http://bluenc.com/hagan-follows-through-funding-rural-broadband-expansion#new

Quote :

"Hagan follows through with funding for rural broadband expansion During her campaign in 2008, Kay Hagan traveled to rural areas of the state and held kitchen table discussions with residents of those counties to discuss the need for broadband expansion. Yesterday she announced that North Carolina would get a little over $2 million to expand broadband to underserved areas of this state. “This investment in North Carolina will help boost economic development in our rural communities and keep them vibrant,” said Hagan. “Increasing broadband access means connecting our communities to the world and adding more jobs in our state in this tough economy.” I organized one of these kitchen table discussions for then candidate Kay Hagan. A neighbor, who raises chickens and cattle held the event at his home. We were trying to get about 12-15 people in rural Union County to attend. There were more than 30 people eager to speak with Kay about everything from broadband to roads. Russell and his wife run a large farming/ranching/poultry business and had three high school students all using dial-up internet. I've mentioned before that my home is one of the last that Time Warner Cable extended service to in my area. Russell's family lives less than a mile down the road. I have two teen daughters, one who uses her computer to take AP courses through North Carolina Virtual Classroom, and I can't imagine having three students trying to do homework using dial-up to access the internet. The lack of broadband access makes it that much harder for rural businesses and students to compete. North Carolina is one of the first states to receive funds intended for broadband expansion from the U.S. Department of Commerce. The money is made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This is welcome news. “For the citizens and businesses of North Carolina, today’s decision is a tremendous reinforcement of what has been an ongoing and robust effort toward universal broadband. The e-NC Authority is thrilled to serve the citizens of the state in this capacity,” said Oppie Jordan, Chair of the e-NC Authority. Obviously, $2 million is a drop in the bucket, but it will allow the process of mapping broadband availability and planning the expansion to begin."

Nice to see a Senator doing something right once in a while with NC being one of the first to get money for broadband expansion through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

10/7/2009 8:08:51 PM

Wouldn't tax-payers have spent that $2 million better on their own families if they could've kept it?

10/7/2009 9:31:16 PM

All public program funds could have been tucked away in a tax payer mattress somewhere instead so that criticism isn't particularly specific to this program, & for this particular project 2 million doesn't strike me as run away spending by any means. But I think broadband internet access is in some ways related to infrastructure, an area which most people agree government should be spending, in laying a technological infrastructure necessary for growth & education, and there may be an argument to be made in terms of equity in getting broadband internet access reaching out to rural North Carolina communities that wouldn't otherwise have it. At the very least it is a Senator keeping a campaign promise.

10/7/2009 9:42:15 PM

^^Probably, but the stimulus was going to pass no matter what. It's part of a representative's duty to get a slice of the free money. Now, I'm guessing she also supported the bill, which I think she was wrong to do.

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 9:43 PM. Reason : ]

10/7/2009 9:43:34 PM

No, they wouldn't have spent it better.

You can't get much better than this initiative.

10/7/2009 9:43:57 PM

.

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 9:54 PM. Reason : meh. nevermind.]

10/7/2009 9:54:06 PM

Quote :

"All public program funds could have be tucked away in a tax payer mattress somewhere"

Some tax-payers may tuck their money in a matress. But some others will spend it on education for their children, food on their table, clothing, or even as investments in start-up businesses which will create more jobs.

Quote :

"but the stimulus was going to pass no matter what. It's part of a representative's duty to get a slice of the free money."

I think it's the representative's job to follow the Constitution...which does not authorize spending tax-payer money in order to stimulate the economy in certain areas of the country.

And I would respectfully disagree that the money is "free". It is hard-earned money taken from the pockets of working people or future working people. It is money which politicians have decided that they can spend better than the people who earned it.

10/7/2009 9:58:41 PM

Out of all the tax expenditures I would gripe about, this I think would be low on the "wasteful expenditure" list. I think this is going to be great if it gets broadband out further. I know my sister and brother-in-law are 1/4 a mile from the cut off point, and that just plain sucks. If it brings in information, jobs and the ability to stay connected with family, I think it's well worth the small increase. Really, $2mil is not a huge pricetag.

