One other point – is it possible this massive amount of money-spending won’t cause the inflation we fear because it is merely replacing the wealth which was lost. Madoff alone reduced global wealth by far greater than $50 billion. Then there is the lost value of homes, stocks, office buildings and malls.

Finally, the financial markets coupled with the government and homebuyers who seem to have a less than stellar sense of responsibility got us into a mess and it is a big mess.

Layoffs will continue and if the government can do anything to increase spending which will lead to job creation, it should.

Remember the government will be paying people for being unemployed… I would rather have these people who could choose to watch TV and get a check, out there building better broadband infrastructure so we can be a more competitive nation. Then there is the sorry state of US roads, bridges and tunnels.

The alternative of course is to just let this all play out and it could take half a decade to do so or even more.

Sadly, there is a psychology problem at play here. These sorts of government spending programs have a chance to get positive psychology going in this country. It is much better to spend the money here instead of bailing out the incompetent managers of Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, etc.

I say it is worth a shot and has good chance of paying back more than 1.5x as I said earlier.

Job creation happens with small business, not with the giving more money to Fortune 500.

And if we give the money to Charter, will it be used or help to stave off bankruptcy?

Large corporations are doing poorly because they have been riding the gravy train for too long. Give the money to the SBA and the RUS so that every business has a chance to put it to real use. (BTW, I consult for ISP's and CLEC's who are creating jobs, designing innovative solutions, and bridging the Digital Divide in rural America).

BTW, Verizon doesn't even have DSL available in a Tech park in Chantilly VA. VZ's eyes are only on its FiOS project where it cherry picks what neighborhoods will get it Fiber.

BTW, as you can read here, "The Bureau of Economic Advisors estimates that for each $1 invested in broadband, the economy benefits nearly $3."

>>for each $1 invested in broadband, the economy benefits nearly $3

I buy that a heck of a lot more than the 10X benefit. Still, I'd rather the private sector make that investment. Assuming we do allow the gov't to make the $1-$3 investment ratio, who gets to keep the $3 return? The ISPs will keep most of that profit - not the government and certainly not the tax payer. The gov't will get 'some' return via more jobs and more tax revenue from the increased broadband penetration, but I'm still not convinced it can't be done already without the need for tax payer money. Where there is a profit to be made, companies will make the investment.

Verizon is indeed cherry-picking where to put FiOS. I for one wish my small neighborhood had it available, but I understand why Verizon is going for denser populated areas first to recoup their large investment in building out fiber to the home. Digging & installing FTTH isn't cheap. While it would be nice if I had the U.S. gov't subsidize fiber to my house so I can get 100+ HDTV channels and uber-fast Internet, my DSL broadband connection works just fine. So I don't want my fellow tax payers to subsidize fiber to my house. It's not their job to give me more 'perks' in my life. If I truly want fiber to my house, I'll move to where FiOS is offered.

When did we become a nation of "what can you do for me?". JFK would be rolling in his grave - "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country".

We can’t buy our way out of this mess with bailout checks to organizations that have shown an inability to make sound, responsible decisions.

Entrepreneurs create wealth. Wealth begets jobs and more wealth. More jobs = more tax revenue. And so on.

Government should stay out of the way.

I agree with Peter. Put the money into the hands of small businesses, and create an environment (low taxes, fewer regulations) in which they can thrive.

Two wrongs don't make a right. The argument that we spend $40 billion on this, $10 billion on that, so what's the problem with another $40 or even $800 billion is no big deal... is a non-sequitur.

Roads are critical to the infrastructure of this country, national security, the economy, and much more. I have no problem with taxes to pay for that. I'd rather see us improve our physical infrastructure not our digital one. We, the American public "own" the physical infrastructure, but we have much less stake in the "digital" infrastructure owned by Verizon, AT&T, etc. I really don't like the idea of funding private companies with American tax dollars - it screams of socialism.

