T1B

Posted: **Fri Dec 30, 2005 4:04 am**

I'll be damed I didn't come to my own revelation the other day. (Bow to me!)

When is our government going to make this free to everyone? It solves your regulation issues of making certain addresses free and filtered, it solves your free market enterprise in the form of some type of "cable programming style" of information, it solves the fact that we have radio free and we have television free.

Why isn't the internet free and high speed? As if we aren't all fucking idiots and can't see the future.

Posted: **Fri Dec 30, 2005 5:52 am**

It would take some Intelligent Design to make it happen.

No fucking way, at least while the Republicans are in charge.

Posted: **Fri Dec 30, 2005 3:32 pm**

Who's going to pay the billions to put up the transmission towers?

Posted: **Fri Dec 30, 2005 3:59 pm**

OCmike wrote:Who's going to pay the billions to put up the transmission towers?

There are municiplalities that are doing that, but the telcom industry wants their grubby paws in the deal. This is actualy one of the more profound unspoken issues before Congress these days. Look for the telcom giants to extract their pound of flesh before it is all said and done.

Posted: **Fri Dec 30, 2005 4:07 pm**

Generally speaking, in the US, when a service is provided, someone pays for it, and whoever provides it is compensated for their efforts.

If internet access is to be provided on the backs of taxpayers, should it be given a higher priority than health care, for example?

Posted: **Fri Dec 30, 2005 10:05 pm**

Somebody is a little behind in current events.

Google can be your friend. You might try entering the name Philadelphia in your websearch.

The telecom industry essentially got municipal internet blocked, since it would be a crippling blow to commercial ISPs. Just think, what if Indy started using taxpayer funds and city vehicles to deliver pizzas? You'd be fairly fucked then, wouldn't you?

But of course, us tree-hugging liberals in Portland (who has been at the forefront of wireless from day one, and I believe is still ranked by Intel as the #1 wireless city in the country) have figured out a loophole, and just inked a corporate partnership to A) get the telecom folks to foot thwe bill for setting it up, and B) Keep ther "profit before livability" right-wing crowd's hands out of it.

Doesn't matter to me, really. If one goes anywhere...literally anywhere in the metro area here with a wireless laptop, someone has (most likely intentionally) left an unsecured wireless router there for your use...usually you can access several networks from any given spot. Obviously this would never be dependable as a person's primary internet connection, but there's always a network available.

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:38 am**

Dinsdale wrote:Somebody is a little behind in current events.

Google can be your friend. You might try entering the name Philadelphia in your websearch.

The telecom industry essentially got municipal internet blocked, since it would be a crippling blow to commercial ISPs. Just think, what if Indy started using taxpayer funds and city vehicles to deliver pizzas? You'd be fairly fucked then, wouldn't you?

But of course, us tree-hugging liberals in Portland (who has been at the forefront of wireless from day one, and I believe is still ranked by Intel as the #1 wireless city in the country) have figured out a loophole, and just inked a corporate partnership to A) get the telecom folks to foot thwe bill for setting it up, and B) Keep ther "profit before livability" right-wing crowd's hands out of it.

Doesn't matter to me, really. If one goes anywhere...literally anywhere in the metro area here with a wireless laptop, someone has (most likely intentionally) left an unsecured wireless router there for your use...usually you can access several networks from any given spot. Obviously this would never be dependable as a person's primary internet connection, but there's always a network available.

And that is where you are still a dumb fuck that can't think outside the box. Philadelphia and your suicidal worthless city have the right idea.

Wireless internet SHOULD be free, because it will replace our television signals and radio before long. Governments need to pass legislation to have taxpayers create their own and companies will eventually cave in and do it. In the end the government should do EVERYTHING in their power to force those companies to make the internet free or we are doing it ourselves.

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:42 am**

PSUFAN wrote:Generally speaking, in the US, when a service is provided, someone pays for it, and whoever provides it is compensated for their efforts.

If internet access is to be provided on the backs of taxpayers, should it be given a higher priority than health care, for example?

No!

