geekosystem

lol would be Obamanet :)

So many other nations have government run media. And guess what. They are renown for their fairness, much more so than most private media. But then I guessd you prefer the propaganda from the right to control everything.

See the BBC (Britain), CBC (Canada), ABC (Australia),

I definitely agree with this sentiment. Government provided services aren’t “free.” They have costs like anything else and those costs are passed to the taxpayers. Given the fact that government expenditures exceed tax revenues by 41%, the “free wifi” would be paid for with money we don’t have. On top of that, governments are notoriously wasteful when spending other people’s money for other people. If one wants to help make wireless internet more affordable, I would suggest deregulating. There is plenty of collusion between cell phone carriers and the government that increase costs for consumers and increase barriers for entry.

Think of how many jobs this would create? More government jobs. Better benefits and less gouging of the consumer. If this ever becomes a reality, remember to thank Obama for giving us the future instead of letting corporations step on our necks even harder.

Its so much better when corporations have your health care because at least they can look out for themselves and their profits and screw the public over. Much better. I have a friend from France who recently broke his leg. For the first time in his life he realizes just how important socialized health care really is. When he received the massive bills, he was floored! He is now bankrupt and is going back to France for free treatment. He felt ashamed about ever talking bad about his country’s socialized medical care system.

Whoosh.

I actually laughed aloud at this one. Unfortunately your comment displays below Mr. Fusion’s head.

Because they need a profit margin to keep their business running. Don’t you know anything about the basics of running a business? It’s pretty hard when you’re not the govt. and can go into debt without worrying. Are you an idiot or are you just trolling?

Then we would need to pay a “wireless permit” tax. Just like in England has a “TV tax”. If you want to receive any transmission then you have to pay the government money for it. IMO that isn’t what American freedom should be about.

Also did you even think to consider population and finances? UK has 62 million people, Canada 34 Million, and Australia 22 million. While the US has over 310 million people. Even if you add up all three of those countries it is still 1/3 of the population of the United States. I’m sorry your just a delusional person from the left who wants the government to provide the citizens everything without thinking about the cost or individual liberties.

I’m always amused at the total lack of argument that people arguing against the government providing basic infrastructure as part of the public commons. It’s not like providing a public police force eliminated the world’s second oldest profession (private security, first established in the 1600s). It’s not like providing a public transportation system didn’t get supplemented with the likes of Greyhound, SWIFT, United Airlines and BNSF. It’s not like providing a public education system put out the likes of Catholic schools, ITT Tech or Yale… Seriously, surely you have something to back what you’re saying.

Are you honestly suggesting that providing basic level internet access, primarily in regions not covered by any network currently (and therefore not impacting your business at all) would put you out of a job? You’re saying your business couldn’t adapt and innovate in order to remain more competitive with a basic public signal? If so, this says more about your company’s long term viability with or without a public option than it does about whether or not we should have a public option.

Quick: You’re somewhere in the midwest, more than an hour from a McDonald’s or Starbucks. Find a free wifi node. GO!

You can’t get free WiFi in your neck of the woods. Why should my tax money pay to subsidize your internet because you choose to live in a remote area? Wouldn’t it make more sense for you to pay for the internet you use yourself?

How do you define “profit” for Amtrak, Interstate Freeway System and the military? By no estimate I am aware of does Amtrak take in enough user fees to pay for its operating costs?

It is a poor argument to say that the government does many expensive things inefficiently, so therefore it should do more things at a greater cost. I assume that’s not what you’re saying, so please clarify.

I don’t buy that argument for a few reasons, the biggest one is that there’s no satisfying the TEA party hypocrites that like to whine about having to pay into the public commons they benefit from (especially the ones who are part of the 99% that are truly misguided and think user fees and sales taxes would save them money over property and income taxes, but that’s a discussion for another post).

