the cost of laying the lines to the consumers that want the lines.</p><p>Here's my idea.  Lets say I live in a neighborhood that doesn't have fiber runs.  I call up the teleco and get a quote to have them lay fiber to my house.  Let's just say that cost is.........$8000 (just a random number).</p><p>I agree to pay $8000 for installation plus a monthly fee for the service.  But, I own the fiber.  The teleco can now buy back the fiber when other people call from my neighborhood and want to use the fiber lines that I paid to have run from the teleco to my house.</p><p>So say there are 40 houses between my house and the teleco box (the distance I paid to have the fiber run).  The teleco could tell the first guy that wanted fiber besides me that it will cost him $4000 (half my costs) + the cost to lay fiber from my line to his house.  Teleco gets none of the $4000, just the actual cost to lay the line and I get the $4000 back.</p><p>Now a third guy comes along.  The teleco tells him it will cost $2000 to lay the line.  I get $1000 back and so does the second guy.</p><p>Think pyramid scheme, but I will never make back 100\% of my cost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't the Teleco 's offload the cost of laying the lines to the consumers that want the lines.Here 's my idea .
Lets say I live in a neighborhood that does n't have fiber runs .
I call up the teleco and get a quote to have them lay fiber to my house .
Let 's just say that cost is......... $ 8000 ( just a random number ) .I agree to pay $ 8000 for installation plus a monthly fee for the service .
But , I own the fiber .
The teleco can now buy back the fiber when other people call from my neighborhood and want to use the fiber lines that I paid to have run from the teleco to my house.So say there are 40 houses between my house and the teleco box ( the distance I paid to have the fiber run ) .
The teleco could tell the first guy that wanted fiber besides me that it will cost him $ 4000 ( half my costs ) + the cost to lay fiber from my line to his house .
Teleco gets none of the $ 4000 , just the actual cost to lay the line and I get the $ 4000 back.Now a third guy comes along .
The teleco tells him it will cost $ 2000 to lay the line .
I get $ 1000 back and so does the second guy.Think pyramid scheme , but I will never make back 100 \ % of my cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't the Teleco's offload the cost of laying the lines to the consumers that want the lines.Here's my idea.
Lets say I live in a neighborhood that doesn't have fiber runs.
I call up the teleco and get a quote to have them lay fiber to my house.
Let's just say that cost is.........$8000 (just a random number).I agree to pay $8000 for installation plus a monthly fee for the service.
But, I own the fiber.
The teleco can now buy back the fiber when other people call from my neighborhood and want to use the fiber lines that I paid to have run from the teleco to my house.So say there are 40 houses between my house and the teleco box (the distance I paid to have the fiber run).
The teleco could tell the first guy that wanted fiber besides me that it will cost him $4000 (half my costs) + the cost to lay fiber from my line to his house.
Teleco gets none of the $4000, just the actual cost to lay the line and I get the $4000 back.Now a third guy comes along.
The teleco tells him it will cost $2000 to lay the line.
I get $1000 back and so does the second guy.Think pyramid scheme, but I will never make back 100\% of my cost.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30699764</id>
	<title>Re:What can they actually do?</title>
	<author>Unequivocal</author>
	<datestamp>1262944140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your idea is actually well supported in the public record comments on the Broadband plan (see particularly Public Notice #15 for the Broadband plan on the FCC website) (no link b/c I'm lazy). They might just do something like you describe for schools. And incidentally libraries already permit this, but they don't have enough bandwidth to satisfy customers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your idea is actually well supported in the public record comments on the Broadband plan ( see particularly Public Notice # 15 for the Broadband plan on the FCC website ) ( no link b/c I 'm lazy ) .
They might just do something like you describe for schools .
And incidentally libraries already permit this , but they do n't have enough bandwidth to satisfy customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your idea is actually well supported in the public record comments on the Broadband plan (see particularly Public Notice #15 for the Broadband plan on the FCC website) (no link b/c I'm lazy).
They might just do something like you describe for schools.
And incidentally libraries already permit this, but they don't have enough bandwidth to satisfy customers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690564</id>
	<title>Government and technology... do they mix???</title>
	<author>pspahn</author>
	<datestamp>1262881440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think it's interesting to see play out how government will adapt to working with technology. The paces of the two, historically, do not match. By the time the FCC decides on standards, new standards are being developed and making their investment obsolete. <br> <br>
I think it's safe to say that Moore's Law and Bureaucratic Reality seem to be primed for a head-on collision. Unfortunately, I'd imagine that instead of becoming more efficient and punctual, the government will instead create artificial limitations on technological growth just so they can keep up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's interesting to see play out how government will adapt to working with technology .
