Talk:Broadband.gov

Website is gone, remove link?

The article acknowledges this website is no longer active, and yet it still has a hyperlink to a dead domain, broadband.gov Removing reference to the domain would be a loss, but a hyperlink to nothing also seems incorrect. I am not sure what correct procedure is regarding the removal of a hyperlink without removing the reference itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.97.80.9 (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Moving material to the main space

Greetings, I see no evidence of interaction between the online mentor for this group and the group members. Material has been written by this group that should be added to the main space. I have contact the group privately. I would also like to see some support from the online mentor.Jaobar (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The online mentor has been available and has been in contact with all three students in the group, but with lack edits to the page, the mentor is probably working on other article on Wikipedia while waiting for acting on the project page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 23:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The group members have yet to reply to the question I asked them a few weeks ago, and they haven't started to create their article (they have test sandboxes, though). If you want, I'll nudge them a bit and see what they are going to do now. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 13:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have spoken to the group. Manishearth, please do nudge them. Thanks.Jaobar (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done via email ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 03:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

We have started a sandbox for this page at User:Schill76/sandbox and its connected discussion page. Please feel free to edit, or suggest anything you might think needs a change. Daxter21 (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Undo

I undid this edit by User:Sh.ritvik, as it had bad grammar, was unnecessarily bolded, and the sentence was pretty much randomly inserted. Normally it's not a good idea to undo other's edits, but I don't want bad grammar, &c to affect your grading. Feel free to use the sentence he added in a more appropriate place. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 03:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Improve article

In an email from Professor Obar, he expressed that this article needs to be improved before we nominate it for DYK. Reading the article a bit more thoroughly, I agree. The main issue is that the last two sections ("Digital Divide"/"Government Presence") are irrelevant to the topic (or, more accurately, have been written in a way that does not elaborate their connection to the topic) . These sections should be removed (or rewritten), and, in their place, we should have a bit more content. Some suggestions for sections (not all may be feasible):

• History
• Functions (this is partially contained in the "resources" section)
• Structure

If you want more ideas for how to go about writing this article, see:
Category:Websites and Category:Government_services_portals . Just a note: While browsing categories, the [+] shows the subcategories, but not the subpages. For that, you have to click the subcategory name.
Ask me if you need any more ideas/guidance ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 08:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work Manishhearth. Just to clarify, I don't think the two sections are irrelevant to the topic, but rather that they don't really add to the article (at least as currently written). The broadband.gov initiative certainly addresses digital divide issues. The section on the digital divide however, seems like a piece written for another class, simply dumped into the article. How does the broadband.gov initiative address the digital divide? How does the government frame their concerns in this area? These are the things that should be addressed. I will be removing the material that I think is inappropriate now and posting it here. Jaobar (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Digital Divide

With the invention of innovative technologies certain steps must be made to accommodate those who would be rendered physically incapable of receiving emerging utilities. Rural communities tend to lag behind non-rural communities in the availability and quality of high-speed Internet access. Yet, in the current modern age certain technologies, case in point being broadband, are considered to be standard utilities in which every American citizen should have access to if they so wish. But, certain geographical scenarios restrict the availability to the individuals who live in rural areas. "It costs Internet service providers more to provide service in rural areas, due to a small consumer base spread over a large geographic distance." So with the notion that rural areas are not considered high priority to the majority of Internet service providers, seeing as that it is a business, small markets have small revenues. Broadband Internet has quickly become a part of the infrastructure of modern society, similar to that of roads, sewers and public utilities. So, every citizen should have the ability to purchase this new utility, lest they be left behind in this digital age. The United States continues to fall significantly behind other industrialized nations in the proliferation of broadband service that is universal, fast and inexpensive. The Obama administration has recognized this demand of broad band and has allocated 7.2 billion dollars into broadband development. The costs associated with connecting to these networks can be daunting for institutions that typically rely on the largesse of their taxpaying residents. In the age of information of today's society the catalyst of being a functional economy is based upon the availability of information nearly instantaneous rates to fuel economic growth and development. A few case studies of local government broadband initiatives exist, but there is little systematic data or research categorizing the range of activity or assessing the effectiveness of these efforts. Clearly, improvements in health, education, and even entertainment are important elements of the “transformative” impact to which proponents of universal broadband access point. Even with the initiatives and grants in place in the current society, government presence on the Internet is far inferior to that of the commercial and privatized sections.

Government Presence on the Web

We distinguish four categories of local government action, based on the nature of the government’s role: Government as broadband user. Government indirectly attracts commercial broadband deployment through demand-side policies. In particular, government uses its local leadership role and/or its role as a major telecommunications customer to assess, stimulate or aggregate demand. Government as neutral rule-maker. Government adopts or reforms local ordinances that affect the ease of commercial deployment, such as rights-of-way, utility pole attachments, road and building construction codes, zoning policies affecting wireless antenna placement, and cable franchise agreements. Government as financier. Government provides subsidies for broadband users or providers, which may be direct or indirect in the form of planning or equipment grants, tax credits, or other incentives. Government as infrastructure developer. Government adopts supply-side policies in which a division of local government is ultimately responsible for the provision of one or more components of network infrastructure.

I've collapsed the removed sections above to reduce clutter. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 10:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

References

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 during the 2011 Spring term.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)