Telcos look to benefit from broadband funding

As Congress and the next administration consider potential investments in a national broadband infrastructure, cable companies and phone companies are at odds over what should be considered high-speed broadband and how the investment should be made, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.

Members of Congress are drawing up plans for broadband investment that may include corporate tax credits to build new wireless or landline infrastructure in regions with little or no service, the Journal reports. Cable companies would like to see the Federal Communications Commission define broadband download speed at 5 megabits per second, according to the newspaper, so that they would receive tax credits for increasing their infrastructure in regions of the country where that service of speed isn't yet available. The companies are also pushing for incentives to build out next-generation services, at 40 Mbps to 50 Mbps, in areas with only one broadband provider.

Meanwhile, the Journal reports, the Independent Telephone and Telecommunications Alliance, which represents midsize phone companies, is advocating for broadband download speed to be defined within a range of 1.5 Mbps to 3 Mbps. The slower standard would benefit phone companies with services slower than cable modems.

Certain wireless providers also stand to gain from a redefining of broadband. Clearwire in particular could benefit if wireless broadband download speed is designated as above 2 Mbps, since its WiMax network will qualify as broadband. Other wireless carriers have not planned major upgrades to their networks for before 2010, the Journal reports.

Along with tax credits, lawmakers are also considering government-backed grants for companies or local governments to build out broadband networks, according to the Journal.

The Telecommunications Industry Association, which represents equipment makers, is pushing for a $25 billion grant program for Internet service providers, the paper reports. Telecommunications companies would be unlikely to support proposals in which the money would instead go to state or local authorities, which would build broadband networks and open them up to competing service providers.

Some telecommunications firms earlier this month signaled their intent to be involved in shaping a national broadband strategy when they joined with public interest groups and other organizations to draw up goals for such a plan.

[nicmart]

Socialism is such a fixture of American life now that it hardly merits comment.

[eBob1]

I started to notice this during the Clinton years. Rather than calling it "taxation" (Democrats) or "inflation" (Republicans), they call in "investment". This isn't really socialism anymore. These companies want to socialize the risks and costs, but then take the profit for themselves.

[Layne Holt]

If what you saying "the Federal Communications Commission define broadband download speed at 5 megabits per second" then MOST of the current Internet connections in the U.S. would NOT qualify as Broadband!
The CNET Bandwidth Meter speed test will check the bandwidth and speed of your connection to DSL, cable modems, and more.
http://reviews.cnet.com/internet-speed-test/

[SeizeCTRL]

What the FCC needs to do is force providers like cable and phone companies to offer broadband to ALL of their customers. I know many people who live on the outskirts of broadband, yet have no problem getting cable or phone service... it's just the providers don't want to invest in the infrastructure to cover rural areas, making broadband available only to those who live in higher denser populated areas like cities and suburbs.

If you offer services to areas, you should offer exactly what others are getting.

[hawkeyeaz1]

The government really should own the backbone infrastructure for the internet (and water, gas, electric, cable..) and lease access to businesses (allowing businesses to lay their own lines if they want), but the problem is privacy...

[8301]

Regarding both privacy and the operation of basic utilities, I would rather trust the government than any entity whose objective is to make a profit from me.

[punterjoe]

If any of the major telcos or cable providers get a taste of this next infusion of taxpayer funding, it will simply reward their failure to provide adequate service up to now. What happened to the funds from that surcharge that was supposed to be used to get schools and libraries broadband access?
These greedy jackals have picked out pockets enough. I hope the incoming administration is smart enough to know throwing more money to the usual suspects is a move from their predecessors playbook. It's time to get some fresh faces and new players in the broadband provider market. Maybe our tax dollars can fund small, innovative startups instead of simply adding another layer of pork to the existing corporate corpulence.

[Wisp2002]

Well getting a way to funnel some of these dollars for some of the seven THOUSAND Wireless providers throughout the US so they can expand services or getting more wireless spectrum for them would get service to all the rural areas faster and cheaper than pouring money down the same rat hole. These WISPS are already providing service to most of the Rural areas but don't get a bit of credit. That's the American innovation spirit that needs to be encouraged!

[SteveW928]

We're already paid them once, and they didn't deliver.... $200 billion. We're supposed to have 45 Mbps bi-directional for around $40/mo.
http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm