Since I’ve already mentioned free library internet connections what are we missing from your scenario?
I’ll just go ahead and answer. We’re missing the free computers needed to get on the internet. And the free software needed to operate the computer. And the free support needed to maintain the software and computer. And the free government employees who oversee it. And the free extra towers needed to broadcast it. And the free ground network needed to feed the towers. And the free servers to handle the free porn that will clog up the bandwidth. And the free counseling for the sex-addicts who can’t stop surfing porn long enough to apply for a job.
Feel free to jump in with an estimate of the cost.
And here is the crux of our disagreement. Maybe you think of the internet as some frivolous diversion akin to tv or video games, but I think of it as a much more powerful tool for social change. I believe that soon, if not now, not being connected to the internet will be a large social disadvantage. I guess libraries can theoretically handle this, but given my experience trying to use internet at libraries frankly I doubt it.
No I wasn’t missing this, that is where the whole “it won’t be free” thing (that I’ve had to repeat far too often, IMO) comes in. However, the only thing on your list that I think is prohibitive at the moment are the computers with the software, and those are getting more and more accessable. Internet ready PDAs are $200, so I don’t think the $50 computer is a fantasy at all.
If you want to start a thread about the merits of food banks or universal health care, be my guest. It has no relevance to this thread, unless you are trying to present a false dichotomy of we either get one or the other.
Nope. I’m saying your idea is silly. Bad. Misguided. Not important. Should not be done. Frivolous. Impractical. Low priority. Waste of tax funds needed for other, more worthwhile projects. The kind of thing that causes crusty old curmudgeons to point and laugh at starry-eyed do-gooders.
What discussion? You handwave away every objection. You’ve made no proposal for how to pay for it. Are you seriously proposing to raise taxes for this? Or would you take the money from other government programs? Which ones?
If free library service operated by professional IT people isn’t up to your standards what makes you think it will improve with in-home systems?
Here’s my take on it. Internet service is provided “free” in schools and libraries. There is plenty of free office software on the net to be functionally useful. If your $50 computer comes into being then people can buy that along with $10/month internet service. We’re done.
IMO, few people go without the internet because of monetary reasons. It’s more a lack of knowledge on how to use it than money. I see many people on public assistance who make poor lifestyle decisions and I see no reason to correct this with my money. I worked my way through school while living in a mobile home and driving crappy cars.
I see your point Magiver, but I think lack of knowledge and lack of accessibility go hand in hand. If everyone with a machine can get to the internet, I think it would spur the impulse to gain the knowledge. At the very least, it would take away any excuses for NOT taking advantage of it. In home units will work better because each unit will have a person responsible for it, and have much fewer hands touching it. I’m sure you have experienced the difference between using a public computer and using your own PC personalized for you.
When I get home I will take a look at Captain Amazing’s links and do some research to come up with a rough estimate of what it will take, but I am pretty sure the cost will pale in comparison to many government programs that we happily subsidize today.
I suspect that as kids are exposed to the internet in school they will understand it’s potential and will fund it themselves as they become adults. I don’t see the need to fund this and I see a boondoggle in the making. The nano-second a national system is approved it will become a techno-dinosaur that nobody wants but taxpayers get to pay for.
I’m just not seeing the need. What I do see is public housing that allows people to spend money on items I wouldn’t buy because it’s not prudent. When taxes are used to fund life-style choices then it is unproductive. That’s the test. We should fund education to teach people how to earn a living. That should be the function of government assistance.
Universal Wifi would be galactically expensive. Millions of Americans live in rural or semi-rural areas, often with terrain that is quite rugged. I spent this past summer hiking the Appalachian Trail. The people who carried cell phones only got reception a third to half of the time. And mind you, this is not just in the middle of nowhere – the AT runs along the eastern seaboard. Only an hour outside of New York City, people were getting no signal at all.
There are environmental issues. The erection of cell towers in mountainous areas is already controversial: to be useful, the towers have to be put up as high as possible – i.e. on top of a mountain – which isn’t popular with people who come seeking peace and quiet, to say nothing of the people who built their retirement home in a given spot because of the beautiful views.
