Talk:US plan for broadband Internet released
Add topic"and the effect on current users of airwaves, which new broadband access would use. According to the FCC, the plan would end up being revenue-neutral, as income from the auctions of airwaves would provide revenue, although in past such auctions, revenue has gone to the US government. Separately, the proposal would include some changes in regulation over Internet lines, which is largely opposed by the industry, as well as plans to introduce a new fee for use of the airwaves, which are currently untaxed"
That would be a great place to be specific. How does broadband have anything to do with the airwaves. Most broadband involves wires. (this would be a great place to name the technology being proposed. Is it WiMax or something similar?). "would include some changes in regulation over Internet lines" - what does that mean. The internet is a big thing, and could be regulated in many ways. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- This is the government we're talking about. Since when have they been specific about anything? That said, my impression from the articles is that the plans are for cellular broadband, which use airwaves just like cell phones. For example, I'm writing this using a Verizon wireless connection, presumably over the same airwaves that Verizon uses for cell phone networks. (Whether this is from cell towers or satellites, I'm not sure, but I don't think it matters.) From what I can tell, this connection is roughly the same as what is being proposed, except way slower. The regulation, I assume, is over the rights to the airwaves. I got most of that stuff from the WSJ article, so have a look at that if you're still confused, and feel free to berate me if I've totally screwed up my interpretation of it. Thanks, C628 (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Review of revision 978617 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 978617 of this article has been reviewed by The wub (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 11:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 978617 of this article has been reviewed by The wub (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 11:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |