[ NNSquad ] Re: Broadband "Bailout"?

["George Ou" <george_ou@lanarchitect.net>]

The proposals are tax incentives to accelerate the pace of investment of next-generation broadband by network operators beyond what the market would induce.  These proposals are not going to pay for the bulk of the investment (probably upwards of 90%) will still have to be absorbed by the network operators.  The idea is that while these incentives cost the government money, the additional economic output from the broadband investments and the additional tax revenues they bring will offset the initial government spending.

This isn't a "bailout" in the automaker sense where automakers need billions just to stay alive and keep the lights on, it's a stimulus plan designed to spur the economy through increased technology investments.  The network operators are being asked to invest hundreds of billions of dollars of their own money over the next few years.



George

-----Original Message-----
From: nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org [mailto:nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of Barry Gold
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 4:39 PM
To: Lauren Weinstein
Cc: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Broadband "Bailout"?



This is just plain stupid.

When we built the Interstate Highway System, we didn't give it to 
private companies to manage for their profit.  We made them open to 
everybody.  If the government is going to pay for building out broadband 
infrastructure, then the government should own it and set policy for it.

Note: I'm not necessarily advocating that it should be free like our 
"Freeways".  Many of those were wonderful when first opened, but 
inevitable traffic growth has filled them to and beyond capacity so that 
they turn into parking lots for several hours of every day.

So it probably makes sense to charge for using the Interstate Broadband 
System (or whatever we call it), and those charges should be enough to 
allow upgrading it periodically (like every 18 months...) to handle the 
traffic growth.  But allowing private companies to manage it for their 
own profit...

Just plain insane.  We have seen again and again.  If you let the likes 
of Time Warner and Comcast set policies for the network, they will set 
policies that favor their highest profit offerings (video on demand, 
etc.) rather than those that let people use the internet to its fullest.

Even if we let the private companies build the network (after all, they 
have the expertise and the US Government by and large doesn't), the 
policies should be set by the government.

Another reason to have the networks owned by (or at least controlled by) 
the government is that if the government decides that certain speech is 
objectionable and tries to ban it from "their" network, the courts will 
probably find it in violation of the First Amendment.  But if a private 
company decides that some speech is more equal than other speech, there 
is no appeal.  The first amendment doesn't apply to private action.


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [DDN] Free Press Proposes Broadband Infrastructure Bailout of  
> $44Billion --- More Taxes to Give Wealthy Companies that	Failedto Build Out 
> Their Networks
> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:51:28 -0800
> From: Bruce Kushnick <bruce@newnetworks.com>
> Reply-To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group 
> <digitaldivide@digitaldivide.net>
> To: 'The Digital Divide Network discussion group' 
> <digitaldivide@digitaldivide.net>
>
> Teletruth News Analysis, December 22, 2008
>
> Free Press Proposes Broadband Infrastructure Bailout of $44 Billion ---
> (More Taxes to Give Wealthy Companies that Failed to Build Out Their
> Networks.)
>
> To read the rest of this story
> http://www.newnetworks.com/Freepressbroadband.htm
>
> There has been a call for âstimulus packagesâ to help with our current
> economic crisis and new infrastructure initiatives, such as the upgrading 
> of
> roads and bridges, are on the top of the list.  There are also a number of
> groups who care about broadband infrastructure and want their billions as
> well. The arguments â more jobs, better productivity, etc, may be well
> intentioned, but the unasked question is:  Who should pay for it and who
> should built it?
> While we agree that America needs to have a national broadband
> infrastructure initiative, we are against the current plans by many,
> including Free Press, who wants to raise taxes and give a $44 billion  
> dollar
> bailout to the very companies who are responsible for Americaâs broadband
> infrastructure crisis. There are multiple reasons why weâre against this.
>