“President Obama on Thursday will outline his plan to provide 98 percent of Americans with access to next-generation wireless technology in the next five years, including $5 billion for 4G build-out in rural areas and $10.7 billion for an interoperable, public safety network,” Chloe Albanesius reports for PC Magazine.
“Obama’s budget supports a one-time investment of $5 billion for 4G build-out in rural areas, which would be handled by the Federal Communications Commission,” Albanesius reports. “Obama said that will help spur reform of the universal service fund, a plan for which the FCC announced this week, and dovetail with the need for public safety officials to have access to wireless networks in rural areas.”
“Overall, Obama called for a $10.7 billion investment in such a network, including $3.2 billion to re-allocate D-Block spectrum to public safety, and $7 billion for the deployment of this network.
Read more in the full article here.
Jeff Mason reports for Reuters, “The Federal Communications Commission hopes to ‘repurpose’ 120 megahertz of spectrum through incentive auctions where television broadcasters would voluntarily give up spectrum in exchange for a portion of the auction proceeds.
“The White House said it expects those auctions and more efficient use of government spectrum to raise $27.8 billion over the next decade,” Mason reports. “That figure is an estimate, however, and could end up lower or higher depending on the success of the auctioning process.”
Mason reports, “In addition to the fund to help rural areas, Obama will propose to put $3 billion from those proceeds toward “research and development of emerging wireless technologies and applications,” the White House said in a statement ahead of the president’s trip. Another $9.6 billion from the proceeds would be applied to curbing the deficit, a key goal of Obama’s next two years in office and a top demand from Republicans, who control the House of Representatives and will likely make deficit reduction a high profile topic in the 2012 presidential campaign.”
Read more in the full article here.
More communist pork.
Like the electric grid, huh?
Spend, spend, spend, spend, spend.
Fact: During Obama’s first 2 years in office, the U.S. government added more to national debt than the first 100 U.S. Congresses combined.
November 6, 2012 can’t come quickly enough.
And it’s STILL not as much as George Bush.
Exactly CHrissyOne. Exactly.
Uh…yes it is. Bush had a deficit of $400 billion. Obama’s deficits are in the $1 – 1.5 TRILLION range.
Like or hate Obama, you can’t refute the facts that he and Congress have been big time spenders.
Unless you have some proof that Bush spent more than Obama???
Fact vs Faux:
1-Obama, unlike Bush the Idiot, put the Iraq & Afghan Wars on-budget as it’s kind of hard to fix a problem when you are hiding it.
2-The final numbers for Obama’s budget last year came in with a deficit more than $300 Billion less than projected.
3-The last balanced budget presented from Bill Clinton-Democrat. Prior to Clinton, Republicans Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush the Elder never ran anything but red ink. Prior to Clinton the last balanced budget was submitted in the last year of Johnson- Democrat- that overlapped the first year of Nixon. The simple fact is that a Republican President has not balanced a budget since Tail Fins on cars and Eisenhower in the White House.
Obama’s not my guy- he’s way too much a DINO (Democrat in Name Only) for my taste. A generation ago he would have been a mainstream Republican.
The only reason Clinton balance the budget was Newt and the Republican Congress. (who the hell goes by the name Newt???) By the time Bush took over all the responsible adults had left – in both parties
Giving Johnson credit for a balance budget? Ever heard of Guns AND Butter? Massive increase in entitlements while in the middle of the little ‘police action’ in South East Asia. He snuck out before the bill(s) came due.
Money well spent.
That’s the beauty of it… no money is actually being spent. They’ll auction off the spectrum and use the proceeds to pay for the build out. Including $9B in deficit reduction. Or so the plan says… I find the summary used here somewhat disingenuous.
Fact? LOL!
The 8 years of war under Bush didn’t add anything right? Moron?
Where do you fools get your information from? Oh yeah… I forgot… FAUX NEWS? More like something you would read on The Onion.
How anyone could believe that the 8 years of Bush would have added LESS to the debt than two years of Obama is beyond moronic!