And I'm not disagreeing with anything you^ are saying. I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I'd rather see money spent on something like this, than quite a few other things they're wasting our money on.

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 10:03 PM. Reason : ]

10/7/2009 10:02:27 PM

Yes we all know the generic argument against taxes.

10/7/2009 10:02:38 PM

Quote :

"And I'm not disagreeing with anything you^ are saying. I wholeheartedly agree with you. But I'd rather see money spent on something like this, than quite a few other things they're wasting our money on."

Yeah, I agree. If they're going to waste our money, at least they can waste it on something which benefits folks. You know, instead of blowing shit up. That is, if they must waste our money (which, it seems, they must).

10/7/2009 10:17:14 PM

as someone who comes from an area where 56k is still very prevalent i say fucking your bitching. there are worse ways to spend money

10/7/2009 10:18:08 PM

$2,000,000 will be spent on a feasibility study that will determine that rural broadband is not a reality right now. These areas aren't currently served for a reason - there's no economic incentive to build it out at current costs. No one wants to get stuck with the infrastructure that's being proposed after it gets put in using grant money.

10/7/2009 10:46:17 PM

^I'm not saying it is the case here, but in same cases, just because a private company isn't providing a service doesn't mean its not a good thing for it to be provided as a public service. Just as an example, in Chapel Hill everyone has access to free wifi internet in the downtown area. The government already owns several buildings scattered throughout downtown & was able to set up this program by adding wireless routers incredibly cheaply whereas a private company would have difficulty trying to replicate the service who wouldn't be able to set up in so many locations, and definitely a private company could not have done this as cheaply as it could be done publicly. They also added a few wireless routers at restaurant locations that knew & trusted the local government, & let them set up the internet access where the restaurant is even paying the power bill (admittedly it is only a very small addition to the power bill), which lets their costumers have wireless internet access too.

And again there is the whole equity thing, with supporting our rural communities that we may judge to be worthwhile for the given price tag.

10/7/2009 10:58:32 PM

your rant about installing wifi in a city with multiple internet service providers makes me think you have no idea what the real problem with rural broadband is. there is no existing infrastructure, and $2,000,000 isn't going to be spent on infrastructure. some friends of politicians are going to put together a feasiblity study and make a pretty map telling us what we already knewabout where the internet is slow. In short, we're being conned by people who will do nothing to bring rural broadband to our state.

The people who are likely to actually get federal grant money are the ones who have already been installing backbone work and had their applications completed months ago.

10/7/2009 11:14:25 PM

It is a mischaracterization to describe that example as a rant.

It was just an example to show that sometimes a service can be provided as a public service more effectively than it could be as a private service, so the notion that a private company isn’t already trying to provide the service doesn’t rule it out for consideration as a public service project.

"your rant about installing wifi in a city with multiple internet service providers makes me think you have no idea"

The first thing I said was it is not necessarily the case here, so I'm not sure how you extrapolated from that, that I had good ideas, bad ideas, or no ideas about what is going on here.

10/7/2009 11:30:50 PM

Even if we could assume that $2 mil would in fact go wholly towards infrastructure, $2 million wouldn't even be enough to run fiber more than a few miles.

If you ignore the cost of running the physical layer out into the middle of nowhere, you could buy enough equipment to bring one small town online (Honestly, I doubt you could even do that much).

for maybe a year.

and then there wouldn't be any money left to maintain it. So you'd have to add even more ongoing costs to the taxpayer bill that weren't there before.

So, I guess we're at the point where we start arguing that broadband is a basic human right?


[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 11:33 PM. Reason : a]

10/7/2009 11:32:10 PM

^The quote from the source is that the 2 mil would be used for:

Quote :

"Obviously, $2 million is a drop in the bucket, but it will allow the process of mapping broadband availability and planning the expansion to begin.""