Our current health care system is a fucking shithole, like our military related programs. You know the one that is fighting a war based on "bad intel" and wasted a shit load of money, while Saudia Arabia never repented.

If we actually held our officials in office to the fire, we'd get what we people need from our system instead of what 4 people need at the top.

Gunslinger's relation clause: This post is related, because I believe Americans should get free internet, because we need our freedom of the press. This is related to the Iraqi war, because what we people need isn't what our leaders give us.

Was this relevant to you?
moderator may edit my post to check their decision

___ It was fine Gunslinger

___ Your explanation saved me from removing it

___ Unnacceptable, that is why your post is now in a new thread

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:10 am**

There are free internet access initiatives everywhere; there is a free network planned for downtown Pittsburgh, for example. Moreover, the fact that many folks leave their networks unsecured doesn't change the fact that these are networks that they pay for.

Are phone carriers likely to allow free use of their networks? And the doctrine of free speech doesn't include the right to freely access said speech, Gunslinger.

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:38 am**

Gunslinger wrote:
Our current health care system is a fucking shithole...

But these are all things which would qualify as infrastucture - health care, communications, etc. Initially there isn't any reason for capital get involved in these projects, investment is massive and no initial payback. The installation of infrastructure falls on the back of the government (with the people footing the bill) It's the shattered ideal of a mixed economy, post war.

When built up to an adequate level, politicians learn that these industries can be sold off for a small profit, so free enterprise kicks in. Which as PSU said, those with capital have access, those without, lose access. So the phrase 'free speech for all' doesn't enter into it.

And have a happy Juche year 95, Gunslinger.

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2005 5:34 pm**

BSmack wrote:
OCmike wrote:Who's going to pay the billions to put up the transmission towers?
There are municiplalities that are doing that, but the telcom industry wants their grubby paws in the deal. This is actualy one of the more profound unspoken issues before Congress these days. Look for the telcom giants to extract their pound of flesh before it is all said and done.

If certain cities want to put it to a vote, that's great. But to require voters nationwide to pay for it, even in non-tech areas makes no sense to me.

I think the debate is whether it's a right or a privilege. Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. Some municipalities create free or low cost transportation for its citizens so that they can travel for free. Should ALL municipalities be required to provide low or no-cost transportation just because some think it's a good idea?

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:35 pm**

OCmike wrote:If certain cities want to put it to a vote, that's great. But to require voters nationwide to pay for it, even in non-tech areas makes no sense to me.

That's not the position of the telecom companies and their bought and paid for legislators on both sides of the aisle. See Texas for an example as they recently banned municipal wireless. Same with Louisiana. And Pennsylvania.

Should state and federal entities be able to dictate how a municipality chooses to use their own money and airspace?

I think the debate is whether it's a right or a privilege. Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. Some municipalities create free or low cost transportation for its citizens so that they can travel for free. Should ALL municipalities be required to provide low or no-cost transportation just because some think it's a good idea?

The debate should be whether or not we as a country can afford not to take the lead in providing fast, efficient Internet service for all, or if we will again place short term profit ahead of the national interest. You speak of "non tech areas" as if those areas will ever have a chance to compete if they don't get on the tech bandwagon. I look at it a matter of paying up front for good infrastructure, or paying long term in the form of more welfare, higher poverty, less productivity and higher Medicare payments.

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2005 7:36 pm**

"...South Korea, is hands down the global leader for broadband Internet access, cost, and speed."

"Contrast that with the United States, which considers itself the center of technological innovation. According to International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the US dropped from 13th to 16th place in global broadband penetration, with 11.4 broadband connections per 100 inhabitants."

World's lone "superpower" my frozen, Canadian ass.

This is pathetic by any measure.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-9-18/32426.html

Posted: **Sat Dec 31, 2005 7:42 pm**

South Korea is ahead of America (WAY ahead) in many areas of technology.

See, kids there actually do a thing called STUDY at school.

Our kids are largely fat, lazy, and extremely under-motivated.

Posted: **Sun Jan 01, 2006 5:50 pm**

poptart wrote:South Korea is ahead of America (WAY ahead) in many areas of technology.

