a series on Broadband "Bailout"?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Date: December 30, 2008 8:08:31 PM EST
To: nnsquad () nnsquad org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Broadband "Bailout"?


There is unfortunately an even more insidious potential aspect.  There
are large numbers of legislators in both parties (quite possibly a
strong majority) who might jump at the chance to score political
points by building all sorts of content control restrictions into such
monies.  And since companies would most likely not be *forced* to
accept the funds, the claim could be made that the resulting
restrictions on users, applications, search engines, and everybody
else are purely voluntary.  This funding could be seen as an ideal
wedge by those parties who keep calling for someone to "control"
Internet content.

--Lauren--
NNSquad Moderator

- - -

On 12/30 16:39, Barry Gold wrote:
> This is just plain stupid.
>
> When we built the Interstate Highway System, we didn't give it to
> private companies to manage for their profit.  We made them open to
> everybody.  If the government is going to pay for building out  
> broadband
> infrastructure, then the government should own it and set policy for  
> it.
>
> Note: I'm not necessarily advocating that it should be free like our
> "Freeways".  Many of those were wonderful when first opened, but
> inevitable traffic growth has filled them to and beyond capacity so  
> that
> they turn into parking lots for several hours of every day.
>
> So it probably makes sense to charge for using the Interstate  
> Broadband
> System (or whatever we call it), and those charges should be enough to
> allow upgrading it periodically (like every 18 months...) to handle  
> the
> traffic growth.  But allowing private companies to manage it for their
> own profit...
>
> Just plain insane.  We have seen again and again.  If you let the  
> likes
> of Time Warner and Comcast set policies for the network, they will set
> policies that favor their highest profit offerings (video on demand,
> etc.) rather than those that let people use the internet to its  
> fullest.
>
> Even if we let the private companies build the network (after all,  
> they
> have the expertise and the US Government by and large doesn't), the
> policies should be set by the government.
>
> Another reason to have the networks owned by (or at least controlled  
> by)
> the government is that if the government decides that certain speech  
> is
> objectionable and tries to ban it from "their" network, the courts  
> will
> probably find it in violation of the First Amendment.  But if a  
> private
> company decides that some speech is more equal than other speech,  
> there
> is no appeal.  The first amendment doesn't apply to private action.
>
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: [DDN] Free Press Proposes Broadband Infrastructure Bailout  
> > of
> > $44Billion --- More Taxes to Give Wealthy Companies that	Failedto  
> > Build
> > Out Their Networks
> > Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:51:28 -0800
> > From: Bruce Kushnick <bruce () newnetworks com>
> > Reply-To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group
> > <digitaldivide () digitaldivide net>
> > To: 'The Digital Divide Network discussion group'
> > <digitaldivide () digitaldivide net>
> >
> > Teletruth News Analysis, December 22, 2008
> >
> > Free Press Proposes Broadband Infrastructure Bailout of $44 Billion  
> > ---
> > (More Taxes to Give Wealthy Companies that Failed to Build Out Their
> > Networks.)
> >
> > To read the rest of this story
> > http://www.newnetworks.com/Freepressbroadband.htm
> >
> > There has been a call for ‘stimulus packages’ to help with our  
> > current
> > economic crisis and new infrastructure initiatives, such as the
> > upgrading of
> > roads and bridges, are on the top of the list.  There are also a  
> > number of
> > groups who care about broadband infrastructure and want their  
> > billions as
> > well. The arguments – more jobs, better productivity, etc, may be  
> > well
> > intentioned, but the unasked question is:  Who should pay for it  
> > and who
> > should built it?
> > While we agree that America needs to have a national broadband
> > infrastructure initiative, we are against the current plans by many,
> > including Free Press, who wants to raise taxes and give a $44 billion
> > dollar
> > bailout to the very companies who are responsible for America’s  
> > broadband
> > infrastructure crisis. There are multiple reasons why we’re against  
> > this.




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com