Comments on: Gates Foundation Proposal: Linchpin to National Broadband Strategy?

By: Anchors tenants key in a National broadband strategy « Blandin on Broadband

Anchors tenants key in a National broadband strategy « Blandin on Broadband — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:32:36 +0000

[...] Craig Settles wrote a piece on the Gates Foundation assumption that installing fiber networks in 80 percent of the anchor institutions (hospitals, medical facilities, schools) in the US would cost $5 billion-$10 billion. Craig’s astute question was – would it help to connect the anchor institutions and his assertion is that it would. He says, “In fact, the premise of the foundation’s report — wire these institutions and great things will happen — is in my view a great strategic approach to reaping broadband’s promised benefits. It should be the core for our national strategy, as well as a central strategic objective for those applying for stimulus grants. In one fell swoop you resolve three critical issues: financially sustaining the network, fostering economic development and generating widespread broadband adoption.” [...]

By: SMARTNET.NYC

SMARTNET.NYC — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:51:44 +0000

GREAT STORY ACTUALLY IF CITY/STATE/FED GOVERNMENTS REDIRECTED A SMALL PORTION OF THEIR TELECOM BUDGET “SPEND”…..SOMETHING LIKE WHAT IS BEING TALKED ABOUT

(WHICH ALREADY EXIST IN VARIOUS STAGES (WE SUSPECT)… SAVE FOR THE WAY “WE” THE

PEOPLES “MONEY” IS BEING SPENT ON “OUR” BEHALF BY OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

OFFICIALS..MIGHT THIS HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE WAY “TELCOMS REACT TO THINGS THAT MAY HELP THE “PEOPLE”…AND MAYBE NOT INCLUDE THEM IF IT MEANS THEM WITH THEIR SEEMINGLY SELF PROCLAIM ALL KNOWING RIGHT OF ECONOMIC ENTITLEMENT

…MAKES IT LOOKS LIKE A SORT OF “INFORMATION TECHNOLOGICAL PLANTATION” HAS ARISEN WHERE SEVERAL COMPANIES CONTROLLED BY A SMALL FEW DICTATE POLICY ..PRICE ..CONTENT EDITORIAL AND OTHERWISE …ACCESS AND YES ACCESS

THERE WOULD BE THOSE FEW OF THE CHOSEN KNOW IT ALL SCHOOL OF UNFAIR ADVANTAGE WHO WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING BUT THEIR UNFAIR ADVANTAGE IS IN FACT AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE (I,LL WAIT)

THEY WILL ARGUE THAT THEY PAY FEES TO USE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS ..PUBLIC AIRWAVES

AND HAVE A RIGHT TO ACT LIKE THEY DO AND THEY ARE RIGHT …HOWEVER THEY ARE NOT

“GUARANTEED” A RIGHT TO WE THE PEOPLES MONEY EXCLUSIVELY…NOR SHOULD THEY

HAVE THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC RIGHT TO DECIDE ON HOW TECHNOLOGY IS USED WHO HAS

ACCESS TO IT (WHICH IS DANGEROUS IT SAYS HERE)

INNOVATION WILL NOT COME FROM THE FEW ..THEY WILL BUY IT IF THEY CAN HAVE AN “UNFAIR ADVANATGE OVER OTHERS FOR A PROFIT

INNOVATION MUST COME FROM “WE THE PEOPLE” FOR THAT IS OUR “UNFAIR ADVANTAGE”
(SEE ABOVE)

ONE THING IS CLEAR YOU CAN EXPLAIN ALL YOU WANT BUT YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN AWAY THE TRUTH

By: Jerry Fleckhiemer

Jerry Fleckhiemer — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:01:38 +0000

I agree Ric… Back to basic, use what “you” have to get what you want. Forget about paying for floorspace in AT&T and cut out the middle man. We as consumers have to go thru someone to get to our consumables, why? Lets keep the internet free and the idea of net neutrality would be a moot point if the telcos are not involved. BUT, wait for a committed drive for this concept, the telcos will want to be involved accusing the gov’t of taking over the internet. Is “We the people” equivalent to the “government”, then why when we the people try and do something for ourselves outside influences convince us that “We” are doing something wrong?

By: Ric

Ric — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:08:55 +0000

Amen to this Anchor Institution premise. Hell, the Internet was started by anchor educational institutions! Makes perfect sense to go back to them for infrastructure. Few are more consistent once a build out is in place. Besides, who better to roll out a national wireless network that ISNT hobbled by corrupt telecos greed!!! There is no downside to this!