Just got this in an e-mail blast.

Quote :

"$255 Million to Expand Broadband Access Gov. Bev Perdue on Wednesday announced that North Carolina has received $115 million in five federal recovery grants to extend broadband connectivity in North Carolina. Combined with previous grants, North Carolina has received over $255 million for broadband this year. Gov. Perdue has joined North Carolina’s congressional delegation in personally advocating for North Carolina’s grant applications in Washington, D.C., during the past year. These funds will create jobs and help spur economic development through expanded access to high-speed Internet in underserved areas. This week's grants are part of the second round of Recovery Act funding for broadband projects from the U.S. Departments of Commerce and Agriculture. North Carolina has already received over $140 million in recovery broadband grants. “Increasing broadband access will create new jobs up front and provide a boost for local economies to create even more jobs and a better quality of life in the near future,” said Gov. Perdue. “These improvements are especially important in rural and underserved areas of North Carolina.”"

Expanding internet access technology could maybe be thought of as sort of infrastructure related which even the most anti-government people usually tolerate to some degree. But what do you think?

Poll:

Do you consider internet access technology expansion as infrastructure related?

Do you consider it a legitimate role of the government to promote it?

Do you consider this a good thing or bad thing?

8/19/2010 11:42:31 PM

As long as they don't give the money to Time Warner, this is a great idea all around.

I would support state funds for more towns to do like Wilson does with their Green Light.

[Edited on August 20, 2010 at 12:25 AM. Reason : ]

8/20/2010 12:24:33 AM

This is a good question. Should broadband access be a free utility? It doesn't fit the economic definition of a free utility. Unlike roads, broadband access is easily excludable. As such, theory would direct we not create a free utility, as billing for use is easy, merely a natural monopoly akin to electricity. In effect, subsidization through taxes is unnecessary, all economics dictates is that we declare TWC a regulated monopoly. Public subsidization is a rare feature of regulated monopolies in the industrialized world, usually they just jack up the regulated rates (think power, natural gas, water, etc), which leads us back to a free utility.

But that is not what we are talking about, is it? As this is probably $255 million over ten years, that is a measly $25 million a year. As such, what we are talking about is not broadband for all paid for through tax dollars, but market internet for 90% of us which must pay the full cost of both our internet and then through taxes subsidize internet for the 10% of customers sufficiently politically connected to obtain the state's reduced-rate service. As such, unless tax payers are willing to spend a hundred times that, we should spend zero on broadband investments. Let the rate payers pay like they do for all other natural monopolies. Public money should only ever be in the form of vouchers for the poor.

8/20/2010 12:58:23 AM

I don't think anyone is talking about free broadband in this thread...

8/20/2010 1:01:12 AM

Reading comprehension? Hence the "But that is not what we are talking about" and the "state's reduced-rate service" But, fine, read whatever you want to read, moron.

To your post: as they are not spending nearly enough for the state to start their own internet service, all they can do is just give the money to TWC, which will take home every dollar as quarterly profits.

[Edited on August 20, 2010 at 1:08 AM. Reason : .,.]

8/20/2010 1:05:44 AM

Although my questions were more principle-based, and thus hopefully addressable as is, I did find some more details from the website to share which I thought could help inform the discussion.
http://www.governor.state.nc.us/NewsItems/PressReleaseDetail.aspx?newsItemid=1303

Quote :

