US broadband plan 'not a priority' finds survey

Source: BBC News

A majority of Americans believe the government's plan to deliver a high speed internet connection to every citizen by 2020 is either not important or should not be embarked upon.

The Pew Internet Project said 52% of survey respondents felt that way while 40% felt the issue was a top priority.

The surprise outcome comes amid a fierce debate about broadband.

>

"The recession could be behind this sentiment that other issues are more important. It could also be that many non-users are nervous about a government promoting technology that they don't use, are unsure of and see as not really offering much of a clear benefit to them," Mr Smith told BBC News.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10948087

and provide benefits for food stamp recipients at the same time.

I guess it doesn't matter if everybody's fed, as long as we all have quick access to Internet porn.

would find your porn accusation extremely insulting and demeaning.

but the benefits of the Internet will accrue to private businesses, perhaps they and their customers should bear the burden of paying for something we didn't even know we needed twenty years ago. The need for food goes back a bit further than that.

And yes, that last remark was sarcastic, too.

but to get back to the original point: Sometimes we have to make choices about what we spend the public's money on. Your Internet connection might well exist whether or not we spend tax money on it, whereas basic human needs might be unmet because of what infrastructure we decide to build based on who has the better lobbyist.

for T-1s we night be able to pay teachers. And if first responders had enough band with they night be able to better communicate with their base. Might even be able to save fuel if people can telecommute.

However, I don't believe it. Broad band has been promised to many times. We are still using WWII copper. Investment tax credits are not for improving the infrastructure, they are for buying other Companies with outdated equipment.

Maybe broadband infrastructure isn't a "top" priority right now with the current economy, but it needs to be significantly improved. I talk to people from Europe and Asia in the course of my work and they just cannot believe how crappy our cell phone, broadband, and internet service is compared to theirs, and how much we pay for it. I guess it's another case of our corporate enterprise vs. their "socialism".

Environment, Healthcare. . there were about 25 big items on that list that you were asked to "prioritize"

:think:

:shrug:

Source: Reuters

In a national phone survey of 2,252 adults, Pew researchers asked if expanding affordable broadband access to everyone in the country should be a top priority for the federal government.

Whether it is due to anti-government sentiment, a shifting of priorities in a tough economic environment or the uncertain benefits of the Internet, 53 percent of those surveyed said that expansion should not be attempted by the government or it was not an important priority.

"A debate has arisen about the role of government in stepping in to ensure availability to high-speed Internet access for all Americans," said Aaron Smith, author of the Pew Internet Project's report.

"The majority think not, and the surprise is that non-users are the least inclined to think government has a role in the spread of broadband."

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67A4KC20100812

So it's partly my fault. Mostly theirs though for being so fucking stupid.

My top priorities are green energy (a massive economic opportunity), ending the wars, regulating wall street, equal marriage for consenting adults, and so forth.

Cheap broadband almost falls out of the sky bundled with TV and phone now, so no, not on my list of "top" priorities.

This is about them, not you.

That is the type of selfishness that is killing America!

Nice to know some little worlds are so tidy and self-focused. :dunce: I'm three miles outside a town where high-speed net abounds, but they can't be bothered with us country hicks. I'd like to keep abreast of all the higher priorities you spell out, but you'll forgive me if I get frustrated waiting for pertinent info to creep across my monitor.

With national broadband you open the door to massive work-from-home and telecommunication opportunities. Job opportunities would open up to people in jobless areas who can now apply for work halfway across the country. Millions of Americans who don't have to drive miles just to sit in cubicles all day long would save massive amounts of energy and money. Less pollution from cars on the highways, more money saved by households that spend less on their vehicles or can get rid of cars altogether, less federal and state money needed to constantly resurface and expand roads every few years.

Beyond that, just building the fiber-optic network nationwide would itself be a massive economic opportunity, employing hundreds of thousands for years to come.

There is no downside to expanding broadband for all Americans.

As for how cheap broadband "falls out of the sky", I live only 30 miles south of Minneapolis/St. Paul, a major metropolitan area. Our only Internet options are DSL suppliers. Qwest can supply only 1.5 MB (not even enough to stream Netflix consistantly) for $50/mo, and Frontier can give us 5 MB for almost $100/mo. Our only options for TV are over-the-air or Dish/DirecTV that require a 2-yr agreement that severely penalizes you if you need to break it early. You may have numerous TV and Internet options, but millions of Americans still don't.

I don't disagree that it's important, but sorry, it isn't a top priority. Not when you set it against health care or so many other issues, where lives are on the line. Telecommuting is only great if you're a white collar worker of certain types. For those that can do it, it's often subsidized by the company you work for. They get kickbacks from the state for having X number of people work from home.

incredible.

