[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Or- why don't we compare wifi since that is what we are discussing? I suppose we could compare who has the best flowers too, but I don't see how it would be helpful either.

Examples: Asia and Western Europe. Beating our socks off. If you don't agree, then you simply need to do some research.

Our wifi is woefully behind that of many other industrialized nations. And it isn't a matter of the government paying for the infrastructure to be built here. Private enterprise is shouldering much of the responsibility because they are quickly learning that it is very profitable for them to do so. There is a reason Google wants to give people wifi for free.

Private enterprise needs a willing partner in the government. Cities like San Fransisco have jumped on that bandwagon, to their benefit.

We are willing to pay for highways because they are good for the nation for defense and commerce. Wifi isn't much different- and the government doesn't even have to foot the bill for most of America. This is a common-sense idea that Obama has presented.

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Obama's plan allows for this very thing to happen. He hasnt said the government will pay for it for everyone.

The market has largely already dictated coverage maps. Broadband will use the same broadcast towers as already exist for GSM and CDMA cellular. There will be little change to coverage maps as a result of new broadband demand. Cellular phone demand will shape new tower placement much more drastically than broadband demand.

So tell me again ... if the gov't isn't getting involved financially, what exactly is it doing to "lend support"?

If all Obama is advocating is passing a few laws permitting companies to offer wi-fi wherever they want, for whatever price they want, then by all means. The less gov't involved the better.