Comments on: ATR/CEI update on Internet access

By: Neil Stevens

Neil Stevens — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 04:20:34 +0000

By: DonPMitchell

DonPMitchell — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 04:28:17 +0000

Obama has been criticized for allowing too much influence from one company, namely Google. Just in general, that is a bad idea.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/02/obama_google/

Google pushes the idea of central server-side control of programs and data. As a fiscon, I think they have a right to be as big and successful as they can be, and I’m advocating that we try to bash them down like Clinton did to Microsoft. But we should always support the competing notion of decentralized computing and data. People should always be able to buy a computer that they can program (a PC or Mac) and not be stuck with only closed hardware like Playstations and Kindles and “network computers”.

By: The_Gadfly

The_Gadfly — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 21:16:13 +0000

in the franchise monopoly problem, but agree there’s no way The Big 0 will try to drive federal policy in the direction needed. I think the Feds could properly play a key roll in passing a law which outlaws such arrangements as an impediment to interstate commerce. Instead I expect The Big 0 to dictate that the patchwork of state monopolies be replaced by a federal one.

By: vettepilot

vettepilot — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 18:09:33 +0000

At least not to the areas that are currently without broadband internet. The carriers’ rollouts of LTE/WCDMA have less to do with providing high-speed cellular internet, and significantly more to do with voice density, than their commercials would have you believe. CDMA-based technologies allow the operators to pack more voice users into a single cell than GSM/TDMA networks. But for areas where voice congestion isn’t a concern the operator has little incentive to migrate their network, other than streamlining operations and maintenance.

That being said, with the re-consolidation of the telecommunications industry and the bundling of services, that operating model may change. It is significantly easier for a network operator to run a single fiber line to a rural area and build 4 towers off of that one line to serve 300 customers than it is to run a cable or DSL line to every single one of their houses. And since the operator will generally have to do one or the other anyway, they may be more likely to go with the first option. This is actually the model that has been used in developing nations to cheaply and efficiently get communications services to remote areas, and it played a very important part in the explosive growth of the cellular industry in the last 6-8 years.

If this broadband plan goes anywhere, it will have the opposite effect of actually stunting technological growth in rural areas. Network operators aren’t going to bother rolling out costly network upgrades to these areas if the government is going provide fixed-line service anyway. And if you think it’s a pain to wait for Comcast/Verizon/etc to come out and install your high-speed now, just think about how bad it will be when it’s a government contractor……