Comments on: Should you have a right to broadband?
CNET News.com's Charles Cooper says a movement to enshrine your access to a broadband connection is fast gaining momentum.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- The secret behind the Kindle's best-selling e-books: They're not for sale
December 29, 2009 5:41 AM PST
- 2010 the year of cloud-computing...M&A
December 29, 2009 4:19 AM PST
- Verizon sees rise of 'slate' computers in 2010
December 29, 2009 4:00 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
It's only a half decade overdue that government spent our tax dollars on something a bit more
progressive that actually benefits all Americans.
I'd refer to this drive as: "Let's stop playing defensive and let's start playing offensive. It's time our country leave the less developed technology nations and join the developed technology nations." Of course, as the C|NET writer infers, it'll take lots to get there because there are very rich and powerful service monopolies in broadband who flatly have no interest whatever in getting paid by government tax dollars. But it's inevitable that those firms will lose - it's just a matter of how long the American people and the politicians we elect to represent us - agree to continue to be bullied by these monopoly companies.
It'd be nice if we in the USA could join the modern world. Clearly, broadband in the 21st
century is just as critical to American peoples' thriving than phone service was in the 20th century.
I think we can all agree that we need to move as quickly as possible to a society where broadband is both ubiquitous and affordable. There likely are areas of the U.S. (mostly rural) where government action could help speed deployment (although based on the Wi-Fi coverage in S.F. I'm not sure that's one of those places). The key will be to not adopt a pure public utility model, where there is only one provider that is either the government itself or a regulated monopoly. We need lots of competitors in each market to keep prices down and quality of service up. That means cities shouldn't be seeking to replace existing competitors, but increase the number of competitors.
So are cell phones a "right".? Should my tax dollars go to buying you an ipod? Or paying your electric bill?
I think you've been living in your parents basement a bit too long. In the real world, people use their own money to buy the things that are relevant to them. Thats what the big kids do. They get jobs... ROFL
It's only a half decade overdue that government spent our tax dollars on something a bit more
progressive that actually benefits all Americans.
I'd refer to this drive as: "Let's stop playing defensive and let's start playing offensive. It's time our country leave the less developed technology nations and join the developed technology nations." Of course, as the C|NET writer infers, it'll take lots to get there because there are very rich and powerful service monopolies in broadband who flatly have no interest whatever in getting paid by government tax dollars. But it's inevitable that those firms will lose - it's just a matter of how long the American people and the politicians we elect to represent us - agree to continue to be bullied by these monopoly companies.
It'd be nice if we in the USA could join the modern world. Clearly, broadband in the 21st
century is just as critical to American peoples' thriving than phone service was in the 20th century.
I think we can all agree that we need to move as quickly as possible to a society where broadband is both ubiquitous and affordable. There likely are areas of the U.S. (mostly rural) where government action could help speed deployment (although based on the Wi-Fi coverage in S.F. I'm not sure that's one of those places). The key will be to not adopt a pure public utility model, where there is only one provider that is either the government itself or a regulated monopoly. We need lots of competitors in each market to keep prices down and quality of service up. That means cities shouldn't be seeking to replace existing competitors, but increase the number of competitors.
So are cell phones a "right".? Should my tax dollars go to buying you an ipod? Or paying your electric bill?
I think you've been living in your parents basement a bit too long. In the real world, people use their own money to buy the things that are relevant to them. Thats what the big kids do. They get jobs... ROFL
has "screwed everything up," simply vote it out of office. That is
how democracy works. The fact that it is still in power implies
that the majority of the citizenry in your locale disagree with
your assessment. I know it gives conservatives multiple orgasms
to spout their dogma about government waste and private
sector efficiency, but it simply has no connection to the facts.
Almost every study ever done (and many a conservative pundit
has commissioned one, only to suppress the findings post facto)
has FAILED to support this contention. In fact, most
examinations of this issue have shown that in general, where
government has ceded control of a service to the private sector,
access to that service is curtailed, costs rise, and service
decreases.
I know it sounds good to parrot such pablum, but simply saying
something over and over, unlike in OZ, simply does not make it
so.
has "screwed everything up," simply vote it out of office. That is
how democracy works. The fact that it is still in power implies
that the majority of the citizenry in your locale disagree with
your assessment. I know it gives conservatives multiple orgasms
to spout their dogma about government waste and private
sector efficiency, but it simply has no connection to the facts.
Almost every study ever done (and many a conservative pundit
has commissioned one, only to suppress the findings post facto)
has FAILED to support this contention. In fact, most
examinations of this issue have shown that in general, where
government has ceded control of a service to the private sector,
access to that service is curtailed, costs rise, and service
decreases.
I know it sounds good to parrot such pablum, but simply saying
something over and over, unlike in OZ, simply does not make it
so.
a really nice to have, but the government should stay out of it.
Why should the government have anything more to do with a
universal broadband than electricity. Power isn't a right it's a
privilege. There might come a time when they need to regulate it
in order to keep monopolies from hiking prices up when it
becomes a dependency, but their is no need for tax money to
pay for broadband.
A right is being able to peacefully speak your thoughts, not to
be able to check your e-mail from the bathroom stall of a gas
station. It would be great to have internet wherever we are, it I
would be great to have it be free, but the government shouldn't
be providing it. It would just be one more thing for them to
inefficiently exploit.
On another note the statement that an iPod is a paperweight if
you can't download video off the internet seems a little
immature. I understand the point trying to be made but that
seems more like a personal grudge toward a product. That
expensive paperweight will still play home video's you record. It
will still play your illegal movies your convert to h.264, and most
of all it will still play music! It's not like your computer will stop
working if you don't have the internet, and in some cases for
Microsoft users the computer will work better if it isn't hooked
to the internet (no more updates that cause your computer to
crash and no more viruses. It's like abstinence for your
computer.).
The government DOES have A LOT to do with universal electrical service. And phone service too. And mail service while we are at it.
http://www.greatachievements.org/?id=2949
Read the part about the REP.
a really nice to have, but the government should stay out of it.
Why should the government have anything more to do with a
universal broadband than electricity. Power isn't a right it's a
privilege. There might come a time when they need to regulate it
in order to keep monopolies from hiking prices up when it
becomes a dependency, but their is no need for tax money to
pay for broadband.
A right is being able to peacefully speak your thoughts, not to
be able to check your e-mail from the bathroom stall of a gas
station. It would be great to have internet wherever we are, it I
would be great to have it be free, but the government shouldn't
be providing it. It would just be one more thing for them to
inefficiently exploit.
On another note the statement that an iPod is a paperweight if
you can't download video off the internet seems a little
immature. I understand the point trying to be made but that
seems more like a personal grudge toward a product. That
expensive paperweight will still play home video's you record. It
will still play your illegal movies your convert to h.264, and most
of all it will still play music! It's not like your computer will stop
working if you don't have the internet, and in some cases for
Microsoft users the computer will work better if it isn't hooked
to the internet (no more updates that cause your computer to
crash and no more viruses. It's like abstinence for your
computer.).
The government DOES have A LOT to do with universal electrical service. And phone service too. And mail service while we are at it.
http://www.greatachievements.org/?id=2949
Read the part about the REP.
I might ask who in SF does not already have ACCESS to broadband service? I suspect everyone. What Gavin and others of his ilk want is governement CONTROLLED broadband service. Just another step down the path toward the nanny state and death of free enterprise system. Nanny states, when put into place have not worked for any society at any time during the history of man. It will be no different in the US
I might ask who in SF does not already have ACCESS to broadband service? I suspect everyone. What Gavin and others of his ilk want is governement CONTROLLED broadband service. Just another step down the path toward the nanny state and death of free enterprise system. Nanny states, when put into place have not worked for any society at any time during the history of man. It will be no different in the US
constructive thing (let alone thoughtful or relevant) to contribute,
as usual.
constructive thing (let alone thoughtful or relevant) to contribute,
as usual.
president--and nothing would look better on his resume than a
line about how the city extended affordable broadband access to all
its residents."
Don't you think that is a bit grandiose? I could certainly think of
many things that would look better on said résumé. In fact, I doubt
this would merit much attention at all.
president--and nothing would look better on his resume than a
line about how the city extended affordable broadband access to all
its residents."
Don't you think that is a bit grandiose? I could certainly think of
many things that would look better on said résumé. In fact, I doubt
this would merit much attention at all.
Free Web access for all conveys Web Freedom to all.
The statement that ?Ultimately the question boils down to whether you believe broadband is so important that it should get treated like a public utility, in the much the same way as water or power? misses the mark. The Public Utility Model is the wrong model to apply to Public Wi-Fi.
A more analogous model for Public Wi-Fi is the model of the public infrastructure network of village, town, city, county, state and federal streets, roads and highways maintained by the government so citizens can freely travel from Point A to Point B in their daily pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Wi-Fi Access is about local governments promoting and supporting the general e-welfare by implementing a public infrastructure of FREE Wi-Fi Access.
Ours is the Land of the Freeway and should also be the Land of Free Wi-Fi Access to the Information Highway. It is unthinkable that U.S. citizens should have to pay a Public Road Network Access Fee Toll as they exit their driveways to access the street in front of their homes. Likewise, access to the Internet ?Information Highway? should be Toll-Free.
The Associazione Nazionale Piccoli Comuni d'Italia has demonstrated that even geographically separated small towns and isolated villages, without the deep tax pockets of large municipalities like San Francisco and Philadelphia, can think-out-of-the-box and e-network together to offer Wi-Fi access to residents of member communities in the Associazione. JP B-)
vehicle license taxes, income taxes, and other taxes that pay for
the roads he thinks are 'free; And apparently, he has never heard of
the various toll roads used all over the country. No wonder he
comes up with all these brilliant ideas.
Free Web access for all conveys Web Freedom to all.
The statement that ?Ultimately the question boils down to whether you believe broadband is so important that it should get treated like a public utility, in the much the same way as water or power? misses the mark. The Public Utility Model is the wrong model to apply to Public Wi-Fi.
A more analogous model for Public Wi-Fi is the model of the public infrastructure network of village, town, city, county, state and federal streets, roads and highways maintained by the government so citizens can freely travel from Point A to Point B in their daily pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Wi-Fi Access is about local governments promoting and supporting the general e-welfare by implementing a public infrastructure of FREE Wi-Fi Access.
Ours is the Land of the Freeway and should also be the Land of Free Wi-Fi Access to the Information Highway. It is unthinkable that U.S. citizens should have to pay a Public Road Network Access Fee Toll as they exit their driveways to access the street in front of their homes. Likewise, access to the Internet ?Information Highway? should be Toll-Free.
The Associazione Nazionale Piccoli Comuni d'Italia has demonstrated that even geographically separated small towns and isolated villages, without the deep tax pockets of large municipalities like San Francisco and Philadelphia, can think-out-of-the-box and e-network together to offer Wi-Fi access to residents of member communities in the Associazione. JP B-)
vehicle license taxes, income taxes, and other taxes that pay for
the roads he thinks are 'free; And apparently, he has never heard of
the various toll roads used all over the country. No wonder he
comes up with all these brilliant ideas.
right of citizenship"' is near the top of the incredible heap. Yes,
broadband access is a powerful tool, and yes, broadband access
can make a person's life better. But it certainly isn't any sort of
'right', except to those dedicated to a total welfare state. Even
bringing up the idea as though it warrants any serious
consideration is a lame brained idea.
Maybe one should consider the analogies proposed... water and
power. First, we don't need any public utility for broadband,
since we already have suppliers and networks in place. The
broadband access is already expanding as fast as economically
feasible, because the broadband suppliers like revenue streams.
And remember, city gas, water, and power all require the user
to pay for the hook-up and then pay for the monthly usage. No
difference with broad band. And the city doesn't run water or
gas lines all over the county to every possible customer. And
even power utilities have a limit unless the potential user is
willing to pay for the power line to his remote site.
Now some cities are trying Wi-Fi access to their area. It's their
choice to do so. Maybe it works. And maybe the probable
connection loads will kill the service - or at least drag the
connection speed down to almost zero. I do like hotels with a
wireless zone, even tho you can't trust its security. But for main
internet access, no Wi-Fi for me, even if it does work to some
degree.
You can't beat 6 mbps on DSL or faster on FTTH.
As regards broadband users who aren?t also capable of commensurate broadband thinking, they also have a name. To use your words, they?re called ?lame brained.? JP B-)
right of citizenship"' is near the top of the incredible heap. Yes,
broadband access is a powerful tool, and yes, broadband access
can make a person's life better. But it certainly isn't any sort of
'right', except to those dedicated to a total welfare state. Even
bringing up the idea as though it warrants any serious
consideration is a lame brained idea.
Maybe one should consider the analogies proposed... water and
power. First, we don't need any public utility for broadband,
since we already have suppliers and networks in place. The
broadband access is already expanding as fast as economically
feasible, because the broadband suppliers like revenue streams.
And remember, city gas, water, and power all require the user
to pay for the hook-up and then pay for the monthly usage. No
difference with broad band. And the city doesn't run water or
gas lines all over the county to every possible customer. And
even power utilities have a limit unless the potential user is
willing to pay for the power line to his remote site.
Now some cities are trying Wi-Fi access to their area. It's their
choice to do so. Maybe it works. And maybe the probable
connection loads will kill the service - or at least drag the
connection speed down to almost zero. I do like hotels with a
wireless zone, even tho you can't trust its security. But for main
internet access, no Wi-Fi for me, even if it does work to some
degree.
You can't beat 6 mbps on DSL or faster on FTTH.
As regards broadband users who aren?t also capable of commensurate broadband thinking, they also have a name. To use your words, they?re called ?lame brained.? JP B-)
already they could probably blanket the world in
a
couple of years. Plus they get the revenue from
the advertising so you only pay them when you
click their ads not for the initial setup or
usage. Hardware is getting very cheap to make as
well so that should be to far behind either.
Government is just a stumbling block to me. Who
cares what Newsom says. Google would do it anyway
if it weren't the government trying to force
people to pay into their system. They just don't
have the legalities to do it quicker so they have
to get permission from the government I think.
I would disagree if it cost us more tax money
though but I don't think it's necessary.
- Forget Government, let Google pay for it all
- by Blito October 23, 2005 9:38 AM PDT
- There making such a rediculous amount of money
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (114 Comments)already they could probably blanket the world in
a
couple of years. Plus they get the revenue from
the advertising so you only pay them when you
click their ads not for the initial setup or
usage. Hardware is getting very cheap to make as
well so that should be to far behind either.
Government is just a stumbling block to me. Who
cares what Newsom says. Google would do it anyway
if it weren't the government trying to force
people to pay into their system. They just don't
have the legalities to do it quicker so they have
to get permission from the government I think.
I would disagree if it cost us more tax money
though but I don't think it's necessary.