“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.
this is what government is for you bozos!
Well, here’s what I’m not yet understanding.
I understand they want to get the money by auctioning off more of the spectrum. Got it.
Then they want more rural people to be able to access that broadband. Check.
Then what? Do they fund the build-out of said project by helping those that just ‘bought’ the spectrum by basically giving them the money back that they just spent?
Or should they just find a way to subsidize existing delivery methods on a percentile so that there will still be some competition, making up for the lost revenue from small subscriber numbers with a guaranteed return?
If one style of delivery is favored over another, say 4G, but a cheaper form of access, say a type of WiMax Canopy comes along that is faster and cheaper, but can’t compete against a subsidized business model, how has that helped said customers? Isn’t the ‘best’ their ‘right’?
My point is this: I am not against government’s help with infusion of capital to stimulate a portion of a market that is, in all other matters of commerce, always behind if it is done for the right reason and in the right way.
Here is the wrong way- Money is spent for a specific type of delivery that is regulated and stymies any advancement (don’t argue with me on this. I went from living in Dallas with a land-line that had call waiting in 1977 to living on a farm THAT STILL HAD PARTY LINES! )
Also, if it is done for delivery of ‘Party goods’ as welfare was done, then count me out.
Now, if a company that is already in the area needs more funding to add services that it cannot offer because of prohibitive build-out cost, then that should be an option, because if not, you are essentially putting these companies out of business by paying a competing method to come in with an unfair advantage.
Then what? Do they fund the build-out of said project by helping those that just ‘bought’ the spectrum by basically giving them the money back that they just spent?
Well, judging by the numbers, that’s true: but only to a point.
They’re hoping to raise over $25 billion and they’re going to spend $5 billion, with $10 billion going on the public safety network.
It sounds like the Feds are going to pay the capex once for the 4G infrastructure in order to ensure that the new standard rolls out faster and in a more pervasive manner, so that rural communities can be part of a knowledge-based economy rather than just being about growing soya and sugar beet.
The same companies that currently operate in the area will still operate in the area; they’re being helped by the US Government because spending $5 billion to help diversify and secure rural communities is a better investment than watching those communities perish from an economic perspective.
Then they are in effect bypassing what other infrastructure may already be there.
I know of many small communities that have cable and phone, but there is not a large enough customer base to justify the added cost of broadband. A subsidy to each would help compete in the speed and cost between the three (cable, twisted pair, wireless).
I can’t get behind an idea that pays preference to one type of delivery.
TT,
Then again, maybe the Feds will say that if there is high-speed internet in a given community, it doesn’t get a Fed-funded 4G base station or any pico-cells or whatever.
In which case, you win your argument (incumbent CLECs/ISPs don’t get shafted) and those who are genuinely without get their 4G tower now rather than having to wait for a private company to consider them worthy of being part of the 21st Century.
The insidious part about this whole thing is that it’s a one time investment.
If you’re going to spend billions on this once, who is going to pick up the tab afterward? Sure, you now have built out 4G in rural areas, but it’s obviously not going to be free after that.
Are they going to require phone companies to continue to support it? Counties? States? Or will the rural customers get bent over the next year with high fees?
This wouldn’t be the first time the federal gov’t threw money at something once, only to cause more problems later when the money isn’t there the next year.
this is one of those good intentions that have some consequences down the line.
The same people who pay for the operation and maintenance of the other infrastructure build outs, the users. Just like roads, water systems, the electrical grid.
Or would you prefer all roads be toll roads and the water supply at your home be based not on water quality and availability, but on profitability for a company?
aaaww crap!!!!!!!
#$%@$%&*!
I can not believe people think letting that idiot run the nations computer networks!!!!!!!
and he want’s to subsidize Verizon!!!!
sh**!!!!!
ps: just so you know: I live in one of those “rural areas” and my internet does suck we have to go crawling to Verizon for a measly 5gb.