Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Obama: "It is unacceptable that the United States ranks 15th in the world in broadband adoption"

By | December 6, 2008, 3:50pm PST

Summary: The 21st Century Tech President said Saturday morning that the U.S. will launch new investments in its infrastructure - including a boost of broadband accessibility - as part of a larger strategy to revitalize the economy and create jobs. (Techmeme) Specifically, President-elect Barack Obama said broadband connections need to be made widely available to school [...]

The 21st Century Tech President said Saturday morning that the U.S. will launch new investments in its infrastructure - including a boost of broadband accessibility - as part of a larger strategy to revitalize the economy and create jobs. (Techmeme) Obama YouTubeSpecifically, President-elect Barack Obama said broadband connections need to be made widely available to school children and hospitals. Hospitals should be able to connect to each other via the Internet. He said:

It is unacceptable that the United States ranks 15th in the world in broadband adoption. Here, in the country that invented the Internet, every child should have the chance to get online, and they’ll get that chance when I’m president - because that’s how we’ll strengthen America’s competitiveness in the world.

Bravo! It was just days ago that a coalition of technology and telecom companies, along with public interest and other groups, called on Washington to establish a National Broadband Strategy for 2009. It was also just days ago that the government declared that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007. According to a report by Agence France-Presse, 533,000 jobs in the U.S. were lost in November, sending the jobless rate to 6.7  percent, the highest since October 1993. The report notes that 2.7 million people have become jobless since the recession began.

“We will create millions of jobs by making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s,” Obama said in his weekly radio and YouTube address. He said the plan, which includes making public buildings more energy-efficient and building new roads and bridges, will “save or create” 2.5 million jobs.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Sam has been a technology and business blogger for more than 18 years.

Disclosure

Sam Diaz

Sam Diaz has nothing to disclose.

Biography

Sam Diaz

Sam has been a technology and business blogger, reporter and editor at ZDNet, the Washington Post, San Jose Mercury News and Fresno Bee for more than 18 years. He's a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and a graduate of California State University, Fresno.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
83
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Obama:
jackson1984-24316069205748857739440257893812 10th Oct
Awing short article. I've let on for myself exactly how flexile WP is, as remaining nfljerseys a internet hosting political system for kinds on-line website . you virtually have almost everything you entail to release a term large internet web page at your fingertips, by WordPress. lots of many thanks.
0 Votes
+ -
When you have profitable ISP's...
bjbrock 6th Dec 2008
like AT&T that are laying off people just because Wall Street is eat up with greed, there is no need to get excired about these investments. As long as these investments are going to publicly traded companies, the money will just get sucked up and redistibuted to the greedy investors and top management.

The broadband infrastructure will need to be nationalized if we are to see any real improvements. Just like the interstate system. If the interstate system was run by private enterprise, we would be low on the list in that respect as well.

There are some things that are too important to the well being of this nation to trust to Corporate America. Profit motive is one thing but it has been supplanted by pure greed. Corporations can no longer be trusted with the future of America's broadband.
0 Votes
+ -
Nationalized internet?
Prognosticator 7th Dec 2008
Your points are good until you mentioned 'nationalized broadband'. Are you crazy? Obama has no intention or even proposes to nationalize broadband.

The example of the highway system is merely to set an example where INVESTMENT to create a critical infrastructure like the highway system resulted in enablement of commerce, the transport/trucking and a multitude on industries.

Industry today has terrific broadband capabilities but limited to dense population areas and expensive. The key expense to industry is land access to bury fiber, spectrum, the digging itself and a host of things the Fed can help industry with - not own it. Stop spreading crap about what is a terrific Obama vision.
0 Votes
+ -
Why, given the boring and aged focus on private vs public, aren't we eagerly pursuing the best of private in a more public format? Why keep banging the boom and bust drum?

In Britain it appears that Gordon Brown may well do some sensible things with tech infrastructure. Let's hope so. He did drive the details of the bank bail-outs in a good direction.

