Obama: broadband internet access for all!

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Heh, the US is not "behind" at all. One could also say we're "behind" on state-run health care by that standard. Just curious, I wonder how of these generous nations have our GDP and population.

Oh, and please fill me in: who's going to pay for it again?

See below. Then visit another country with good wifi and get back to me on whether or not we are behind.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Obama didn't say the government was going to pay for it. He said he would ensure it was available to everyone. Private enterprise is making this a reality in many cities already (ala San Francisco). Corporations have proven that they are far more than willing to foot the bill to put in wifi in many cities where they have received cooperation from local governments. He is simply promising the support of the federal government.

So what does that mean exactly? He's gonna hire cheerleaders?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The US IS behind in wifi technology. Far behind. You can whine and say "yeah, but they are socialist!" But it doesn't change the fact that they are beating our socks off in that area. Wifi is good for everyone. So why shouldn't we want it for everyone as a matter of national policy?

I still dispute this notion that we are having our "socks beat off", but be that as it may, your last question is inane.

Porsche's are good for everyone too. So are $150,000-a-year paying jobs. Should we want it for everyone as a matter of national policy?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

See below. Then visit another country with good wifi and get back to me on whether or not we are behind.

Country? Try continent....like most of western Europe and Asia.

The US is a joke when it comes to broadband access. Our phony 3G capabilities that arent even a reality here yet.....they are last week's news in Japan, Korea, Scandanavia, etc...

I personally would love wi-fi in populated US areas and beyond. The fact that we may have to pay for it in tax or increased rates from a private company doesnt turn me off at all.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

See below. Then visit another country with good wifi and get back to me on whether or not we are behind.

Do you have some hard examples, or are you just going to continue to float this?

And again, let's not compare just per capita ... let's compare GDP and population size. And tax rates.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

Porsche's are good for everyone too. So are $150,000-a-year paying jobs. Should we want it for everyone as a matter of national policy?

I dont think the plan would be to run cable to everyone's house. I think it would be to make it available en masse wirelessly.

It isnt as difficult an implementation as it may appear.

The availability is different from the promise that everyone will get a computer. Obama's idea is to just make it available. frankly, the people that would benefit the most from that are wealthier people, anyway. Why wouldnt they want wi-fi everywhere?

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Clasic. Your post was SOMEWHAT TIC (thanks for the caps on that one), followed by your "guarantee" that it will happen. I think you may need to brush up on the TIC meaning.

Obama didn't say the government was going to pay for it. He said he would ensure it was available to everyone. Private enterprise is making this a reality in many cities already (ala San Francisco). Corporations have proven that they are far more than willing to foot the bill to put in wifi in many cities where they have received cooperation from local governments. He is simply promising the support of the federal government.

The US IS behind in wifi technology. Far behind. You can whine and say "yeah, but they are socialist!" But it doesn't change the fact that they are beating our socks off in that area. Wifi is good for everyone. So why shouldn't we want it for everyone as a matter of national policy?

Oh, and I do love the hypocrisy of saying that this is "buying votes" (when he hasn't promised to fund it in the first place), but cutting taxes isn't the same thing- right?

Pray tell- what is the difference? I know you support a candidate who promises to cut taxes.

Hey Wannabe-Cali Coug (since you never answered if you are a CA native or not, I will assume youre not, thus you are now "Wannabe" until you inform otherwise), I guarantee that people will call for the government to provide free laptops, not that the gov will actually do it. Understand? Sorry for assuming too much regarding your reading comprehension.

The difference is, one candidate is telling me what the government is going to do with my money, the other is telling me I can keep the money and do what I want with it. That's the difference between idiots like Hillary Clinton, and people that support her. They think the government can do a better job spending my money than I can.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I dont think the plan would be to run cable to everyone's house. I think it would be to make it available en masse wirelessly.

It isnt as difficult an implementation as it may appear.

The availability is different from the promise that everyone will get a computer. Obama's idea is to just make it available. frankly, the people that would benefit the most from that are wealthier people, anyway. Why wouldnt they want wi-fi everywhere?

Philadelphia has tried to make broadband available everywhere and it's been a mixed bag at best. Stating is as a goal is one thing, trying to actually get it up and running is something else altogether.

Nothing more than vacuous campaign trail banter.

[venomous viper]

a candidate-- to be paid with taxpayers money as long as there are adaquate taxpayers to foot all the bills..

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I noticed how you conveniently stopped at 2006, which is right around the time the paper tiger of 2003-2006 started to crumble and reveal itself.

I agree that millions of people get dividend payments each year. unfortunately, over 100 million pay taxes. I enjoyed the divided tax cut personally, but I dont pretend it really only benefited to more wealthy amongst us. It still doesnt make it a bad idea. Obama's idea for broadband signal towers or inside building structures isnt even really progressive...it is already being done outside the US. If anything, he is trying to get us to catch up.

I view building out a tech infrastructure similarly to building roads.

Fine, I'll include Q1 and Q1 of 07 also.

I'm not arguing against broadband access for everyone! LMBO! The point is there are MUCH bigger fish to fry with regard to the country's problems.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Philadelphia has tried to make broadband available everywhere and it's been a mixed bag at best. Stating is as a goal is one thing, trying to actually get it up and running is something else altogether.

Nothing more than vacuous campaign trail banter.

I would agree except what is being "promised" is something already being implemented successfully abroad.

You conveniently use Philly as an example of a mixed bag, yet ignore japan, Korea, scandanavia, and other true 3G areas where it not only works, but has been operational for a few years.

i think in this case, we would not look domestically for an implementation model. We would have to look abroad.

I am not saying it wont cost cash. I think I have made it clear that I am more than willing to help pay for it in the form of a tax or if the networks want to charge me an extra 25 cents a month or something on my phone bill. That is great by me.

Are you suggesting that we not even try to make wi-fi accessible as it already is in other parts of the world?