See, kids there actually do a thing called STUDY at school.

Our kids are largely fat, lazy, and extremely under-motivated.

What do your stupid ad hominems have to do with Americans not investing in new technology?

That's right, not a damn thing.

Posted: **Sun Jan 01, 2006 6:28 pm**

It's a logical response to Martyred's post.

You don't like it...?

Tough shit, cowboy.

Posted: **Sun Jan 01, 2006 8:47 pm**

http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-9-18/32426.html wrote:The United States is the only industrialized nation without an explicit national policy for promoting broadband. Both developed and developing nations have stimulated capital expenditures for infrastructure in ways US public and private sector stakeholders have yet to embrace.

Posted: **Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:33 pm**

poptart wrote:It's a logical response to Martyred's post. You don't like it...? Tough shit, cowboy.

Like it? I fucking LOVE it. Your response exposes perfectly your lack of substance.

Posted: **Sun Jan 01, 2006 10:20 pm**

Lack of 'substance' would be 7,907 posts on ONE board in under 1 yr of participation.
22.5 posts per freaking DAY.
And that's on this board.
Who knows how badly your slop up other boards with your brand 'substance.'

Hell, you've logged 1,200 posts more than the member with the second highest total........who hasn't even POSTED in over a month.

Substance consists of making concise points.

Blabbering is, on the other hand, lobbing up posts in every direction, hoping that some of the total BS will stick.

Yours rarely does.

Posted: **Sun Jan 01, 2006 11:33 pm**

I had no idea you were so interested in member post totals. What was that you were saying about getting a life?

Let me know when you have something to say on the subject at hand. Or are you simply going to fling poo at the walls to cover your embarrassing lack of anything even remotely insightful?

Posted: **Sun Jan 01, 2006 11:46 pm**

My point was made 7 posts ago.

Posted: **Mon Jan 02, 2006 12:47 am**

poptart wrote:My point was made 7 posts ago.

Your point was blaming American kids for their parents' unwillingness to fund broadband infrastructure?

How about making sense? You know, just once.

Posted: **Mon Jan 02, 2006 2:51 am**

Dr_Phibes wrote:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/5-9-18/32426.html wrote:The United States is the only industrialized nation without an explicit national policy for promoting broadband. Both developed and developing nations have stimulated capital expenditures for infrastructure in ways US public and private sector stakeholders have yet to embrace.

I like the new sig pic, Phibes.

Posted: **Mon Jan 02, 2006 4:49 am**

Cheers, I thinks it's flash.

I've decided that still images, telegraph wires, gramophones and printing presses are sooo yesterday and animated GIFs are where it's at. No doubt our southern cousins are still waiting for it to load, ala M7 sports talk.

Posted: **Mon Jan 02, 2006 5:24 am**

Dr_Phibes wrote:Cheers, I thinks it's flash.

I've decided that still images, telegraph wires, gramophones and printing presses are sooo yesterday and animated GIFs are where it's at. No doubt our southern cousins are still waiting for it to load, ala M7 sports talk.

I've decided that Firefox's adblock feature is way more where it's at than gifs.

Posted: **Mon Jan 02, 2006 5:37 am**

You bastard.

Posted: **Sat Jan 07, 2006 6:22 am**

I've read through all the posts, the insults to each other, and I like the new thing that the penguin has going, and still wondering...

If the private sector is doing so well providing wireless internet so far, why would we want the government to take this on? I just don't see it.

Wireless spots are popping up everywhere. Where there aren't wireless spots, there is broadband from the cell phone companies. It's out there.

What about this makes us think the government needs to do it! I mean, really..is this going to help the homeless or the hungry? We have a hell of a lot on our plate as a country to feed and immunize before we try and provide a service that is already out there and actually affordable to just about anyone that needs it.

Then again, maybe this is an indication of where we are as a country. Maybe poverty and hunger is so overrated that we can expect our government to wireless everyone before we make sure people are fed or kids have their shots. I'm sure the social security folks would like that wireless also. The lack of mobility thing...they can check on how their new drug benefits suck without leaving their chair once they get the government approved laptop.

