Speaking personally, I oppose it. The internet is a good thing, but that doesn’t mean I want it pumped into every single place on the planet. I like having internet access in some places. I also like not having internet access in other places. Life is more relaxing when I don’t have to worry about getting interrupted.
Well that has been the reasoning presented by telecoms who spent billions on infrastructure when they worked to crush local wi-fi initiatives.
If by Wi-Fi you mean IEEE 802.11 specification-based technology, then I must disagree. If by Wi-Fi you mean wireless broadband access, then I think it would be a major boon. Personally I’d suggest WiMAX, though there be cries over allocated spectrum use.
This broader wireless goal is already in progress to some extent, boosted by application demand for portables like cell phones.
Er, how exactly can the Internet interrupt your life if you don’t want it to? It’s not like it actively forces you to sit around looking at a laptop screen.
I mean, I understand not wanting to put up with the expectation from others that you will be in Internet contact all the time, but it’s not any different than with, say, cellphones. If you don’t want to deal with it, then you turn your cellphone off; you don’t propose artificially maintaining cellphone coverage at low levels through blind opposition of expansion.
Federally supported, right? One glaring issue it that it puts the government in control of the tubes (ignoring for the moment whether other forms of internet access will exist).
Need I make the China comparison?
You do know you wouldn’t be forced to use it, right?
YET.
No, not until the telecoms go out of business in a year or three.
You didn’t tell us why you think it needs to be free. I don’t get the connection of the printing press to free internet. Yes they’re both great innovations but books weren’t distributed for free.
But I do have an internet/book connection. It’s called the library and you can take out books or use the internet free there.
When you get done explaining why the internet should be free I have additional questions.
I don’t own a cell phone for exactly that reason. If I want to be left alone by other persons for a certain period of time, the best way to accomplish that is to create a situation where they have no means of contacting me. And the best way to accomplish that is to not have the right technology for being contacted. Once Nationwide Wi-Fi is established, employers will start expecting that their employees be in touch all the time, leading to a loss of quiet time alone.
Suppose the government started delivering free cartons of cigarettes to everyone’s doorstep every morning. That would make it much harder to quit smoking, even though no one would be forced to smoke them. When the internet is only a click of a button away, it’s much harder to resist the temptation to use it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122911167960602397.html?mod=rss_US_News
That article explains some of the reasons…it’s about the letter that Sen. Rockefeller and Congressman Waxman sent to Chairman Martin asking him not to address the issue next week.
Thanks for the responses everyone. Today turned out to be busier than I expected so I’ve done a poor job responding so far; I will do some research/thinking this evening to discuss further, but I wanted to address this real quick:
Short Answer: I think the internet will have a similar social impact that the printing press had, in that people will notice a sharp distinction in society pre and post. Speaking as someone who spent roughly half his life pre and half post, I definitely notice the difference. My mom even regularly comments “How did we do anything before the internet?” As for why it should be free: I think the people who have the most to benefit from the internet are the people with the least means to pay for it. It has everything you need to get a better job and improve your life.
I’m sure the homeless folks sleeping under bridges would appreciate the ability to have free WiFi while they freeze to death. The people who depend on food banks to feed their families really need WiFi too. Very helpful with those laptops they hocked to buy food 6 months ago.
Seriously. This is very much a naive, misguided, “Let them eat cake” solution to a non-problem.
Before cellphones I had a director who was famous for calling people at home to discuss issues. And of course cellphones can be on all the time, but laptops don’t have to be. When everyone has a Blackberry or iPhone the situation will be closer.
Ah, yessss, WiMAX. Whatever happened to that? In the past, it was supposed to be the wave of the future.
So who do you think should be forced to pay so others can have it free? Are you volunteering? Are you volunteering me??
Air broadcast rights issues.
“non-problem”? Which of us is being naive? And I wasn’t referring to homeless people, that’s a whole different problem. I’m referring to people working for low/minimum wages who have the desire but maybe not the means to improve their lives.
As I said earlier, this would be a government sponsored initiative. It won’t be free, but it would be a drop in the bucket compared to, say, bailing out the failing business which we seem perfectly happy to throw hundreds of billions at.
It ain’t me. Low income families can go to public libraries and get internet access. Meanwhile, you’re spending federal tax dollars on a non-problem…when we have a huge deficit, and plenty of more urgent problems to solve.
Once we get to a point where there are no homeless or hungry, we’ve cured cancer, aids, and erectile disfunction, space travel is passe, and there’s a workable playoff system in college football, then, maybe, we can care about your luxury issue. Until then, nope. Non-problem, with no budget priority.
And how does that differ from a tax-supported plan paid for by the citizens?