You can always make the argument that the governments “needs” to spend money on XYZ. Congress does a great job of convincing the American people they ‘need’ to spend money on many things that are wasteful.

The real question is how critical is ubiquitous high-speed Internet. The U.S. economy survived for hundreds of years without the Internet. Dial-up is slow, but people can still access information on the Internet, buy stuff on Amazon, etc. So they can’t play a Youtube video on dial-up. They’ll live.

I don’t equate ubiquitous high-speed Internet access as critical to national security, the economy, etc. We already have 80-90% penetration any way. Spending $40B just to get the last 10-20% seems moronic with all the deficits and wasteful spending.

Sure, it will lead to more jobs, higher speed Internet for Americans, but at what cost? We fought the Revolutionary War because of unfair taxation without representation. I'd venture a guess that most Americans would rather keep $294 in their pockets than give nearly $300 to Verizon, AT&T, etc. Too bad our representatives in Congress often due the opposite of what the American public wants - including the recent multi-billion dollar bailouts.

My town doesn't have Verizon fiber not because Verizon doesn't want to install it here, but because an intervening municipality wants to bring about a sort of "payola" situation, one at which Verizon rightfully balked. The greed factor got us into this mess, and it will continue to make things worse. I'm all for everyone having broadband access to the Internet, but I think the unemployed should get jobs and medical coverage first.

All of these policies (including broadband), have been designed to meet the goals of improving individual and community access to opportunities, jobs, and services, nation-building, and security. All of them have been carried out in the presence of private firms.

It is no more illegitimate for say a New London, Connecticut resident to subsidize high-speed Internet access to a farmer in New London, New Hampshire as it is to pay through their gas taxes a portion of I-89 that runs by the latter town. By the same token, it is no more illegitimate for a resident of that rural New Hampshire community to help pay for transit bus and Amtrak service for their counterpart in that Connecticut city.

One can make the same arguments against paved roads and for the Interstate highway system, especially in rural areas as for broadband. People and the economy survived without them too. There were railroads and interurban lines, and, prior to the Interstates, federally-supported and state paved roads, modern-day turnpikes, and parkways.

Yet dial-up is the equivalent of dirt roads; satellite broadband the same as planked toll roads of the 19th century. The former became outmoded except for the most rural/remote areas while the latter went by the wayside. Ask rural residents about what they think of satellite broadband and the reaction will not be ones of loud cheers.

Yes, roads are vital, such for national security. Yes, it was poor roads that planted the seeds in the mind of a young U.S. Army officer by the name of Dwight Eisenhower of better highways to more quickly transport troops and materiel (the Interstates were originally known as the Interstate Defense Highway System that he signed into law). Yet the lack of them did not sufficiently impede the U.S. in moving vast amounts of personnel and equipment during World War II and to a lesser extent in the Korean ‘conflict’.

The Internet, and by extension, broadband has national security applications. While it was originally intended for scientific purposes, that it could tie in distributed computers that would enable the U.S. to retaliate after a first strike made it understandably appealing to the Pentagon.

And on 9-11-01 the Internet did just that. It enabled the U.S. to survive an enemy attack.

I saw this up front and personal. I had witnessed the bombings of the World Trade Center on my commute to Call Center Magazine’s midtown Manhattan editorial office. I along with my colleagues evacuated the building. I ended up at a friend’s house in New Jersey (I could not get to my-then home on Staten Island). While many of the phone lines and cell towers were down I was still able to log in over a broadband connection to receive—and send—‘Are You OK’ e-mails…

So the question then becomes: does a universal broadband network merit the same standing as a key infrastructure like roads, and transit? The arguments clearly points that way.

Broadband opens the doors to jobs and services via telework. Only broadband has the ability to reduce the demand on, and the tax costs of supporting, both roads and transit, which in turn cuts emissions and resulting healthcare costs while improving quality of life. A nationwide broadband system, by distributing the work, can, and has, enabled the country to withstand disasters.

