Comments on: Senators back new broadband taxes

Politicians from rural states want to extend controversial tax to subsidize broadband access in far-flung areas.

[chassoto--2008]

Alaska is such a welfare queen

It gets the most federal assistance of any state, per capita.
Alaskans are welfare queens. Maybe we should sell it back to Russia.

[bobby_brady]

One way or another the politicians will get your money

They'll use whatever excuse they can think of.

[206538395198018178908092208948]

He's the "bridge to nowhere" guy...

See this editorial for a nice summary of what our dear Senator Ted Stevens is all about.

[206538395198018178908092208948]

Here's the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/22/AR2005102201040.html

[Wyndle]

They need to be careful with definitions.

"Stevens, for one, said he thinks all "communications" services, which he defined for reporters after the hearing as "transmitting knowledge from one person to another," should be forced to pay into the USF. "I believe fax is a communication, I think e-mail is a communication, and I do believe they all should contribute," he said."

With a definition that broad you could, in theory, include television, radio, CB radio, two cans and a string, etc. I think Stevens needs to have his head checked to make sure his last marble hasn't fallen out.

[tapaskm]

subsidies dont work

USF - to provide services which are more expensive in rural areas? Maybe the rural guys should pay one URF for maintaining roads in the cities and pay another UHF for maintaining health for city dwellers because it is more expensive to do so in the cities.
I am pretty sure the senators propose such bills due to lobbying by the telecom companies.

[Soldado_de_Amor]

Here we Go AGAIN!!!!!

Unbelievable.. once again politicians want to TAX .... and TAX and TAX the Internet... ENOUGH is ENOUGH!!!!

[Dead Soulman]

Here they come

Politicians are finally getting their way
TAXING THE INTERNET.
Come on people. Don't buy it for a second that it's intended to finance access in rural areas or whatever. This is the ticket in they want to start taxing the internet in the same manner everything else gets taxed in the real world. Think about it. We're taxed on every little thing we do, buy, and eat. The internet has been the untouched child. Not anymore.

Shameless.

[TelecomLady]

BINGO - On the money

Just my opinion but you got it all the way. The internet is just another source of income for them. They are trying to reign in something they view as having no control over (so that makes it SCAREY), eh?

[suziequeue666]

your house, your choice, your bill

You move to the middle of nowhere, and we're supposed to contribute to your internet bill? And broadband at that? How about you get dial-up and use it on top of those phone lines we bought you.

[gfsdfge]

45 min from the capital on NY State, NO BB

of any sort available. Obviously you people are a bunch of snobs. Subsidies do work. Albeit not efficiently. But then again it?s you snobs that have broad band living in major rural and urban areas like Albany NY that administers these programs isn?t it.

Time Warner will not bring road runner through my street unless it has a density of 25 houses per mile. That?s what they tell me. But my street does not have million dollar houses on it. Not two miles from me there is a street with half million and up houses and there are only 8 in a mile yet they have broadband. Hmmmm.

It took two minutes for the CNet page to load. It took me fifteen minutes to read your arrogant replies.

[kamwmail-cnet1]

Oh, and obviously paying for cellular wi-fi is not ok.

You don't have cable modem. So you won't pay for cellular wi-fi. Why? Cause it cause YOU money. You'd rather everyone ELSE pays for YOU.

Parasite.

[TelecomLady]

Just a thought for you

I don't believe any one is trying to be 'snobbish' and some of them do have a point. It is something to consider before purchasing or renting a home. One cannot assume that services other than a telephone will be available in all areas.

You say that 2 miles away from you is a street that has broadband, yet they do not have the appropriate number of houses on the street. Well, cabling has signal limitations (in feet) and repeaters cost money too. Could be they are at the end of the line and the company figured they might as well run the cable.

I feel your pain as I live in an area that does not offer broadband, but I knowingly made this choice. I would suggest that you invest in satellite broadband. It is pricey at $600 just for equipment and install, but if you have your heart set on faster net speeds, it may be worth it to you.

Good luck.

1.5 hours from San Francisco, DIY Broadband

I hear you. We had to put in our own system
using wireless and directional antennas in order
to get broadband. The alternative was to wait
a _very_ long time for the monopolies to come out.

Much of the original equipment was recycled from
a dead dot-com, so I can't actually suggest that
this is practical for everyone. . .
The fact is that current technology is pretty good
for suburbs and high-density areas, but falls down
badly in semi-rural areas. (We're right around
25 houses per mile.)

I think that the real solution to low-density
broadband is a hybrid system of power-line trunks
and wireless last-mile.