It's a nice vision. Thing is that vision is not what the government does well. It's what private industry does well...and is doing well on the wireless thing, so no reason to fuck it up with the government getting involved. I'm all for local governments setting it up as they have funds to do, and many local govs have done a wonderful job at this...but to mandate the feds to do this would be a nightmare.

Posted: **Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:42 am**

Ang wrote:I've read through all the posts, the insults to each other, and I like the new thing that the penguin has going, and still wondering...

If the private sector is doing so well providing wireless internet so far, why would we want the government to take this on? I just don't see it.

Wireless spots are popping up everywhere. Where there aren't wireless spots, there is broadband from the cell phone companies. It's out there.

What about this makes us think the government needs to do it! I mean, really..is this going to help the homeless or the hungry? We have a hell of a lot on our plate as a country to feed and immunize before we try and provide a service that is already out there and actually affordable to just about anyone that needs it.

Then again, maybe this is an indication of where we are as a country. Maybe poverty and hunger is so overrated that we can expect our government to wireless everyone before we make sure people are fed or kids have their shots. I'm sure the social security folks would like that wireless also. The lack of mobility thing...they can check on how their new drug benefits suck without leaving their chair once they get the government approved laptop.

It's a nice vision. Thing is that vision is not what the government does well. It's what private industry does well...and is doing well on the wireless thing, so no reason to fuck it up with the government getting involved. I'm all for local governments setting it up as they have funds to do, and many local govs have done a wonderful job at this...but to mandate the feds to do this would be a nightmare.

Good argument, but you are looking at it from the wrong perspective.

Freedom of press and speech are the foundations of our democracy. The internet allows this to an extreme form.

I want free speech on the internet and I want the government to ensure that searching "teen sex" doesn't produce the literal term under 18.

The government made TV signals free and radio free, because that is what we pay our taxes for. We pay our taxes to ensure we can get in a car and drive to other habitable places. We pay our taxes to get information that those places exist.

If you are homeless then you won't use the internet. That is not an issue.

Soon our television, music and newspapers will only be available through one network. That network should be free. Obviously, the idea was believed when we got TV and radio for free and should be spread upon.

I understand the corporate end, that's fine. I just want this beast to be tamed to ensure that I don't get a virus that fucks up my computer or do a search that goes terribly awry.

This is your future. Websites should be approved by the government to regulate it at the same time giving us the freedom that we express. It will cost billions, but it can be done.

Posted: **Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:36 pm**

Gunslinger wrote:Websites should be approved by the government to regulate it ...

Worst. "Idea." Ever.

But coming from you, it's really no surprise.

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:01 am**

RACK Gunslinger.

For the trolling.

I'm going with the "nobody is this stupid, so he must be trolling" angle. Because if you didn't take that with a grain of salt, it's pure head-exploding material.

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:58 am**

You've got a point -- it would be hard to not slip up every once in a while, while typing on the heavily regulated intenets that are regulated to ensure that they won't become subject to regulation.

OK, you're right...that hurt my head.

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:43 am**

No, you fucking jackasses.

The idea is to ensure that everyone gets their information online and it not be illegal.

That is it. I don't want an internet website made by fundamentalists passing along their ways to kill us, just like I don't want the next Catholic priest sending the pic of the boy he fucked last week.

The idea is that I should get "mature chicks fucked hard" along with my anti Bush information, without "preteen takes it hard" and "Kill George Bush and bomb this subway" all in the same fucking place.

But wait! We have all been dealing with the same moderators over the years so I guess I feel your concern.

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:20 am**

You could always move to China, GS.

The Government there is already doing just what you mentioned.

And if you think our government would do it any differently, think again.

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:08 pm**

So, we protect Freedom of Speech by...see if I've got this right...telling people what they can and cannot put on their privately owned website.

I'd say PSUFan is fairly fucked, and will be executed shortly.

Posted: **Tue Jan 10, 2006 9:13 pm**

I've started shitting my drawers, just to get going on things.

Posted: **Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:43 pm**

Uh...RACK.

T1B

Free high speed wireless internet

Free high speed wireless internet