Lastly, broadband is the road to the future: of making the Information Age into reality just as having railroads into every community made the Industrial Age possible, and having paved highways everywhere enabled the post-World War II boom. The direct and indirect opportunities and employment universal broadband will directly and indirectly create represents the best hope and the brightest future for current and upcoming generations.

Please give Obama and I your money so we can spend it. We'll spend out way out of this recession, don't you worry.

It is true that dial-up is like dirt roads. We can't have 10% of Americans driving on dirt roads or digital dirt dial-up roads. Give us your money so we may pave the roads in gold. You will have sweet 5000Mbps bandwidth so you can download The Dark Knight in just 1.2s. iTunes downloads will be so fast you won't know what to do with yourself. Trust me, your life is nothing without this kind of bandwidth speed! Help us help you. Give us your money. We know best how to use it. You would have lost it in the stock market anyway. Or probably spent the money on something stupid like I don't know, a vacation, or your kids college education or something.

Give to us so we may give to others.

Sincerly,
Joe Biden
Vice President-Elect

For example, my Mother and Father in law cannot get access to anything aside from dial-up. Satallite access is too expensive for them and does not allow any better upload speed. Many businesses are out of reach for high-speed access here in Indiana and either don't have access or are forced to pay $500/mo or more for T1 access. This is a major expense for small business.

Google is saving the U.S.? I don't think so. Google has 24,400 full-time employees. That's 0.0181% of the entire workforce. Let's not exaggerate. Coca-Cola employs over 90,000, so they're doing more to help the American people earn a living. Even if you add in all the people who make money off Adsense, Google still represents a small fraction of the American economy.

>>Broadband is crucial for our economy to move forward.

I don't think so. I've used both dial-up and broadband. I prefer broadband of course, but the American economy isn't any better off for me having broadband at work and home. Maybe I might download & pay for a few more iTunes on broadband vs. dial-up, but the aggregate of adding 10% more broadband users to the mix isn't going to add much to the American economy.

As for American being 15th in broadband, you forget that America is one of the largest nations in the world with large population scattered in rural areas. Europe is very concentrated, so it's much easier to do DSL, cable, ISDN, and fiber drops.

>>Many businesses are out of reach for high-speed access here in Indiana and either don't have access or are forced to pay $500/mo or more for T1 access. This is a major expense for small business.

What about wireless such as 3G/EVDO/4G/WiMAX? You're going to see WiMAX take off the 2nd half of 2009 - all funded by the private sector.

I still stand by my opinion that $40 billion to get the last 10% on broadband is a waste of money. I can't get Verizon FiOS with 100 HD channels in my neighborhood and I'm not happy about it. But I wouldn't go knocking on the Federal government's door demanding they fork over billions to Verizon to help them bring fiber to my house.

I can't get a sewer line to my house so I have a septic. If my septic goes, I'm out $20,000 - $30,000. I think the local, state, or federal government should bring sewer lines to my neighborhood at tax payer expense. If my septic goes, can I get a bailout? We can go round-and-round what the government can do for "me".

If you read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution you would know our forefathers valued personal property and tried to limit the power of the federal government. Alas, the federal government today has gone far beyond the Constitution to take personal property via taxation and give it to other individuals and "social" programs. The federal government has the right to tax individuals to raise and maintain an army, protect Americans & America's borders, ensure national security, and fund government institutions. That's pretty much it.

It's the states that are "supposed" to have the power to tax its citizens for social programs. Each state's citizens has much more control over its representatives than what happens in Washington, D.C. If a state wants to invest in any particular social cause, they can do so. However, if the citizens disagree and see it as wasteful spending, they can vote out the state's Democrat or Republican Party that supported this cause. Not so easy when dealing with Congress, when your state only controls 2 Senators and a few representatives.

