Obama: "It is unacceptable that the United States ranks 15th in the world in broadband adoption"
Summary: The 21st Century Tech President said Saturday morning that the U.S.
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 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 email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
When you have profitable ISP's...
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.
Nationalized internet?
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.
Terrific, yet patently obvious, if you'll excuse the pun.
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.
If the highway systrm was owned...
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.
If highways were privately owned...
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.
Your wrong
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!
And we all know where socialist ends up...nt
One question...who is going to pay for it?
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.
Greed
Of course because we all know that George Bush invented Greed.
More "massaged" it.
But wait, there's more.
George Bush
Don't expect any improvements
So don't expect any service improvements -- with the exception of maybe higher fees.
You would make a good Kommisar
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.
You lefties are scary
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.
Operator Error
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.
Well Said !!!!!
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 ????
Socialist view?
I can answer one question
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?
Stone Age...
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.