Follow this blog:
RSS

Is a free nationwide WiFi network coming to the U.S.?

By | February 4, 2013, 10:37 AM PST

The United States government wants to make access to fast and free WiFi as easy as accessing public roads.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has proposed to free up digital infrastructure to allow free public access to WiFi — more powerful than what most people have in their homes — in most metropolitan areas and many rural areas, The Washington Post reports:

If approved by the FCC, the free networks would still take several years to set up. And, with no one actively managing them, con­nections could easily become jammed in major cities. But public WiFi could allow many consumers to make free calls from their mobile phones via the Internet. The frugal-minded could even use the service in their homes, allowing them to cut off expensive Internet bills.

To achieve this, the government would have to repurpose how airwaves are used. As the Post points out, that means local television stations and other broadcasters would have to sell some of their airwaves to the government. Whether companies are willing to make the sale is yet to be seen.

As you can imagine, support of the proposal is split between two major industries. On the one hand, the telecomm industry is lobbying the government to keep those airwaves in the hands of businesses.

Tech giants like Google and Microsoft, however, see a nationwide public WiFi network as a catalyst for innovation (and increased sales of their products). Though Google, at least, isn’t waiting for the government to act to offer free public WiFi. In New York City, the company recently launched free public WiFi in the Chelsea neighborhood.

But a free-for-all WiFi network? Politics will decide its fate.

Tech, telecom giants take sides as FCC proposes large public WiFi networks [Washington Post]

Photo: Flickr/Palagret

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Tyler Falk

About Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk

Contributing Editor

Tyler Falk freelance journalist based in Washington, D.C. Previously, he was with Smart Growth America and Grist. He holds a degree from Goshen College.

Follow him on Twitter.

Tyler Falk

Tyler Falk

Tyler does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
132
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+5 Votes
+ -
Probably a very bad idea
How much would it cost?
How much financial benefit (primary, secondary, and tertiary effects) would it produce compared to private Wi-Fi?
And of course, how much extra tax revenue would those financial benefits produce?

I rather doubt it makes sense from a cost effectiveness analysis.
Posted by Dr_Zinj
5th Feb
-2 Votes
+ -
Forgot the benefit.
I dispute your poor assumptions.
Posted by Altotus
5th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
Benefit? Yes, there is a huge benefit...
but, the benefit is not on the people's side. The benefit that is derived, is by those in leadership positions, who stand to benefit from the votes of those that do receive those "freebies" from government.

I know a bunch of people, via my wife's profession, who get free government phones, but, those phones are rarely used or not at all, and when asked, some of those people only get them because, "they're free", and who's going to pass up the opportunity for getting something for nothing, even if they don't really need it?
Posted by adornoe
5th Feb
+6 Votes
+ -
Free nationwide WiFi
I would be worried about the government access to our computers, phones and whatever else goes over the "free government WiFi". I also am concerned that the government is spending too much money as it is.
Posted by MaryU@...
5th Feb
+2 Votes
+ -
To much on the wrong spend on the correct things. WI FI roads bridges.
You forgot the banking secrecy act which gives government access to all you banking records. "They" already have access to what "They" want anyway. If that worries you I have bad news for you its been done. No privacy none. Done gone. In fact lets define "They" as anyone that wants to know can pretty much. Even teenagers living in their parents basement are included let alone corporation and governments, any corp or any government.
Posted by Altotus
5th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
It sounds like you'd be perfectily okay with living in communist China, or
in Cuba, or under any tyrannical regime. Once you stop finding any issues with a government that wants to control your every step, then you might as well surrender all of your rights and freedoms and become a slave to that government.
Posted by adornoe
5th Feb
+6 Votes
+ -
I don't care how much it costs... IT'S FREE!
More 'free for all' spending from a government that doesn't know when to stop.

Tyler, when you get to be my age, I hope you can afford your tax bill and will happily pay it.
Posted by Cabo Wabo Addict
5th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Lets Get Focused
Before we get the government involved in free Wi-Fi which might be followed by free high heels, or free cell phones, or free pet food how about getting focused on the basics. We live in one of the world's greatest nations where more people than ever before go to bed hungry, can't get a job, live in substandard housing and have no healthcare.
It seems we have been wildly successful in creating free hunger, unemployment, homelessness and poor health.
Posted by CLK3RD
5th Feb
+4 Votes
+ -
Can we call the experiment a failure?
It has been about 50 years since the start of Johnsons Great Society.

