-
A Lebanese Charm Offensive
January 12, 2013 | 12 comments
-
Softness at the NSC
November 26, 2012 | 20 comments
-
Anti-Business as Usual
June 20, 2011 | 62 comments
-
This Property Is Condemned
June 13, 2011 | 25 comments
-
Shut the People Down
April 11, 2011 | 42 comments
Washington Prowler
National Public Internet
The Obama plan to create a government-run “competitor” to private broadband companies.
Over the past 18 months, the Obama Administration has been seeking to more stringently regulate Internet, broadband, and wireless broadband networks operated by such communications firms as AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, as well as Comcast and Time Warner Cable. Now it is taking steps to create a taxpayer-financed, government-run broadband network that while ostensibly deployed for use by public safety officials, would compete for business against the current wireless broadband companies.
Late last week a bill co-sponsored by U.S. Senators John D. (Jay) Rockefeller (D-WV) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), that would set aside a wide swath of valuable wireless spectrum to public safety, passed by a bipartisan vote in the Senate Commerce Committee. Funding to build the network would come from the auctioning of additional spectrum to private companies, as well as taxpayer dollars.
While the United States has one of the most advanced and competitive wireless industries in the world, the Obama Administration wants to create a public corporation similar to institutions like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to manage and operate the wireless network. Some inside the White House, according to sources, also support having the government-owned and managed wireless network competing in the marketplace against companies like AT&T and Verizon.
“Some people want the network to only be used by public safety and first responders,” says a White House source with knowledge of the thinking of several senior Obama Administration officials involved in the discussions. “But we’re talking about a network that could also be used for commercial purposes, especially in parts of the country where people don’t have broadband services. So these folks could do things like access the Internet, stream movies, and do the kinds of things most other Americans pay AT&T and Verizon to do, but you’d expect that as the government, we’d be able to offer those services at considerably cheaper prices.”
The Rockefeller-Hutchison bill passed with the support of both public safety groups and the wireless and broadband industry, in part, because there were private assurances from Rockefeller that in the end, the government-operated network would not allow for such so-called “secondary uses” as consumer Internet access or phone services.
But some Obama Administration officials see the proposed network as an opportunity to create new competition in the wireless marketplace. Within the next week, the FCC is expected to release a report that declines to identify the wireless marketplace as “competitive” even though in the past, the federal agency has determined that the wireless market is exactly that.
“What you are seeing out of the Obama FCC is an effort to use official government reports to influence public opinion and seed the ground for White House and Cabinet-level department policies that essentially further ‘socialize’ our economy,” says a senior Republican Commerce Committee aide. “You saw it with net neutrality, you’ve seen it with health care and the environment and now you’re seeing it with wireless communications.”
Letter to the Editor View all comments (32) | Leave a comment
More Articles by The Prowler
More Articles From Washington Prowler
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/14/national-public-internet
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Of Wizards and Weapons
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- The Great Train Robbery
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pecos Pete| 6.14.11 @ 6:20AM
"... you'd expect that as the government, we'd be able to offer those services at considerably cheaper prices."
Huh? The gubmint establishing a broadband wireless network is a prelude to terminating competing private companies. This is nothing but ObamaCare for broadband. Let's call it ObamaNet.
Patrick in AZ| 6.14.11 @ 12:38PM
They may charge end-users less per month, but there is no way in hell that they could provide internet service cheaper.
Occam's Tool| 6.14.11 @ 12:56PM
Since when has the Government offered lower prices on anything? Ever?
Curtis Rasmussen| 6.14.11 @ 2:51PM
Taxpayer subsidized prices. They only appear to be cheaper to the end user as we taxpayers unwillingly pay to make up some of the difference.
All remaining costs will be covered by borrowing until this new ponzi scheme collapses our country along with all the other unsustainable debt that's already in play.
jolizoom| 6.14.11 @ 10:25PM
"But we're talking about a network that could also be used for commercial purposes, especially in parts of the country where people don't have broadband services." And who will be paying for the infrastructure to these places where people don't have broadband services? Oh yeah, silly question.
I assume that in areas where broadband is already available, they will be hijacking existing infrastructure from the profitable company that built it. Either that or co-opting the company's profits with government handouts.
