I agree. It's definitely a judgment call.

It's just hard to stomach a heavy investment in infrastructure that will likely become outdated rather quickly especially considering the companies we're handing it to.

In a few areas they are testing relatively new network technology, BPL, where the network signal is broadcast through the power lines. There is very little infrastructure setup cost since the lines are already run and could service large areas or densely populated areas at the same cost. The only thing they have to do is pay for special units that are placed within the houses and on power lines. Part of the reason why this service fails, is that braodband over cable or fiber optic is much faster for the same price. However, if you're out in the middle of nowhere, it seems like it would work well enough.

Also, internet for home use isn't a necessity, it is a luxury. Just like cell phones, cable tv, and lots of other things people take for granted. For business use, it is a different story.

There are better ways to do it than lay down cable in remote areas, IMO.

I think Sprint, and some of the other 3G providers have the right idea. It's what I'm using now for rural broadband - rather than lay down expensive cables, use the current cell phone infrastructure, and improve it, to support broadband-speed access for users in remote areas.

I am unsure if the govt. getting involved in broadband is the proper thing to do. But if it's proven to help out the average American, then I guess it may not be a bad thing, if it's done intelligently.

While wireless broadband is a good way to give customers internet at a low cost it does come with its own issues and goes against what Obama is wanting to do.

The major problem is quality of service. While if your close to a tower your great there can be some massive signal issues mattering distance and obstructions.

Obama is also looking at the expansion of physical infrastructure as a way to create jobs. Just doing some updates to radio and cell towers wont create half the jobs that physical infrastructure would.

obama could use the extra money he saves using an alternet method to pay people to sit at a desk and pick thier noses. You would have the same outcome. People would have broadband, and lots of people would get paid.

creating jobs just because you want to won't solve any problems. creating jobs that are needed/demanded by the masses will.

...But couldn't you then funnel the money saved from just upgrading the towers into a better, more cost-efficient program and still benefit from the economic impact that universal broadband brings?

Sounds good! As long as I don't have to pay for it!

infrastructure installation wouldnt cost you specifically, just if you want faster internet service.

this sounds better and better all the time...

...Correct me if I'm wrong, but this *does* cost people money, since the Govt. would be handing out $2.8 billion USD to develop the service...$2.8b of taxpayer money.