This is not anyones TOP priority, and this was the question.

There's have been no TVA, and no Rural Electrification. People in the country would still be using outhouses and candles. Miserable stupid, cheap shits.

I also think you're taking such a survey way too seriously. If the people in charge want to do it, they'll do it, whatever it is, regardless of any opinions.

Because your's is +1000.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Social Security is solvent to the year 2032 and is on track to pay 75% of benefits for many years beyond that.

Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. It is a self-contained fund separate from the federal budget.

These are not beliefs, these are facts. Go peddle your ignorance somewhere else.

A better question would be, "In the interest of a better informed society, is there a role for the United States Government to provide U.S. Citizens with unrestricted access to the Internet?" Then ask about corporate censorship and providing a physical connection.

Of course there are other very important top priorities for the U.S. Government to consider and act upon, like not going down in history like Roman Empire. If the Federal Government is only capable of doing one thing at a time, then we have a problem beyond comprehension. Buy using the term 'a top priority', the sorry asses at Pew Research loaded the survey into worthless information...

In addition, an uninformed society no longer has a hand in its destiny. Propaganda only helps the few in the short-term and nobody in the long-term!!!

The Pew question is a very loaded poll question. If I were asked this particular question, chances are I'd say it's important but not a top governmental priority right now, which IMO is jobs, deficit reduction, jobs, education, jobs, still reforming healthcare, and yes... jobs.

Your better worded question would have got a resounding "yes!" from me. Grants, tax credits, fast-tracking rural broadband development.... yep the US government has a role here. Also a better connected rural area would actually result in... JOBS!!!!

Mark.

That way they can 'show' that there isn't any support for increased access to broadband for all citizens. I answered it honestly, but I did so knowing the question was dishonest.

They gamed the question to skew the poll.

wasn't there all kinds of research during the 08 election that the polls were skewed toward repubs because..... it was geared toward those who still had landlines, i.e. older folks. Younger Dem voters were increasingly cell-only households and much less likely to be answering a poll.

If this same is true here, I'm not surprised a faster internet connection isn't these folks highest priority.

Given the current financial situation, and the general disfavor the public has with Congress and the Administration, I think these results derive from a feeling that this isn't an issue for the Government to deal with when there are more important issues to focus on.

I'm not surprised at all. The folks who've resisted that darned internet thing say that the government shouldn't try to provide better access to the internet.

I work in IT, and even regular tech users treat their computers like mysterious magic boxes. For a lot of people, technology that we take for granted seems unnecessary or even socially dangerous. Best to pretend it's not there.

The fact is that there are economic benefits to the areas that do not have it but could get it. It is an infrastructure issue.

If they blindly asked the question as said here - Pew researchers asked if expanding affordable broadband access to everyone in the country should be a top priority for the federal government - you will get some nos because of the word "top". At a point where a significant number of people lack food and shelter, it is not "top". I would actually think the wording of the question was written to get a significant percent of "no"s.

Take away 'top' and I'm on board.

There is likely an agenda behind this poll - and not a good one.

I think of this as comparable to the goal to have universal telephone serve back in the last century. Without a commitment and a means of subsidizing the costs of places where it was uneconomic to build lines, we would not have had it. This was a goal of the old Bell System as well as the government, where an early President, Vail, convinced the government that they be allowed to be a regulated monopoly. A high cost fund helped any independent companies serving high cost areas with local service.

Having broadband in an area makes a huge difference in whether they will be able to attract jobs and for educational opportunities. It is needed everywhere if we do want to be a second rate country. It is really scary that on this and other basic infrastructure needs (mass transportation - and even roads from recent stories) are being allowed to be substandard.

What should be the top priority for the federal government? Because for many who voted that it should not be a top priority, it means that they could afford expensive broadband.

If it were, we would never have had universal telephone service.

It was many years ago, someone did a poll and asked something like "Do you believe Government should have a say in Public Highway transportation?" And a sizable portion of the population said NO. Despite the fact all Public roads and highways in the US are Government owned and run. I think it was something like 20-25%.

The poll was done to show that poll results are NOT always the result of what people actually want. This poll is about the same.

Furthermore to be "Surprised" that NON-broadband users are the most opposed, is like saying people who NEVER ride a bus oppose taxes for bus service. If you do not get a benefit from anything, you have good reason to oppose it. When it comes to Broadband service, people who do NOT use it tend also NOT to use the internet at all, thus see no benefit for them of Government support for Broadband. To be surprised at that is to ignore human nature which includes "what is in it for me" and among NON-Broadband users, government support for Broadband provides them nothing.