The paces of the two , historically , do not match .
By the time the FCC decides on standards , new standards are being developed and making their investment obsolete .
I think it 's safe to say that Moore 's Law and Bureaucratic Reality seem to be primed for a head-on collision .
Unfortunately , I 'd imagine that instead of becoming more efficient and punctual , the government will instead create artificial limitations on technological growth just so they can keep up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's interesting to see play out how government will adapt to working with technology.
The paces of the two, historically, do not match.
By the time the FCC decides on standards, new standards are being developed and making their investment obsolete.
I think it's safe to say that Moore's Law and Bureaucratic Reality seem to be primed for a head-on collision.
Unfortunately, I'd imagine that instead of becoming more efficient and punctual, the government will instead create artificial limitations on technological growth just so they can keep up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690504</id>
	<title>No they hit there download / upload cap and need t</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262880720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No they hit there download / upload cap and need to wait for next month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No they hit there download / upload cap and need to wait for next month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No they hit there download / upload cap and need to wait for next month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690228</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690228</id>
	<title>Why they need the time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262877240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The FCC is still using a 56k modem and it will take them a month to upload the plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The FCC is still using a 56k modem and it will take them a month to upload the plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FCC is still using a 56k modem and it will take them a month to upload the plan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30696432</id>
	<title>As someone who can't get broadband...</title>
	<author>Bungleman</author>
	<datestamp>1262973660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the government didn't foot the bill for much of the infrastructure, rural areas wouldn't have electricity or telephone service.  I don't think it's a good idea to leave much of your population without access to basic utilities that everyone else takes for granted.  I know someone will say "but broadband isn't necessary," but it makes life a major inconvenience (in the tech field, I can't work from home, can't use vpn, can't download updates, can't stream media, can't play online games, etc, etc).

And no, moving to a new house isn't always an option.  Unless you want areas of the country to fall massively behind in landing good jobs, getting a good education, and having a decent technical quality of life, you need to provide them access to some kind of low latency broadband.

Besides, there are worse things for the government to spend money on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the government did n't foot the bill for much of the infrastructure , rural areas would n't have electricity or telephone service .
I do n't think it 's a good idea to leave much of your population without access to basic utilities that everyone else takes for granted .
I know someone will say " but broadband is n't necessary , " but it makes life a major inconvenience ( in the tech field , I ca n't work from home , ca n't use vpn , ca n't download updates , ca n't stream media , ca n't play online games , etc , etc ) .
And no , moving to a new house is n't always an option .
Unless you want areas of the country to fall massively behind in landing good jobs , getting a good education , and having a decent technical quality of life , you need to provide them access to some kind of low latency broadband .
Besides , there are worse things for the government to spend money on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the government didn't foot the bill for much of the infrastructure, rural areas wouldn't have electricity or telephone service.
I don't think it's a good idea to leave much of your population without access to basic utilities that everyone else takes for granted.
I know someone will say "but broadband isn't necessary," but it makes life a major inconvenience (in the tech field, I can't work from home, can't use vpn, can't download updates, can't stream media, can't play online games, etc, etc).
And no, moving to a new house isn't always an option.
Unless you want areas of the country to fall massively behind in landing good jobs, getting a good education, and having a decent technical quality of life, you need to provide them access to some kind of low latency broadband.
Besides, there are worse things for the government to spend money on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30691988</id>
	<title>Good Idea!</title>
	<author>crhylove</author>
	<datestamp>1262943600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's provide tech support to the whole country on St. Patrick's Day.  They'll be too drunk to notice that we screwed up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's provide tech support to the whole country on St. Patrick 's Day .
They 'll be too drunk to notice that we screwed up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's provide tech support to the whole country on St. Patrick's Day.
They'll be too drunk to notice that we screwed up!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30693614</id>
	<title>Re:What can they actually do?</title>
	<author>fons</author>
	<datestamp>1262962260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's what we have in Belgium:</p><p>- The government imposes every operator to have an affordable version of their broadband access. Mostly speed is limited to ADSL speeds of 5years ago and download caps only allow normal surfing/mailing. So most people can afford this.<br>- If you are unemployed or live on benefits you get this "light" broadband at cheaper prices.<br>- Once every few years the government will sponsor cheap PC/broadband bundles.</p><p>Off course these measures only work because every house is connected to a cable and/or ADSL network.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's what we have in Belgium : - The government imposes every operator to have an affordable version of their broadband access .
Mostly speed is limited to ADSL speeds of 5years ago and download caps only allow normal surfing/mailing .