Everybody should be able to communicate. Get computers to the less well off. Heck, why not make broadband free for those which sign on, and really cheap for those that are cash strapped?

Financially, there is no way on earth that having disadvantaged talent is tolerable. It's not a case of corporations helping people. It IS a case of let's not use our perfectly capable arms to operate a robotic arm which kinda does what it should, but almost as a side effect.
0 Votes
+ -
If the highway systrm was owned...
bjbrock 7th Dec 2008
by private enterprise, the investment would have been used to bolster the owners only. The trucking and other multitude you speak of would then have been controlled by the few owners of the infrastructure. And our highway system would not be as great is it is today. Our highway system is not a product or service but provides untold benefits to those providing goods and services. The Internet should be handled the same way. It is the only way to keep greed from making it less than it could be, Exactly what we are experiencing today. The Internet needs to be a conduit for commerce but not be commerce itself. This is exactly why it is limited to densely populated areas.

AT&T is laying off 10,000 people. This will defiitely impact the Internet in a negative. And if they are giben money for infrastructure improvements, it is doubtful that they will re-employ those people but instead pass that money on to shareholders and executives without any idea of raising our ranking from 15th. It's corporate greed and it's why we rank 15th.

I still say nationalize the broadband infrastructure so it can bolster commerce.
0 Votes
+ -
If highways were privately owned...
Erik Engbrecht 9th Dec 2008
...we'd probably have a lot more (privately owned) railroads,
because inefficient shipping methods wouldn't be subsidized
by public infrastructure.

I'm not saying that I would get rid of the public highway
system. I wouldn't. I think the individual freedom it enables
is important. But I think private industry would have done a
much better job at creating an efficient transportation
system.
0 Votes
+ -
Your wrong
stano360 8th Dec 2008
Obama did not talk about de-regulation, what your talking about, easier land access etc. Also, you would be very naive if you did not think that Obama's end game in telecom is in fact nationalizing telecom infrastructure.

This is all idiotic anyway, there is still plenty of dark fiber out there from the last telecom boom. Google owns most of it. Private companies like MS, IBM etc are building data centers as fast as they can.

The end user doesn't think that broadband is a priority. I have a friend that couldn't get broadband because they live in a canyon. His family finally decided it was a big enough priority and got an ATT wirelss broadband card for their computer.

Btw, what's with ZDNet? It's as if tech now equals socialist! Next time nerds don't skip out on Econ 101!
0 Votes
+ -
And we all know where socialist ends up...nt
TheBottomLineIsAllThatMatters 8th Dec 2008
nt
0 Votes
+ -
Who is going to pay for this grand investment for
things for which there is apparently not a strong
return on investment? (If there were, private industry
would have already done it!) Let me guess...taxes and
surcharges. I ask, why is it my place to pay for
Internet access for someone who chooses to live
somewhere where they do not have this amenity? Should
the government invest in 18 screen megaplexes because,
after all, sometimes small towns only have one or two
movie screens.

I live in the edge of the Atlanta suburbs. I cannot
even get the highest tier speed where I live and I way
late getting broadband at all. However, I choose to
live there and you can bet that if I move again, one
thing I plan to pay careful attention to is the
telecommunications infrastructure in whatever area I
might move to. It is not your responsibility to fund
laying fiber to my neighborhood. IF there is a
business case, AT&T will do it. And if I do not like
what my options where I live, it is incumbent upon me
to move, not to beg the government to meet my every
need.
0 Votes
+ -
Greed
mikefarinha 7th Dec 2008
As long as these investments are going to publicly traded companies, the money will just get sucked up and redistibuted to the greedy investors and top management.