And lets not forget, when Bush took office we were running a budget SURPLUS! Did your revisionist thinking erase that fact as well?
F8cking tool!
Another sufferer of BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). How does one defend Obummer with Bush anecdotes and slamming FOX News? Is that really all you have? Reealllyy? I thought so.
Hey GG7 – show me the data that proves Bush added more to the debt than Obama.
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/72404
They’re grabbing data from sources such as the CBO and Bureau of Public Debt. That work for ya?
Oh yeah, because the free market’s do good at rolling out mobile. ‘Cos GOP didn’t oversee the creation of the most fragmented national mobile network in the world. ‘Cos people love the freedom to choose their provider from the limited selection that have coverage where they live. While the so-called socialist governments in Europe worked with telco’s to create a unified global network standard, that doesn’t just work from city to city, but across national borders.
These threads always turn into political bashing within minutes.
STFU!
Broadband is an integral part of today’s modern updated infrastructure, which is in dire need of urgent rebuilding and modernization before we turn into a third world redundancy.
Quit the stupid blind partisan rhetoric and think for a change all ye spouting morons, especially those young enough to suffer the future as a consequence of these blind politics of hate and ignorance and aspeciallythose who have kids that will inherit their parents misdeeds and ignorance.
…”Fact: During Obama’s first 2 years in office, the U.S. government added more to national debt than the first 100 U.S. Congresses combined.”
I’m not an American, so I can’t read this through the partisan goggles, as every other American usually does. From my foreigner perspective, there was no way ANY government in their place could have spent less, considering the amount of financial mess the country (and the world) was in. Any significantly lower spending would have simply collapsed the country economy way beyond any previous crisis or depression did. Vast majority of foreign economists (without a political ax to grind) will agree on this.
The realities of American politics is such that it is virtually assured that those who were in the office when all these events had transpired will be removed in the next cycle of elections. It won’t change anything, but will likely bring some sort of perverse personal reward to all the people who were financially hurt during this period. Political rewards will ironically go to those who struggled hard against the government spending that saved the country and the world. But such are realities of nominal democracies…
Tax and spend, that’s the democrat way!
Borrow and spend, that’s the Republican way.
If the Bush administration would have proposed a $10.7 billion investment in a public safety network in the wake of 9/11, people like you would have all nodded your head and agreed with it even if it would have come from taxation or borrowing.
As it happens, this money comes from spectrum auctions. And please don’t tell me that’s just another form of taxation, because it’s no different to selling drilling licenses for oil exploration and nobody ever seems to have a problem with that.
F the obamination a his spending. Stay out of the private sector and get your hands out of our pockets
How about we stop spending of all infrastructure in this country like the power grid and the interstate highways and see what kind of shape the country is in 5 years.
Don’t be a moron. Infrastructure projects like this is what the federal government is for. I don’t see any private entities in any hurry to supply rural areas with 4G.
The money is coming from spectrum sales, you dumb schmuck.
Tell me. When you listen to Rush Limbaugh and pick up your clever words like Obamination, does it kill off your brain cells or was that a done deal many years ago when your mother dropped you on your head?
If God wanted those people to have broadband He would have had them born in big cities like the rest of us.
STOP! STOP! STOP! We can’t keep spending what we don’t have! Please STOP. Let the free market expand
The U.S. government is broke, but Obama thinks it’s necessary to build out 4G access in rural areas. Uh, that’s what private companies are for. Stop with the high-speed rail, broadband build-out, and try reducing the debt first.
Since Obama told Americans they shouldn’t be spending their money on unnecessary things like Las Vegas trips, then the federal government should spend on unnecessary items like 4G service to Yellowstone Park.
You’ve clearly never lived in a market the airlines didn’t think they’d make enough money in. Private companies maximize profits. If a community is served or not served makes little difference to them, except when the citizens of the community band together to provide services for themselves. Read up on the experiences of Lafayette, LA trying to get fiber to every home in their town. Shows you what the free market is really about.