We as citizens have much less control with our "voting power" over what the Federal government does, which is why our forefathers tried to restrict what the Federal government could do. We the people are the government not Congress. Or at least they are supposed to represent "we the people". I'm reminded of Lincoln's Gettysburg address where he said, "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

I think we've forgotten that Congress isn't any better than us, they're not smarter than us, and they shouldn't hold carte blanche power over us. We should always be skeptical about "new ideas" on how to spend tax payer money.

It's SO easy for people to spend other people's money.

You're right that people don't pay attention to the federal taxes taken out. People look at federal spending programs as money the government just magically already has. It's not their money, it's OUR money.

If only we could somehow switch to a pay-as-you go tax system where the federal government sent quarterly tax bills to U.S. citizens with a breakdown of where the federal taxes are going. U.S. citizens would then have to write a check to the government. None of this auto-deduct stuff which has made people blind to how much money the government takes from us.

I can dream this will one day happen, can't I?

Sincerely,
Joe "the Plumber"

If we don't ensure our underserved areas have broadband access now, while it is still a reasonable opportunity, and while underserved are still within a step of today's technology. Else, you'll see the technology gap between the haves and the have-nots will only widen, and those that you suggest can make do with dial-up access will become further isolated from the rest of us.

Technology is a fundamental part of our lives - our President-elect proved that, and it's certainly a funamental part of yours. Just as we're about to witness a mandated transition to digital television, does it not make sense that we must dump dial-up to avoid stifling innovation? You can't do with dial-up what you can with broadband -- and we all know applications and services are not becoming less bandwidth-intensive.

Of course I'd like everyone to have broadband. I just disagree with tax payers funding the expenditure. It isn't that critical to the economy. I can think of better ways to stimulate the economy.

Gotta run. I want to illegally download Clint Eastwood's Gran Torino from The Pirate Bay on my fast broadband connection. Yeah, I know Clint will be peeved he won't get revenue from my download. Not to mention the director of the movie, and the entire cast and crew. Illegal downloading of movies and music is fun. I love sticking it to Hollywood for their overpriced movie tickets and DVDs. It'll help bankrupt artists sooner rather than later. I'll take great joy that 100% broadband coverage in the U.S. helped bring about the demise of copyright holders. Screw em'! There goes 5 million copyright holder jobs, (artists, actors, musicians, screen writers) but who cares?

Yes, I'm being facetious. Point being, there are some negative drawbacks to the economy in bringing 100% broadband coverage. Advocates of tax payer funded "building out" of 100% broadband coverage paint this rosy picture, but there are consequences. That said, I hope we do get to 100% broadband coverage - preferably over wireless. But don't take it out of my paycheck, thank you very much. Are you volunteering yours?

You might argue that these towns should fend for themselves and that no one should be moving there unless they want go visit their vacation home in the country. But these towns did not build their highways, they did not bring electricity, and they did not bring the telephone "long lines." While the rest of America is being educated through online colleges with video and chat, attending web meetings using power points and chat, learning new information like that found on the TMCnet or NYT, uploading large SQL data files, creating new partnerships requiring on line meetings, or providing customer service from home as Jet Blue reps do, these rural towns are getting further and further behind. Not only are they falling behind, but we are not benefiting from their creativity and industry through online interaction.

Putting 10%-20% of the population on broadband could create the tipping point our nation will require to generate the new business revenues and taxes needed in the future to pay for Wall Street's greed. It was Wall Street, not the rest of us, that consumed packages of tranched mortgage equities which anyone with common sense would know that these mortgage equity packages were delivering too high a rate of return. Folks do not complain about spending $100's of billions to save AIG, Merrill, and Bank of America from their the errors and foolishness, but spend $6 billion to bring 10%-20% of American homes into the broadband highway and folks say that's not fair, let the private market handle the problem. I say it is time to use good common sense just like Eisenhower did with the Interstate highway system and connect the under served areas. At last, starting tomorrow, we have hope that such a change will happen.

