Daylife/AP Photo by Paul Sakuma
|
Now that President Obama has signed the $787 billion economic stimulus package into law, the real hard work begins: using that money to create jobs. If spent wisely, this package has a chance at fundamentally reforming the U.S. health-care system, making our economy energy efficient and providing Americans with the training and skills required to succeed in a 21st century global marketplace.
But the country can’t accomplish these goals unless it has the infrastructure to support them. That’s why the funding for broadband was so vital. Broadband is the ticket for entry to participate in the world economy. It is a fundamental technology upon which other things are built. It enables collaboration, innovation and operational excellence, and positions the U.S. to compete on a global basis.
The impact of broadband has been similar to that of the national highway system in the 1950s. Until then, our nation’s roads were slow and the quality was unpredictable, which hindered commerce and travel. The modern highway system made our country accessible and in the process, created new industries — transforming our economy and by extension, our society…
Increasing our broadband speeds to 100 Mbps from the current U.S. median of 2.3 Mbps will have a transformative effect on our economy and our society. High-speed networking enables new human collaboration at a profound level, and such collaboration will radically change the way we think.
The inevitable comparison with South Korea is made.
The chuckle for me is that Korea’s broadband development was kicked off by an American consultant hired by their government almost a decade ago. Alvin Toffler [.pdf].
A fiber optic line to every home.
Eideard said, “The chuckle for me is that Korea’s broadband development was kicked off by an American consultant hired by their government almost a decade ago.”
The chuckle for me is that the capital gains tax rate in S.K. is 11%…
Wow, the head of Cisco wants the government to expand broadband? Amazing how people say the economy is driven by whatever field they are in.
The big surprise was when Bill Gates admitted that technology would do nothing to alleviate poverty.
How exactly is broadband supposed to boost the economy? I thought you made fun of Ted Stevens when he compared the internet to a set of tubes, or trucks carrying them? Now this guy compares it the the highway system, and you’re all cheering?
Are there any republikans left who can stay on topic?
#4 Looks like everyone, except you, has commented directly on the post.
It seems pretty stupid to me to run miles and miles of fiber just to have some dirt farmer in the middle of east bumfuck Nebraska so he can have high-speed Internet connectivity.
No, I do not have anything against Nebraska or dirt farmers but even I think the money would be better spent on refunding my taxes because of all the other stupid pork spending going on.
Where’s our dividend JOHN?
Chambers is exactly right. The new world economy is built largely on information technology.
The build out of broadband is analogous to the build out of the highway system.
The Republicans don;t quite understand that but it doesn’t matter. They lost and are irrelevant.
McCain/Palin wanted a Western Union in every corner but that just plain is a non-starter.
# 8 Dallas said, “Chambers is exactly right. The new world economy is built largely on information technology.”
Awesome! We don’t need to manufacture anything in the US. That will help our trade deficit…
#8 Paddy. I give you more credit than that. You can’t possibly be that simple minded.
Since you represent 30% or so of the Republican thinking in America, I now am fearful this large number of Americans are truly more ignorant than I had imagined. Please no.
#11 Pedro. Shouldn’t you be cleaning someones house or something? Go about your business and get out of that office area you’re not suppose to be in.
Mr Diesel said:”It seems pretty stupid to me to run miles and miles of fiber just to have some dirt farmer in the middle of east bumfuck Nebraska so he can have high-speed Internet connectivity.”
But if he doesn’t have high speed internet, he will be outbid by the South Koreans who have faster internet for the prices when doing their monthly pricing sale or bids…
Plus, he won’t be able to sell online that weed you desperately need…
Bottomline, communication is a right for each person. Providing on-time communication via broadband is one way of making American products accessible to the world…
#13
IF status = owned THEN ad hominem ELSE commit suicide
# 14 roland said, “Bottomline, communication is a right for each person.”
Really? Where did you read that?
Our communications infrastructure is out of date, burdened by a myriad of legacy systems that business successfully fought to preserve for short-term profit’s sake. Modern comms are key to the future and competitiveness in the marketplace. If you don’t want fiber, use high-speed wireless in rural areas. But the bottom line is that we ignore our infrastructure at our peril.
Isn’t broadband what made outsourcing so easy? Those call centers in India wouldn’t be doing to well without the transatlantic cables.
12% of the residents in my county are currently behind on their mortgage payments or in foreclosure.
And broadband to a bunch on un-occupied homes and offices is going to stimulate this economy?
#19, just think of all the money saved on not having to pay for broadband, or getting faster broadband for the same price!
