It's Election Season: Time For Presidential Candidates To Announce That The Internet Is Good
from the but-what-are-you-going-to-do? dept
Remember back in 2004, when both presidential candidates spouted totally meaningless statements about how important universal broadband connections were? If you go to that link, you’ll see that President Bush stated that his plan (which didn’t include any details, of course) would be to get “universal, affordable access to broadband technology by the year 2007.” Ah, how did that work? Oh, right. This is politics, where you say a lot of stuff that people want to hear, but there’s no reason to back it up. So, don’t put too much stock as each of the new candidates for the job talk about the importance of investing in the internet either. First up, we’ve got Hillary Clinton, who is making some news by announcing her “Connect America” plan, which is designed to get broadband companies to offer broadband where it isn’t. What, like the Universal Service Fund, which was designed to get telecom access to underserved areas, and instead became a way for big telcos to pocket extra money from customers with bogus fees? So, yes, improving the broadband access in the country is a worthy goal, and I’m sure we’ll be hearing lots of presidential candidates on all sides of the political spectrum talk about it — but it will be quite amazing if any of them comes up with anything substantial or, for that matter, real enough that we’d ever see it in practice.
Filed Under: broadband, broadband policies, politics, presidential election
Comments on “It's Election Season: Time For Presidential Candidates To Announce That The Internet Is Good”
I’m sorry, but I will never vote for Hillary. Ever. I just don’t like her.
Thanks for sharing. You’ve totally changed my life.
So who you gonna vote for? Barack? a Republican?
Every election is the same choice, at douche and a turd sandwich. You pick which one you hate less
Re: Re: Hillary
Re: Re: Hillary
I’ll be voting for Mike Jingozian, you can see what he’s about at his official website: http://www.resetamerica.com/index.php
It would be nice if this time around a third party got the requisite 5% of the popular vote required to actually participate in the PBS Presidential Debates. On that note, if it’s PBS, how come the whole field of candidates isn’t invited automatically, by merit of being “the public”?
I do like Barack. I’m waiting for him to offer anything substantive on Broadband, though he discussed some ideas in The Audacity of Hope. I don’t really see him as the lesser of any evils… I don’t much like Hillary though, and find measures such as the ones mentioned in this post to be largely the tossing of a bone.
Sen. Obama, I realize, was pumped by the media, but I’ve taken the time to actually read his books, as well as research his past mistakes and successes. They tend to fall in line with a human being, and to break out of the Politician mold. Certainly he is a politician, but he seems to be a new type of politician who is attempting to capitalize on the very cynicism you express. His chance for success lays largely in his ability to convince people like Anonymous Coward that he’s a legitimate leader, and not merely another player of the game.
To comment on the actual artical. What ever happened to the plan to improve infrastucture with fiber optic? I know a few countries are way ahead of us in this regard and have a much higher connection speed in more places.
don’t forget its vote or die, AC. And yes, douche or turd sandwich. We need full reform of our entire political spectrum. About 1 in 50 politicians isn’t corrupt or has some religiously biased view
Don’t forget a religious bias formed this country… but as for the article why should government give people internet access or force companies too… if there is no money there people should move or make themselves more marketable. Government cant do everything for you.
Why does the gov’t need to be involved on this? Its a private sector issue. Hell how much money will they waste talking about it, let alone doing anything about it. I hate when everyone wants the gov’t to do everything for them. You want broadband in the middle of nowhere? Start a company, and do something about it yourself.
Glad to hear some sense being spoken.
Few and far between is the project any government agency complete on time and under budget and meeting the goals involved.
Err I see that the USF was created under her hubby. I would love to go through the books of the Gov’t and see how much we waste. That said, why is everyone against Line Item veto? Why not have a bill be for one thing, and Not a million other things thrown in?
No offense to anyone here who thinks broadband access is a big deal, but personally, I think this should be about #200 on a politician’s list of priorities.
Here are some items that should have WAY more importance that whether the people in the middle of Kansas should have access to broadband:
#1: End the war in Iraq.
#2: Decide how to spend the $100 billion we didn’t spend in Iraq.
#3: Good health care for everyone.
#4: Build up better relations with the rest of the countries in the world.
#5… #199: assorted crime prevention programs, assorted poverty-fighting programs, better sex education in schools (offering more than “abstinence only” programs), etc.
#200: Universal broadband Internet access.
Re: So what?
agreed, vote ron paul.
Broadband #200 and Ron Paul
For those of us in the tech sector, and who recognize the potential scientific applications of wide-spread high-capacity broadband, it’s actually an extremely important issue.
Especially went taking into account the importance in the Network in advancing America’s hegemony.
And sure, Ron Paul’s position on the war is great.
But he wants to destroy the department of education.. and labor..and, really, pretty much everything, except for some local militias.