Yes let's have the government use the rouge of "we want to bring you fast internet speed because the Big Corporations won't" to usher in a new form of government controlled internet.

The government uses this tactic all the time, let's look at the health-care issue:

"we want to bring you fast and cheap health-care, because the big corporations wont."

Problem, Reaction, ......Solution? I think so.

Trust me I like fast, but the internet speed now is fine, it does what it is supposed to and that should be anything anyone can ask for.

But the FCC comes to try and strong arm the companies with an ultimatum of "give them it now, or we will take over and do it. Of course this probably means Government internet Filters, The deletion and expulsion of any alternative theory sites.... Bottom line is we don't "NEED" this but our bailout will be used to boost this project, but at what cost and for what purpose? keep an eye open and ready.

FCC Battles Telcoms to Deliver Cheap National Broadband to Citizens

http://www.dailytech.com/FCC+Battles+Te ... 17861c.htm

Telecoms are refusing to sell their wireless airwaves to the government

Under President Obama's leadership, the Federal Communications Commission has quietly taken on the role of developing a plan to debut a nationalized broadband internet offering across the U.S. The measure is part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known as the "bailout bill" or "stimulus package".

Opinions on the proposal vary wildly. Many note that the broadband in the U.S. is hardly a competitive free market. Much like railroads in our nation's early history, a handful of powerful players have controlled the offerings on the market and have collectively worked to crush smaller players seeking to make a market entry, such as municipal Wi-Fi projects. As a result profits are quite high for telecoms like Time Warner, Comcast, and Embarq, while U.S. citizens pay tidy sums for their connections.

There's debate, though about whether federal intervention will fix the problem. The FCC's plan is to ask for unused spectrum from telecoms to be home to the new project. Unfortunately, many telecoms are refusing to to participate in the initiative.

Paul Karpowicz, president of Meredith Broadcasting -- which owns 12 local TV stations from Portland, Ore., to New Haven, Conn. -- is one of those blocking the initiative. He states, "I truly don't visualize a scenario where proceeds [from a sale] would exceed lost business opportunities."

Paul Glenchur, senior analyst at Potomac Research Group, a Washington-based consultant, says now is the relatively easy time for the FCC. The tough part will come when they have to follow through on their actions and debut a plan designed to cover over 100 million Americans. He states, "The really difficult policy options are going to be made in follow-through actions."

Funding for the plan is another point of contention. The plan will largely be funded by the proceeds from the sales of wireless spectrum to telecoms. However, it also relies on a $12B to $16B USD investment from Congress into creating a wireless public safety network. Texas Republican Joe Barton, a member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee has already criticized President Obama's previous efforts to finance national broadband.

If the government can't get spectrum voluntarily, it may have to resort to buying spectrum, which could get expensive. The telecoms are wary, though, that the government might simply seize the unused spectrum. States National Association of Broadcasters spokesman Dennis Wharton, "Sometimes in Washington, voluntary means, 'If you don't do what we are suggesting, we are going to make it mandatory.'"

In many ways the fight for national broadband mirrors the fight for national health care -- and will likely be equally difficult to realistically rolled out. Lawmakers face a dilemma -- the current situation is clearly problematic, but will a nationalized offering help make things better?

super.now we can download porn a million times faster.if there was a devil,it would be the internet.

Internet is no devil
its a liberator!!!

I would agree that it is a liberator, but also at the same time it is a Demon.

we are being watched right now, and this is about as free as it gets on the internet this day in age, however if this goes through not only will we see a decrease in viruses, hacking, and overall business security, but we will also be seeing more government control over what you watch, how everything on sites that people like us are familiar with might be edited to fit certain "hate speech" standards.

this isn't good. Iran kicks out google, and the united states kicks out free enterprise internet...