I think a lot of people here are missing some key points. This plan doesn’t cost the government anything. In fact it is estimated to bring in $9.6 Billion to be applied against the deficit.
What this plan does is take spectrum from TV broadcasters in rural areas and auctions it off, giving the broadcasters who volunteered a percentage of the revenue. It then makes funds available to build wireless infrastructure, along with the spectrum to do so, in rural areas where the carriers wouldn’t otherwise invest in.
Nobody loses in this.
You can’t expect the rabid anti-Obama crowd to read and understand things, it’s not in their nature.
What’s fascinating is the fact that this is a self-liquidating spending measure that actually pays off $9.6 billion of the deficit and actually helps the people who are more likely to vote Republican.
If it helps Republicans, I’m against it. They should only be allowed to drive on toll roads, too. I free market them, bastages!
I pay for my broadband. I shouldn’t have to pay for others. In fact, I should only have to pay for necessary government services, but as long as we have democrats and republicans as the “parties of choice”, things will never change.
Atlas continues to shrug…
You’re not paying for others.
If you read the article and try and understand it, the money for the rural broadband project is taking $3 billion from projected spectrum auctions. Unless you’re going to be buying some spectrum, you’re not paying for anything.
Or did I lose you at the word “read”
I’d like to not have to pay for any roads that connect your house to mine. We all got gripes, kid.
IF WE STAY STUCK ON NUMBER ONE PRIORITY PAYING DEFICIT WE WILL GO CRAZY BROKE UNEMPLOYMENT WILL SKY ROCKET GO DONW TO THE VERY BASIC LEVEL YOU OWE MORE MONEY THEN YOU MAKE SO INTURN YOU DECIDE TO USE MOST OF YOUR CHECK TO PAY YOUR BILLS AND ONLY FOCUS ON THAT YOU END UP DEPRESSED AND STUCK AT HOME FOR TOOOOO LONG THAT MY FRIEND IS NO WAY TO LIVE ANYWAY LEAVE IT SOLEY UP TO THE FREE MARKET AND WE WILL HAVE 4 G EVERY WHERE IN WHAT 10 YRS LOL IM NOT SAYING THE GOV DOES EVERYTHING OR ANYTHING GREAT BUT YOU NEED THE COMBINED SUPPORT OF BOTH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC IT IS FAR TO MUCH FOR JUST ONE TO RUN
I think you CAPS LOCK is stuck.
And you’re missing an “r.”
I REALLY LIKE YOUR WRITING BOY IS IT TOP NOTCH YOU REALLY CAN MAKE YOU POSITION CRYSTAL CLEAR USING THAT KIND OF COMPOSITION!!!!!!!
@mredofcourse
But, I want to gripe about spending!
Because everyone knows we republicans don’t ever spend!!! Our excellent fiscal policies always balance the budget!
People, For you info this is not a political blog! So stop complaining about it.
Anything with Obama’s name on it is MDN’s bait for the tea bagging sharks. He could buy a thousand Macs and still get criticized here by the haters. Typical of these people, they go against their own self-interests. As if none of us want internet access comparable in speed and access to other parts of the world.Most of all, as pointed out, this is not, nor should it be, a political site.
tea bagging sharks?
not a political site?
here is a refreshing outlook from a semi-lib
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=389&load=4888
Look at where Europe is now. You can only spend beyond your means for just so long, and then it’ll come back to bit your in the a….
I live in rural and have have a horrible broadband and cell coverage, has lees to do with free market and more to do with regulations by government agencies. Here is an example: My father-in-law has been work for over five years to get a cell tower in our area, verizon is willing and has spent a lot of time and money doing the prep work and we keep getting a roadblock because the cell tower (which also would be use for EMS) would be taller than the trees and someone might consider it an eyesore.
So now they want a tower that will just get over the top of the tree and will only cover about 1/10 of what it should. Of course that is until the trees grow.
Cut regulation and we’ll see what real free market can do.