So most people can afford this.- If you are unemployed or live on benefits you get this " light " broadband at cheaper prices.- Once every few years the government will sponsor cheap PC/broadband bundles.Off course these measures only work because every house is connected to a cable and/or ADSL network .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's what we have in Belgium:- The government imposes every operator to have an affordable version of their broadband access.
Mostly speed is limited to ADSL speeds of 5years ago and download caps only allow normal surfing/mailing.
So most people can afford this.- If you are unemployed or live on benefits you get this "light" broadband at cheaper prices.- Once every few years the government will sponsor cheap PC/broadband bundles.Off course these measures only work because every house is connected to a cable and/or ADSL network.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690834</id>
	<title>fiber, nothing else</title>
	<author>davygrvy</author>
	<datestamp>1262884740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We want fiber.  Shove the BPL and DSL up your a$..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We want fiber .
Shove the BPL and DSL up your a $ . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We want fiber.
Shove the BPL and DSL up your a$..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690810</id>
	<title>I wonder how it will work.</title>
	<author>Vyse of Arcadia</author>
	<datestamp>1262884560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That second link isn't exactly heavy on details. Cities and suburbs already have the infrastructure. And many semi-rural areas have cable or DSL. The rest could be covered by wimax. But what about the truly rural areas? Satellite as it is now shouldn't be considered broadband with the high lag and ridiculous bandwidth caps. (When I was on satellite it was 250 MB in a 24 hour period before dial-up like speeds were enforced for 24 hours.) Some sort of terrestrial wireless may be the only option for them too.<br>
<br>
Where did all that spectrum they freed up from analog TV go anyway?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That second link is n't exactly heavy on details .
Cities and suburbs already have the infrastructure .
And many semi-rural areas have cable or DSL .
The rest could be covered by wimax .
But what about the truly rural areas ?
Satellite as it is now should n't be considered broadband with the high lag and ridiculous bandwidth caps .
( When I was on satellite it was 250 MB in a 24 hour period before dial-up like speeds were enforced for 24 hours .
) Some sort of terrestrial wireless may be the only option for them too .
Where did all that spectrum they freed up from analog TV go anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That second link isn't exactly heavy on details.
Cities and suburbs already have the infrastructure.
And many semi-rural areas have cable or DSL.
The rest could be covered by wimax.
But what about the truly rural areas?
Satellite as it is now shouldn't be considered broadband with the high lag and ridiculous bandwidth caps.
(When I was on satellite it was 250 MB in a 24 hour period before dial-up like speeds were enforced for 24 hours.
) Some sort of terrestrial wireless may be the only option for them too.
Where did all that spectrum they freed up from analog TV go anyway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30694888</id>
	<title>Re:What;'s next, Ponies?</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1262968080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>After we first make sure that everyone has access to broadband, we can give them computers to use on it.  Then software.</p><p>After a while, we can make sure everyone has a pony, too.</p><p>How many people want broadband that can't get it now?  Move or pay the price.   No one should pay so you can live in stumblefuck and get the benefits of urban living.  Sorry, I'm not buying you a pony.</p><p>Yes, many places are stuck with shitty providers and no choice.  That's a different issue, and I'd like to see something done about that.</p></div><p>I've felt that way ever since I heard the government was delivering mail...The delivered the mail, put up police forces, fire departments, and even paid for a standing army, and I thought, "It's just a matter of time before they give everyone free ponies".</p><p>But seriously, slippery slop arguments aside, everybody benefits from an informed society. If we want to be able to compete with the rest of the industrialized world, then we need to have educated people with ambitions that extend beyond "factory moves to town. I get paid $10 an hour to load pallets".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>After we first make sure that everyone has access to broadband , we can give them computers to use on it .
Then software.After a while , we can make sure everyone has a pony , too.How many people want broadband that ca n't get it now ?
Move or pay the price .
No one should pay so you can live in stumblefuck and get the benefits of urban living .
Sorry , I 'm not buying you a pony.Yes , many places are stuck with shitty providers and no choice .
That 's a different issue , and I 'd like to see something done about that.I 've felt that way ever since I heard the government was delivering mail...The delivered the mail , put up police forces , fire departments , and even paid for a standing army , and I thought , " It 's just a matter of time before they give everyone free ponies " .But seriously , slippery slop arguments aside , everybody benefits from an informed society .
If we want to be able to compete with the rest of the industrialized world , then we need to have educated people with ambitions that extend beyond " factory moves to town .
I get paid $ 10 an hour to load pallets " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After we first make sure that everyone has access to broadband, we can give them computers to use on it.
Then software.After a while, we can make sure everyone has a pony, too.How many people want broadband that can't get it now?