I'm a civil engineer that works for the government and I can tell you it will be impossible to get the last 10-20% of Americans on broadband for only $40 billion. Triple or quadruple that number. There are many Americans in very remote locations that are too far from the central office (CO) to get DSL, since DSL is limited to 18,000 feet, though due to errors and such, the practical limit is 12,000 feet. Dropping cable coax is also too expensive, which is why most remote areas have satellite TV. Digging a fiber line for just a few houses or even a single house in a remote area isn't economically feasible. Then you have to consider that 3-4% of Americans don't want broadband. My parents and grandparents could care less about the Internet. They get their news from TV, newspapers, and friends.

In any event, Americans can get satellite broadband if they wish. Is it a perfect solution? No. But at least they're purchasing their own broadband as opposed to having their fellow Americans subsidize broadband access. In fact, assuming 10% of 320 million Americans, that's 32,000,000 without broadband. Divide that by $40 billion and that's $1250 per broadband drop. But don't forget, it's going to cost triple or quadruple that if not worse. So figure $5000 per broadband drop. At $29.99/month broadband fees, it'll take 172 months just to break even. That's 14 years! Thus, I highly doubt whatever economic activity is performed will be sufficient to improve the economy in Obama's administration.

Further, the tax payer won't recoup hardly any of the nominal improvements in the economy broadband will bring. I agree with Tom that we shouldn't be wasting this kind of money. If anything the government should be tightening its belt, cutting pork, and looking for ways to stimulate the economy without giving $40 billion to the carriers.

In a perfect world we'd all have high-speed Internet access at work, at home, in the car, in the barber shop, at the grocery store, in the movie theater, in the restaurant, etc. We'd all have 4G phones with blazing fast Internet access. But we don't live in a perfect world. Let's not spend ourselves to death trying to build Internet nirvana.

Yes, today is the big day when Obama becomes President. Maybe you're hoping for such a radical change in broadband policy, but I'm not.

Change for the sake of change is never good. Let's hope Obama makes some 'smart' changes.

Also, I'm not a fan of bailouts either. I'd like the deficit to be $1B not $1T and the debt to be $1B not $10T. I'd also like a 3some with some hot college cheerleaders.

The government IS going to spend money. Billions of it to jump start the economy and get people working. The Information SuperHighway is an Infrastructure project that can pay dividends. I am all for the proposed money being spent on all of our nation's infrastructure: roads, bridges, airports, power grid, and broadband. I think the money should be dispersed by both the target authority agencies AND the SBA to insure that at least 50% of the money goes to small businesses, who are the real engine of job creation in the US. They need the help more than Corporate America, who have gotten us in this mess and surely do not have skin in the game to get us out. (Halliburton moved Corp HQ to Dubai, as have some others. Ever wonder why?)

Small Businesses can bridge that Digital Divide with grants and loans.

Misplaced workers are likely not going to find a new job in their metro areas. It will take broadband to get these workers re-educated and participating in the tax system (as well as the consumer hamster wheel).

We live in a Service Economy folks. Look around. Strip malls. Big Box stores. Starbucks. McD's. These aren't big paying jobs? how do you afford a $30K car, a $300K home, taxes, kids, food and $4/gal gas (that is coming back by summer)?

Greed, Wall St. and Madison Ave. got us here --- how do we get out?

If they are going to blow the money anyway, I say build infrastructure. It pays long term dividends.

It's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction and say "Awww what the hell. I love broadband and can't do without it, so may as well make sure 100% of my fellow Americans have it."

What about principle? What about government fiscal responsibility? If you had $50,000 in credit card debt, would you say "well, I'd really like to earn more money, so I'm going to charge $100,000 more and buy myself a Subway franchise or start a business."

Sure, you might get lucky and score big. But it isn't responsible. Why does the government get a pass on fiscal responsibility?

You guys throw around the term "infrastructure" like it's some catchphrase or buzzword that makes spending billions in taxpayer money ok. Sure Internet access is important, but is it as important as roads, electricity, or the telephone? I don't think so.