Can we safely say the government has failed to address all of those issues?

In fact, after spending trillions, nearly all of those problems have gotten worse the more the government tries to help.
Posted by Hates Idiots
5th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
The Main reason
You left out or did not think far enough for the reasons. You have too much freedom and insufficient oversight. Incidentally Cuba has the lowest cost and best public health service which aims at prevention rather than treatment. A very large majority of people in India live quite comfortably on less than what an American might spend on health insurance alone !

As Gandhi said "There is enough for everyone's needs but not enough for even one man's greed". You can blame Romneys, Kochs and their ilk.
Posted by pmshah@...
9th Feb
-4 Votes
+ -
free
yes this was a idea i had on the white house site at one time .Yes it is a good idea because it gives the government a back up when things go down.
Posted by sarai1313@...
5th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
Universal Wi-Fi, a Launch Pad for Global Small Business Creation.
One of the most under-discussed issues holding back the creation of small business is lack of high-speed symmetrical (same speed uploading and downloading) broadband. Average Business Broadband is over $100 a month, but even with 25-30 MGBTs of download, you have to pay for a hugely expensive "add-on" to upload anywhere near that. This means you have to rent server space, and if you have a successful internet presence, you have to pay extra for bandwidth, storage, Virtual name servers, Co-location, etc., etc. Symmetrical free broadband means a starting business may even be able to use a reasonably secured personal Mac or PC as the primary server for your web presence. Imagine what that would mean to millions with credible business ideas, but even with cloud funding, are unlikely to be able to "pony up" for the cost of starting that business. (Which is one of the reasons this idea is meeting some resistance-it WOULD level the playing field, and many of the "seasoned players" aren't so comfortable with that.)
Posted by DrRexDexter
5th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
Do you have any clue how bad your idea is?
Do you know the real cost of doing business online?

The Internet has become a very hostile environment. One data breach of a customers information and a small mom and pop store can be facing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and penalties.

While hackers like Anonymous grab headlines going for big companies thousands of wanna be hackers and even some of the big boys are going after small businesses every day.

Big companies spend millions or billions on network security. What does the average mom and pop store spend? Enough to buy a PC.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304567604576454173706460768.html

I can also guarantee you free WiFi from the government will have absolutely zero security, yet they will heavily promote it as you suggest.

And the cloud services you suggest are a security nightmare.

http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/gartner-seven-cloud-computing-security-risks-853

Even the big companies with deep pockets are having problems with the cloud.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cloud-adoption-is-more-complicated-and-challenging-than-originally-anticipated-says-new-kpmg-survey-189844881.html

Even the big boys clouds get hacked.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Apple-iCloud-Hack-Raises-Concerns-Over-Cloud-Security-609440/

And you want to see wide spread adoption by small businesses. No thanks.

This is why I prefer cash, in person, transactions.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 5th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Hmmm
Can't say I understand your position at all...

Your rant seems like you are arguing against internet use in its entirety...
Posted by GSystems
Updated - 5th Feb
-1 Votes
+ -
E-Commerce is not cheap.
The kind of e-commerce he speaks of is not easy to do without high risk exposure.

My point is that I was following on his point that the free WiFi would provide free Internet access to allow small businesses into e-commerce.
Posted by Hates Idiots
5th Feb
-1 Votes
+ -
Fair enough
But the exposure you warn against is inherent in the internet...shown in your argument that the big guys and little guys have a hard time stopping the assaults. In the end, your machine is exposed as well...and you may not even run a business with it... You see?

There are also cloud services that you can place the liability on (such as PayPal) that would limit the little guy's need to invest in native e-commerce.

In the end, I feel that your argument against Wi-Fi (free, Public) has less to do with it being available to smaller start-ups, and more to do with limitiing the market...even if that's not your intent.

How about this: How would you extend internet access? Would you extend it at all?
Posted by GSystems
5th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
I would not extend it through the government.
The bottom line is the government should be the consumer protector making sure wireless internet access, and indeed all Internet access, is provided safely to consumers with fair competition. The government should never become a provider.