Of course because we all know that George Bush invented Greed.
0 Votes
+ -
More "massaged" it.
fr0thy2 7th Dec 2008
Seriously, it was getting to the point of teaching children NOT to share, because it might dilute their business head for later in life.
0 Votes
+ -
But wait, there's more.
kozmcrae 7th Dec 2008
I thought he invented buffoonery.
0 Votes
+ -
George Bush
ksroe@... 8th Dec 2008
Not necessarily invented, but definitely reinvented.
0 Votes
+ -
Don't expect any improvements
Telexer 8th Dec 2008
Congress just let the Telcos off, scot free, with immunity from prosecution for spying on their customers. We have crooks leading the country, beholding to Telcos lobbyist bribes and campaign contributions -- both parties. Oh btw, Obama voted 'Yea' for the immunity too.

So don't expect any service improvements -- with the exception of maybe higher fees.
0 Votes
+ -
You would make a good Kommisar
osreinstall 8th Dec 2008
If the government owned the internets or tubes as they called it, there would be no improvements. I see pot holes, tore off guard rails and rusted out trestle bridges. Besides to maintain roads is a jurisdiction problem with greater costs. Internet can be done wireless with local nodes to accelerate the signal long distance very cheaply. Pouring concrete for miles must be state owned due to the size of project. Your analogy is flawed when getting into details.

The answer is to have corporations separated from the state, otherwise you would not accomplish anything. Also better people running things and rewriting corporate law would help a great deal.
0 Votes
+ -
You lefties are scary
FinanceBuzz 8th Dec 2008
How you have more faith in the government which has
shown its incompetence is so many varied ways over the
years is beyond me. We should nationalize the
Internet? What about billions if not trillions of
dollars of private capital that has been invested in
the Internet? Should that just be confiscated?

Since when is a motivation for profit been made
synonymous with greed? A desire for profit is what
pushes companies to excellence, to do things better
faster cheaper all while addressing customer needs.
Sure, there are some abuses, but that is on those
individuals, not on the greatest driver of business
excellence that this world has ever known.
0 Votes
+ -
Operator Error
Jkirk3279 10th Dec 2008
?How you have more faith in the government which has
shown its incompetence is so many varied ways?


It's GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

If the Government is being run by incompetents, who run around braying
?Government IS the problem !?, you should indeed expect the government to
act incompetently.

If the government is run by competent people, you should expect better
results.

Nothing is perfect, especially bureaucracy. But a properly run government
should be at least adequate.
0 Votes
+ -
Well Said !!!!!
RealPauper 17th Jan 2009
EXCELLENT POINT !!!!

If it weren't for profit based motivation, we wouldn't even HAVE computers in our homes !!

You people think IBM, Microsoft, Apple, and all the other companies that contribute to the consumer PC market do so out of the kindness of their hearts ???

NOW WHOS NIAVE ????
0 Votes
+ -
Socialist view?
sbass@... 8th Dec 2008
Sounds like you would be happy to let the government own telecom completely. A few questions then. what does the government run well now? How is it going to cost less than private industry? And are you really comfortable giving the government all of our telecommunications. I'm sure the 1984 crowd will love it. We should really give this type of thing some thought. How much will the government charge for internet? happy
0 Votes
+ -
I can answer one question
voska1 8th Dec 2008
"How is it going to cost less than private industry?"

Simply because government run programs don't need to turn a profit. This means if they bring X dollars and that exceed operating costs 100% of that money can go back into infrastructure. Problem is corrupt politicians who either have vest interest seeing a program fail, read paid by private business to ensure failure. Then there is politician that shift the extra money into general coffers to pay for other programs and to pad the budget.

So do you really want to see that?
0 Votes
+ -
Stone Age...
Marty R. Milette 22nd Dec 2008
US and many other countries are in the stone age as far as services provided to the citizens.

Estonia considers Internet access a 'human right' and makes it either free or so cheap as to be affordable by everyone.

As such, most government services are available on-line.

In most western countries -- profit motives will prevent this from ever happening in the same way.