Wasn’t Chambers the guy who saved Wang from BK?
NOT!
Any one thing can’t define a healthy commerce. Broadband won’t help get in any way to get fresh broccoli from texas to Alaska or rice from India to Saskatchewan.
Accessible and timely information might speed up some areas of the economy but it hardly defines it or even controls it. Broadband… the accelerated evolution of ideas shared on a huge scale in a short time… the fruition of which is mainly the development of products for consumption… is the reason we are in this mess. Show me a model where broadband will save us from our greedy, self important selves, and then I’ll believe 100 Mbps will do little more than provide better movie viewing to the “give a damn” impaired.
If the Obama administration really wanted to do something that would make a big difference, they’d eliminate software patents.
As it stands, that USA-specific cancer hurts our IT competitiveness and encourages outsourcing.
Why do you republicans continue to pretend to know the significance that information technology has on the economy?
This is is way over your head guys. Please leave this to professionals. We are not in the agriculture business anymore and hardly in the industrial revolution.
Really, just think about what to worship or the infinite ways not to have sex.
There are no businesses that can’t get broadband.
So this has to be about consumers or employees getting broadband.
Consumers use broadband to watch movies and play games; they already watch movies and play games.
Employees that telecommute or work remotely don’t live in distant rural areas, they live in suburbs.
And people who live in distant rural areas can afford the $100/mo for satellite broadband.
Where is this problem?
So why is the left always pushing for tariffs and railing against free trade?
# 25 Hmeyers said, “Where is this problem?”
Omama has implemented a new legislative policy. Don’t ask, don’t tell.
So, don’t ask.
I remember reading a study recently that showed that of the people who don’t have broadband, a majority have access to it but simply don’t want it. So, confiscating money from one segment of the population to give it to another segment of the population seems not only wrong on its face, but also ineffective. Give people broadband who don’t want it, and what are they likely to do with it? I’ll let you answer that for itself.
Nevertheless, I’m sure that this confiscation of wealth would be “good for the economy.” Just like ensuring that everyone has a 4-year college education regardless of cost or willingness to pay would be a “good thing for the economy.” As would ensuring that everyone has “affordable” transportation would be “a good thing for the economy.” And “affordable, accessible” healthcare. Oh, and let’s not forget entertainment–if people don’t get good leisure time, they’re not as product at work, so let’s have government take some _more_ money from some folks who have it, and give it to folks who don’t.
Come to mention it, a good breakfast, lunch, and dinner is also vital to a productive workforce, and so parents, here’s your new government-mandated weekly menu. If you can’t afford the ingredients, no matter–government will… yep, you guessed it. And if the government runs out of people to take money from, why, it’ll just borrow or print some more. It can do that forever, right? I mean, it’s been doing it for years already.
Now that I think about it, really, government would be better at making all of these decisions for us. So, let’s just skip the middleman and let government take right over. Because, you know, “High-speed networking enables new human collaboration at a profound level, and such collaboration will radically change the way we think.” And only government can make that happen for us.
# 16 Paddy-O said, on March 5th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
# 14 roland said, “Bottomline, communication is a right for each person.”
Really? Where did you read that?
Actually it is in the US Constitution. All rights not specifically granted TO the Federal Government are maintained by the states or the people.
So in reality the dirt farmer in the middle of nowhere does have a right to have high-speed Internet. But, they also have a right to pay for it and suck my money out of my wallet.
So let the libtards buy their own damn Internet connection.
Oh yeah, if it is in the libtard way of thinking that we have to have high-speed Internet to get American goods offered around the world if on the other side of your mouth you are saying all our product manufacturing has gone overseas.
Make up your little minds.
I don’t see how people are objecting to this effort. There are tons of things that would be possible with more widespread broadband.
Just for example, I am into online gaming, both development and playing, and we are hitting a wall with whats possible with current broadband limits. Going from 1.5mb to 100mb opens up a ton of possibilities in gaming alone.
I can only agree that much money, if used reasonably and prudently, could change the world in a positive way.
You think the people running things are reasonable and prudent?8^)
Yeah, right, and if frogs had wings they wouldn’t bump their butts so much either.
In all of this discussion, I still haven’t heard just how broadband is supposed to stimulate the economy.
The article says “High-speed networking enables new human collaboration at a profound level, and such collaboration will radically change the way we think.”
The only collaboration I can think of is gaming and maybe porn…
Notice every article about Korea’s broadband included on-line gaming? I guess that’s collaboration. Korea’s economy is still struggling, though.