So we've got some people in this thread arguing we shouldn't been spending this much on this kind of program, and others saying its not enough to be effective, and others still saying it sounds like a reasonable starting place. At least we've covered the whole spread. Go team Soapbox!

10/7/2009 11:35:53 PM

Quote :

"just because a private company isn't providing a service doesn't mean its not a good thing for it to be provided as a public service. "

Wow..that kind of policy opens the door to all sorts of goodies doesn't it?

10/7/2009 11:37:30 PM

by the way, there is a private company (hughes) already providing broadband in rural areas, via satellite.

It doesn't do much for you if you need latency sensitive applications such as VoIP or online gaming, but web surfing, email, and access to information is absolutely available.

I doubt Kay Hagan is even aware of it...

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 11:44 PM. Reason : asdf]

10/7/2009 11:43:38 PM

^^It doesn't open doors, it only keeps you from shutting doors prematurely... sometimes to gov can do things cheaper & more effectively than private industry, often times they can't. Only a cost benefit analysis of the program can determine if its economically sensible, and then of course you can always add in your own sense of fairness & equity based on who benefits to determine if you think a program is worth a given price tag.

[Edited on October 7, 2009 at 11:46 PM. Reason : .]

10/7/2009 11:45:43 PM

I have no problem with rural areas getting broadband, whether it’s economically viable or not.

Quote :

"and then there wouldn't be any money left to maintain it. So you'd have to add even more ongoing costs to the taxpayer bill that weren't there before. So, I guess we're at the point where we start arguing that broadband is a basic human right? "

lol

Probably what would happen is the contracts would be turned over to private industry, who essentially get “free” money from the customers, whose physical layer was paid for with tax dollars.

As someone who grew up in rural areas, this is FAR more preferable still to being stuck with dial up.

In a couple of years though, wireless will be at the point where a physical connection would be a total waste of money for 99% of rural broadband customers.

[Edited on October 8, 2009 at 12:26 AM. Reason : ]

10/8/2009 12:24:01 AM

Quote :

"whether it’s economically viable or not."

So easy to feel that way when you're spending everyone else's money.

10/8/2009 12:52:09 AM

Quote :

"you can always add in your own sense of fairness & equity based on who benefits to determine if you think a program is worth a given price tag."

And what angels will we rely on to make these types of decisions? The people providing the program will always think it worth the price tag. They will often pay lobbyists to convince politicians. The politicians' vote-appeal is enhanced whenever they take credit for the results of spending other people's money on someone else.

Do you have the masses vote on what is fair and equitable? If it benefits the majority at the expense of a minority- you end up with tyranny.

Fairness is a highly subjective concept.

10/8/2009 12:59:20 AM

Quote :

""whether it’s economically viable or not.""

i think he mean's making a profit

10/8/2009 9:25:58 AM

While we have the money, they should go ahead and use it to subsidize the infrastructure to some small town somewhere, even if it gets them just one. Spreading it out and doing studies and planning shit with it is just going to be a huge waste with all the money going to the politico's buddies.

Of course, the latter is what will happen regardless, as we all know that history repeats itself.

Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, and I'd bet my left nut this is going to turn into a gigantic wasteful clusterfuck, just like everything else.

10/8/2009 9:48:08 AM

Quote :

"Of course, the latter is what will happen regardless, as we all know that history repeats itself."

yep. i always wondered why it costs so much to do 'initial planning and feasibility studies'

do you really need $5 mill for that? really?

10/8/2009 9:50:00 AM

http://www.moviewavs.com/php/sounds/?id=gog&media=MP3S&type=Movies&movie=O_Brother_Where_Art_Thou"e=miracle.txt&file=miracle.mp3

[Edited on October 8, 2009 at 10:56 AM. Reason : +]

10/8/2009 10:53:33 AM

I like the idea of using money to improve infrastructure. However, as several people have already pointed out, 2 million dollars will get you squat. It will be spent on a bullshit feasibility study, or something to that effect. Money down the drain.