If you feel WiFi, wireless access and Internet access in general is too expensive than blame the government for failing to maintain a competitive business environment.

As they have done in the telcom, internet access and cable TV industries, politicians and their pet government bureaucrats have allowed too much consolidation of the industry through buyouts and mergers. Laws are in place that mergers and buyouts require federal approval to maintain competition, yet we almost never see a NO.

The best example is when the courts broke up AT&T. Over the next 30 years industry mergers and buyouts have us almost back to where we started.

The big difference is that AT&T was a rare example of a well regulated monopoly. Prices were low while service was exceptional. For whatever reason some companies wanted the right to compete in that industry. I was and are still ok with it, except they should have been subject to the same regulations as AT&T was operating under.

If AT&T could make a profit they should too. Other wise why get into the industry?

Instead the DC crowd deregulated much of the communications industry. What we have now as a result are few mostly unregulated companies dominating the telcom/Internet/tv market. Leaving the consumer with much higher prices and IMHO far worse service than under the old AT&T.

With the rare exception of the well regulated old AT&T, economics 101 says industry consolidation eventually leads to less competition, higher consumer prices and usually less innovation.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 6th Feb
+2 Votes
+ -
Economics 101 is part of it, but, a lot of it is the evolution that occurs
in that free market, where, even if there is a lot of competition, the consumer is the one that makes the selection about which company will survive and which will go out of business. Giving choices to the consumer is always helpful, but, what does industry, or even government, do when the consumer's choice ends up being the biggest or sole provider for a product or service?

For example, when Walmart moves into a neighborhood and takes business away from whatever was already established in the area, should government have to step in to remove Walmart, or to even prevent Walmart from setting up shop in the first place? Would that be the free market system at work, where government demands that, a company cannot be allowed in an area, because, they will bring competition and replace the neighborhood stores after a while? Should there be a quota system, where no single company can take more than an arbitrary percentage of the market? Would that be helpful to the consumer? IN fact, that would be the complete opposite of the competitive nature of capitalism and free markets.

Let the people decide, and if they could end up with the winner taking all or most of the market in question. When government decides that a company cannot have a market to itself, doesn't that set up an anti-competitive environment too?

The patent system allows for a period of monopolistic practices for a new invention or a new drug, so, why not the same for a company that decides to move into a neighborhood to introduce something to the area which wasn't there until that company did bring it in. It does cost money to do the research about whether an area could be productive for a company, and it also costs money to set up shop. Why should a company do all the research and leg work, and then have some other company move in after the original company's risk prove to be successful?

It sounds like I'm digressing from the main point, but, it's all about what the consumer wants and needs, and sometimes, a company will detect that need or want before the competition. In the end, the people needed or wanted a product or service, and somebody provided it, and, the risk-taking should be rewarded, otherwise, not too many entrepreneurs and investors will be taking the risks necessary to make the market function. Once the government moves in with regulations and controls, things generally go downhill.
Posted by adornoe
6th Feb
+3 Votes
+ -
Absolutely NOT!
First off, what part of $16 trillion in debt don't you understand. Secondly, it is not the government's place to do this. It is quite simply none of their business!
Posted by Rodo1
5th Feb
-2 Votes
+ -
With that argument...
...you could say that the government has no business being involved in overseas conflicts and in controlling the American citizenry. These adventures have cost more than even the most elaborate public wi-fi system.

Standing against this is like watching crowds of people stealing wads of cash, and then stopping the little boy who stole a Snickers...
Posted by GSystems
5th Feb
+2 Votes
+ -
Absolutely wrong, and ignorant!
Fact is that, the federal government's only duty, is to defense, and the general welfare of the citizens, and with provisions to deter that government from becoming overly powerful.

Free wi-fi and free phones and free food and free anything, is beyond the scope of what the constitution provided for.

People have become so used to government interfering into everything, that, they have become conditioned to arguing for more government, instead of less.
Posted by adornoe
5th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
controlling the American citizenry ??WT,,
what's wrong with you? The governmend has no business whatsoever 'controlling'; the Citizenry. Geez.. WTx What a thing to say.
Posted by opcom
14th Feb
+3 Votes
+ -
Never happen
Time Warner & Verizon will never allow this to happen. Even if, by some major miracle, they condone it, it'll never make it through Congress because it would benefit too many people. Just like cancer, diabetes, AIDS, the Dementia diseases will never be cured. Far too many people are making far too much money off "treatment" to ever let cures be developed.