Move or pay the price.
No one should pay so you can live in stumblefuck and get the benefits of urban living.
Sorry, I'm not buying you a pony.Yes, many places are stuck with shitty providers and no choice.
That's a different issue, and I'd like to see something done about that.I've felt that way ever since I heard the government was delivering mail...The delivered the mail, put up police forces, fire departments, and even paid for a standing army, and I thought, "It's just a matter of time before they give everyone free ponies".But seriously, slippery slop arguments aside, everybody benefits from an informed society.
If we want to be able to compete with the rest of the industrialized world, then we need to have educated people with ambitions that extend beyond "factory moves to town.
I get paid $10 an hour to load pallets".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690584</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262881560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't wait until the same sorts of people are in charge of health care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't wait until the same sorts of people are in charge of health care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't wait until the same sorts of people are in charge of health care.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30861752</id>
	<title>Re:Power and Frequency != INTERNET</title>
	<author>myspace-cn</author>
	<datestamp>1264187640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&ldquo;under the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC is charged with allocating spectrum space to maximize the public interest, convenience, or necessityThe Communications Act and its revisions mandate promotion of the public interest, and thus the encouragement of a diversity of voices so as to promote a vibrant democracy.&rdquo;</p><p>SORRY SHOULD HAVE POSTED THIS SOONER!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>   under the Communications Act of 1934 , the FCC is charged with allocating spectrum space to maximize the public interest , convenience , or necessityThe Communications Act and its revisions mandate promotion of the public interest , and thus the encouragement of a diversity of voices so as to promote a vibrant democracy.    SORRY SHOULD HAVE POSTED THIS SOONER !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>“under the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC is charged with allocating spectrum space to maximize the public interest, convenience, or necessityThe Communications Act and its revisions mandate promotion of the public interest, and thus the encouragement of a diversity of voices so as to promote a vibrant democracy.”SORRY SHOULD HAVE POSTED THIS SOONER!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690370</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30691942</id>
	<title>Re:What can they actually do?</title>
	<author>AK Marc</author>
	<datestamp>1262943000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cover about 3,000,000 square miles.  One WiMax AP per square mile.  About $100 for the AP (they are higher now, but when you place an order for over 1,000,000, the price decreases.  Put in a VSAT dish of about 1.2 meters, and the gear to run it.  Steal power from the local municipality.  And for under 3 billion dollars, you have the ability for broadband in all the US (I left out Alaska).  If they use VSAT bandwidth that's "free" (meaning reserved for the feds), they could put up some satellites over existing blocked locations (it can cost millions just for a geostationary slot).  Launch a satellite for the obscene price of $1 billion (that's way more than it would really cost, but I'm estimating everything high) and you'd have somewhere around 20kbps per person.  At a 100:1 oversubscription (actually low for consumer grade satellite service) and you are at 2 Mbps per person.<br> <br>So, for less than the $7.2 billion, they could cover everyone with 2 Mbps service via satellite delivered wireless.  Screw paying providers to make a profit on Uncle Sam.  Go direct and do the whole thing for less.  And the upside is that the service is worse than terrestrial, so if you can do terrestrial, you do it and pay the private companies.  It's just if there's nothing else, then the free nationwide wireless network will cover you.<br> <br> <br>I could come up with 1,000 more ideas in how to cover the US with free service for less than $7.2 billion.  It's easy.  The problem for the FCC is how to do it and make sure they pay private companies to do it in grossly inefficient ways so that the private companies can maintain absurd profit margins and still not provide the service they promised.  But free broadband for the US for $7.2 billion?  That's easy.  The trick is how to spend $7.2 billion on it and still make it so that we are paying $100 a month on a 5 Mbps connection to a private company who had no costs putting in the network when they are done.<br> <br>In the vein of one of your suggestions, they could wire every library and public school together with gigabit or faster connections, then have a few POPs around where they put that gigabit out over the Internet, or trade to have the schools carry Internet traffic and get their traffic carried as peers.  That should cut costs for the backbone, as someone else dumped billions into the backbone, and if it doesn't cut prices, people can just go to their local library or school for gigabit speeds to the Internet.<br> <br>Again, making free Internet available to all is easy, it's making sure the right people make massive profits off our tax money that's the trick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cover about 3,000,000 square miles .
One WiMax AP per square mile .
About $ 100 for the AP ( they are higher now , but when you place an order for over 1,000,000 , the price decreases .
Put in a VSAT dish of about 1.2 meters , and the gear to run it .
Steal power from the local municipality .
And for under 3 billion dollars , you have the ability for broadband in all the US ( I left out Alaska ) .