I wouldn't have a problem with "helping" ISPs building out broadband access with 'some' government subsidies, but $40 billion seems a bit much to me in this tough economy. The tax payers deserve better on how their money is spent. Maybe Obama can donate part of his $175 million inauguration celebration to needy Americans?

Don't worry about the deficits. Obama has it covered. All our problems are solved. Let him spend away. It's all good.

No worries... No worries at all.

p.s. I live in a remote part of Texas where I can't get broadband. I can't get my porn fix at home on my dial-up connection. So I for one am rooting for Obama to help me with my porn fix. Free porn of course. So I won't be helping the economy any. Just sayin'

Pretty much everyone's home values went up over the past 15 years. I'd like to see a study where home values declined LESS after this housing bubble collapse.

>>So I for one am rooting for Obama to help me with my porn fix

Well then. Can't have my fellow Americans not get their broadband porn fix. What was I thinking? I amend my prior statements then. Free ubiquitous broadband for all!

Not!!

Yesterday, Minority Leader John Boehner sent out an email on the House Democrats' ridiculous $825 billion "stimulus" bill. It is worth reproducing in its entirety:

A Dozen Fun Facts About the House Democrats' Massive Spending Bill

1. The House Democrats' bill will cost each and every household $6,700 additional debt, paid for by our children and grandchildren.
2. The total cost of this one piece of legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire federal government.
3. President-elect Obama has said that his proposed stimulus legislation will create or save three million jobs. This means that this legislation will spend about $275,000 per job. The average household income in the U.S. is $50,000 a year.
4. The House Democrats' bill provides enough spending - $825 billion - to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700.
5. $825 billion is enough to give every person living in poverty in the U.S. $22,000.
6. $825 billion is enough to give every person in Ohio $72,000.
7. Although the House Democrats' proposal has been billed as a transportation and infrastructure investment package, in actuality only $30 billion of the bill - or three percent - is for road and highway spending. A recent study from the Congressional Budget Office said that only 25 percent of infrastructure dollars can be spent in the first year, making the one year total less than $7 billion for infrastructure.
8. Much of the funding within the House Democrats' proposal will go to programs that already have large, unexpended balances. For example, the bill provides $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which already have $16 billion on hand. And, this year, Congress has plans to rescind $9 billion in highway funding that the states have not yet used.
9. In 1993, the unemployment rate was virtually the same as the rate today (around seven percent). Yet, then-President Clinton's proposed stimulus legislation ONLY contained $16 billion in spending.
10. Here are just a few of the programs and projects that have been included in the House Democrats' proposal:
· $650 million for digital TV coupons.
· $6 billion for colleges/universities - many which have billion dollar endowments.
· $166 billion in direct aid to states - many of which have failed to budget wisely.
· $50 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts.
· $44 million for repairs to U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters.
· $200 million for the National Mall, including grass planting.
· $400 million for "National Treasures."
11. Almost one-third of the so called tax relief in the House Democrats' bill is spending in disguise, meaning that true tax relief makes up only 24 percent of the total package - not the 40 percent that President-elect Obama had requested.
12. $825 billion is just the beginning - many Capitol Hill Democrats want to spend even more taxpayer dollars on their "stimulus" plan.

Preference for a smaller, more limited federal government is probably the single most universal feature of all strands of modern conservatism. Yet, as we have noted before, conservatives have failed to have much impact on the steadily increasing federal budget. This graph, which shows federal spending from 1965 to the present in 2007 dollars, pretty much says it all;

Old-style conservatives have been discouraged by the movement's apparent failure to have any significant impact on the inexorable growth of government. Note, however, the uptick at the end of the graph. If the Democrats get their way over the next couple of years, we may see what happens when conservatives are entirely out of power in Washington: an explosion in federal spending and regulatory reach that threatens the foundation of our free enterprise system. If that doesn't energize and unify conservatives, nothing will.