Which government agencies? Federal or State. And if it’s State, which one?
Yeah that would be a local government regulation you can’t pin that one on the Feds. Look at your cell phone bill closely sometime. You’ll see local state , county and maybe even village taxes on there. You are essentially paying for your neighbor who may hve children to reject having a cell tower tall enough, and it’s probably because your neighbor may believe that that cell tower may cause her kids to develop lukemia.
[I]Cut regulation and we’ll see what real free market can do.[/I]
Been there, done that: it was the free market that got us our mess of non-interchangeable systems (GSM vs CDMA) in the first place.
In simple terms, having twice as many towers to carry two independent systems doubled our infrastructure costs … which all ultimately got passed along to the consumers, in the form of a monthly bill that was figuratively twice as much as it should have been.
-hh
Just spend the money then stiff Wall Street for the tab.
Cut regulation and we’ll see what real free market can do.
Talk to your city council (or whatever is the name of the governing body of elected representatives in your town). They were most likely the ones who voted for the “Not in my back yard” mentality laws all over American suburban and rural landscape.
Good luck with that, though; if your city council (or whatever is the governing body of elected representatives in your town) is anything like most others, it will only listen to the half a dozen richest people in town anyway, as they are the ones that keep them elected…
Quote from the article:
“Jeff Mason reports for Reuters, “The Federal Communications Commission hopes to ‘repurpose’ 120 megahertz of spectrum through incentive auctions where television broadcasters would voluntarily give up spectrum in exchange for a portion of the auction proceeds.”
WHY should the FedGov pay the FOR PROFIT broadcast folks ANYTHING in order to repurpose current spectrum that was ASSIGNED and GIVEN for FREE — GRATIS — to the broadcast folks, in the first place, many decades ago? This spectrum is OWNED by WE, the PEOPLE, NOT the for-profit broadcast companies.
Anybody clue me?
Simply an incentive to get these folks to move — i.e., a cash payout of taxpayer funds — out of the spectrum space, without a long and protracted legal fight?
If so — damned ungrateful squatters — old line broadcast folks have made MUCH profit using this FREE space over the decades — now, it is time for them to quit squatting where they are no longer welcome or wanted, and not PAID OFF in order to get them to move along, “peacefully.”
Niffy
Yes!
I was wondering if anyone was going to remember that key detail.
Same reason the railroads were allowed to sell the tracts of land they were granted on either side of their tracks when they were building the railroad system. It was part of the deal to cause them to invest in the system.
Hmm, I’m definitely against the federal government spending more buckets of money, but this sounds like the kind of stuff the government SHOULD be helping with. In other words, the more people in rural areas who have wireless access, the more people who can join in the online economy — potentially increasing productivity and creating jobs. After all, if I live in the country and my net access sucks, I can’t work in a lot of ways that would be available to me if I lived in a big city.
If what we’re talking about is using the spectrum sales to finance – that is, LEND money at favorable rates to the companies willing to provide 4G services, which they PAY BACK based on revenues – the building of 4G facilities, then it sounds good to me. Democrats should like this because it benefits people directly (providing access to services that might not be profitable enough for private industry to do without some help/incentive); Republicans should like this because it’s money that not only is coming from a non-tax-raising source, but it’s a long-term investment that will eventually MAKE money for the government while letting private companies create jobs and encourage commerce.
Those of you mindlessly bashing Democrats, keep in mind that they’re concerned about helping people, which is a Good Thing.
Those of you mindlessly bashing Republicans, keep in mind that they’re concerned about helping businesses help people, which is also a Good Thing.
There are actually things out there that are good for everyone. IMNTBHO, this is one of them.
Republicans won’t like it because the government should not make money. Note one of the first things that G.W Bush did when he took office was tro give the sirplus back to the people. His argiment was to stimulate the economy . $300 buck didn’t do much for me. 3 Happy hours, feh… he could have bolstered socal security rather than proposing privatizing it. Can you imagine what would have happened if he had got his way???