I've been Type I Diabetic since the age of 15--36 years now--Nothing, nothing at all has changed. Sure, there are better delivery systems, e.g. pumps, but they cost over $5000 and insurance doesn't cover the sensor that lets you know when your blood sugar is getting out of range so add another $1000 to that. (I have broken my right tib/fib TWICE due to severe hypoglycemia because, despite testing 10 times a day, I'm very "brittle.") A 1cc vial of insulin that was roughly $6 in '78 is now over $125. Syringes were less than 10 cents each are now $3 for a pack of 10.

Don't you DARE tell me "they are working on a cure." Same goes for anything in this country that causes big business to lose money: It just does. not. happen.
Posted by molly_dog
5th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
Never happen
I've been type 1 since 1950. Science is already starting to find what reason for death of insulin producing cells. Universities across America and other countries are working on this type problem. You can't eleminate knowledge or hide it. May not be in my lifetime but cure will come. And internet will help!
Posted by veewvee@...
5th Feb
+3 Votes
+ -
Naysayers
There certainly is no limits to the amount of NIMBYs in the US. These people could not be part of a UNITED States, could they? Bitter people, who are only looking out for themselves. Never mind that an initiative like this would open up many economic opportunities for millions, so lets focus on some narrow-minded negatives instead.
Posted by 16Tons
5th Feb
+2 Votes
+ -
Actually, the opposite would be true,
since, when things are "free" the number of opportunities for business start-ups would dwindle.

Where does government get their funding for anything they do. They need to extract that funding from the pockets of the hard-working people, and from the businesses which hire those people Taking from the productive side of society, to provide for "free" services, means that, there will be fewer "free" services, because, the less people take home and the less companies get to keep of their earnings, the less the government will be able to collect in the future, because, with less funding available in the economy for growth and hiring, there will be fewer people and businesses that the government will be able to collect from. Thus, "free" ends up being very expensive to the economy, and very destructive to the country, since the net effect is the reduction in size of the economy. And in fact, we are witnessing that right now, where the economy is not creating jobs because, it's not able to expand.
Posted by adornoe
5th Feb
-2 Votes
+ -
Huh??
Your logic only goes in one direction, when the situation is more interdependent that you state.

Let's start this over:

Where does government get their funding? The Federal Reserve...and through inflation, they tax the people.

Much of this money is used to power defense contractors and the military.

How much do you think this measure would take in contrast to the many wars we are fighting? With that, what are we actually fighting for overseas if you come home to nothing?

The employment of programs ends up in hiring people and providing experience to lesser technicians...at that point, those technicians will have the capital to possibly start their own businesses. In addition, the internet is a great information resource that everyone should be able to use... As the richest nation in the world, does it not seem odd that everyone works so hard for less and receive less from the government?

Keep on fighting for that corporate welfare, bud. They thank you....
Posted by GSystems
5th Feb
+2 Votes
+ -
Ignorant arguments...
Look, the function of government is not to educate or train people for jobs. And, it's function is not to get people starting businesses.

Government does have the obligation for physical and services infrastructure, and for defense, and for legal systems, but, that's not with the intent of getting people trained, or getting people starting businesses.

And, we are no longer the richest nation in the world, not by the per capita measurements, and, if we were to look at the financials of the federal government, we would actually end up in the middle of the pack when it comes to "riches". Fact is that, the national debt has reached a level from which it's going to be very hard to recover, and the point of no return may have been reached. We are making the same mistakes that Greece made, and Greece is a failed country with a failed economy.

The economy in the U.S. was quite able, without government, to create businesses and jobs. Since government got bigger and became more intrusive, the economy started going downhill, and we now have a government with huge trillion dollar deficits every year, with a national debt approaching 17 trillion dollars, and an economy, which in reality, has been in recession for the better part of 5 years, regardless of what the "official" government figures tell us.

