reply to factchecker
Re: Esme Vos the typical liberal said by factchecker :
It is nice to see the meaning of the words "irrefutable" and "truth" being abuse... There is nothing irrefutable about this. A luxury item is still a luxury item. Unless you can furnish proof that vast numbers of people will die without wired broadband, you cannot claim that it is not a luxury.
said by factchecker :
The reason there is so much debate on this topic is because of the mixed success of such operations. There is also a large number of people who just want another something for nothing. "Free Wireless Internet" is just the latest thing.
said by factchecker :
Any one who claims that every muni operations out there is a failure is either lying or distorting the truth because of an agenda. My agenda has always been to be opposed to any government-subsidized internet. I do apologize if it appears that I am hiding this agenda. I try to be very open about it.
said by factchecker :
I could show you quite a few HR portals that are so bogged down in useless Flash crap that it would take quite a while to fill out an application as you wait for the pages to load. So, be patient.
said by factchecker :
As for the library option, keep that in mind next time the library asks for more taxes to pay for the additional computers and bandwidth to meet the demand of the patrons. Governments have been paying for libraries for thousands of years and they have been a great educational asset to humanity in that time. Griping about spending more money on libraries for Internet is like griping about them spending more money to buy books.
said by factchecker :
Nice diversion there... You shift the demand for broadband from end users to the companies that generate content with the flick of the wrist... Amazing. To bad that isn't how it works. You were the one who mentioned how Corporate America was crazy about broadband. Again, if they want it, let them pay for it.
said by factchecker :
End users want broadband... Most are willing to pay. The marketplace has failed them. Period. There's nothing stopping individual end users from investing their own money in their own private Internet venture. If it is such a money maker, I am sure they will make a great return on their investment.
said by factchecker :
We've hashed this point out... You have your opinion, I have mine. Sadly, no one ever lost an election in this country by promising "free stuff" for people.
said by factchecker :
Note that things like franchise agreements don't apply. And why not? We saw how FIOS video was held up in NYC (and in other areas) over concerns regarding cherry-picking. The end result of this was no one got any video service. We also saw that in places where there were looser restrictions, such as Indiana, there was broader deployment of service.
said by factchecker :
So? Let them speak their mind at the voting box when measures like this are put up for a vote. Simple as that because in that case, everyone gets to voice their opinion. So what is wrong with their elected representatives doing this when they pass and enact bills?
said by factchecker :
Get ready for that to change. Note the story post this morning about Sprint and other providers moving to caps. It is a capacity issue and it will take years to resolve. I'm curious about this too. My personal guess is that Sprint just wants to have a way to cut off people who they believe abuse their service. At the very least Sprint and Verizon advertise their caps, unlike some other ISPs.
said by factchecker :
3G is not, nor never was, designed as a last mile replacement technology. Phone lines and cable lines were also never designed to carry Internet traffic via DSL and DOCSIS service either, but they do. Technologies change, and are quite adaptable.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | 