Pity.
0 Votes
+ -
right on the money.
red bandit1 8th Dec 2008
But they fought nationalizing the highways, too.
0 Votes
+ -
Haven't we been here before?
Yagotta B. Kidding 7th Dec 2008
I could have sworn that back in the 90s the USA gave the telecoms several boatloads of money. In return, the telecoms were going to have most of the country rigged for fiber to the home by now.

Nothing more profitable than getting paid twice for not doing the job at all.
0 Votes
+ -
I've never heard of that.
mikefarinha 8th Dec 2008
Outside of a few cities failing miserably at it I've never heard of the federal government pushing for it.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually
gnesterenko 8th Dec 2008
There is an interesting story behind this. I couldn't find the article now since I read it so long ago, but, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, there was basically an over-push. When the internet was beginning to boom in the 90's the goverment did indeed give telecoms a load of money to create a high-speed infrastructure. They laid a LOT of major lines connecting hubs and population centers, and from what I heard, it was too much. The user uptake wasn't fast enough and a bunch of these companies investing in these major landlines got burned. The lines are still there and use is increasing with time, but capacity is still there. What they DIDN'T do when it became obvious that they basically overinvested in one part of the infrastructure is the invitible cutbacks. So the job was half finished. The major land line were laid down. However the homes were never connected to the lines.

Now as a result we have the situation we have in Philadelphia at the moment. The entire city is still limited to the 20 year old cable lines to provide cable internet from Comcast - the only real provider around here. Verizon has DSL, but who cares? Verizon IS trying to bring their fiber optic service, FIOS to the city, but they need approvals just to begin laying down their own network connecting the major internet thoroughways to the actual homes which is I'm sure going to be a much more expensive process then the earlier investments - you have to build to each individual building, tearing up concrete and streets. Much more difficult then out in rural areas, but on the flip-side, the rural areas don't have enough customers to justify the costs.

So that's the situtation with broad-band pentetration in the US as far as I understand. I'm sure there are others here who can flesh out the story somewhat more.


"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
0 Votes
+ -
Fibre in the city
misceng 8th Dec 2008
gnesterenko your recollection is the same as mine. There was too much spent on fibre which is still dark and too little on distribution. In UK we have a similar problem of getting fibre to the building. A scheme is under way to get it to all new build but existing homes still have the problem so one enterprise has found a solution. They use the sewers to avoid tearing up the streets and only have a short connection into the building. While they only cover a few towns now it is spreading.
0 Votes
+ -
Quoting ... "They use the sewers to avoid tearing up the streets..."

I had a mental image of my network cable rising up out of my toilet !!!! LOL !!!
0 Votes
+ -
Good Point !!!
RealPauper 17th Jan 2009
Again, GOOD POINT !!
0 Votes
+ -
The American way...
Marty R. Milette 23rd Dec 2008
"Nothing more profitable than getting paid twice for not doing the job at all."

That's the philosophy that ensures companies like Blackwater, et al. continue to receive "no-bid" exclusive 'cost-plus' contracts for Iraq reconstruction that never happens as well.

With the money that was wasted on just that, you could have gigabit fiber to every room of every home in America from coast to coast including Alaska, Puerto Rico and Hawaii.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Obama:
malcarada 7th Dec 2008
I hope he also makes sure there is no internet censorhip. There is no point on the internet if it is going to be censored.
0 Votes
+ -
Fairness Doctrine
mikefarinha 8th Dec 2008
Don't worry he'll only censor conservatives.
Your post made me think of the story linked below. I hope it isn't true.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82113
0 Votes
+ -
Low Income Neighborhoods, IPTV
USArcher 7th Dec 2008
There are some areas that I think it makes sense for the Federdal Government to get involved, regulate and/or invest in.

The federal government should identify low income neighborhoods not served with broadband and work with cablecos/telecoms/etc to offer a subsidized solution. I believe wireless access make more sense than installing dedicated lines into dwellings that may or may not be maintained properly.