"MCNC – $75,757,289 This approximately $75.8 million award will allow MCNC to offer affordable middle-mile broadband service in 69 of the most economically disadvantaged rural counties along the northern and southern borders of North Carolina. The project plans to directly connect 170 community institutions to broadband. As many as 5.1 million stand to benefit as do 160,000 businesses. With the strong support of Gov. Perdue and other state and local leaders, the Golden LEAF Foundation provided a $24 million grant in April to provide the necessary match for this federal award. Yadkin Valley Telephone Membership Corporation – $21,668,232 This approximately $21 million award, will allow Yadkin Valley Telephone Membership Corporation to offer a diverse Fiber-To-The-Home (FTTH) network to areas of six counties in the Piedmont area of western North Carolina. Approximately 12,803 people stand to benefit, as do roughly 606 businesses and 56 community institutions. City of Charlotte – $16,702,490 This approximately $16.7 million award will allow public safety entities in the city to deploy an interoperable wireless public safety broadband network in the Charlotte/Mecklenburg County area. The project plans to construct 24 new wireless towers to complement six existing towers on the network, and bring over 11,000 public safety end users onto the system. As many as 890,000 people stand to benefit from this project. Olive Hill Community Economic Development – $448,742 This nearly $450,000 award will allow the Olive Hill Community Economic Development Corporation to expand access to broadband in the greater western region of North Carolina by establishing a public computer center and providing community training and support, with a focus on helping disadvantaged local businesses, the unemployed, and individuals seeking higher education opportunities. WinstonNet Inc. – $926,537 This approximately $926,000 award, with $696,000 in matching contributions, will allow WinstonNet to improve broadband access for communities with the greatest need in Forsyth County, North Carolina. The project plans to upgrade public computers workstations and provide new equipment for 38 public computer centers."

I am seeing the terms rural areas and need-based access a lot.

8/20/2010 1:15:22 AM

Nope, don't like it.

8/20/2010 8:49:33 AM

I heard on NPR that our proposal came in 9th out of 10, but while we barely made the cut, it is still enough for us to get about $400 million to be used for education in NC.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/school-funding-competition-education-department-secretary-arne-duncan/story?id=11472062

Quote :

"Education Department Announces 10 'Race to the Top' Winners in Round Two By MARY BRUCE WASHINGTON, Aug. 24, 2010 The Obama administration announced 10 winners today in the second round of the "Race To The Top" stimulus grant competition for education reform: the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island."

Quote :

"The 10 winners were decided based on the scores they received from peer-review panels. All the winners received a score of more than 440 out of a possible 500."

Quote :

"The education secretary also made clear that the department will withhold funding from any winners who do not follow through with their proposed reforms. "These are your dollars and my dollar. These are taxpayer dollars, and every single dollar we want spent extraordinarily wisely. ... If at the end of the day we have a feeling that a state is not acting in good faith or simply doesn't have the capacity or the will or the courage to implement their plans, we're absolutely prepared to stop funding a state where we don't think that's a good investment of scarce taxpayer dollars," Duncan explained."

8/24/2010 11:37:34 PM

Quote :

"To your post: as they are not spending nearly enough for the state to start their own internet service, all they can do is just give the money to TWC, which will take home every dollar as quarterly profits. "

Screw that. Give it to AT&T, or better yet a Fiber ISP like Verizon and get some FiOS.. sick of having RoadRunner as my only viable option for internet when I'm living right up again Research Triangle Park. Even if I ended up having to go with a DSL provider for a while, I'd still sit back and eat popcorn while Time Warner burned to the ground.

8/24/2010 11:45:36 PM

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/business/state-nets-2-million-extra-for-weatherization

Quote :

"State nets $2 million extra for weatherization North Carolina will be able to weatherize about 800 homes more than previously expected with a $2 million infusion from the federal stimulus fund. The $2 million announced today will add to the $132 million previously allotted for the state's weatherization program. The weatherization aspect of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, open to low-income households, is part of the Obama administration's strategy to improve the nation's energy efficiency. Weatherization typically involves free insulation, duct-sealing and other measures that cut energy waste and can slash utility bills for homeowners."

Quote :

"The weatherization program for the 800 extra homes will be developed by the UNC Charlotte, which is receiving the stimulus grant."

8/31/2010 1:46:53 AM

no. internet is not a public service, people don't deserve it for free, and our government shouldn't be wasting the money. let's spend this money on real infrastructure issues.

8/31/2010 4:44:42 AM

I do think broadband internet should be available in every municipality, without being owned by a private provider. It's becoming firmly incorporated with a modern lifestyle, replacing other city services and institutions - like libraries and post offices.

I do not think it should be free, but I'm not against it being a public service.

8/31/2010 9:06:37 AM

[Edited on August 31, 2010 at 9:55 AM. Reason : +]

8/31/2010 9:55:21 AM

Quote :

"The Obama administration announced 10 winners today .."

The federal gov't should not be picking any winners. Tax money should not be used as a reward for jumping through a politician's hoop.

8/31/2010 10:34:18 AM

Except that's what our entire system of federal funding is based off of: states bending to the will of the federal government. If you do what they tell you to do, you get a small fraction of the money you send to them back. If you don't, you lose.

8/31/2010 10:45:47 AM

Yeah as long as NONE of this Federal Grant money goes to Time Warner Cable, I am happy about it!

8/31/2010 11:17:19 AM

I don't see what the problem is. More people will be able to access more information easier and faster than they could before. I always thought it was a good thing. I don't think it should be a free service, but I see no problem with a state expanding the coverage of broadband. I just wonder who will provide the service. I do have a problem with TWC basically being allowed to have a monopoly in the state on cable services, when a few other states, like Florida, have proved that you can have a free cable market and that competition in the markets will allow for a reduction or prices and increase in quality.

But the concept of allowing more people more access to more information is a good thing. Obviously, a lot of people will just open Facebook accounts and just browse porn and youtube. But from the looks of it, the very same who bitch and complain about people making uneducated votes are bitching about an expansion of a service that can allow people to do their own research and make their own educated decisions in elections, rather than going through the horrible biased liberal media (or Fox News, depending on where you stand).

8/31/2010 11:50:17 AM

Quote :

"no. internet is not a public service, people don't deserve it for free, and our government shouldn't be wasting the money. let's spend this money on real infrastructure issues."

It's such an effective transmitter of knowledge that it'd be stupid not to provide it

8/31/2010 12:15:23 PM

hooray, fiber to nowhere that has to be installed on inflated Davis-Bacon wages.

8/31/2010 2:01:10 PM

Quote :

"Except that's what our entire system of federal funding is based off of: states bending to the will of the federal government. If you do what they tell you to do, you get a small fraction of the money you send to them back. If you don't, you lose."

Pretty much...except that I would argue that it's often more than a small fraction.

In any case, it's a stupid and fucked-up system.

8/31/2010 2:16:05 PM

I must have failed to read the section of the Constitution that says the federal government is to provide Internet access to the population.

8/31/2010 7:03:17 PM

Supplanter, what the fuck did those last two posts of yours have to do with this thread, lol?

8/31/2010 10:46:11 PM

Quote :

"I must have failed to read the section of the Constitution that says the federal government is to provide Internet access to the population."

General welfare mang

8/31/2010 10:57:04 PM

there are rumors that more rural broadband funding is going to be awarded in NC in addition to what's been listed so far in this thread. Hopefully someone will get busy improving WiMax technology so we can make use of all this middle mile fiber they plan on putting in.

8/31/2010 11:33:10 PM

Quote :

"General welfare mang"

The General Welfare clause is not a grant of power, but an introduction to the later stated enumerated powers.

Governing with merely a General Welfare approach will lead to a bankrupt country...as more money is spent on every little political whim that will buy a vote.

9/1/2010 12:23:34 AM

aaronburro:

Quote :

"Supplanter, what the fuck did those last two posts of yours have to do with this thread, lol?"

I thought after giving one example of federal funding in the news and asking "Do you consider it a legitimate role of the government to promote it?" and "Do you consider this a good thing or bad thing?" that I could post some other federal funding examples in the news with the same question being implied.

I didn't realize anyone need it more spelled out and explicit, sorry. Glad you got a laugh out of not understanding though.

[Edited on September 1, 2010 at 1:16 AM. Reason : .]

9/1/2010 1:16:10 AM

needed*

9/1/2010 3:20:48 AM

Electricity, water, gas, trash pickup.

Yeah, I could see internet added to that list. The only downside is when the state/federal government decides to start handing out local monopolies for internet service like they do with power.

