So, here’s my question: You’re a policy analyst in a DC nonprofit, and you submit comments to the FCC stating your case for spending $7.2 billion on rolling out broadband internet to rural communities. Even if you really, really want the government to tax and spend $7.2-freaking-billion, do you really, truly believe rural broadband access is the ABSOLUTE BEST, most urgent cause to spend that kind of money on? Not, for example, disaster relief, AIDS or malaria prevention, feeding starving third-world children, public health initiatives, alternative energy research, infrastructure improvements, education, hiring more police officers, or any other public benefit or humanitarian cause? Why spend $7,200,000,000.00 on bringing FIOS out to the middle of nowhere?
Filed under: Politics, Washington Sucks
Technagora 
Disaster relief and the rest of the things you listed won’t stimulate our economy and the money if from the Stimulus Bill.
While I agree with you that the money could have been put to better use, there are a lot of poor people in rural areas who will benefit and creating the broadband infrastructure will create many jobs.
Hiring police officers by definition “creates” jobs. As would rebuilding infrastructure or undertaking research for alternative energy.
And if you’re arguing that spending $7.2 billion on broadband is the best way to benefit poor people in rural areas, then I say they’d be better off if you just GIVE them the money and let them spend it on whatever quality-of-life-enhancing products or infrastructure they want.
Even hermits need instant streaming of high-def porn. Are you too naive to see that?
[…] have been evolving together since the Internet’s inception. Now that the feds want to throw billions of taxpayer dollars towards a national broadband policy, all the players are scrambling to carve out their stake in the deal. « Regulation of the […]