That may be a good idea, but in this age of pork and earmarks, I'm afraid the federal government would spend far too much money for far too little success. This may be a strategy best left to states, where the money will have to be watched a little closer.

the nerd inside MAE screams yes to Uncle Sam pushing technology forward, but that would do nothing for our cause of limited government.

Campaign for Liberty? Anyone?

To begin with, I love the way that you and they describe "Internet for Everyone" as a bipartisan operation, but in the very next sentence you state, "As one of the only Republicans in the coalition..." and can name only one other guy who is even registered as a Republican, though clearly not an active one. Cerf actually pontificated at PDF that the Internet should be taken away from legitimate industries and nationalized (but more on that shortly).

That's like these votes in Congress that draw one or two Republicans across the lines, but the media hails them as "bipartisan cooperation". It's completely disingenuous.

Getting past that, however, how, exactly, do you reason that a broadband strategy which would take several years to implement would somehow benefit John McCain in the next four months? That's just as disingenuous as the argument that this is bipartisan.
What you're talking about is nationalization of an industry under a socialist theory. Adam Theirer had a great post on this at Tech Liberation. (Tech Liberation also had a post on Vint Cerf waxing philosophic about exactly that idea... some Republican.)

But ignoring the socialist implications of the agenda you've signed on to, let's just look at the facts.

A Parks Associates study found that of those without internet access (29% of America, roughly) 44% had absolutely no interest in getting connected because they were "not interested in anything on the Internet".

That's not an access problem, that's an education problem. They don't see the value in getting connected.

Only 3% of respondents (1% of America) said Internet service wasn't available. This is consistent with the fact that cable currently covers 94% of America. When you lump in the telcos, you're up to 96-98%. Add in broadband via satellite and you're approaching 100%. Other pockets of America have muni-wifi (most of which are failing and leaving the taxpayers holding the bag, but not all). Some are experimenting with broadband over powerlines.
Internet access is available to nearly everyone, but a huge number simply refuse to take it.

You need to change the value proposition - but by that, I don't mean cost, I mean intrinsic value.

The Parks Associates study also found that only 14% (roughly 5% of Americans) could not afford the computer, and only 8% (or less than 3% of Americans) could not afford the Internet service.

Despite the evidence that a large number of people simply don't see the value in Internet connectivity, you, Cerf, Lessig and others look down your nose at these people. You demand that they be connected so they'll be hip to the wonderfulness that you get, and they're too dumb to understand. That whole attitude is condescending.

Internet for Everyone says on it's homepage that "every home and business in America MUST HAVE Internet Access". Are you prepared to storm into people's homes and wire them up if they don't?

Efforts like Connected Nation are useful because they're actually working with industry players to identify the remaining pockets with no access. Broadband loan reform passed as part of the Farm Bill was useful because it forced the government to actually focus on those areas that were unserved or only had one competitor in the market.

Those are initiatives that will actually get people connected without nationalizing our infrastructure. Why don't you get behind those (which actually are not only bipartisan, but also unite government and industry working in cooperation)? Why would you instead try to convince Republicans that somehow the only way they can get the Party connected is to sign on to a socialist utopia?

I'm all about full disclosure. In just about every instance where I have ever posted about net neutrality, I've more than freely admitted both my opposition to net neutrality and my employment with the cable industry. I did so on this very blog just 12 days ago.

If that's your standard though, let's have some full disclosure from you.

1) who's paying the bills for "Internet for Everyone"? How much has been contributed and by whom"

2) Have you now, or at any point, taken any money from any of the groups in the coalition? Has Google ever paid you?

3) you've stated before that you want to work for Google and you're very interested in making that happen. Do you feel your evangelism for Google needs to be disclosed?

Moving on from that, however, let's look at what your fellow Republican on the panel had to say about the Internet for Everyone agenda.

What I was speculating about in the Personal Democracy Forum was whether incentives could be provided that would render the Internet more like the public road system which is open to everyone. Manufacturers are free to invent and sell vehicles suitable for use on the road system. Builders are free to construct buildings, homes, offices, manufacturing plants that use the road system. But the road system itself is not owned by the private sector and its use is essentially open to all.

Sure, why not? Everyone who has driven coast to coast on our interstate system has seen the brilliance of this argument. You compare it to the post office, Cerf compares it to roads, but it all spells government control - which means poor upkeep, fraud, mismanagement, etc. How many taxpayer dollars did the Big Dig waste before a giant chunk of it fell on a car and killed people? That's sound thinking.

As for Google's claim that the only thing standing in the way of white spaces is government, he might think again. The thing standing in the way of white spaces is failed technology. Every time they have tried to test the devices, they've failed the test. It interferes with TV signals or outright fails.

Proponents claim that in their very closely guarded internal tests they work fine. But those pesky regulators want to ensure that the rollout of the technology doesn't hamper your ability to watch TV on that 50 inch flat panel you paid two grand for.

As for the argument that "For ISPs or a company like Google which could be exploring how to do this, it's silly to think that they would have to go to every single public official throughout the country to get approval to use light posts to add access points", why is that silly? The most advanced telecommunications networks in America (those run by the telcos and cable) have been built exactly that way.

This is the problem your logic falls into. Cable has spent $130 billion ($130,000,000,000) building their network over the last twelve years. The telcos are going to spend that amount or more rolling fiber to the home. How many other providers do you think will spend that kind of capital to reach a declining market share? The more networks there are, the fewer customers you'll get and the higher your customer acquisition costs will be.

While you and the rest of the Google-evangelists continue to argue about the innovation at the edge of the network, you ignore the investment at the core of the network that makes that all possible.