Also note that none of those are free and technically speaking you don't need any of them to survive, but they benefit greatly from government investment and regulation and have been hugely important in creating our current civilization. I could see internet being added to that list very easily, but only with strict anti-censorship guidelines put in place to protect the rights of American citizens.

Although, to be fair I'm not sure if trash pickup or water belong on that list, since I don't know if you can actually opt out of paying the city for trash pickup if you don't use the service and I think water is considered a necessity by the government.

So Electricity, Gas, and Internet. Yeah, I could see them getting lumped into this sort of category. Private companies providing a federally mandated service.

9/1/2010 10:40:29 AM

I pay $50/month for 768k download, and I'll defend the free market and my right to do so until I can no longer stream animated gifs!

9/1/2010 11:01:12 AM

In less than 5 years the wireless networks will be able to handle broadband access suitable for home use for most users. (maybe not gamers, but gamers can move or pay more, I do not think tax dollars should subsidize gaming)

This is a complete waste of tax money. I liken it to spending a thousand dollars to put in Ethernet cables throughout your house in the late 1990s when reliable wi-fi routers were less than $100 a few years later.

9/1/2010 11:31:07 AM

there are huge portions of this country with no cell phone coverage, especially in the Appalachian mountain regions where the majority of this stimulus money was awarded. Besides, cellular networks still need more middle mile fiber in order to get from the towers to the major pipelines.

9/6/2010 11:07:43 PM

^ Well in that case I think voice cellular and 1x data should be more important that high speed internet to the mountains.

9/7/2010 12:00:29 AM

^^

straight up

i was in cullowhee this weekend and i was floored at how limited it was for me to communicate using cell/internet

it's been ages since i lived in the mountains, but i had forgotten how remote even "normal towns" can be

earlier in this thread, i posted that quote from "o brother," and it seems all the more relevant since i got back.... i know that if you go to centralized areas, there is better communication, but there are a lot of places that aren't far off the beaten path that can't even get cell phone service

no i don't think all of it should be solved by federal/state intervention, but good gravy, some of these places wouldn't have seen basic services/health/nutrition had the feds/state/ and nc state not seen fit to go out there and share education with our mountain neighbors

this post isn't a ratification of the original post, but living in raleigh, i've forgotten how easy it is for me to connect to the outside world

9/7/2010 12:14:58 AM

Quote :

"I pay $50/month for 768k download, and I'll defend the free market and my right to do so until I can no longer stream animated gifs!"

You're free to defend the free market, but in your case, it seems like the free market has been shitting on you. $50/month for 768k download is HORRIBLE! Not the speed, but the price for the speed.

9/7/2010 12:35:29 AM

It was a program similar to this (REA) that got power lines installed across most of the United States. Back then, people probably thought it was a waste of taxpayer money too. I think the programs were more efficiently run back then and money was more wisely spent, but that is a topic for another conversation.

9/7/2010 11:48:31 AM

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/09/23/698902/nc-state-gets-funds-to-host-climate.html

Quote :

"N.C. State gets funds to host climate research hub The federal government has picked N.C. State University to be the home of a new hub for climate change research in the Southeast. The regional Climate Science Center is only the second of eight that are planned across the nation by the Department of Interior. These will provide scientific research to help understand the effects of climate change and also help with planning for dealing with the impacts. The first one is in Alaska, which Interior Secretary Ken Salazar called the nation's "ground zero" for climate change. An initial grant of $1.5 million will cover its operating costs. Up to $7.5 million a year would be available though the center to fund research and resource-management projects."

Quote :

"“As the climate of the Southeastern United States changes, many challenges requiring a central network of researchers, data and communication will arise,” Shea said. “For example, under such conditions many species from tropical regions will be capable of living in the Southeast, including new diseases and their vectors.” “By the same token, many species currently in the region will be unable to persist without aid,” he said. “To deal with these challenges of managing wild species and their consequences, we need major collaborations from scientists across many fields.” Once the research begins, the center will generate even more jobs and help train the next generation of climate scientists, he said."

9/23/2010 5:41:45 PM