Rocket Ride

Looks like, in the efforts to trim the fat off of the Stimulus Bill, they’ve managed to shave $2 billion off for the rural broadband deployment effort.  So, the current number is at $7 billion which is better than what the House originally pushed for.  There are more issues, though, having to do with who actually gets to control the money.  Some want the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to take charge, and other sentators want the Department of Agriculture to control it (which I don’t really understand).

More details at Ars Technica

You know how the cable networks named themselves based on the content?  SciFi = Science Fiction, CNN = Cable News Network, MTV = Music Television, etc.  It made sense, right?

Now, this isn’t about MTV and VH1’s complete lack of staying true to thier namesakes…this is about all of the networks committing this act of false advertising!!!!

Okay, it’s not *that* intense but it’s funny.

The real question is what made it happen? Well, first off, reality TV really screwed everything up.  It’s cheaper and easier to fund…easy to get the “actors”..and there’s an endless number of ideas out there so there’s little chance of a dry period, short of a complete lack of interest (God be praised when that day comes).  Maybe Hollywood has hit a creative block.  Whatever the reason, it really put things in a tizzy for network TV.  MTV and VH1 slowly started loosing thier music blocks to marathons of The Real World spin-off shows.  And to be honest, I’m not sure they’re really reality TV shows.  The Real World had it’s moments…Road Rules has it’s purpose…now what do they do?  Serve as a way to watch people hook up.  Big deal, I can watch that on vacation…I can watch that at a nightclub.  Stupid. At least, for a few seasons, the Real World had more of a purpose or a plot to it…Miami had the housemates start up a business…Boston had then running a big-brothers/big-sisters type of thing…Seattle - they worked at a radio station (in fact, one of those girls ended up on the morning show for a station here in Atlanta….and they were BORING AS FUCK! It was listening to coffee converstation…I wanted to yakk.

Remember A&E?  It used to be known as “The Art’s & Entertainment Channel”. It was there that I saw an episode of Biography in ‘94 on Frank Zappa.  Watching that made me a huge fan…I loved the music I heard and loved his thought process. If he were alive today, I’m sure he’d have some sort of show on Bravo or IFC or he’d be doing talk radio.  Anyway..now A&E airs more reality shows, reruns of CSI:Miami and loads of other crap.  Much like MTV and VH1,A&E is a channel that clearly lost it’s way.  I’m sure the excuse they’re throw out has to do with the competition, funding, other mediums….internet access, you tube, Hulu, digital downloads…ya ya ya.

Waaaa for you guys!!  You lost your way.  Change the name of the networks instead of riding on the names that made you successful.  You’re currently like those hollywood party kids who’s only real claim to fame is late night antics, poor driving skills, moronic statements to the paparazzi who they’re THEY’RE rock stars and having a parent who’s a celebrity.

Reality TV, imho, really messed up TV entertainment. It eliminates the need for writers and real actors.  Notice how you hear more actors voices and images in commercials now?  I think that network TV should only run reality TV during the summer.  Prime time TV shows are finished for the season by mid-may.  Three months is plenty of time to barrage the viewers with the same crappy competitions, hidden camera escapades, game shows and celebrity showdowns.

TV  networks and studios ares going to have to step up the game soon.  I mentioned it before:  hulu, youtube, digital downloads - on demand.  That’s the next stage in the evolution of entertainment.  I already know people who have gotten rid of their cable/satellite services because they can watch all the TV entertainment from a computer.

Only a matter of time.

A few weeks back I posted about the idea of wimaxx/wifi….national wifi via truckers..my idea was to have wifi repeaters housed in a bunch of freight trucks and BOOM…there’s your wimaxx.  It’s an idea.

Well, Mr. Bush -err…. “President” Bush…. has turned his nose up to the free national wifi network proposed by the FCC and congress and commerce secretary, Carlos Gutierrez, wrote an open letter to the FCC arguing against the plan.

The Plan:

The FCC is auctioning off a spectrum of wireless air* and the proposal they have is that the winning company would be required to reserve 1/4 of that for the use of a free national wifi network which they would run and the network would be pushed for use in more rural areas where broadband is non-existant. This is a good thing, no?

*For those of you who are curious where this airspace comes from, you know that big switch to HD we have coming in a couple of months….thats the one. 

Appearently “NO” is what GWB thinks.

The Arguement:

The letter claims that this move would create a ‘congested and inefficient’ broadband system however the letter also fails to state any points which back up the claim.  Speculation is that the bandwith would be around 700k up/down which hardly competes with a consumer bitstream which is twice the speed.  We’re not likely to see much p2p sharing on such a slow network and the owner of the network could use whatever tools it it’s arsenal it deems neccesary to thwart unfavorable us.

He also argues that a  government-mandated free nationwide network isn’t the best way to help those under served areas..I’m guessing because it’s not revenue-generating, but that doesn’t say that the winning company can’t use the remaining 75% for something revenue generating.  Not to mention that there’s a clearly a reason why broadband providers haven’t tried to serve areas in the middle of BFE…costs to do so outweigh the revenue generated by a fairly priced service.  Simple math, guys.

In the end, this proposed service is for non-profits, hospitals, schools, the elderly, kids, the poor.  So it’s not for the lazy..it’s not for the those who want to skirt the system. It’s for those who can’t get into the system.

I’m not saying this is just another part of the “plot to keep the man down” but you have to think that if we have the means to make something better for our own people, why would we not do that? Its times like this when I start thinking that there’s an effort to keep the little guy in his place…keep them uneducated…keep them poor.  Let’s put it another way…the FCC gave out vouchers for discounted (sometimes free) DTV converters….who got those?  People who didn’t have cable…people who didn’t have a DTV…essentially, people who couldn’t afford it.  So that’s okay, but free wifi isn’t?  They’re okay with ensuring that a group of people (those who are unable to pay for TV service or buy a new TV) will be able to get TV reception so they can watch football or grey’s anatomy and suck in the mind-saturating advertisements that encourage them to buy,consume, lather, rise, repeat but it’s not okay to give internet access to those same people who could benefit educationally, culturally and intellectually?

Something is seriously wrong with that.  My hopes are that current FCC chair Martin drop the ball on this one and and Obama’s pick for FCC chair will follow through next year.

But you know, I started thinking that maybe the wireless carriers are against this as well.  Free is free…nationwide could be nationwide..those of us in the metro areas or the burbs could get connection…MAYBE…even though it’s not intended for us, but it’s a possibility.  So one day, someone on ATT changes to a wifi ready phone and realizes that they can use thier IM client on that phone to chat with friends…maybe they’re on an iphone…they can also email…and there’s a college student with an ipod touch who  can access the web, chat, email, etc….even skype if he does it right.  If that became widespred, the need for wireless service is reduced to phone calls…now the providers have to charge less for texting/email or offer it free of charge. What then?

It gets me thinking about how so many of us think the auto makers and the oil companies are in cahoots…no high MPG cars means high demand for gas, thus high demad for oil. Therefore is it safe to say that no free wifi means high demand for access?