The Bishop| 6.14.11 @ 6:32AM
These government net wits need to keep their regulating paws off of one of the few industries in which we still lead the world. Is there no part of the economy safe from these federal interlopers?
Darin| 6.14.11 @ 6:46AM
And how long until sites like TAS are branded "hate speech" and blocked? China already filters access, and having the government run any portion of the Internet opens the door to this happening in the US. But don't worry, because it will be in our best interest and only implemented by people who know better than us (sarcasm off).
Winterhawk| 6.14.11 @ 7:33AM
It doesn't create competion. It creates more government control. That is obama's world. Control the people. Communism at it's finest. obama cut his teeth on the marx, lenin publications. He needs to hop a high speed rail and get out of the country. I see a spot for him in Venezuela.
Atokaite| 6.14.11 @ 7:39AM
A NPR Wireless.?
Excellent tool to further implement the Cloward-Piven Socialistic Philosophy.
The Leftists that run the Obama admin know how to turn every trick of the well intentioned into a tool to further their leftist agendas. A cursory review of the Center for American PRogress turns up mulitple essays on this very subject.
READ and HEED, the Leftist sites. That is the source for the ideas that emanate from the OBAMA admin. NONE of this is new. NONE of this is brilliant policy. ALL of this is preplanned, strategically laid out, and agenda driven.
We are being conned, rolled and diced. It is simple as that.
"fundamental transformation" before our very eyes.
end
Tom| 6.14.11 @ 7:56AM
The book "Radical-in-Chief" describes how the idea for a "public option" did not arise during the debate over Obamacare, but all the way back in the 1970's when the concept was proposed (by Obama's predecessors involved with Gamaliel, ACORN and the Midwest Academy) as a stalking-horse to eventually nationalize the oil companies and so have the government control the energy sector.
The strategy was that the "public option" company with it's government subsidies could undercut the pricing (err, I mean provide "competition for") the oil companies, eventually forcing them out of business and /or primed for takeover by the "public option" entity -- eventually leading to government control of the energy sector while avoiding (for public consumption) the appearance of having out-and-out nationalized the sector by direct action.
This is amongst the Andre Gorz (French Communist theorist) "non-reformist reforms" tactics that the New Left in the USA embraced: socialization of the U.S. economy by stealth and subterfuge by introducing "reforms" that would actually hobble it, and then blame the capitalist system itself for having failed. Diabolical, to say the least.
Once one has read this book (please do!!!!) one recognizes the pattern all through Obama administration activities.
Pray for America -- most don't realize what's actually going on in Washington, D.C.!
Notary Sojac| 6.14.11 @ 8:04AM
There are few sectors of the American economy that are less competitive than broadband Internet, and our mediocre and overpriced services demonstrate that fact.
I would welcome a government sponsored wireless service, if for no other reason than it would require my ONE currently available broadband provider to take me seriously when I tell them to improve their pathetic service or risk losing my business.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.14.11 @ 8:40AM
Notary,
if you like going to the post office you will LOVE PRAVDA!
Mike| 6.14.11 @ 9:17AM
Notary,
I am curious. Where do you live that you have only one choice for broadband internet? Pray tell why would you want to put one of the best 1st Amendment protectors under government control?
I think Ken is being too optomistic comparing government internet to the post office. I would compare it to the IRS. Sorry citizen you owe 78 cents in back taxes and $9456.12 in penalties and interest. NO NET FOR YOU! How about being "suspected" of subversive activity. NO NET FOR YOU!
Mike Johnston
SFC USA (RET)
Flee| 6.14.11 @ 4:01PM
You must be in an awfully remote location to have only one provider. Even so, are you really willing to get the Fed govt involved in serving the needs of internet users? The same govt that continues to spend taxpayer $ on one boondoggle after another? If you enjoy your freedom to express yourself I suggest you try discouraging the govt to extend their reach into the ISP arena.
TrueBlue| 6.14.11 @ 7:25PM
Since the government would never actually add to the network, they'd just piggyback or takeover resources already in play by current companies, how do you figure their service would be better? If you think customer service for current providers is bad, you should try out government CS centers!
jolizoom| 6.14.11 @ 10:31PM
Exactly! It would be akin to adding millions to the health insurance rolls, while at the same time regulating doctors to the extent that they decide it's time to retire--so demand increases, while supply is diminishes.
