I am deeply saddened by the fact that the Bush administration pressured the FCC to cancel a meeting on a vote which would have put free broadband in the hands of hundreds of millions of Americans. This is my opinion is perhaps one of the most damaging things the Bush administration has done to date and it is shocking that they don't have the capacity to see the potential of giving free wireless internet to all.
I guess this is what happens when you have a person who really doesn't use the internet in charge of the country. It's scary really.
I was not an Obama fan. Since he was elected I have been happy with most everything he has done. In addition, the guy understands tech. Really gets it and actually uses it. What a refreshing idea for those of us who make a living - not pumping oil but creating new and existing technologies which make the world a better and more productive place.
One other point worth making is that some are concerned about the fact that the government wanted to censor the free internet that would have been provided as part of an auction. My take? TV and libraries are already censored. I don't remember a porn section in any of the libraries I went to growing up and in college.
If these groups are against censorship, they should be focusing on TV, radio and literary censorship first.
One other important point. I truly believe free internet would not be of the greatest quality and would not impact paid internet service providers to a great extent if at all.
Technorati
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Digg
twitter
Free Internet for all Americans? Who's going to build and maintain the multi-billion dollar network if they have to "give" it away? You don't get something for nothing.
If you give it away, in a few years we'll have to bailout the broadband providers. I'm tired of bailing out failed socialistic ideas - from the Community Reinvestmant Act (CRA) which gave risky loans to poor people with questionable credit to socialized labor unions which forced ridiculous regulations and benefits upon their companies making them unprofitable. (See: UAW)
I really don't like the government mandating to the private sector what they should do or how they should price their products to be profitable. Our forefathers would be rolling in their graves at all this government intervention in businesses.
With enough wireless competition, prices will come down. If you artificially force "free" Internet, you're headed down a very slippery slope.
Last I checked, poor people in this country had plasma TVs, PS3s, subsidized housing, free emergency care, and more. We have perhaps the richest poor people in the world or close to it. If they want Internet access, they'll pay for it.
I don't want to subsidize their "free" Internet by paying a higher premium myself. If they can't afford it, go to a library, McDonalds or a Starbucks with free Wi-Fi. Problem solved!
I have to agree with Tom. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
There are plenty of ways of getting free or cheap Internet access. Mandating carriers offer free Internet is not the way to go.
I would be somewhat in favor of using the Universal Service Fund (USF), a tax-supported fund to help offset Internet costs to the poor.
But my guess is most poor Americans are paying for their Internet access already. Well, except for the extremely poor.
I am surprised the article did not mention anything about M2Z as it would clear up a lot of misconceptions. “One other important point. I truly believe free internet would not be of the greatest quality and would not impact paid internet service providers to a great extent if at all.” If you take a look at M2Z’s FAQ tab on their site the first question they answer states that the free wireless internet would be “competitive with low-end DSL and about 6 times faster than conventional dial-up.”
There is a lot of information on their site with exact details on just about every question you could possibly have including how they plan to make money. M2Z is in fact just another company wanting in on what is currently a billion dollar industry the only difference is they have a new inventive way of marketing their product. The fact that the Bush administration and the FCC are cancelling this vote makes me question if the Telecommunications Act 1996 means anything to anyone.
Tom, you make a very good point. If you subsidize the internet and the government begins to realize how important it is, we will likely be bailing out Verizon and AT&T during our next recession.
But then again, the governemnt does provide our roads -- if they didn't we would get charged by a variety of private companies whenever we drive (or walk?) Ditto for our police and fire services.
John makes a great point -- perhaps the solution is to give some sort of broadband credit to the poor. I am not a big beleiver in the USF, or adding to it in any way -- it has similar transparency to investments made by Madoff and we know how that turned out.
Regarding the comments on M2Z -- I don't beleive free broadband access can ever work very well. Having jumped on many free wireless internet systems myself -- in hotels and cities, I have never found one of these that was any good.
True, the government does provide roads, but roads too are NOT free. For interstate highways, the federal government pays most if not all of it with funds collected from federal income taxes. For intrastate highways, each state pays its own share paid for by state taxes, tolls, as well as some federal subsidies. We just don't pay attention to how much money is taken out of out paycheck to pay for these federal and state programs.
Unfortunately, we keep hearing these "great ideas" how to offer more services to Americans via the government, and we just think the government can do anything with their "limitless" funds. They can just print more money - it's just Monopoly money after all. Who cares about the impacts on inflation, which will no doubt hit us in the next 18 months from all these bailouts?
So the question is do you want really want your state and/or federal taxes to increase and go towards building "free" Internet access for every American. If you agree to pay higher taxes for that, why not tax the taxpayers even more to give a free car or a free house to all Americans? Ok, we all agree that's too expensive and not practical or even analogous to free Internet.
Ok, well Internet access costs about $30/month, which is also roughly what basic telephone service costs per month. Why not have the federal government give every American a free landline supported by federal taxes?
While the USF helps offset costs to the carriers in building out infrastructure to rural areas, the USF still doesn't give poor people a "free" landline.
Once you start mandating free entitlements and forcing carriers to give stuff for free, there goes the free market and the
slowfast road to a socialized, no-growth, unfree economy.Free Internet is a great idea, but nothing in life is truly free. Someone has to pay for it. I reiterate that there are plenty of places to get free Internet (library, Starbucks) or cheap Internet access (cafe). If someone truly wants something, they'll work for it and earn it.