Knowledge is power, but, power that is gained by keeping the people without knowledge or ignorant, is destructive. You have a singular understanding of government, and you believe that, big government is good for the people, but, as is being demonstrated all around you, big government has been destroying the country, and it's been happening so gradually, that people haven't noticed it.
Posted by adornoe
5th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
rural living
I live in a rural area i spend $144 a month to get internet currently. I don't see this chnaging anything for us rural folks. More free for the cities...already 99% of our tax dollars go to the cities.
Posted by jpwalkerjr
5th Feb
-3 Votes
+ -
Rural electfication
If it was not for the government you would be squatting in the woods without electric. It was the rural electrification act that brought electric to the countryside countrywide.
Posted by Altotus
5th Feb
+5 Votes
+ -
But at least the rural users are made to pay for the electricity...
...if not the complete capital costs for the buildout.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
5th Feb
+3 Votes
+ -
Your post will be ignored, because,
it contains a link to the Huffington post, a very radial left-wing organization, which would make anything they have to say, very questionable and highly partisan and oftentimes, devoid of facts, with some made up facts of their own.

Try a better link next time.
Posted by adornoe
5th Feb
+2 Votes
+ -
The report in the link, is close to 3 years old, and full of expectations
and is not reality based.

It is guess work related to how government will distribute funding to the states, but, that's mostly conjecture from 3 years ago, and not based on the current reality, which shows that, government distribution of funding favors the more liberal areas of the country, and especially those areas where Obama and democrats received the most support during the elections.

So, both HuffPo, a highly liberal organization, and Brookings (not conservative at all), should not be trusted at all when it comes to the information they put out.

Try better links next time, and from sources which are truly non-partisan.
Posted by adornoe
6th Feb
-1 Votes
+ -
Looks like its correct.
Does not appear to be propaganda. Brookings tends to be "non political" with a Conservative flavor if anything. No reason to doubt this.
Posted by Altotus
5th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
The report in the link, is close to 3 years old, and full of expectations
and is not reality based.

It is guess work related to how government will distribute funding to the states, but, that's mostly conjecture from 3 years ago, and not based on the current reality, which shows that, government distribution of funding favors the more liberal areas of the country, and especially those areas where Obama and democrats received the most support during the elections.

So, both HuffPo, a highly liberal organization, and Brookings (not conservative at all), should not be trusted at all when it comes to the information they put out.

Try better links next time, and from sources which are truly non-partisan.
Posted by adornoe
7th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
Government Participation
"Nobody's right when everybody's wrong". Those words were never truer than with our attitude about government. The same complaints precede every new project we have. It is simple to figure out with a touch of common sense and observation. If properly done and well maintained, free wi-fi would be as much a game changer as our Interstate highway system. What we dont wish to see is that if done well and efficiently, this will revolutionize all sorts of areas of our lives and interactions with each other. The downside is the same as any revolution, there are winners and losers. Each side has legitimate arguments to present, but it certainly is worth having the debate and working out the 'kinks' so that we get an end product which is fair and fully usable for all. Think of all the cable we will save or which can be put to valuable alternative service.
Posted by chazz4623
5th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
When it comes to socialism, liberals and progressives will always tell us
that, it never worked before, because it wasn't done right, and all that is needed, is for someone to implement it correctly the next time around.

FACT is that, socialism is a self-defeating mechanism, and logically, it can NEVER work. The more "free" that things become, the quicker the government and country will meet their demises.
Posted by adornoe
5th Feb
+2 Votes
+ -
What do you mean?
The IRS administers the socialist tax structure many corporation pay no tax. FED EX got their sweet deal in Green Ohio NO TAXES for 20 years. This is the state of affairs for how long now?
Posted by Altotus
5th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
The IRS is government, and corporations do pay taxes, even if some don't,
but, those that don't like GE, are getting their taxes cut or reduced, via sweetheart deals or subsidies, which is, again, the fault of government via lobbyists, who government officials want to deal with.

GE is a favorite of the democrats, for example, and there are other big companies who will lobby for special deals and for favorite status. When government became involved with deciding between winners and losers, when ended up with companies not paying taxes and many companies getting exempted from complying with government regulations.

