FCC Considering Free Internet For USA

jbolden writes "According to the Wall Street Journal, the FCC is considering a plan to provide free wireless internet. The plan would involve some level of filtering, but might allow adults to opt out. CTIA has argued that this business model has traditionally failed (see Slate magazine's analysis as to why)."

Comments

Tax Dollars

[y86]

WOW! Something that my tax dollars pay for that MIGHT actually benefit me? Neat-o.

I mean welfare and social security is great, but besides the roads and military it would be nice to get some value back.

Re:Tax Dollars

[nurb432]

You ever eat food that didn't kill you ? (FDA), or drink water? How about housing the hard core criminals in prison?

Does it snow in your area? Plows are a nice thing to have.

Sure there is a lot of waste in government, but you get a lot more benefit then you are giving them credit for.

Re:Tax Dollars

[y86]

You ever eat food that didn't kill you ? (FDA), or drink water? How about housing the hard core criminals in prison?

Does it snow in your area? Plows are a nice thing to have.

I pay for all my food. Which in turn pays fee's to the FDA. I also pay for my water. Criminals should be shot and the family should be charged for the execution just like in China. I also paid for snow removal when I lived up North.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png

I'm pretty sure that over 50% of my federal income tax and SS is for worthless programs that benefit the lazy.

Re:Tax Dollars

[viking099]

Obligatory Monty Python quote:
Reg:
        All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?

Re:Tax Dollars

[qoncept]

Yeah, yeah! I'm with you. And despite all of the tax money allocated for public education, you're still an idiot. When is the government going to help you? Greedy bastards.

Re:Tax Dollars

[omeomi]

Yeah, and then once the FCC has effectively made internet within the US a public resource, they can start censoring it with the same crazy arbitrary rules they use for broadcast TV. No thanks, I think I'd like to stick to the private model.

Re:Tax Dollars

[biryokumaru]

Not to mention that those hardcore cirminals are housed and fed for 7-10 years and sent back out on the street with a nearly 70% rearrest rate. Prisons are clearly an effective means of reforming the criminal population.

(BTW I'm in the military and I can tell you it's pretty hard to imagine how much money SS must waste if they actually spend more than we do)

Re:Tax Dollars

[LandDolphin]

That is pretty much their goal. But, that's fine as long as you still have the option to purchase unfiltered internet from the current ISPs.

Filtered Internet is better then no internet for a lot of people.

Re:Tax Dollars

[eonlabs]

Seconded,

Granted, if there was a federally operated internet, tampering with data online could be as much of a federal
crime as tampering with the mail...

Who thinks it would be a good idea to have a public wireless internet managed by a division of the US Postal
service, rather than as a media model like the FCC manages television and radio?

Re:Tax Dollars

[Fallingcow]

SS? Social Security? Very low overhead, actually. Tiny. Nearly all of their spending is in the form of checks to citizens, which is the whole point. They even bring in more money than they spend--at least for now.

The problem is that they'll stop bringing in that surplus and start spending from savings in a couple of years, due to demographic shifts (the baby boomers). This means that they'll run out of money around 2040. SS can't spend money that isn't from the special tax that's set aside just for it (FICA) so it's unclear what would happen in such an event.

It's a bit misleading to compare SS spending to other government spending, in fact, since its funding is from that sole source and it does not and cannot take money from the general budget. In fact, the very large surplus from SS is used to as a source to borrow for spending in the general budget, so its presence makes our deficit look artificially lower than it is.

To summarize: SS is among the most efficiently-run government programs, and actually props up the general budget rather than dragging it down, at least for the next 30 years or so.

Re:Tax Dollars

[aztektum]

Does it snow in your area? Plows are a nice thing to have.

OMG You've stumbled upon a government conspiracy to eliminate "snow days"!

Re:Tax Dollars

[Hatta]

How about housing the hard core criminals in prison?

Yeah, I'm sure all 2 million of them are way too dangerous to be let out on the street. No, this money is wasted housing petty criminals and drug users, while Bush and his crew, and let's not forget the CEOs of every investment bank in the country are free.

More people are arrested for marijuana possession in this country than EVERY OTHER VIOLENT CRIME COMBINED! Is that what you call a good use of tax payer resources?

Re:Tax Dollars

[thermian]

Obligatory Monty Python quote:
Reg:

        All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?

brought peace?

Re:Tax Dollars

[NuclearError]

Wine.

Re:Tax Dollars

[y86]

Mods like paying taxes.... I wish I had a trust fund to!

Re:Tax Dollars

[0100010001010011]

And as long as a paid alternative exists (Like Cable TV) I don't care. I'd love to be able to get my parents on something faster than 14.4k.

You can show a full length porn at high noon on cable and the FCC can't do a damn thing.

Re:Tax Dollars

[jank1887]

well have no fear, the same program guarantees that other people will help pay for your disability or retirement in the event you need it, instead of having you just starve to death. And if you don't need it? great, glad to hear it. be thankful that the program would have supported you if you did.

Re:Tax Dollars

[kannibal_klown]

In the past it could be seen as a simple investment.

Sure, when you were younger you were giving away some of your paycheck to Social Secutiy and that money would be used by other people to help out when they were old and retired.

But when you get older, you got to collect on other people's checks which can help out when you're old and retired.

Unfortunately, as many have said now we're in a pickle. In a few years it won't really be around anymore, so it's kind of depressing to know that you won't get the full benefit from that money you were donating this whole time.

And with many companies no longer offering such perks as Pension Plans (and such) it's even more depressing.

Re:Tax Dollars

[SecurityGuy]

Meaning they take more in taxes than they spend?

Sure. I'll grant you that. But as far as retirement goes, it's a negative return if you make much at all. You'd do better putting cash in your mattress. That's why it props up the budget. They take your money and give some back.

Let's skip the sad but true part that most people are simply too short sighted to even put cash in the mattress.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

The reconviction rate is far more relevant because arrests are not indicative of guilt and are subject to sociopolitical factors. Reconviction rate is 46.9%, with most of the reconvictions being non-violent and with "hardcore" criminals most likely to reoffend.

What this tells us is that the majority of criminals are rehabilitated, with those who have _already_ shown a resistance to rehabilitation being those most likely to reconvict. But even among frequent offenders (more than 15 prior arrests) offenders, 17.9% are not rearrested (details not available on conviction rate). That's much better than I would have expected.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Without the FDA, my food would kill me?
I buy Kosher food. It is checked by one of several certification authorities. There are some Kosher certifications that I trust, and others I don't.

But none are run by the government.

Re:Tax Dollars

[tonytnnt]

Don't forget regulation of industries... like the FCC does. And I'm not anti-regulation, it definitely has it's place. Like the causes of our current economic situation!

Re:Tax Dollars

[salimma]

Perhaps they would then start prosecuting spammers more seriously, if spamming is perceived to be a DDOS against a government-run service.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

He lives in a shack that is near a state highway. Nuff said.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Insightfill]

Granted, if there was a federally operated internet, tampering with data online could be as much of a federal crime as tampering with the mail...

Yeah, or intercepting/tapping phone calls without a warrant, or...

Re:Tax Dollars

[Teufelsmuhle]

Don't forget the aqueducts.

Re:Tax Dollars

[witherstaff]

It's when the system is broken that makes it very discouraging.

It seems all too common for someone to get a 'hurt back', get disability, and do cash jobs under the table. Or how about unemployment when an ex employee up and quits on their own free will. An ex employee quit years ago with no notice. Years late the company got notice of an unemployment claim so it said to send him back, there's a job waiting. However since he'd moved to another state he still got his unemployment.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

modded "Insightful"? jeeez.....

Some free internet is all it takes to make you think you're actually getting something - gotta have that porn, eh?

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

As a town supervisor (basically a mayor for a smaller town) I must say that the bloat in the government is ENORMOUS! In the same bill that paid the plowing trucks was pork in the form of money that lined the pockets of the individuals who owned land next to state land, people who "adopted" roads (yeah, not exactly legal) and that's leaving alone the unnecessary bills that increased my towns spending by over 250% in the previous 16 years. Yes, this was due to a shitty administration (sound familiar?) but I've managed to cut taxes in 5 years by 40% and give MORE money to the local school district AND renovate 2 of our 3 biggest parks WITHOUT affecting the bills that were actually helping people.

What we need are people who are RESPONSIBLE with money in government, not just people who like to spend because it's there. Not to toot my own horn but if the government ran more like I've shaped our town up to be, we'd be a much healthier country.

-Upstate NY Town Supervisor

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the part where he said, "Sure there is a lot of waste in government, but"

Re:Tax Dollars

[Antlerbot]

This isn't REALLY a troll post. I mean, he's insulting, sure. But he's on topic, and correct.

Re:Tax Dollars

[ColdWetDog]

Retirement is not a right, and with all the jobs that can be done while sitting, I don't see it as being something that necessarily has to happen. It did make sense at a time where most jobs consisted mostly of physical labor, but this is no longer the case.

Look, youngster, there are lots of things (other than your back) that fall apart when your older. Or do you want to be trying to code websites when you're 80?

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anpheus]

To be fair, the prison population is almost certainly skewed the other direction because it only takes one homicide to rack up many more years in jail than a lot of pot use.

Of course, I don't know the statistics. Perhaps I'm wrong and someone would enlighten us all if they know where to find such stats.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Antlerbot]

Ooh! (To paraphrase from the discussion waaay above) "More marijuana users are in prison than all violent crimes combined."

Does this mean we can beat that record with spammers? Or maybe capital punishment would be more efficient...

Re:Tax Dollars

[tripdizzle]

And that is exactly why I began saving for retirement at 20. Not going to be working at 80, but not going to be relying on the government, who is slowly becoming everyone's rich uncle.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Killer Orca]

Isn't cable still regulated by the FCC though? If you get only basic cable you're not going to be seeing anyone getting plowed at noon; of course I might be mistaken and it is a self-regulation by cable companies to get you to pay piecemeal for your porn.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Pharmboy]

Don't forget that in America, the minimum sentence someone can get for a SINGLE pot plant is 5 years federal time, which is much longer than the average crack dealer gets for his first offense.

Nothing more dangerous than a pothead with a green thumb.

Re:Tax Dollars

[ToadMan8]

The Romans did not invent wine; wine as we know it was first produced in The Republic of Georgia in about 6000 BC. The Roman empire never stretched far enough East of the Black Sea to encompass the area that is now Georgia.

Re:Tax Dollars

[gehrehmee]

Who's going to pay a premium price for unfiltered network access when they get something they perceive to be virtually identical in value? (Not to mention the "oh, only the rich people get freedom of speech"-angle)

Re:Tax Dollars

[Fujisawa Sensei]

You ever eat food that didn't kill you ? (FDA), or drink water? How about housing the hard core criminals in prison?

Does it snow in your area? Plows are a nice thing to have.

I pay for all my food. Which in turn pays fee's to the FDA. I also pay for my water. Criminals should be shot and the family should be charged for the execution just like in China. I also paid for snow removal when I lived up North.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png

I'm pretty sure that over 50% of my federal income tax and SS is for worthless programs that benefit the lazy.

If you really believe this, and are against the Constitution, perhaps you should renounce your citizenship and relocate to China. We would all be happier.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Literaphile]

-1: Won't Play Along

Re:Tax Dollars

[megamerican]

The same FDA that just set a standard for "safe" levels of melamine in baby formula without any tests proving so?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081129/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/infant_formula

Here is a timeline of their decision for you:

The U.S. government quietly began testing domestically produced infant formula in September, soon after problems with melamine-spiked formula surfaced in China.

The FDA had said in early October it was unable to set a safety contamination level for melamine in infant formula...

The agency had left the impression of a zero tolerance on Oct. 3 when it stated: "FDA is currently unable to establish any level of melamine and melamine-related compounds in infant formula that does not raise public health concerns."

After saying it made an error in its data, the FDA on Wednesday produced these results: Mead Johnson's Infant Formula Powder, Enfamil LIPIL with Iron found melamine at levels of 0.137 and 0.14 parts per million. Three tests of Nestle's Good Start Supreme Infant Formula with Iron detected an average of 0.247 parts per million of cyanuric acid.

Dr. Stephen Sundlof, the FDA's director of food safety, said Friday the agency was confident in the 1 part per million level for either of the chemicals alone,

Isn't that a little convenient that they set the standard just a little higher than what is presently found in 90+% of baby formulas, even though there are no tests as to what is a safe level? I'm sure glad we have the FDA to look out for us!

Obviously those levels won't kill an infant instantly, but what are its long term effects? Any studies on that? Probably not.

All I can say is I'm glad I was breast fed.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Delwin]

Obviously not given MA's Question 2 that passed this last election.

Re:Tax Dollars

[2names]

As long as people are working in the United States and paying IN to the Social Security system it will NEVER run out of money. The amount that each recipient can receive will just be decreased. That might mean each recipient only gets a few bucks a month, but it is still better than nothing.

If we could go back to taking care of our elders like in the past, this wouldn't be a problem. I have planned for the care of my parents should that situation arise, but I doubt many others have. It is truly a shame the way we treat senior citizens in this country.

Re:Tax Dollars

[The Dancing Panda]

The same people that buy the porno channels...

Re:Tax Dollars

[Ambiguous Coward]

The same people that buy premium channels like HBO, perhaps? Except you bolded "perceive," so you're clearly trying to say something along the lines of, "What vegetarian will buy meat?" Well, clearly no vegetarian will buy meat. Meat's not for them. They see no value in buying that meat, so they won't. However, those of us that *do* eat things with faces will pay a premium for that meat, and that's who it's being sold to.

-G

Re:Tax Dollars

[BiggoronSword]

I'd rather my tax dollars didn't go to this at all, but if it is, I would rather the US gov't subsidize the private sector instead. If the gov't provides the service, it's yet another public service for them to screw up. Let capitalism do it's work.

I do agree spreading internet access to rural areas as well as improving the overall national infrastructure in an absolute necessity. I'm not so keen on the gov't helping out, but if that's what it will take for me to get fiber to my house... err... I mean, wireless to the farms, I'm all for it.

Re:Tax Dollars

[lymond01]

they can start censoring it with the same crazy arbitrary rules

I think they'd probably also include PSAs as you surf...sites that you get redirected to and nothing will load until the 30 second "Don't Drink and Drive" segment ends.

Then, to avoid the PSAs you can pay more...but then you'll eventually get another form of advertisement, but you can pay more for "ad-free surfing between the hours of 7 and 10 PM!" which doesn't have random ads to disturb your workflow, only at 7, 8, and 9 PM there are 5 minute commercials.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Belial6]

SSI - Stands for Social Security INSURANCE. We have no SSR or Social Security RETIREMENT fund. So, you are correct that SSI should not be used as a retirement plan. It wasn't designed to be one. It was designed to be an insurance plan to deal with the people that were to decrepit to work. When it was created, people generally died before they would collect, died soon after they would collect, or were decrepit enough that they only needed enough money to pay for heat and food.

It was not created to fund cruises and trips to casinos. For it to work properly as a retirement plan, it would require far more funding than we currently pay into it.

Re:Tax Dollars

[LandDolphin]

Everyone get's freedom of speech, they can talk all they want.

If only the rich are able to pay for unfiltered internet instead of using free filtered internet, then you must conclude that only the rich have internet now.

So, using your absurd logic, I'll ask you why you are against poor people having access to the internet in the first place?

Re:Tax Dollars

[0100010001010011]

Not as of 2006, I haven't heard much more since then:
Indecent exposure: Congress, the FCC, cable TV, and satellite radio look to be headed for a big showdown as indecency is among the top issues on the agenda of the new Federal Communications Commission chairman

TFA:
The Federal Communications Commission licenses frequencies to radio and television broadcasters who, by law, must meet public service requirements and obey decency rules. Because cable and satellite do not transmit using frequencies, but rather employ technology paid for by private industry, and because cable and satellite require subscription fees, legal experts have maintained that Congress and the FCC lack the authority to regulate them for indecency and obscenity. Moreover, cable and satellite companies consider their programs immune from FCC rules and fines.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

There is not one of us who would not gladly suffer death to rid this country of the Romans once and for all!

Re:Tax Dollars

[geobeck]

Who thinks it would be a good idea to have a public wireless internet managed by a division of the US Postal service...?

Oh, great. That's just what we need. If the USPS takes over Internet access...

• E-mail will take 7-10 days to reach you
• You'll have to go to the nearest postal outlet to pick up any attachment larger than 64k
• I'll have to spend hours convincing my (blonde) secretary not to stick stamps on her monitor--AGAIN!

Re:Tax Dollars

[DittoBox]

No. Peace was the farce they used to invade various "barbarian nations" so they could tax their citizens, set up their industries and take their resources back to Rome for the rich roman citizenry. All roads lead to Rome, for good reason.

Not entirely unlike the empires from the last 3-4 centuries, or the ones from more ancient times.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

How many markets aren't monopolized by one carrier? And how many major carriers are not placing some "crazy arbitrary rules" on usage? I'm hopeful for FiOS spreading far and wide, but until then, there's not a lot of competition to provide high speed bandwidth.

Plus, the FCC's rules are only enforced when someone is caught being obscene (that's really the only "crazy arbitrary" rule they have that I can think of). Of course, providing internet access isn't the same as opening the air waves to radio stations. The option to install filtering software is more available than trying to filter the naughty bits from radio transmissions, so country-wide filters are somewhat feasible.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess people should stop possessing marijuana then.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Mister Whirly]

Don't like paying taxes? Quit your job. Grow your own food. Make your own electricity. Live off the grid.

Not willing to do all that? Then pay your taxes and quit complaining.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Criminals should be shot and the family should be charged for the execution just like in China.

The problem is that crazy liberals wrote this absurd manifesto called the "Bill of Rights" that prevents us from adopting China's perfect system of justice.

I'm pretty sure that over 50% of my federal income tax and SS is for worthless programs that benefit the lazy.

You're "pretty sure" because you're too lazy to look it up, right?

Re:Tax Dollars

[Mister Whirly]

One of my friend's grandparents did this. Didn't trust banks so they literally hid their entire life savings in the walls of their house. Then one day it burned to the ground, with their entire life savings. No way insurance would cover huge sums of cash left in the house. When is the last time you heard of a bank burning to the ground???

Re:Tax Dollars

[ticketmack]

So you pay extra to get the fast, non-censored version of the internet, just like you do now for TV. You get the free-to-air basic channels just for having a television with an antenna, but you get better reception and more channels by subscribing to Comcast or Dish Network or whatever. It seems to me this internet deal will work much the same way. A basic, filtered, slow connection free for everybody, provided by the gov't., and the faster, unfiltered version still available from non-gov't ISP's for a monthly fee. It's sounds like a logical progression to me; like Internet is the new TV. As long as the unfiltered version doesn't become insanely overpriced, I'm for it.

Re:Tax Dollars

[sakonofie]

More people are arrested for marijuana possession in this country than EVERY OTHER VIOLENT CRIME COMBINED!

Minor point, but possession of marijuana isn't a violent crime. That said, I am still fairly confident that you are wrong.
Some quotes from the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/):

Nationwide, an estimated 1,408,337 violent crimes occurred in 2007.

Law enforcement made more arrests for drug abuse violations (an estimated 1.8 million arrests**, or 13.0 percent of the total number of arrests) than for any other offense in 2007.

According to this http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/arrests/index.html:
#42.1% percent of drug related arrests are for marijuana possession and
#5.3% marijauna sale/manufacture.
Some simple math from these numbers (by me) puts the # of total marijuana related arrests at ~853,200. This is substantially less than the number of arrests for violent crimes.

Those pesky facts out of the way, 800K marijuana related arrests is a ridiculous waste of resources.

* All of these facts are about arrests, not convictions, not number of crimes, and not the number of people in prison for the offense.
**This does not include alcohol related offenses. There were 1,427,494 drunk driving arrests alone.

Re:Tax Dollars

[y86]

You're "pretty sure" because you're too lazy to look it up, right?

Take a look at the chart linked.

Re:Tax Dollars

[maxwell demon]

Satellites do not transmit using frequencies?

Re:Tax Dollars

[AlanS2002]

WOW! Something that my tax dollars pay for that MIGHT actually benefit me? Neat-o.

I mean welfare and social security is great, but besides the roads and military it would be nice to get some value back.

So you're getting benefit as a result of the billions up billions a year that it costs the US military to be in Iraq?
You must be a employee or stockholder of a military contractor.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Wrong. Social Security was always an Old-Age Survivor and Disability program. It also used to cover unemployment benefits.

Now it only covers O.A.S. (Retirement) and Disability. Unemployment is handled elsewhere.

Nice soapbox, too bad it's wrong.

Any person who paid into Social Security should be able to receive the benefits that they paid for when they retire.

Now giving out disability benefits to people not vested in the "insurance" program seems a more fair place to cut..

Re:Tax Dollars

[Propaganda13]

First off, most people using Social Security put that money there in the first place.

Second, things are connected and there's not always the perfect choice. Don't help poor people or old people -> increased crime rate -> more money spent on police, judges, and the prison system -> chain gangs to pay for the system -> fewer jobs for the poor

Free internet is not a necessity though. It would be another means of entertaining the masses like TV.

Re:Tax Dollars

[y86]

If you really believe this, and are against the Constitution,

The constitution didn't provide for medical care or welfare.

The modern welfare state: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies and other so-called assistance programs for the needy, the downtrodden, and the sick â" funded through taxation.

But did the Founding Fathers intend for a government-provided social safety net? The evidence clearly says no.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23519

You would fit in better in china. I applaud their ability to execute the criminals that you fight to keep alive. I think every liberal should be offered the chance to let the death row criminal they're pining for move into their guest room permanently to preserve their life.

Now it's not society carrying the load. It's the person crying for a child molester or a murderer. Let him massacre your family, you'll be better for it.

Re:Tax Dollars

[RalphBNumbers]

No, it really isn't.

Free filtered internet means that all the people paying for a broadband line to read email, and occasionally browse the web, can now do so for free. Without the ~95% of customers who underuse their connections subsiding the cost of the ~5% who actually need broadband, ISPs will have to increase prices dramatically.

The end result is that only the financially well off will have access to anything the government feels like censoring on their network. And that's making the optimistic assumption that the censorship stops with government networks, and isn't extended, voluntarily or not, to the big ISPs.

What will happen to political speech when that happens? Given what we've seen of these kinds of filters thus far, they tend to pick up on key words, block entire sites for single pages, and generate a lot of what a reasonable person viewing a site would consider false positives. Will any site the agitates for the rights of sex workers, or transsexuals, or gays risk being marked as sexual content, and blocked from the vast majority of american voters? Will any site that discusses a hate crime risk being labeled as hate-speech, and excluded as well? How much harder will it be to get a major party to take up such causes in that kind of environment?

I think that free ubiquitous basic internet access is a great idea, that could do a lot of good for a lot of people and the economy overall.
But I'd gladly forgo it, if the cost is freedom of speech on the internet.
Any government supported network needs to be an unfiltered. Even forcing people to register with the government as adults to receive an unfiltered connection is far too burdensome, in that it destroys users' privacy and any potential anonymity for whistleblowers and the like. Any parents who want to restrict their kids' browsing have plenty of options to do so on their own devices, without unconstitutionally and unduly compromising adults' freedom of speech.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Hatta]

Thanks for the analysis, my statement was based on older numbers, so let's look at these. You don't quote numbers for violent crime arrests, only violent crime incidence. But in the page you linked:

In 2007, the FBI estimated that 14,209,365 arrests occurred nationwide for all offenses (except traffic violations), of which 597,447 were for violent crimes, and 1,610,088 were for property crimes.

597,447 is significantly less than the ~850,000 you figure for marijuana related arrests.

Re:Tax Dollars

[BigRob7]

I've eaten plenty of food that hasn't killed me, and it's not always "FDA Approved". Are you saying that "FDA Approved" means you will not die? I believe that's been disproven already. Water? I never drink municipal water - too much fluoride. I drink bottled, but the funny thing about that is the fact that the FDA has nothing to do with approving bottled water. I'm still here. As for "hard core criminals" in prison, they are actually few and far between when compared to all the non-violent offenders incarcerated with our tax dollars. As far as snow, you've got to be kidding me. We got like 3 inches last night and the roads look untouched. It a half hour drive to work and I didn't see a single plow. Government is 90% waste and 10% actual benefit.

Re:Tax Dollars

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

We pay taxes to keep the water treatment plant running, but we also pay a monthly bill for the water we use.

My road is plowed by the people who live on it because the town/state ignores us.

Re:Tax Dollars

[cayenne8]

"well have no fear, the same program guarantees that other people will help pay for your disability or retirement in the event you need it, instead of having you just starve to death. And if you don't need it? great, glad to hear it. be thankful that the program would have supported you if you did."

But, alas....it will not be there any longer about the time I will start to 'collect'. So, I will have paid all these years in for NOTHING.

Even with the recent decline in the market...I'd rather have been able to take and invest that money as I saw fit. Hell, let me OUT of SS taxation now, I will sign over any claims I have to it....and take my saved monies and use them towards my retirement.

A mandated ponzi scheme is not my idea of a retirement aid....

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anon to avoid losing my mod points...

Social Security does other things, most notably survivor benefits. If you're going to be an ass, at least be accurate.

http://www.nasi.org/publications3901/publications_show.htm?slide_id=3&cat_id=77

Re:Tax Dollars

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Well, if the 2040 date is accurate, I'm going to be retiring right after SS goes tits up.

That's why I started planning for my retirement when I was 19. Of course, this recent session of "strong economic fundamentals" has really gutted my 403b.

Re:Tax Dollars

[ArsonSmith]

Yea, because I was just thinking, "My internet just really needs some FCC control for it to be sooo much better."

Re:Tax Dollars

[moondawg14]

Oops. don't forget "move to a state that doesn't have a property tax." If you've got land to grow your own food on, the government in most areas would very much like to tax you for the privilege of owning it. And make sure to buy all the implements that you might use for farming before you quit your job. And don't barter for any services, the government would like to tax you on that too. Sell your vehicles, because the state will tax you for the license plates every year. Plus, you couldn't buy fuel for them, that's taxed too. (unless you put untaxed farm fuel in your diesel vehicle.) Any money that you DO have, should be stored in a mattress, or in a non-interest checking acct, as interest on that money would also be taxable. It would be much, much more complicated than "quit your job" to avoid paying taxes. They really are, aside from death, the only certainty!

Re:Tax Dollars

[seven of five]

Government is the most expensive form of entertainment.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally I hate these, but in this case:

More people are arrested for marijuana possession in this country than EVERY VIOLENT CRIME COMBINED! Is that what you call a good use of tax payer resources?

Fixed that for you. Last time I checked there wasn't any violence in possession of marijuana.

Re:Tax Dollars

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

The thing with unemployment claims is that if the guy quit or whatever you can contest the claim and you'll end up paying nothing towards his checks.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Try using a real source, like The Constitution, not some propaganda farm.

Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article 1, Section 8:

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Its supported just like the US Military is. Now please take your fascist BS to someplace more appropriate; if you don't like China, try Iran, or Saudi Arabia. They're all more to suited to you.

Re:Tax Dollars

[ArsonSmith]

SS? Social Security? Very low overhead, actually. Tiny. Nearly all of their spending is in the form of checks to citizens, which is the whole point.

The funny part is the Tiny part of the overhead is in the form of taking checks from citizens.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Cue the government claiming that global warming was intentionally caused to reduce snow removal costs in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Re:Tax Dollars

[sharperguy]

Let's be honest here guys, what did tax dollars ever do for us?

Re:Tax Dollars

[HiThere]

Keep investing. Nows the best time to pick up things cheaply. But invest widely rather than deeply, as lots of companies won't survive the current turmoil.

If you are lucky, by 2040 this period will be the time you laid the basis of your fortune. My misfortune was that I am already retired. I may need to reverse that retirement once I find out what's happened. (Ouch! And explaining why I don't have any current job history? Ouch!)

Re:Tax Dollars

[AskFirefly]

You wish you had a trust fund to... what?

Re:Tax Dollars

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Filtered Internet is better then no internet for a lot of people.

That's fine. But does that mean the government has to, or should, provide internet service directly to those people? I'd much rather see them fund a program to provide freely available internet service to public facilities like libraries (which I think would cost less than the "free internet for all" plan) and spend the rest of the money they would have budgeted for this program elsewhere (say on improving said libraries, or our education system.) People get free access to the Internet (at least during the day; admittedly one drawback of this plan as compared to the FCC proposal) and schools or libraries get a few extra bucks in the deal.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Henry V .009]

Keep investing. Nows the best time to pick up things cheaply.

Yes, Mr. Buffet? So you've correctly guessed the bottom of the stock market? Amazing. How did you do it?

Re:Tax Dollars

[Belial6]

I don't know if you don't understand what I said, or if you don't understand what YOU said. Yes, Social Security INSURANCE was and Old-AGe Survivor and Disability program. It was designed as an INSURANCE policy for those that were disabled or TOO OLD to work. It was never designed to be a retirement policy for able bodied adults. The reason that they put an age on it is for the same reason that we put an age on the age of majority. Making a law that tries to evaluate each and every person as an individual is expensive and difficult.

So, no, I am not wrong. You just don't understand what Old-Age Survivor means.

And sure, any person who paid into Social Security should be able to receive the benefits that they paid for when they retire. IF we raise the age of retirement to 90. You are not, I assume, trying to claim that Social Security INSURANCE should be paid to the lucky chap that gets to retire at 26....

Re:Tax Dollars

[ArsonSmith]

It was actually designed as Insurance that you may live longer than the average life span. Unfortunately it has not been adjusted to the longer expected life span. You were suppose to be able to plan a retirement as if you were going to die at around 65, if that doesn't happen then you have insurance that should be enough to keep you feed until you finally kick it. realistically it needs to be raised to around 72 now.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to let capitalism do it's work... by having the government pay for it?

That's not capitalism.

Re:Tax Dollars

[IanCal]

It doesn't have to be at the bottom to make money, it just has to rise above it's current value at some point in the future. Sure, you may make *more* by waiting, but you make make less.

Re:Tax Dollars

[jank1887]

But luckily the scheme is in place to prevent the "all my money for me" aspect. The point of SS is that the greater good is served by supporting those who can't afford to sufficiently save for retirement. hence the unambiguous name 'social' security. It's not about you achieving the best possible retirement. It's about trying to accept a minimally acceptable support for those who could significantly suffer after retirement otherwise.

Yes, it goes against 'survival of the fittest'. It's about recognition that public support of certain things may reduce overall efficiency, but the benefits gained outweigh holding back some of the peak performers.

Sure, we could go back to a situation with those who can afford to save enjoy a comfortable retirement while those who can't work until they die or end in the poorhouse even if they worked steadily for 50 years. But the people recognized that there are some places that social programs make sense. It's not the place of those that feel they don't need it to decide the one's who do can't have it.

Re:Tax Dollars

[ArsonSmith]

It's part of the race to the bottom. By the government providing an inferior product for free then the paid products will lose a significant number of customers forcing them to raise their prices and convincing more to flee to the free alternative and going into a vicious cycle. Walmart has had this same effect. By providing substandard products extremely cheaply it has pushed the price of quality products up even higher.

Re:Tax Dollars

[usul294]

another way of thinking about it is that once you become eligible for social security, the program ensures that no matter what happens to your finances you won't have to beg to survive

Re:Tax Dollars

[AvitarX]

Life expectancy has greatly increased the cost, but it is not the largest problem

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

13.5 years to 17.5 is significant.

I am also willing to bet the 4+ years not paying in for the larger college population may hurt too (though maybe the increased pay and health outweighs this, or the health issue makes it worse).

Re:Tax Dollars

[squiggleslash]

Geez, it was two thousand years ago! Will you let it go already?

Re:Tax Dollars

[dhermann]

The United States government chooses to regulate the administration of food and drugs because relying on a for-profit corporation to approve either for general use would be a ridiculous level of authority for such a company to have. You would let the free market control the levels of mercury and strychnine in our drinking water? To reply, "laissez-faire" when the general public is duped by Prescott Pharmaceutical Approval Agency after they approve a muscular dystrophy medication that happens to cause cancer, then reveal they are owned by the company who holds the patent? Imagine if the same board of directors who presided over Enron purchased the certification authority for your raw chicken.

Your comparison to kosher authentication is disingenuous: there is no issue of public safety in approving foods as Kosher. There is a significant risk when it comes to the food and drugs available in the American marketplace.

The FDA exists solely for our well being. Its entire existence is based upon the principle of keeping all of us away from harm. I am comforted by the fact that it does not consider the profitability of the organization when considering a food preparation method or release of a new prescription drug. I hope you would be, too.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Fieryphoenix]

You're not, at least not through Social Security. Social Security is insurance, and you've received the product you paid for... which is insurance coverage.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Intron]

google much? Average sentences imposed on Federal offenders sentenced in U.S. District Courts Oct 1, 2000 to Sep 30, 2001.

  Violent_Felonies 90.7_months
  Drug_Felonies 73.9_months

Re:Tax Dollars

[edmicman]

When is the last time you heard of a bank burning to the ground???

Haven't they metaphorically been doing this for the past few months?

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I wish I had mod points +1 Informative/Interesting to you sir.

Re:Tax Dollars

[LandDolphin]

Look at television. Everyone has "Free" TV, but the vast majority pay for Cable/Satalite TV. The internet would be the same. The bandwidth of the free system would be piss poor when compared to what you get if you paid.

Re:Tax Dollars

[skiman1979]

Yes, pump a bunch of taxpayer money into Federal prisons to provide entertainment, gyms, workout facilities, etc to the criminals. Do they really need all of that? Throw the criminals in 'the brig' with only the bare essentials for human survival (food, water, a place to sleep at night).

I suppose some people might actually live more comfortably in prison than in the real world.

Re:Tax Dollars

[loafula]

You sure about that? A friend of mine got busted for running from the cops on his motorcycle- when they came to his apartment to arrest him, they found a plant. He did less than a year state time.

Re:Tax Dollars

[hobbit]

I am comforted by the fact that it does not consider the profitability of the organization when considering a food preparation method or release of a new prescription drug.

Aye, just like the government does not consider the profitability of the lobbyist when considering a new law.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong

wrong

wrong

idiot

Re:Tax Dollars

[Ioldanach]

If you really believe this, and are against the Constitution, perhaps you should renounce your citizenship and relocate to China. We would all be happier.

Not that I'm agreeing with everything the GP says, but how is their opinion in any way related to the Constitution? I honestly don't know of any part of the constitution that grants the federal government jurisdiction over a great deal of what it does. Really, GP is technically right. The food manufacturers often have fees that are paid to support the FDA. Water bills and snow removal are at the local level, both of which individuals can have a much greater say in than national policy. I disagree with him in general regarding criminals, but we put away far too many people for minor drug offenses than we need to. Remember, we once hung people for even certain kinds of thefts.

I'd be happy if the federal government could be pared back to a smaller set of tasks. Things like national defense, national disaster response, interstate transit (interstate highway maintenance), and regulation of things that impact all citizens such as safety standards for public facilities like water supplies, product safety (including automobiles), pollution control, and so forth. Social Security Insurance is certainly a debatable component, since, overall, it is probably cheaper for the country to have its elderly and infirm receiving a certain minimum of funds rather than becoming a burden on other aspects of society and the federal government less able to handle them.

The concept that the federal government amasses huge sums of taxes and then doles them back out to the states is silly, the states should get nothing back and handle their own projects themselves, and the feds should handle their tasks in the states (such as highway construction) themselves. This would necessarily eliminate most so-called pork barrel projects, because the states would have to fund them themselves.

(of course, this is just a short rant on slashdot, so it isn't well enough thought out for my own tastes, either, but its the general direction I'd like to see things go in)

Re:Tax Dollars

[eat here_get gas]

i'm under the impression that the internet is already free?
yes, i pay money every month to time-warner cable/roadrunner, but that's only for the efficient means of getting onto the internet. once connected, i do not pay a penny more. they (twc-rr)provide a service for which i expect to pay a fee. no one should expect a service to be free. and while i know not all companies charge the same fees for the same service, i'm quite happy with a 25M pipe, for which i only pay ~$34/mo. i'm in podunk, nh (near canada) and options are slim.
also, if you demand and receive your "free" internet, i would suspect you would be rewarded with minimal (if any)service/support, compounded with crap quality, topped off with severely restricted terms. so, in the end, that really isn't "free" either...

just my 2 cents, ymmv...

Re:Tax Dollars

[Thaelon]

Bollocks.

I don't want them filtering my internet any more than I want them filtering my mail, my TV, or my radio. Unfortunately the FCC seems to have take upon itself to filter broadcast TV and radio. A power they were never granted by the people. They just took it; largely in response to a really whiny special interest group. An organization made up of a mere 1.3 million (~0.4% of the US population!) uptight fucks have almost single handedly managed to get all the real life stuff banned from TV. They're responsible for 99.9% of complaints (which is the only thing the FCC acts on) in 2003.

I don't want asshats like this sucking the life out of the internet like they have TV and radio.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Hubbell]

Who cares if it is efficient, when all it is is the government saying 'we know how to save your money better than you do so give it to us now.' It's money that I worked hard to earn, and if I chose to invest it (assuming I was allowed to opt out/keep it) I would be able to make way more than the government will give to me when I qualify to start receiving SS benefits. And even if I couldn't, it's money that *I* earned, and the government has no place telling me they can better spend my money for me.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Ioldanach]

I disagree with him in general regarding criminals, but we put away far too many people for minor drug offenses than we need to. Remember, we once hung people for even certain kinds of thefts.

Sorry, as I re-read that again, I realized it could imply I thought minor drug offenses should be handled by hangings. Oops.

Truly minor drug offenses should be decriminalized. Lesser drug offenses should be handled like speeding tickets... a fine but no jail time unless you keep doing it or don't pay up.

On the other end of the spectrum, we used to hang murderers (without respect to *why* they did it), horse thieves, and anyone in between. The modern analogue would be to hang people convicted of grand theft auto, for example. I can see where one might argue for this, and the constitution only forbids it because we've slowly moved the bar of cruel & unusual up higher and higher. Personally, I don't think we should put anyone to death, because the legal system just isn't good enough to be that sure of their conviction most of the time. But like I said, its still a reasonably debatable point.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

I was more worried that this is just another system of control and monitor of your internet. Now they know what are you doing everday online.

Re:Tax Dollars

[networkBoy]

Fine and dandy (and I'm with you on the savings, I started at 24).
But If I am going to be unable to collect the portion of my funds that were annexed for my retirement benefit, then I want those funds back. The disability portion of the funds is reasonable so you can keep those...
-nB

Re:Tax Dollars

[Kuukai]

No, you are wrong. It was advertised as a "sure thing" payment to the elderly, and it's been called a "retirement reserve" forever. Moreover, the law was actually designed to encourage retirement. On June 14th, 1935, Senator Pat Harrison stated:

The Finance Committee added an amendment which provides that a man will receive this annuity only if he has retired from regular employment. This was based on the belief that no person holding a regular job should retain this job after 65, receiving an annuity along with his pay check. Rather, he should retire and make it possible for others to obtain work.

It certainly doesn't cover retirement fully, but it's wrong to say that retirement wasn't part of the original intention.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah we are going to need to cut spending on things that are
not essential to life.

As a great man once said, America will last til ppl realize
they can vote themselves goodies.

As much as I love the space program, it is just not on the
bare essentials list, we are nearing a time like 1929,
and to avert it we need some temporary changes and some
permanent changes.

The creature from jekyll island, the Federal Reserve must go.

We need to send ZERO dollars out of the US for energy needs.

We can implement the plan Valcent Technologies has,
LS9, Coskata, and Picken's plan and be totally self reliant
in less than 20 years.

We need to have ZERO unemployed ppl and fix all the painted
rust issues like roads and bridges, schools, homeless, etc etc.

We need TRUE and FAIR trade, not slave labor making goods and
selling them to us, restore US industry.

If the ppl selling us goods cannot pass US labor laws it
should be ILLEGAL to buy goods from them.

If the ppl selling us goods cannot pass environmental laws
and have toxins and poisons in their goods, it should be
ILLEGAL to buy them.

The troops brought home from overseas should be used to
close the border 100%, and build a new version of
Hadrian's Wall:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian's_wall

Also 700+ bases in 130+ countries is too many, some other
country can assume the role of policeman of the world.

Sorry America is broke, someone else gets a turn as the
pivot man in the middle.

Why we still act as the military for South Korea after
50 damn years seems retarded to me, the UN loves to talk
and now it is time for them to STEP THE HELL UP.

If the South Koreans can't protect their own damn country
after 50 years, they never will.

It is time we stop paying for it, same for Europe.

Germany, we have 10's of thousands of troops there, and
the Germans want us gone, I say damn good idea !

Japan, same thing, time to leave, adios !

US postal service is laying off 40,000 ppl, lets call that
a good start and keep it rolling and move most mail to
email or the commercial services like FedEx and UPS,
but provide job training and transfers to all of them.

Most of the mail that shows up in my physical mail box is
junk mail that I do not want, you want to help the global
warming someone do the math on the daily junk mail load
for the US. how much paper is wasted, how much fuel to
delivery it, etc etc.

Junk mail should be OUTLAWED, we are subsidizing it.

If you get a Welfare check, then you get Norplant or some
other long term type of birth control.

You can have all the sex you want, but I am not paying to
raise your children when you decide to have 8 of them.

If you decide to drive drunk and get in a car accident
and want us to pay for your health care for the rest of
your disabled life we will instead hook you up to an IV
of alcohol and let you die like you should.

If you are on social security and disability and sit at
home and do nothing and receive a check, then you can
answer the phone.

Let these sit at home do nothing ppl work the government
phone lines thru call forwarding and earn their pay.

If they are too disabled to talk on the phone, and can't even
call 911 to ask for help then they truly are disabled.

Move to a flat tax and phase out the IRS through early retirement,
job training to other positions, and simply canning the
worst 5% every year.

Do all this and the country will flourish.

Re:Tax Dollars

[muridae]

What other option is there for those people?

There are, I think, three major groups on social service's payroll: Major disabled, minor disabled, and those who just need help because the job market sucks. Starting with those people majorly disabled, what would you have them do? Be put in government run homes, like the asylums that we used to have? Walk the streets without a home because no one in their family can pay to have them cared for privately? In either case, people who are not cared for will put a burden on the public.
For people with minor disabilities, the system provides a step stone that they might not have through family/friends. If you think you can live on social service checks and food stamps, I dare you to actually try it. The people who want to over come their injury or disability get that help they need to finish school, college or trade, and even if they do not get off the system they can provide something to society anyways.
Finally, the people who just need a helping hand. Lets take a single parent who is working 2 jobs just to cover rent. What about those hours when junior is out of school, gotta pay a babysitter. And all those doctors visits to keep junior from making the other kids sick with some disease that should have been eradicated 20 years ago.

Get rid of the SS system, and you aren't going to magically get rid of the money you are paying to take care of the problem. You'd just shift it around a bit. Sudden influx of unemployed disabled people who used to be working, and the ones who used to be paid to take care of them. No more cheap drugs, because the medicaid/medicare system wouldn't be setting a price cap on certain common ones. Greater medical bills in school age kids, as the one kid who doesn't get a check up passes around the latest bug.
Hell, if you want to be purely economical, SS is just forced spending. People on social services (disabilities in my state, dunno about other states' limits) who aren't gaming the system are not allowed to save money. No 5000$ plasma TV, they aren't allowed to keep that much money without losing their benefits. Two grand, tops, when counting all extra assets beyond one car to get to work and the roof over their head. So, where does the money go? Low and behold it goes back into the system. The money you pay in taxes goes back into keeping the demand for groceries high enough to justify the new mega-mart, and keeping the stores profitable so they don't have to raise all the prices. It goes back into local repair shops, who keep people's cars running, or to the telephone/cable/electric company. It goes to the banks for mortgages or to other people for rent. So stop whining about the system, and either present a better one or do the math on what would happen if we just did away with the current one.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Bill_the_Engineer]

You are not, I assume, trying to claim that Social Security INSURANCE should be paid to the lucky chap that gets to retire at 26....

Why not? If he paid social security, he can start receiving his checks when he reaches 65 years old (or 63).