If they use VSAT bandwidth that 's " free " ( meaning reserved for the feds ) , they could put up some satellites over existing blocked locations ( it can cost millions just for a geostationary slot ) .
Launch a satellite for the obscene price of $ 1 billion ( that 's way more than it would really cost , but I 'm estimating everything high ) and you 'd have somewhere around 20kbps per person .
At a 100 : 1 oversubscription ( actually low for consumer grade satellite service ) and you are at 2 Mbps per person .
So , for less than the $ 7.2 billion , they could cover everyone with 2 Mbps service via satellite delivered wireless .
Screw paying providers to make a profit on Uncle Sam .
Go direct and do the whole thing for less .
And the upside is that the service is worse than terrestrial , so if you can do terrestrial , you do it and pay the private companies .
It 's just if there 's nothing else , then the free nationwide wireless network will cover you .
I could come up with 1,000 more ideas in how to cover the US with free service for less than $ 7.2 billion .
It 's easy .
The problem for the FCC is how to do it and make sure they pay private companies to do it in grossly inefficient ways so that the private companies can maintain absurd profit margins and still not provide the service they promised .
But free broadband for the US for $ 7.2 billion ?
That 's easy .
The trick is how to spend $ 7.2 billion on it and still make it so that we are paying $ 100 a month on a 5 Mbps connection to a private company who had no costs putting in the network when they are done .
In the vein of one of your suggestions , they could wire every library and public school together with gigabit or faster connections , then have a few POPs around where they put that gigabit out over the Internet , or trade to have the schools carry Internet traffic and get their traffic carried as peers .
That should cut costs for the backbone , as someone else dumped billions into the backbone , and if it does n't cut prices , people can just go to their local library or school for gigabit speeds to the Internet .
Again , making free Internet available to all is easy , it 's making sure the right people make massive profits off our tax money that 's the trick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cover about 3,000,000 square miles.
One WiMax AP per square mile.
About $100 for the AP (they are higher now, but when you place an order for over 1,000,000, the price decreases.
Put in a VSAT dish of about 1.2 meters, and the gear to run it.
Steal power from the local municipality.
And for under 3 billion dollars, you have the ability for broadband in all the US (I left out Alaska).
If they use VSAT bandwidth that's "free" (meaning reserved for the feds), they could put up some satellites over existing blocked locations (it can cost millions just for a geostationary slot).
Launch a satellite for the obscene price of $1 billion (that's way more than it would really cost, but I'm estimating everything high) and you'd have somewhere around 20kbps per person.
At a 100:1 oversubscription (actually low for consumer grade satellite service) and you are at 2 Mbps per person.
So, for less than the $7.2 billion, they could cover everyone with 2 Mbps service via satellite delivered wireless.
Screw paying providers to make a profit on Uncle Sam.
Go direct and do the whole thing for less.
And the upside is that the service is worse than terrestrial, so if you can do terrestrial, you do it and pay the private companies.
It's just if there's nothing else, then the free nationwide wireless network will cover you.
I could come up with 1,000 more ideas in how to cover the US with free service for less than $7.2 billion.
It's easy.
The problem for the FCC is how to do it and make sure they pay private companies to do it in grossly inefficient ways so that the private companies can maintain absurd profit margins and still not provide the service they promised.
But free broadband for the US for $7.2 billion?
That's easy.
The trick is how to spend $7.2 billion on it and still make it so that we are paying $100 a month on a 5 Mbps connection to a private company who had no costs putting in the network when they are done.
In the vein of one of your suggestions, they could wire every library and public school together with gigabit or faster connections, then have a few POPs around where they put that gigabit out over the Internet, or trade to have the schools carry Internet traffic and get their traffic carried as peers.
That should cut costs for the backbone, as someone else dumped billions into the backbone, and if it doesn't cut prices, people can just go to their local library or school for gigabit speeds to the Internet.
Again, making free Internet available to all is easy, it's making sure the right people make massive profits off our tax money that's the trick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690398</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30691894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30691214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30693614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30692190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30861752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30694888
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30699764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30691946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30709510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30693290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30692930
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30691942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30699634
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30709456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30693650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30692432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30698496
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30692416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30699712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690358
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_07_2318220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2318220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30696432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2318220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30692930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30693650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2318220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30694888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30692190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30692432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2318220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30709456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2318220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30691992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2318220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2318220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30691894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30699634
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2318220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690588
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2318220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690398
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30693614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30698496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30691942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30692416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690488
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30691214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30699764
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2318220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690810
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2318220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30709510
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2318220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30691946
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2318220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30699712
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2318220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30861752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30693290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_07_2318220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_07_2318220.30690304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