And Google doesn't really have a lot of legs to stand on in the debate. They lobbied heavily to get neutrality requirements put in place for the spectrum auction then refused to actually bid on it. So they hampered the process and then bowed out of it.

With regard to McCurry and Hand Off the Internet, I don't remember word for word what McCurry said. However, my recollection of his remarks was the left is the "primary" driver of this. Although, he did specifically mention that there are some on the right (he mentioned the Christian Coalition specifically) that are engaged in this because they fear religious censorship.

I'll let you quibble with McCurry's characterizations with him. Neither the cable industry nor I are members of his coalition, however groups like the American Conservative Union and Citizens Against Government Waste are. You can review their list of members here.

Compare that with the lineup at Internet for Everyone and you will see what I described in your post as "disingenuous". Describing your coalition as "bipartisan" is laughable when you looking at the laundry list of left wing all-stars they've assembled - ACORN, the ACLU, NOW, Public Citizen, Public Knowledge, the Progressive States Network, etc. etc.

I do think you ought to look at Connected Nation. I think you'll find that its approach is much more centrist and aimed at finding a solution. With regard to IFE, I think what you have signed on for is the vanguard for an effort to nationalize the Internet, led by people who are outspoken about exactly that, but trying to couch their incrementalist approach in language that's more acceptable to the masses.

As for your point that the last people you want running the Internet is the government, I'd suggest that puts you at odds with your coalition-mates. In the words of Larry Lessig:

This is the first time in our history that we have tried to build fundamental infrastructure on the basis of a Neanderthal philosophy," announced Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig, "which is that we don't need government to do it.

So opposition to government running the show is now a neanderthal mentality? Yup, sounds like a really bipartisan group you have signed on to.

who's paying the bills for "Internet for Everyone"? How much has been contributed and by whom"

- I don't know. Ask them.

Well, according to their website, you are them. So that's what I did. According to www.InternetforEveryone.org, the coalition is, "a national initiative of public interest, civic and industry groups that are working to see that the Internet continues to drive U.S. economic growth and prosperity."
Right under that description, this blog and Slatecard are both listed as part of that coalition. So if you can't answer the question "Who is paying your bills?", then who is this nebulous "them" of which you speak? And how do I contact them? Give me the name of the person who signs the checks and let them know I'll be calling.
It scares me that you don't actually know who is behind this. I'd be very cautious signing on to something if I didn't know where the money trail leads. You never know where the guys driving the bus will take you - and it may be off a cliff.
As an example, do the Republicans using Slatecard to raise funds know that they've signed on to this? Did you ask them what their position was before you threw Slatecard into the mix? Are they aware they may be using a vehicle for fundraising that supports a political agenda they would oppose?
As for Lessig's quote, let's dive into that... The private sector is filling it's role. It has brought you not one, not two, but three national broadband networks. You've got broadband over cable, broadband over telephone/fiber, and broadband via satellite. You also have companies exploring Wi-Max, BPL (broadband over power lines) and other technologies.
Now you can argue that none of these offers the same combination of speed/reliability as cable's HFC network or the telco's FTTH, but nowhere does the definition of competition indicate that all competitors be exactly alike. If you;re using the Internet for research, e-mail, browsing, etc, then you may not need 50/50 connections. That's another assumption of arrogance. You assume that because YOU want to watch video all day or download the complete Star Wars trilogy in hi-def from BitTorrent that everyone needs that level of service. But not everyone wants, or needs, at this moment, exactly what you prescribe for them.
In other words, some technologies will be Super Bowl competitors and some will routinely fail to make the playoffs, but still entertain their fans.
I use the NFL as a specific example. Some teams are perennial power houses while some teams are forever the cellar dwellers. That's just the nature of the beast. Some teams will invest more to pay better players and some teams (can you say the Raiders) will always kludge together a team of random has-beens and hope they get lucky.
So that gets right back to my question about the number of players willing to invest $100 billion or more in a network? You seem to think there are dozens of companies willing to do so, if only the regulatory regime was right. Yet the regulatory regime most often cited as an example of how this should work was common carrier/open access.
Common carrier argued that the network owner should be divorced from their creation and forced to sell the network they built to everyone at a set price. So now you have removed monetization of the network from the ways they can recoup infrastructure investments.
Not only will the new player not emerge, but the players who are in the game will fail to innovate. If you don't believe that, look at how long the telcos sat on DSL? It wasn't until cable, in the absence of such common carrier regulations, began to rollout high speed cable modems that the telcos decided to compete.
If you don't think that deregulation has worked, simply look at the market. The Brand X decision was handed down in 2005. When it was applied to the telcos, they almost immediately began to invest. In just three years they have gone from offering very limited data services to offering low cost DSL and began the rollout of FTTH.
Cable, in competition with FTTH, has begun the rollout of wideband channel bonding technology that will deliver up to 160mbps (and is actually capable of more). The limiting factor there is only the bandwidth constraints on cable imposed by analog television channels.
If you want to revise history and say that we were making huge progress under common carrier and somehow deregulation stifled that (which seems to be Lessig's argument), then you're deluding yourself.

The "right' to high speed broadband internet??? Come again?

Didn't we just find (and publicly fund) a "right" to High Definition Television? This is getting absurd- folks, please read your Constitutions and read up on LIMITED government. Earth to my fellow Republicans- Internet access, HDTV and the like are privileges that must be earned, not rights. And if one commodity is not available in one particular place or time, there is nothing inherently wrong about that. If you love being way out in the sticks, God Bless You, but you can't expect that broadband access will be hooked up to your outdoor latrine. If the telecoms see that developing our broadband infrastructure in different regions of rural America will be profitable, it will be done. But compelling the telecoms to do this, or compelling people to pay for other people's Internet access, are infractions of our liberties.