Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

FCC Wants More Time To Craft Broadband Plan 140

adeelarshad82 writes "Julius Genachowski, Federal Communications Commission Chairman, has sent out a letter to Congress requesting more time for the commission to deliver its national broadband plan. According to the stimulus bill passed in early 2009, the FCC was to come up with a plan to provide all citizens with access to broadband services and deliver it to the committee by February 17, 2010. Even though an outline of the plan was released last month, FCC is requesting till March 17, 2010 to finalize the plan."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Wants More Time To Craft Broadband Plan

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 07, 2010 @10:41PM (#30690356)

    because paying people to occupied remote territory is cheaper than setting up a military patrol

  • by neokushan ( 932374 ) on Thursday January 07, 2010 @11:00PM (#30690472)

    Maybe I'm living in the clouds, but if I was the FCC, I'd build a massive fibre network then lease some of the connections wholesale to ISPs. Anyone with enough money can lease some connections/bandwidth and sell it on at whatever cost they want. The FCC would run the network, the ISPs would just fight tooth and nail for customers, forcing them to focus on things like customer service and price.

  • by rastilin ( 752802 ) on Thursday January 07, 2010 @11:07PM (#30690488)

    No one likes subsidizing "Zombie Strippers". But people don't like using library computers either, it's unpleasant and a hassle; which is the opposite of letting people have easy access to information. Also, there are things you can't look up while other people are around, politics, sex-ed, Iranian marches, etc... You can't do your banking, and it's embarrasing to talk to family and close acquaintances while on a big screen that everyone can see. Also, you can't run your own software like Linux updates, Freenet or yes, Gaming. I don't mind subsidizing people's online gaming either, it's not that expensive and people enjoy it a lot.

    Having to share an internet kiosk an hour from your house isn't the same thing as having internet access when you want it. It's a pale imitation.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday January 08, 2010 @02:23AM (#30691324)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by aztracker1 ( 702135 ) on Friday January 08, 2010 @04:21AM (#30691894) Homepage
    I think they should just create a policy that says you can only refer to internet connections slower than 10Mbps as "dial up" or "Low-Speed Broadband" with those words no less prominently displayed than any other text in any advertising. Then regularly, every 5 years, re-evaluate the "minimum" level for this distinction.
  • ha! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zogger ( 617870 ) on Friday January 08, 2010 @12:23PM (#30695848) Homepage Journal

    You just don't like it when your little insular urban centric "oh so superior" bubble gets burst. You exist at cheap affordable rates for basic life necessities in the larger cities from the government using a LOT of eminent domain seizures and mandated "right of ways" and massive centralized infrastructure building using tax payer dollars over the generations and regulations to keep your costs down. And the government seems to not pay much to the actual rural owners for this transit action, as in zero. Pure taking.

        I bet you've never even thought before about how much your life is economically stealth subsidized because of that. Just imagine if all that "commons" action was gone and it was all private, your big city "wall street rules". All private roads, people charging whatever the market would bear, to get food to you..heh. Electric delivery companies having to negotiate transit fees. heh. Municipal water service and pipelines just taking water from the rural areas when this would be private water, where they could charge a sales fee per gallon before it even entered the pipeline, and then have to keep adding to the fees as the pipeline crossed a lot of private land and boundaries, heh. Tons of examples there.

    You have no idea *at all* how cheap you have it from that "commons" and subsidized access. Just go back in US history and look what urban costs were before commons access. Every step of the way as the commons developed, starting with such things as the "post roads", your costs for food water and energy have dropped radically as a percentage of your income, and your comfort quality of life has gone up. But now that we would like a little more modern commons access to better communications, wow, what a reaction! See it all the time here. "Oh noes, string some better copper on already existing poles, OMGWTFBBQ, break the bank, we can't afford it, wah, no subsidies, how dare those people want modern communications, as if their chintzy water and food and power is so valuable!!"

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Working...