2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

MeanMachine2,

The problem is that Ms. Starrett's appearance seemed to elevate her to the level of an expert on the topic. So far as I heard, she had two perspectives to present, neither representing any expertise:

1. Government really should not be in the business of building infrastructure.

2. Her personal experience with rural living is that she didn't need broadband.

Neither of these positions are nearly as relevant to the debate as those of the other guests. Her policy position does not appear to be at all related to rural broadband. It's a blanket position on government spending. Kind of like inviting a vegan to a discussion on how best to cook a steak.

Her personal experience is anecdotal. The question is not whether every individual must have broadband, but whether the option should exist in a community. The fact that Ms. Starrett does not personally feel she requires broadband does not mean that others in her community find themselves in the same circumstances. It is certainly reasonable for her to share her individual experience, but to have her political ideology represented alongside the non-partisan arguments of the other guests did strike me as a disservice to the listener.

It's a shame that Qwest did not appear on the program, as it would have been interesting for them to present their arguments for not building this capacity when it was incentivized in the late 90's, it also would have been interesting to hear how they feel about the current attempts to stimulate this development. I expect I would have found fault with many of their arguments, but at least they'd be arguing from a particular business perspective, rather than political ideology.

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

Actually, WiMax is sometimes faster than T1, and certainly comparable. The problem is that T1 is exceptionally slow for today's Internet. The future of communications--Internet, Telephone, TV--is literally technology and speeds that many of us have never had an opportunity to use. 

Wireless technologies are decent for mobility, and make some sense today for fixed services, but they are very limited when we look at the next 10 years. Now is the time to join the rest of the developed world, and deploy an infrastructure that supports 50-100Mbit connections. Otherwise World Have Your Say will be discussing whether the United States needs IMF "stimulus" grants to get our broadband system up to global standards.

Michael Weinberg, President, Personal Telco Project, Inc.

www.personaltelco.net

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context

The debate over how to expand broadband access (especially in rural areas) has been going on for the better part of a decade. In that time, the speeds and technology that we need have vastly expanded, and even our cities have fallen behind the rest of the world.

We need to make sure that as we tackle this issue, we don't waste time and money solving yesterday's problems. On every level, from neighborhood associations to the federal government, we need to realize that Fiber Optic Internet, regardless of the provider, is the solution. Otherwise, instead of debating how we will bring our rural areas up to speed with our urban areas, we will instead be asking how the US as a nation will catch up with the rest of the world.

One way to do this is, the way Personal Telco would like to see it done, is community/public owned fiber, to every residence and business, that allows any provider to access the network in a wholesale manner and sell services on an equal footing. This will benefit consumers by bringing universal high speed access, it will benefit businesses by giving them access to the best technologies and it will benefit ISPs by giving them the opportunity to market services to their customers without the Telcos and Cable companies having the sole deciding power over what services will be offered.

Michael Weinberg, President, Personal Telco Project, Inc.

www.personaltelco.net

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context