Obama: broadband internet access for all!

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

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.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

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?

I'm suggesting that if a Democratic stronghold like Philly can't do it right, I don't see a Democratic president pulling it off either.

:P

[Tex]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

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?

Why wouldn't they want the market to determine where wi-fi is available, and who pays for it?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

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.

Well, okay. to be fair then, are you suggesting that Obama is championing this platform as his Standard of Truth? I dont think he would disgaree with you. I certainly do not. I think you are right...national security, the economy, health care...these are all bigger fish to fry.

if you had to rank Obama's, or any candidate's priorities, I doubt ANY of them would rank internet access as a high one. but it IS an issue and so he is addressing it with an idea.

Your complaint seems to be that it isnt that important of a topic for him to publicly formulate a suggestion.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

Why wouldn't they want the market to determine where wi-fi is available, and who pays for it?

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.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm suggesting that if a Democratic stronghold like Philly can't do it right, I don't see a Democratic president pulling it off either.

:P

I dont care which party does it. I just want broadband access all over the place so the EMFs can give me cancer.

[Cali Coug]

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.

Stop confusing Tex with facts.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I dont care which party does it. I just want broadband access all over the place so the EMFs can give me cancer.

I get it, you want some class action action?

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Your complaint seems to be that it isnt that important of a topic for him to publicly formulate a suggestion.

Yes, that is my primary complaint. Let's see if talking about this becomes a habit for him on is stump speeches. Also, it is my complaint about Dems in general. It's a race to see who can promise the most freebies.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

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)

Maybe he is Columbian.