Deficit spending is a subject on which the parties have almost switched roles. Traditionally it was the Democrats who were Keynesians (or just liked to spend money), and Republicans who warned against deficits. That began to change in the Reagan administration, and, as federal deficits failed to produce the adverse consequences, e.g. high interest rates, that had been predicted, opposition to deficits in both parties withered. If anything, Democrats have tended to don the green eyeshades in recent years, albeit not with much sincerity.

But what Congressional Democrats are now planning, by way of deficit spending, dwarfs anything in our post-World War II history, as this graph illustrates;

It seems inconceivable that the deficits now contemplated by the Democrats will not have adverse effects, starting with inflation. Whatever those ill effects turn out to be, the Democrats will own them, just as they will own the tax increases that seem inevitable in the wake of the current profligacy.

We appear to be returning, in short, to an era more like the one in which the modern conservative movement was born. If there was ever a time when America needed an effective conservative opposition, that time is now.

Things have a way of swinging to the Left and then back to the Right. It's cyclical. We're swinging a little too far to the Left in my opinion with all this spending, but things have a way of correcting themselves, especially via the ballot box. That's why McCain was rejected this past November - people rightly or wrongly saw him as another Bush and didn't want more 'supposedly' conservative policies.

Who knows, maybe a little leftist socialism will do some good? No political ideology has a monopoly on being right. Or it it "Right"? ;)

All gov't knows how to do -- all the way back to the 30's mind you - is to spend money (New Deal, anyone?) to get the economy churning.

The initial TARP came straight from the White House, so let's not finger point to a particular party, because I am tired of hearing it.

If I had my way, I would sue every single present and former exec at every Wall Street firm that toppled - and use that money to fix the current problem. Then I would go after the Car Companies and Gas Companies for helping us into this mess. Then I would go after every single Congressperson for the last 8 years for not seeing and acting to prevent this mess. They FAILED us.

Then I would work on explained to the under-educated masses in this great nation what Saving and Conservation mean.

But I don't have that luxury. Most of this is already law. And while many of you think ranting on a blog is Action, let me remind you, that it is NOT. Don't be lazy (and cowardly), call your Congress Critters. Tell them how you feel. Telling me via Anonymous comments is shirking your responsibilities.

At best, the idealists should realize that we’re close to the time when satellite & wireless signals become more cost-effective for everyone, especially these rural areas, than land-lines. It is downright foolish to invest in massive infrastructure expansion that will soon become obsolete, regardless of your financial situation.

Ars adds:
The bigger issue is a lack of perceived value. 19 percent of dial-up users, for example, say that "nothing" would get them to upgrade, not even lower prices. Of the 25 percent of Americans that don't regularly use the Internet at all (Hi, Mom!), a third said that they were "not interested in going online," almost ten percent thought it was too "difficult," and seven percent simply don't "have time."

Older and poorer Americans tend to be the ones who see less need for broadband, and it's clear that demand for it could be boosted through national e-health and e-government programs. But Pew's main point is that working on price and access alone will only bring broadband to a limited subset of Americans who don't already have it—in the short term, at least.

So let's blow the $40 billion wad of tax payer money for services that many Americans without broadband SIMPLY DON'T want. Makes perfect sense to me!

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/why-spend-350-million-to-map-broadband/

"Deep inside the stimulus bill that passed the Senate Tuesday is an allocation of up to $350 million for making a “nationwide inventory map of existing broadband service capability and availability in the United States.” This map, members of Congress say, will be helpful in making sure that the $7 billion in proposed grants to bring high speed Internet service to rural areas are handed out where they are most needed."

That's just fantastic. We need to spend $350 million to find out who can't get broadband. This porkulus spending just gets better and better each day. Can't wait till we spend $2 trillion on the "bailout spending". I'm looking forward to the tax man when he cometh. And he will be coming. Oh he will be coming with a vengeance. Maybe not this year or next, but he will be coming.