Talk:National Broadband Plan (United States)

goal 6 / energy and environment
The article is now significantly heavier on the energy and environment ("smart grid" / home grid) goals in part because the administration itself considers them so central and keeps emphasizing them over and above other goals, and because they're poorly understood and take more space to explain. Some reasons for that are now stated in the article, citations could improve.


 * Also dated, see below. Certainly to a Democratic congress you use rhetoric about saving energy. After the 2010 congressional elections, it became "cut the deficit" and homeland security became the justification. W Nowicki (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

part of "smart grid" article collection?
Actually this article could benefit from being listed in the same group as other smart grid articles so that it would be updated with this, and properly link to other explanations. It's not wise to include more than a couple of paragraphs of how universal wired reliable secure networking (especially powerline networking) is required to reach state and national energy goals.

maps?
Some maps including reach of broadband in Canada and Mexico border areas would be useful and interesting. Some Canadian cities already have 100mbps Internet (cablecos) and 70mbps with 15mbps upload (using telco fibre). The reports may be somewhat out of date of connectivity of US cities in this article (need a lot more "as of" types of statements).

Need section on Blair Levin
He worked extsnively on it. Every time he moves everyone talks about it on the web. LaidOff (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Issues: POV etc.
This articles has some serious point of view and sourcing problems, among others. For example, three links to Obama administration in the lead? And some glaring omissions. It never defines "Broadband" - in this sense, it is a meaningless marketing term like "deluxe" or "family sized" used to promote the more expensive products of large telecommunication companies. The "Broadband" term here has no techical meaning, but it sounds like it might be related to the technical term. The article does not mention that the US government is about to shut down in August 2011 because of the huge deficit, and thus any new program has no chance at being funded. This "plan" was clearly designed to fund some consultants and lobbyists of the big telecom companies, and of course the FCC is going to be in favor - they get expense-paid trips from those lobbyists. I cannot add the above to the article without a source, but there are plenty places where the lobbyists' talking points are repeated in the article without giving sources, and those should be either cited or removed. There are other odd cases of undue weight. What brought me here was the dab link to E-line, which instead of a citation has an inline line to a company that seems mostly moribund for about two years. Looking at the propaganda web site, it jumps out that all the "internet for all" rehtoric has been replaced with "homeland security" justifications. Those lobbyists know how to get money from the current congress. W Nowicki (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "The Internet, a system of interconnected computer networks primarily in the USA,..."

Very dated - there are now more Internet sites in China than the USA; see List of countries by number of Internet users. This is another example of a quote of dubious merit just given without comment. Looking carefully, that is from a 1992 paper. Instead should apply to Al Gore's National Information Infrastructure project back then. We do ned to tie these together (buzzwords of each administration).

Also need to point out the conflicting definitions. I note that according to the US government definition my Internet connection would not be considered broadband, because I turn mine off when not using it to conserve electricity, while they say it must be "always on"! So a conflict with the claims about saving power. Needs work. W Nowicki (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Spectrum reallocation
I was doing another edit and couldn't believe the monster section I had mostly created. It's completely irrelevant here since there is another section called "spectrum reallocation". I'm just grateful the person who thought the section had too much information didn't remove more of it. I chose to put a link to the new article in the "spectrum reallocation" section. That's the more appropriate place for what promises to be a fundamental change in the nature of television as we know it, and possibly the end of broadcast TV, period.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 21:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Michigan State University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)