Quote :

"While we have the money, they should go ahead and use it to subsidize the infrastructure to some small town somewhere, even if it gets them just one."

Yep!

10/8/2009 12:42:34 PM

I think it works out to be between $10-20,000 per mile and is dependent on who owns the poles.

10/8/2009 1:18:41 PM

Quote :

"Wouldn't tax-payers have spent that $2 million better on their own families if they could've kept it?"

Probably not.

This is infrastructure/technology/education. This is an investment. This is what government is for.

10/8/2009 1:36:49 PM

Incorrect. The purpose of government is not to make investments in activity which is both rivalrous and excludable. When these rural communities get service it will be from a private company investing its own money.

That said, the rural internet problem is about to go away when wireless internet hits the market. As such, this money will be wasted investigating outdated methods of rural internet.

[Edited on October 8, 2009 at 2:10 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/8/2009 2:09:25 PM

government provides the grants to the private companies to come into areas that are under served and would not be getting service for extended time due to the lack of ROI.

Also, Wireless isn't the end all of getting broadband into rural America.

Quit talking out of your ass.

10/8/2009 2:27:30 PM

Quote :

"So easy to feel that way when you're spending everyone else's money."

It's my money too. But it's easy to feel this way, because I know how much dial up sucks. I also know how much I use the Internet as a tool to find information, and how having access to the Internet makes navigating the growing bureaucracy of companies and the gov. much easier. Distance education programs are only growing too, which is a good thing.

The US MUST switch away from a manufacturing economy, because there's no way we can compete with the rest of the world "coming of age." Our strengths moving into the future have to be pumping out research and new ideas, which easy access to information about science and technology enables.

10/8/2009 2:33:24 PM

Quote :

"Also, Wireless isn't the end all of getting broadband into rural America. Quit talking out of your ass."

It could be. There are 3rd world countries where you can get cheap-ish wireless internet, but not fresh water or indoor plumbing.

10/8/2009 2:34:52 PM

Wireless requires build out of infrastructure anyways. it may be cheaper than running fiber to/near the home, but its not free.

Expanding broadband to rural communities is important for educational purposes, but $2 million isn't going to do anything. All thats going to happen is, as already pointed out, that $2 million will be swallowed by some commitee and never seen again. The right way to do it would be to ask the broadband providers to come up with proposals on their own dime. Then fund the one that looks the best. The goal should be to get broadband into the classroom for long distance learning. Secondary should be getting broadband to homes. If you get it to central locations (like schools) it may make it more cost effective for ISPs to handle the remaining leg to the homes themselves.

10/8/2009 2:39:57 PM

I honestly don't know how I ever learned anything when I was younger, what with there not being any internet around

10/8/2009 2:58:31 PM

i simply don't know how i learned anything when i grew up with no electricity. . . guess we shouldn't bother with that in the schools either.

10/8/2009 3:03:36 PM

You can do alot without the internet, but for small communities where access to advanced classes probably isn't available, its a pretty big help.

10/8/2009 3:07:17 PM

Not to mention it is near impossible to attract 21st century jobs without broadband infrastructure.

10/8/2009 3:17:35 PM

Intelligent, skilled workers are not going to want to live in rural areas.

10/8/2009 3:22:37 PM

that book is kind of a piece of garbage. but your point still stands.

10/8/2009 3:25:22 PM

There are plenty of intellegent skilled workers who like rural areas because they dont have to deal with the bullshit that comes with high population centers. Or you know, people who like to be able to breathe the air or own land or do outdoor activities. Urban centers are created around skilled, intellegent workers, not the other way around.

10/8/2009 3:26:31 PM

Quote :

"Intelligent, skilled workers are not going to want to live in rural areas."

is you is or is you ain't retarded?

10/8/2009 3:53:55 PM

my company is based out of maine of all places and we hire nurses from all of the country to work remotely. We send them a computer and pay for their broadband connection, and they VPN in and work.

Many of the nurses we go after are those who live in suburban/rural areas who are either retired or want to work from home because they have kids or whatever.