When it comes to Ohio, that's a state, and a state has a right to conduct business as it wishes, but, the federal government doesn't have the right, as per our constitution, to be so intrusive. Each state is supposed to be a self-regulating entity, and each is supposed to work within its own state constitution. That's not any business of the federal government, and, if someone doesn't like the way a state operates, there are 49 other states to which they can move. When the federal government does something that is odious to anybody or any company, chances are that, there is no other state to which they can move where the U.S. government cannot go after them.

BTW, GREEN Ohio? What the heck? And, what does GREEN have to do with anything?

But, why even respond to my prior post when you didn't even make comments about my comments? Tangential arguments tend to be off the mark.
Posted by adornoe
5th Feb
-1 Votes
+ -
Green Ohio is a example
The world headquarters of FED EX is in Green its a very sweet deal I am jealous I don't wanna pay taxes for 20 years too. GE did not break the law they have a large building full of lawyers to keep them on the straight and true. However that's the facts the poorer people support the government and the wealthy do not contribute the same percentage wise. Assumptions about the demise of America my have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Posted by Altotus
5th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Pure nonsense, and very ignorant...
If the wealthy were not providing their "fair share", then the U.S. government would have ceased operations decades ago.

Without the wealthy, who provide almost half of the tax revenue that government collects, the federal government would not even be in business.

Half the people of the U.S. pay no taxes, and yet, most of them are living in relative comfort compared to most other countries. The middle-class does pay their "fair share", but, it still comes short when compared to what the rich "contribute". Take away what the rich provide, and you end up with one of the poorest countries in the world, and not the U.S. which has led the world for about 100 years.

Obama and the democrats have brainwashed you and the people into believing that, the rich are not paying their "fair share". IN fact, they are paying more than their fair share, because, they are the investment class, who invest in businesses and create the many millions of jobs that keep people employed. It's a lot more fair for the rich and wealthy to keep more of what they earn, than to give it to government to waste and to keep or make people dependent. People should be dependent, but, on the jobs that are created via the wealth that is kept in the economy and which is re-invested into creating more wealth and more jobs. Take away more from the rich and wealthy, and you end up with businesses closing and nobody willing to take risks towards creating new businesses, which then means, no new jobs and jobs lost. We are witnessing that right now, with companies laying off people all around the country, and many of them having to shut down, and others having to send operations overseas.

The other fact that you are too ignorant about is that, GE should not have to pay taxes, and neither should any other business.

Are you aware that, when GE or any business pays taxes, that, they don't really pay those taxes? Those businesses treat taxes as an expense. That means that, that expense will be added to the price of a company's product line or to its services that consumers use. Thus, the consumer ends up paying the taxes that GE or any other company pays. If a company has to pay more taxes because the tax-rate went up, chances are that, the doughnut store down the street will be raising the price for each doughnut in order to pay for the additional taxes that government demands. So, while it might make your heart feel good that a company is paying its fair share, the consumers will have been the ones paying for those additional taxes. For example, when Clinton, back in the 1990s raised the taxes on the price of gasoline, the price of a gallon of gas went up immediately to account for the additional taxes that Clinton wanted to raise. Thus, it's the consumer who always ends up paying for any decision made by government. Problem is that, when a product ends up being more expensive because its price had to go up, people will end up purchasing less of that product, which means, some companies will have to shut down because of less demand, and it also means that, the employees of that company will be left with no jobs, which then leaves government to pick up the tab by way of more government services/benefits to take care of those jobless people.

Also, when prices go up on any product because of higher taxes, that leaves less money in the pockets of the consumer that could have gone towards other purchases. Thus, raising taxes sets up a domino effect in the whole market, where the economy will reflect the higher taxes and higher prices, and will cause a contraction in the economy, and a contraction is the same as companies closing and jobs being lost, and less tax revenue being collected by governments.

Problem that people have, is that, they don't understand that, it's not as simple as doing A in order to get B. It's more about, A causes B through Z, which major negative repercussions along the way, and the repercussions of that kind of policy, are being felt throughout the economy right now. That is one of the reasons that Greece is a failed state and a failed economy, and the U.S. is almost there right now. We're in survival mode right now, where government is having to print money in order to pay its bills, because, the tax revenue is not coming in.