Mimi| 6.14.11 @ 8:40AM
Another attack on FREEDOM and LIBERTY !
Whats with Kay Bailey Hutchinson signing on to this? Another " ROCKEFELLER" Republican!
Read Jeffrey Lords , well-done lengthy piece,
great history, on the RINO'S.
When everyday folks ...like myself begin to be nervous about what controls their gonna think or next....And it began with 'returning vets and old pro-life ladies on a so called "WATCH" list in early 2009.....The threat and SCARE tactics to any political opposition.....Light bulbs went on all over the country, and VOILA....The birth of the TEA PARTY.
Enough already!!! Oh you WONDER why LIBERTY&TYRANNY; was such a best seller.
NO, NO, NO!....We don't need GOV. taking over any Internet.... EVER !!!
TrueBlue| 6.14.11 @ 7:26PM
Not just returning vets, all members of the armed forces past and present.
Mimi| 6.14.11 @ 8:42AM
ERROR....think UP next.
Morten In Illinois| 6.14.11 @ 9:47AM
"...could also be used for commercial purposes, especially in parts of the country where people don't have broadband services. So these folks could do things like access the Internet, stream movies, and do the kinds of things most other Americans pay AT&T and Verizon to do, but you'd expect that as the government, we'd be able to offer those services at considerably cheaper prices."
Another Amtrak, CPB/PBS, NEA, etc. Now they want to stream movies? When will this nonsense end?
hardcard| 6.14.11 @ 9:49AM
this new boondogle can be administered by a new and really smart,hip, internet type: aweiner !!!! did algore invent this internet ? where is clapper on this?
A. C. Santore| 6.14.11 @ 11:15AM
History has taught me that every socialist/communist totalitarian leader started off by promising the masses the moon, and ended up given them green cheese.
Moldy green cheese. And not even moldy crackers to go with it.
I can smell it now in the U.S.
Publius| 6.14.11 @ 11:27AM
" but you'd expect that as the government, we'd be able to offer those services at considerably cheaper prices." Sure you could----and lose billions in the process.
Al Adab| 6.14.11 @ 11:44AM
is all about centralizing control over information along with the other power grabs from The Left. The more government controls, the less Liberty remains for the citizens. Control of news and information becomes the Dept. of Propoganda de facto. This is another front in the battle for limited government and Freedom. It is the fight for the future. Either the world will succumb to a new dark age of tyranny or we will succeed in preserving Liberty "for ourselves and our posterity". The stakes could not be higher.
Jack Olson| 6.14.11 @ 12:25PM
Have you ever wondered why no VHF television stations use Channel 1? It's because that channel was originally reserved for military and government use. Seventy years later, we've got UHF channels and digital television providing dozens of channels and cable television providing hundreds. And VHF television still can't use Channel One. It's reserved for military and government use. How efficiently do the proponents of this bill expect the government to use the broadband space they're reserving for it?
Naturalborn Texican| 6.14.11 @ 1:36PM
Obummer is a control freak.
He wants to control everything about this country and the people who live in it. AND he want's to export his mechanisms to the whole world.
Al Adab| 6.14.11 @ 1:39PM
A wise man once said, "The issue is never the issue, the issue is control." This administration believes central planning preferable to free markets. Totalitarians by any name are still simply that.
Martin Lurther Vandross| 6.14.11 @ 3:43PM
Hutchison...Uggh.
Thank God the good people of Texas saw through this woman, and re-elected Rick Perry.
Purple Lips| 6.14.11 @ 5:20PM
"Late last week a bill co-sponsored by U.S. Senators John D. (Jay) Rockefeller (D-WV) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), that would set aside a wide swath of valuable wireless spectrum to public safety,..."
Nice to know another so-called Texas Conservative is in the mix. First Bush43, then KayB. Hutchinson, and next Perry. There isn't a conservative in the entire Senate GOP caucus.
C.K. Amos| 6.14.11 @ 10:14PM
This totalitarian Marxist anti-American wrecking ball and his thugocracy must be removed from office. Soonest.
weddingdresses | 6.15.11 @ 4:27AM
Article is very interesting,thanks for your sharing.I will visit this site.