The tax burden would be wildly uneven relative to the cost. In a major city, a single cell tower serves thousands of people. In remote Idaho, that single tower only hooks up 50 people. Dennis Cove, Tennessee has a winter population of about 12. Do they get a tower, paid for by the tax dollars of New Yorkers and Los Angelenos? And if not, why not? Even if we just say that the wifi will be “widely available,” and write off the very rural areas, the cost to build, maintain and replace the towers would amount to a huge subsidy to rural areas at the expense of urban/suburban ones. I’m not opposed to this per se – I like it, actually. But the I’m the kind of guy who wouldn’t mind living in Dennis Cove if they had free wifi, paid for by the urbanites. I suspect said urbanites might feel differently.
Another point to ponder…nothing ever comes from the government without strings attached. One such string might be regulating content. We already see filtering software required on public access terminals in libraries. If the government is giving away free itnernet, there’s nothing to stop them from monitoring it. Search for taboo things, and you get yourself on a no-fly list or worse.
People have this idea of the internet as some low maintenance natural right like water or air. Broadband whether delivered by by wire or air is expensive to deliver, and expensive to maintain. Most free wifi schemes have foundered on delivery cost issues, and how to pay for them. Nothing is free and the net access isn’t really “cheap” although it may look that way as you sip your latte and enjoy free Starbucks internet.
Poor people aren’t poor because they lack Internet service. Free computers and free internet is available in almost all secondary schools and service is free in many restaurants and cafes. You can get serviceable used notebooks for less than 300 and serviceable desktops for less than 200. If you are so poor that you cannot save up a few hundred for a PC and do your surfing in numerous free zones then your issues are larger than broadband can solve.
As someone else noted, the problem can become a social expectation that you be in touch at all times.
The other thing is, even if you don’t carry a laptop, others do. As I noted, I’ve been spending time in some truly rural places. And a lot of people do not take kindly to climbing to the top of a mountain to enjoy the view and the air, only to find some other guy sittling up there talking to his broker or his boss or whatever. In point of fact, there is a general etiquette that you should not use your cellphone within earshot of some else’s tent, but of course not everyone follows it.
The OP’s idea invites a situation where someone goes to, say, a national park seeking tranquility in nature, only to find a bunch of people talking on cellphones and downloading porn.
Yes, that someone was me, in the very passage you quoted. I also noted that addressing such a problem (if it is one) by restricting coverage is misguided.
The problem here, if there is one, is not the fact that cellphone and Internet access are available.
Private industry seems to be in one hell of a rush to have wi-fi, cell, and other means of digital communication available pretty much everywhere. I cannot think of a dumber place for the government to get involved than to erect a competing infrastructure against a private one that’s going to accomplish the same thing in five, ten years, tops. I find the entire idea surreal, like suggesting the government spend money to ensure a lot of fast food is available.
Having looked more into the subject, I am going to have to eat some crow. I no longer think we should attempt government sponsored nationwide wifi. Not because it isn’t a good idea, but because evey attempt so far has been pathetic. Milwaukee succeeded (for $20 mil) but unless I am reading their mapwrong it covers approximately 5 city blocks. San Francisco and Portland both tried. SF’s never got off the ground, and Portland’s is on it’s way out
So screw that, we clearly as a country just aren’t ready to get the job done there. Furthermore, the article I linked is misleading. Upon closer look, what the Bush administration is opposed to is “requir[ing] whoever buys the chunk of wireless spectrum being auctioned next year to set aside a quarter for no-fee service to rural areas that don’t have broadband access.” Hardly what I mean by Nationwide Wi-Fi.
So all I have left now is this: Am I the only one here who thinks the internet is not getting enough credit in this thread? I’m seeing it casually likened to fast food and dismissed as checking email. Really? Having the whole world’s knowledge at one’s fingertips is that irrelevant? This might be a more interesting debate than the OP. To me this isn’t fast food, this is electricity or water. I get just as bummed when the internet goes out as I do during a general power outage.