To foster faster internet speeds I would create incentives for Cable & Telecos to switch to IPTV based broadcast services. We should be at the forefront of this technology.

To rapidly increase broadband adoption, I would consider a mandate to shutdown analog phone services in the U.S by 2012. The would drive consumers to VOIP/Cell Phones. And that gets me to another item, we need to be designing & manufacturing cell phones right here in the U.S.
0 Votes
+ -
You can't make cellphones
fr0thy2 7th Dec 2008
if your hands are too big.
0 Votes
+ -
HUH ?????
RealPauper 18th Jan 2009
WHAT ?!?!?!?!
0 Votes
+ -
Where in the U.S. Constitution...
Henrik Moller 8th Dec 2008
...is there guaranteed right to broadband? Especially when those of us who pay for that service are, in addition, going to get stuck with the bill for that "subsidised solution" you propose. And what good is broadband without a computer? So is that next? A right to a "subsidised"--i.e., payed for by the rest of us--computer?
0 Votes
+ -
Where in the US Constitution.....
unclefixer@... Updated - 8th Dec 2008
Does it say you have a right to a car? Or a refrigerator? Or
running water? Or electricity, and the list goes on and on...
The constitution was written and signed in 1776- OF
COURSE IT DOESN'T GUARANTEE A RIGHT TO A
BROADBAND INTERNET CONNECTION! That's not really the
point, though- the point is to make progress, create jobs,
make sure everyone has more or less the same
opportunities to succeed- and rather than fragmenting
services such as they are now, I think it would, in the big
picture, be far more efficient and cost effective to have all
services on one wire- besides- in one of those low income
places, there might be a future engineer who could figure
out how to make America technologically strong again,
rather than making bold claims and importing every
g******n thing from other countries- and having that
internet connection would give them a leg up...
Sorry, I got on a rant there.... I'm all better now...
IMHO
0 Votes
+ -
No one is trying to...
Henrik Moller 9th Dec 2008
...give away cars or refrigerators at taxpayer expense and even "low income" households have to pay their water and electric bills.



My point is that the founders of this country never envisioned an "entitlement" society where some people were given various benefits at the coerced expense of their neighbors.



It's all very feel-good to have "government" "help" people, but history shows that the practice of doing so is abused by both government and recipients alike (politicians promising more freebies in order to get elected and people merely accepting the freebies instead of contributing to society).



Further, maintaining an entitlement state is insanely expensive and the burden of that expense falls, by definition, on productive people. Further still, it deprives both the recipients of the entitlements and those who are forced to pay for them of incentives to be productive--why work for what you can get for free, and why work if a lot of your effort is simply taken from you and given to someone else?
0 Votes
+ -
Go ahead and 'rant' !!
RealPauper 18th Jan 2009
WELL SAID !!!!
0 Votes
+ -
Analog Phone Service
kenneth.kelley@... 9th Dec 2008
"To rapidly increase broadband adoption, I would consider a mandate to shutdown analog phone services in the U.S by 2012. The would drive consumers to VOIP/Cell Phones>"

I don't see what one has to do with the other, but you should know that most analog cell service is already shut down - and it ALL will be shut down next Feb. It's all tied to the analog/digital TV swithover.
0 Votes
+ -
This is good news!
eli_pwnd 7th Dec 2008
Here I was thinking Obama was going to be a lame duck president. If this man is promising to widen the tubes that is the internet, than I have "HOPE"
0 Votes
+ -
If anybody thinks that a full internet infrastructure controlled by the government is better than the free market controlled (or even privately controlled), you better look at other countries.

All you can expect is nothing but censorship ... with big-brother telling you what you can or can't look at in the internet.

