sfgate.com— The San Francisco controller's office issued a favorable review Friday on a proposal by EarthLink and Google to provide the city with free wireless Internet access.
May 12, 2007View in Crawl 4
1 mbps?! for $22US?compared to what's capable without the "*up to 1mbps!!!" (which likely equates the mean to be a down speed of around 300 kbps), it seems as though it would be best to keep a hardwire line, too.
The way that the Internet has ingrained itself into our society, i do think that at some point it absolutely needs to be completely ubiquitous. I'm all for this, and I'd gladly pay to subsidize other people access (especially for lower-income households who can't afford this almost required amenity).
So you're saying you don't want free internet either?and @pixelat3d:I agree with you 100%. I know a lot of people that can not afford to pay for internet, and I live in a well off community. I know that there a lots and lots of families that are without internet (and maybe some that don't want it), and in todays world the internet is something that helps a lot with day to day life.
So because we WANT free Internet, and because some people don't have it, the government should provide it on the backs of the taxpayers? I want a free car, and a lot of people don't have cars, so maybe the government should buy cars for everyone, too.
@pennconEh. I would like to agree with you, but such thinking hasn't been around since Grover Clevland's era when they used to think government was not to interfere in the lives of people, but after the people forced DC to give out pensions and then of course government handouts it is a moot point.In reality, the people control the government as it should be and apparently the people (for good or bad) want free handouts. The alternative would of course be a dictatorship which goes against the will of the people which even though may carry out the policies of the minority of economic thinking (you and me) would be just wrong since dictatorships are inherently evil and eventually get corrupt.Of course the same could be said about the tyranny of the majority, but the best solution I think I could offer to any individual is to make your best effort to pay as little taxes as possible in this environment.That said... If tax money is going to be spent on something, I'd rather see it going to internet access than plain old handouts. This way it provides tech geeks and network engineers jobs and spurs technology growth.
I agree with pennconn. I would challenge people to name one public service which is still well funded, well run and responds to consumer demand?As an aside - do you want to give the government the ability to monitor everything you do on the internet? Do you want the lobbyists to have another area they can pressure the government in? Imagine the RIAA and MPAA they would love the government to control the internet, it would add so much value to their current team of lobbyists.
Holy s**t thats slow! "$22 a month for 1 megabit per second of broadband service or receive free service with speeds topping out at 300 kilobits per second."Although it is extremely cheap for even that.S.F. should have passed a bill that pushes the bar up higher on what is considered broadband service to have it be 1mbit as a minimum, or have a gradually increasing scale that says the speed has to increase by so much over a period of time.
dotcommerMay 13, 2007
Well.. technically... NOTHING is free....
superdoofusMay 13, 2007
1 mbps?! for $22US?compared to what's capable without the "*up to 1mbps!!!" (which likely equates the mean to be a down speed of around 300 kbps), it seems as though it would be best to keep a hardwire line, too.
jeremy66158May 13, 2007
There are ads all over the internet when I pay for it so free with ads is better. Let's not forget that free wifi in SF has already started with no approval and with no ads: <a class="user" href="http://meraki.net/news/2007/03/04/meraki-networks-selects-san-francisco/">http://meraki.net/news/2007/03/04/meraki-networks-selects-san-francisco/</a>
pixelat3dMay 13, 2007
The way that the Internet has ingrained itself into our society, i do think that at some point it absolutely needs to be completely ubiquitous. I'm all for this, and I'd gladly pay to subsidize other people access (especially for lower-income households who can't afford this almost required amenity).
spingkMay 13, 2007
So you're saying you don't want free internet either?and @pixelat3d:I agree with you 100%. I know a lot of people that can not afford to pay for internet, and I live in a well off community. I know that there a lots and lots of families that are without internet (and maybe some that don't want it), and in todays world the internet is something that helps a lot with day to day life.
pennconMay 13, 2007
So because we WANT free Internet, and because some people don't have it, the government should provide it on the backs of the taxpayers? I want a free car, and a lot of people don't have cars, so maybe the government should buy cars for everyone, too.
vertinoxMay 13, 2007
@pennconEh. I would like to agree with you, but such thinking hasn't been around since Grover Clevland's era when they used to think government was not to interfere in the lives of people, but after the people forced DC to give out pensions and then of course government handouts it is a moot point.In reality, the people control the government as it should be and apparently the people (for good or bad) want free handouts. The alternative would of course be a dictatorship which goes against the will of the people which even though may carry out the policies of the minority of economic thinking (you and me) would be just wrong since dictatorships are inherently evil and eventually get corrupt.Of course the same could be said about the tyranny of the majority, but the best solution I think I could offer to any individual is to make your best effort to pay as little taxes as possible in this environment.That said... If tax money is going to be spent on something, I'd rather see it going to internet access than plain old handouts. This way it provides tech geeks and network engineers jobs and spurs technology growth.
graystarMay 13, 2007
I agree with pennconn. I would challenge people to name one public service which is still well funded, well run and responds to consumer demand?As an aside - do you want to give the government the ability to monitor everything you do on the internet? Do you want the lobbyists to have another area they can pressure the government in? Imagine the RIAA and MPAA they would love the government to control the internet, it would add so much value to their current team of lobbyists.
robinator08May 13, 2007
Holy s**t thats slow! "$22 a month for 1 megabit per second of broadband service or receive free service with speeds topping out at 300 kilobits per second."Although it is extremely cheap for even that.S.F. should have passed a bill that pushes the bar up higher on what is considered broadband service to have it be 1mbit as a minimum, or have a gradually increasing scale that says the speed has to increase by so much over a period of time.
Closed AccountMay 14, 2007
Yeah, when a liberal San Franciscan politician says "Free" she-him-it means more taxes.