Think though the whole process, and don't just do the surface thinking. Go below the surface to find out the total cost of the simple policies.
Posted by adornoe
6th Feb
+1 Vote
+ -
econ 101
Corporations don't pay taxes!!!!!!!

Hey fool guess who pays those corporate taxes anyway? The consumer you lummox. So to demand they pay taxes in the beginning was only a liberal way of saying let's gouge the consumer since they have all the money we want to steal.
Posted by russ@...
9th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
It is refreshing...
...to see a progressive admit that the income tax system and the green agenda is a fraud. Thank you for your frankness.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
6th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
nothing 'public' is free
you fools need to get off the idea that public highways are free. It is paid for by those of us who pay taxes and truckers who pay the most taxes on using the highway system. Not to mention toll roads. And lets not forget the condition of all these 'free' public highways. If Microsoft and all the other multi-billion dollar corporations want free internet nationwide then let them pay for it. They are not interested in the 'public good' they only want more customers to pay inflated costs for their products. Where is the free windows8 program?

When people start saying 'public' and 'fair' they really mean give me as much free stuff as I can get other people to pay for. Used to be you wanted to drive a car you had to pay for it. Now everyone will demand a free one every year.
Posted by russ@...
9th Feb
+5 Votes
+ -
Miss the Point...?
Governments are generally good at infrastructure because they spread the cost out among all participants such that the cost to entry is more proportional to the ability to pay. This has a positive effect on commerce because the barriers to getting labor and goods to market are greatly reduced for the individual participant. As I see it, this project's goal is to increase our competitiveness against other countries by reducing the barriers to commercial participation in the system. The easier it is for everyone to participate, the more commerce will happen, and the more money will change hands.

That said, my major concern is about the federal government being in direct control of the data pipes.

Even if I wasn't worried about that, whatever abilities we had that allowed us to accomplish the Interstate Highway System have been systematically destroyed over the past 30 years. We've become so obsessed with the handful of "freeloaders" that we can't accomplish anything worthwhile as a group of united states. This will be our downfall. Our nation was built on federal government incentives and direct participation in infrastructure. Without the railroads (and all the laws that granted them special property rights), the Louisiana Purchase, and the homestead act, all the western libertarian "red" states wouldn't exist or they would look very different. Without the Interstate Highway Act, we'd still be mostly reliant on trains. Even the original 13 colonies were formed with great assistance from the British Crown.

It is short sighted to focus on "freeloaders" and the notion that what you perceive as a luxury should be free. That is not the point of this as far as I can tell. There is no social justice or leveling going on here (although that might be a motivational argument in some circles), the goal is to increase access to market and thereby increase commercial activity. Just as our socialized highway system allows goods to get to market faster and easier than if we had a hodgepodge of truly private roads that went only where most of the people were, a socialized Internet might do the same for e-commerce. The real concern is whether we want a single organization (the federal government) having direct control over the pipes and therefore the data.
Posted by technology@...
5th Feb
-3 Votes
+ -
Freeloader is a buzz word
The corporations of America exist in a Socialist tax condition this is the IRS they are subsidized by government rules and licence to monopolize. Infrastructure is critical to the existence of the state. Information is the basis of democracy. The good of the citizen is the excuse for the existence of the state. Information is the pragmatic and moral necessity for governance.
Posted by Altotus
5th Feb
+2 Votes
+ -
Your comments above are, well, incoherent, and it would be hard
to reply to any nonsense, whatever you might have meant.

And, yes, free-loader is a real term, and it's one that is very applicable to millions in the U.S. and many other places around the world.
Posted by adornoe
5th Feb
0 Votes
+ -
yes freeloaders are real
there is a whole spectrum from absolute bums to sort of or part time freeloaders who pay some, or work some, but take every advantage when possible. So they are definitely real. Been around for thousands of years too. (he that does not work, let him not eat - some very old quote about freeloaders)
Posted by opcom
14th Feb
-3 Votes
+ -
Direct control huh do you pay attention to the news?
Like the government does not have anything to do with the Internet and there is no demand for secret clearance computer guys what so ever. Yea uh huh. There is no such thing a Homeland Security that is just a figment of imagination. If the government does not control the pipes it had better get in gear!
Posted by Altotus
5th Feb
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!