It’s 2013. It’s literally impossible to find a good paying job if you’re not online at this point, and it’s not time efficient (or given the state of rural landline telecom these days, often even possible) to get a dialup connection. High speed internet access definitely should be considered a basic utility along with electricity, water, sewer and telephone at this point. Heck, it’s possible to function in the modern world with an email/XMPP address but no phone number a lot easier than it is the other way around: Internet access is more basic of a need than phone service now. Fortunately, some cities, such as Ponca City and Enid, Oklahoma, aren’t fucking around waiting for the private sector to decide it’s profitable and now have city-wide high speed internet access, free and open without so much as a click-through page to connect. Literally just connect and you’re on. And this is in a red meat diet, gun-toting, truck driving Republican red state, and even Oklahomans realize that a socialist approach to this works best. Nothing’s stopping you from spending the serious amount of coin to get high speed internet to your house or business there, but if that expense is insurmountable or the public option works well enough for you, it’s there.

We already pay for services we don’t directly benefit from, whether we want it or not, because we benefit secondarily from living in a society where we’re leveraging an economy of scale by having everyone chip in. I don’t have kids, but I pay for public schools, and I benefit by having access to a labor market that at least turns up a few qualified candidates when I need to hire someone. I don’t drive 110,000 triple-trailer or turnpike double trucks, but I pay for motorist infrastructure capable of carrying such loads. I benefit by not having to drive to a stockyard myself every time I want beef, or the middle of a farm field if I want produce, or the Columbia River if I want some good salmon. I’m not a veteran, but I pay for the VA. We benefit from reduced homelessness and, again, access to a highly skilled workforce with the added benefit of specialized training and a can-do attitude. These are all examples of things we all pay for that most of us don’t directly benefit from that the private sector cares fuckall about, because tackling those problems isn’t profitable. In every one of those examples above, the private sector had it’s chance, and either couldn’t or wouldn’t handle the issue in a way that amicably satisfied all interested parties.

That’s why socialism works: The free market is welcome to tackle what it wants to, but for the stuff it doesn’t want to that there’s still a basic need for, government handles it. The need for basic infrastructure, both physical and social, isn’t going away just because “it’s unfair” that they can’t turn a profit in a sector they already discarded as unprofitable. It’s not like they can’t go compete against the public sector again later. After all, freight railroads compete against Amtrak Express Freight. FedEx and UPS compete with the Postal Service. The Catholic Church and a lot of other groups and companies compete against public K12 schools and state colleges. Greyhound competes against Amtrak Thruway (and ironically, often operates Amtrak Thruway routes, even!). Airlines compete against Amtrak’s overnight long distance, and high speed regional trains. Taxis compete against public transport. Even in Enid and Ponca City, AT&T and Windstream compete against the public wifi.

Want a bigger drain on the private economy? Do away with the public commons. Go back to home-schooling your own kids, driving on private unpaved roads long distance, hiring your own security, putting out your own fires. I guarantee you prices for everything will go up, worker efficiency will go down and everyone will be wishing for the grand old days of everybody pitching in for a public commons that makes everything go faster, easier, cheaper and levels the playing field for industry.

No, but you do bring up a good point about the revenue structure in the US. We went from a progressive tax structure and low sales taxes in the middle of the last century, which spurred unprecedented and stable growth, to almost exactly the opposite of that structure, which has decimated the public commons, is a key reason why we’re in serious financial problems as a country, and don’t have a middle class anymore.

You assume libraries are open with enough hours to make it useful for them. Heck, Tulsa’s a big city, but most of our library branches are only open 4 hours a day 3 days a week. The impact on commercial internet providers is nil, since we’re talking about segments of the population not currently serviced by commercial operations. As far as the device? Seriously, I can get a wifi adapter at the GROCERY STORE for $4.

You can get a relatively recent (last ~5 years) laptop from Goodwill, Free Geek or similar ‘habitat for humanity’ style computer recycling club, or as a hand-me-down from a friend or neighbor. Access to end user equipment isn’t the part of the equation that there’s a bottleneck.