10/8/2009 4:03:54 PM

Quote :

"I think it works out to be between $10-20,000 per mile and is dependent on who owns the poles. "

it costs about $25,000 a mile to put in middle mile fiber optic backbones. The cost to stub out last mile services from there is going to be dependent on the technology. Maintenance costs is going to depend on who you're attaching with and how your joint-use agreement is worded, but it could easily be 5% or more of installation costs when you consider the condition of existing elecric infrastructure of rural america.

[Edited on October 8, 2009 at 5:51 PM. Reason : rural America got electricity under similar circumstances, but they just started building]

10/8/2009 5:50:32 PM

Quote :

"Also, Wireless isn't the end all of getting broadband into rural America. "

Why not? It makes it profitable to provide internet to absurdly disperse communities without subsidies. You are right, it will never be profitable to provide internet to everyone, that is why God made satellite internet.

Quote :

"There are plenty of intellegent skilled workers who like rural areas because they dont have to deal with the bullshit that comes with high population centers"

Depends what you mean by rural. If you mean the Nevada desert then no, there is nothing that can be done for those intelligent skilled workers beyond what already has been done. Raleigh is a pretty urban place, yet we are able to "breathe the air or own land or do outdoor activities".

Quote :

"Many of the nurses we go after are those who live in suburban/rural areas who are either retired or want to work from home because they have kids or whatever."

And two points. First, by the government getting involved it might actually hurt their chances of getting good internet in the boondocks. But even if it helps, why should all of us be taxed just so some of us can enjoy the pleasures of suburban living a hundred miles from the nearest paved road? You can live a rural existence without the need for such extremes.

10/8/2009 10:53:51 PM

wireless technology is worthless without the middle mile infrastructure to make it all work, and that pipeline isn't going to be wireless.

10/8/2009 11:05:28 PM

Quote :

" Why not? It makes it profitable to provide internet to absurdly disperse communities without subsidies. You are right, it will never be profitable to provide internet to everyone, that is why God made satellite internet."

The same reason why there are areas, even within urban centers, that cannot get reliable cellphone coverage.

Quote :

"And two points. First, by the government getting involved it might actually hurt their chances of getting good internet in the boondocks. But even if it helps, why should all of us be taxed just so some of us can enjoy the pleasures of suburban living a hundred miles from the nearest paved road? You can live a rural existence without the need for such extremes."

Not everyone can live in suburban and urban areas and we cannot survive as a civilization without people living in rural areas. Plus, you have a completely misguided concept of what constitutes rural America.

10/8/2009 11:12:15 PM

Quote :

"The same reason why there are areas, even within urban centers, that cannot get reliable cellphone coverage. "

I suspect zoning restrictions are more to blame for that.

People choose their line of work and are compensated as necessary. If it turns out that a portion of our citizens cannot have internet access where they have chosen to live without massive government subsidies, then I would not give it to them. Afterall, they have already come to terms living without over-the-air TV because the towers are too far away (they got satellite). I suspect the internet is like TV or book reading, some of us just are not into it. As such, the labor market will allocate people accordingly: people that like the cost/benefit of living where only satellite internet exists will take those jobs, everyone else that just cannot live without twitter will move to the exurbs. You may wind up paying hundreds of dollars month for a slow satellite connection, but you would be paying your way in life.

Quote :

"wireless technology is worthless without the middle mile infrastructure to make it all work, and that pipeline isn't going to be wireless."

I don't see why not. Before fiber came along all data communication came across wireless microwave links. Now that we have long-range last mile in the 700Mhz band, this can be combined with microwave relay technology to blanked the country with middle-speed wireless internet service. Again, even this will not help people that insist (for whatever reason) on living where they must use a generator for their electricity, but I would call it good enough from a societal standpoint to rule out government subsidization.

You don't have an innate human right to high speed internet, phone service, or even electricity.

10/9/2009 11:18:20 AM

Quote :

"I suspect zoning restrictions are more to blame for that"

It's called topography

10/9/2009 11:33:26 AM