What do you think would happen to all those failed laws (in most state) that have tried to censor the internet?? Or what about new/higher e-commerce taxes?? Since the state is paying for the infrastructure, they can now charge loads of taxes for using the "internet grid" to make "out-of-state" purchases.
0 Votes
+ -
I have to agree
Lerianis 8th Dec 2008
Government controlled internet is a BAAAAAAD idea, and one that I will not be happy about and will be expressing my unhappiness about if they go to it.

Really, it is unacceptable for the US to rank 15th in broadband adoption..... but most of that is because the ISP's don't want to use their MASSIVE PROFITS (they are earning profits of 1000% on most broadband packages) to make the internet faster, more stable, and more easy to use.
0 Votes
+ -
You make those tradeoffs...
DonRupertBitByte 8th Dec 2008
...if you want a free government service.
0 Votes
+ -
Free government service?
dominigan 8th Dec 2008
There is no such thing. Somebody always pays the price, from both a cost and freedom perspective.
0 Votes
+ -
Answer
gnesterenko 8th Dec 2008
First, the USA, despite recent troubles, is still the most liberal place in the world when it comes to free speach (well Europe is pretty good too, most places anyway...) We just elected an African American president. We have an advanced form of legal redress. If the government tried to even for a second limit internet usage, I guarentee major lawsuits of Supreme Court proportions. And with a liberal majority ensured for the next few years, we really are OK. Not everyone is out to get you.

As for e-taxes? True. Except I'm paying over $50 a month now for a connection that is pretty subpar and subject to outages. The only reason I haven't swtiched (read my post above) is that Comcast has a monopoly in Philadelphia and my alternative is DSL which I've tried and will not try again. In other words, you are paying either a company or a higher taxes. Pick your poison - either way your money is gone.

The difference is that operating on a nationwide basis, the govmnt can exploit major economies of scale. If the broadband internet infrastructure is to become a real 'infrastructure' of the economy as our high-way system is; if the government can take the same no non-sence approach to getting it build and keeping it running, then you all should be for it. You will pay less and I cannot imagine that the service will be any worse then it is now, at least in Philadelphia.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."
0 Votes
+ -
Blind faith
dominigan 8th Dec 2008
You are truly blind in your liberal faith.

It was the liberal majority in the Supreme Court in the Kelo decision that decided personal property could be taken through emminent domain, to be given to another private enterprise "for the good of the community".

If you read the Constitution (you know, that document that explicitly lays out powers of our government and that all elected officials swear to uphold), it is extremely clear under what conditions emminent domain is allowed for... postal offices, millitary bases, administration offices, and roads leading to those locations.

But please, blindly follow your good intentions...
0 Votes
+ -
Government Controlled?
sgtm8@... 8th Dec 2008
If you read a little into the history of the develop of the internet, it WAS a government project. If the government wanted control of it, it would have never given it up. I don't think this is even an issue.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Obama:
MrViklund 8th Dec 2008
Why is the president elect sponsoring YouTube?
Am I the only one that reacted over the fact that Obama will give his speeches on YouTube? I find this disturbing.
0 Votes
+ -
Disturbed
pllamonica@... 8th Dec 2008
Why is this disturbing? Is it because he uses YouTube and not another site? Since when is goverment communicating with the public a bad thing?
0 Votes
+ -
To me the problem is.....
dellpj@... Updated - 8th Dec 2008
...if the communication is simply ONLY on YouTube, that excludes folks that he's saying are disenfranchised at this point.

--Announcements like this are cool on YouTube if they are also carried on FREE broadcast television stations as well. And I don't mean just the highlights on the evening news.

Of the people, by the people and for the people, not just ones who currently or will have broadband.

And no- radio doesn't cut it-- Only the broadband folks get to see his face?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Obama:
jackson1984-24316069205748857739440257893812 10th Oct
Awing short article. I've let on for myself exactly how flexile WP is, as remaining nfljerseys a internet hosting political system for kinds on-line website . you virtually have almost everything you entail to release a term large internet web page at your fingertips, by WordPress. lots of many thanks.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix