Some became "publicly owned". All became taxpayer subsidized.

I call BS....

Show me a wireless technology that can travel over hills without towers or repeaters...

TANSAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

If the government is doing it for you, it is costing more in the long run. As one of my buddies and I were discussion recently, the least efficient, least effective companies we've dealt with in international construction have always been governments.

Why will this be any different?

Did they claim no towers/repeaters?

OK, I understand skepticism. But I see opportunity. IMO, this idea is like Eisenhower's highway system, all over again. It's one of the reasons I feel he was a very-good-to-great President. But, YMMV.

IF people raised cain about the low level electromagnetic radiation from the back scatter scanners at air ports, imagine the constant all your life bombardment from this product! I at least live in enough of a hole in the ground I don't really get cell service, TV, radio, etc.

First, internet access is a luxury item, you don't need it to exist, the gov' has no business involving themselves in it other than creating a single control point. Secondly does anyone know about the "Tragedy of the Commons?"

Depending on how you interpret it, it can have many meanings. But it means to me that minimizing common ownership is good. If an individual owns something, they will take care of it best. If there is joint ownership of something, everyone will try to maximize their use of the common asset. People are better stewards if they privately own something.

yet many of the 50's nut-con's wanted ike and earl [his supreme court head guy]

IMPEACHED

they were wrong then
just as they are wrong today

This. The money for the extensive infrastructure required will have to come from somewhere, i.e. taxes. It will be free only to those who do not pay taxes. At least I currently have a CHOICE as to whether or not I want to pay for internet, cell phone, etc. As a taxpayer, how is this a good idea?

And you have a choice of the level of service you wish. You want $10/mth, you get 500kb/sec. You want 50Mb/sec you pay $99/mth. Do you want it to come with online storage? Website? etc?

With the government, you get one choice.

Just like "Free" government schools. They are not free, and you get what they serve.

I get it that you guys want to put this into private hands. Private hands have given us the cellular and cable service models. Too limiting, IMO.

I get it that you want the ability to have more capability and would pay for it. At this stage, is that really something that outside the bounds of this proposal? IMO, this is at an embryonic stage right now.

I also get it that this proposal is visionary and potentially transformative. I look forward to the future, not the past. Look for the opportunities.

I would suspect so that we're not all bumping into each other on various frequencies.


This thread seems kinda PARFy though.


I guess I could be for something like this if we stop funding something else.

It's a very poorly thought out idea even in it's "embryonic' stage, but that's how the gov' does things isn't it? The massive infrastructure and maintenance costs, along with having to provide gov' tech support to everyone on the system is ridiculous.

Now add in that every scammer with a smart phone will be taking advantage of the system and it's a real mess. Is the gov' going to provide workstation antivirus software as well; training? It goes on and on down the rabbit hole.

Last I checked the interstate highway system couldn't scam you for your life savings. Bad idea by poorly informed people, as per usual.

Well, people used to try to sell the Brooklyn Bridge :D

try driving some stretches of I-95 with a large amount of cash
local cops make a habit of stealing cash by claiming the cash is ''drug money''
without any proof indeed you are expected to prove it is not ''drug money'' :rolleyes:

I honestly just don't see the opportunities. For a relatively paltry monthly fee nearly anyone in this country can have internet service. Why should taxpayers start providing it for "free"?

Paltry to you; not to the (literally) millions who don't have internet access because they simply can't afford it. There are people in our country who a deviance of $5 in their monthly expenses is too much for them to handle.

Personally, I don't see this as a bad idea--conceptually. If you look at the other developed economies around the globe, none of them pay as much for their internet/cell phones as we do. Our service providers know that we're willing to pay for this service, so they charge whatever they want; not what they need in order to make a bit of profit. If the government tosses a "free" option out there for people, I really don't see how it'll hurt the common citizen any.

True, but is it really a NEED? I don't see it as a need any more than a cell phone, cable TV, etc. NEED is food, water, shelter, etc. I'm jaded because I grew up in a household where my parents didn't have cable because they couldn't afford it, I don't think many really understand the concept of need vs want.

BTW, there are a number of places where free internet is available. Not only public and business locations with free wifi, but public libraries also offer free PCs and internet. I guess I just don't understand how I (taxpayer) am responsible for providing free wireless internet for those that can't currently afford it. Do we really need more people looking at online porn?:cool:

C'mon Matt it's the ultimate stimulus package.

Or is it package stimulator?