There are retirement (pension) plans with minimum age requirements, and there are plans based solely on the number of years worked (full-time) at a particular employer (commonly 20 years).

Either way unless your lucky chap started working fulltime at the age of 6, he will be retiring on his own dime.

Re:Tax Dollars

[geezer nerd]

IIRC, the money collected from FICA goes right into the government general fund to be spent on whatever. Supposedly, there is NO Social Security surplus pot of money sitting around, except perhaps as a number on paper somewhere. Social Security is paid out of current tax revenue. And that is OK with me so long as I continue to get mine.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Forgot about survivor benefits. Cool that's one more area we can make cuts.

The exception being that the widow(er) should be entitled to the retirement benefits paid for by the deceased.

Re:Tax Dollars

[dhermann]

I sure do wish the FDA lived in a vaccuum and did not need to employ experts that previously worked for pharmaceutical companies. Oh, when angels dance on pinheads. To say that lobbyists possess no power regarding our food and drug administration is patently false, but to say they are all-powerful is equally false. The idea, however, that the solution is privatization of this public service is completely ludicrous. See also: deregulation of credit default swaps and mortgage-backed securities.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Poltras]

Mods like paying taxes.... I wish I had a trust fund to!

Actually, I _do_ love paying taxes. If it's for something I believe in. And I believe in socialism; a country isn't just a mass of egocentric people who would shoot each others at the sight of someone you don't know on your lawn.

Sorry to break it down to you, but USA is at the bottom of the list for too many points, and (funnily) many socialist countries are at the top. Included points are: education, rehabilitation, democracy, life expectancy, internet speed and access (which is the matter at hand), lack of corruption (lobbyism is a national sport in USA), smallest prison population, number of murder per year per capita... may I go on?

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Why give the FDA credit for "food that didn't kill you", when they didn't have much of anything to do with it?

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably did not mean to say this, but marijuana possession is not a violent crime.

Re:Tax Dollars

[StopKoolaidPoliticsT]

And what does "promote the general welfare" mean? Well, if we cross reference the Federalist Papers, we'll see:

Federalist 23 (Hamilton):

Defective as the present Confederation has been proved to be, this principle appears to have been fully recognized by the framers of it; though they have not made proper or adequate provision for its exercise. Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations. As their requisitions are made constitutionally binding upon the States, who are in fact under the most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of them, the intention evidently was that the United States should command whatever resources were by them judged requisite to the ``common defense and general welfare.'' It was presumed that a sense of their true interests, and a regard to the dictates of good faith, would be found sufficient pledges for the punctual performance of the duty of the members to the federal head.

Federalist 41 (Madison):

A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them. Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are ``their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: ``All charges of war and all other expenses th

Re:Tax Dollars

[LandDolphin]

And just like you still get whatever you want on Cable TV and Satalite Radio, you can get whatever you want on the Internet that you get from the ISP you pay for.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

You ever eat food that didn't kill you ?

Is that a trick question?

Re:Tax Dollars

[hobbit]

True, true.

Re:Tax Dollars

[madcat2c]

That's what a nicely timed bird flue is for.
/one ticket please.

Re:Tax Dollars

[cayenne8]

"The point of SS is that the greater good is served by supporting those who can't afford to sufficiently save for retirement. "

But, SS was NOT instituted as a 'retirement' program'. It doesn't pay enough..it is an aid, but, not something to be depended upon for complete support. If it is....well, with inflation, etc (not to mention SS going bankrupt soon)...it isn't going to serve even the minimal purpose it was originally set up for.

What will you do then? Let people save on their own? Gouge workers for more and more and more of their money to fund it? That will get nasty pretty quick at some point. US citizens aren't real fond of super high taxation.

And it ain't gonna be the rich/super wealthy that pay it...hell, they live off investments, no paycheck so no payroll taxes (SS/medicare)..so, they don't pay it now, and won't pay it in the future. The working man with a paycheck can't afford to foot the entire bill.

Hey..was a nice 'friendly' idea...but, it is coming to a screeching halt here VERY soon.

I think we need to get back more to families in the US taking care of their own...SS was just there to help with this...we need to get back to having caring generations of families. But, you can't legislate that.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Filtered Internet is better then no internet for a lot of people.

If you're referring to the same lazy fucks who sit around all day long collecting my tax money in the form of welfare checks, no thanks. If they can do without a job, they can do without Internet, filtered or not.

Re:Tax Dollars

[glittalogik]

Australian resident here, what's the difference between a 401k and a 403b? Never heard of the latter.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Eli Gottlieb]

You honestly think the Judeans (read: ancient Israelites) didn't have wine before the Romans brought it to them/us? DO YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST!? Wine was the standard drink for all occasions in the entire Mediterranean area!

Re:Tax Dollars

[ceiling9]

... I think every liberal should be offered the chance to let the death row criminal they're pining for move into their guest room permanently to preserve their life...

Ok it's a deal, I'll volunteer to have a death row inmate live in my guestroom, but only if you volunteer to be wrongly accused of a crime and put on death row with nothing to preserve your life.

Re:Tax Dollars

[billius]

That's preposterous. The Windows API wasn't even written until...oh, the *other* wine...

Re:Tax Dollars

[penguin_dance]

But, SS was NOT instituted as a 'retirement' program'. It doesn't pay enough..it is an aid, but, not something to be depended upon for complete support. If it is....well, with inflation, etc (not to mention SS going bankrupt soon)...it isn't going to serve even the minimal purpose it was originally set up for.

What will you do then? Let people save on their own? Gouge workers for more and more and more of their money to fund it? That will get nasty pretty quick at some point. US citizens aren't real fond of super high taxation.

First a disclaimer...I'm NOT trolling...I'm dead serious....

Why do you think BOTH parties essentially support the influx of illegal aliens with fake SS #s coming across?

It's a way to collect SS dollars that will NEVER have to be paid out to the worker. Think about it. If they just wanted more workers, they could easily let more legal workers in.

Re:Tax Dollars

[St. Alfonzo]

Are you dense? Virtually any male over the age of 14 knows that filtered internet access is virtually worthless. (What good is the internet without porn?)

Re:Tax Dollars

[jcnnghm]

Don't like paying taxes? Quit your job. Grow your own food. Make your own electricity. Live off the grid.

Not willing to do all that? Then pay your taxes and quit complaining.

The government doesn't provide my job, my food, or my electricity. I perform services in exchange for money, which I then trade for those goods/services.

Re:Tax Dollars

[ZosX]

Interesting how the average sentences are 7-8 years for violent offenders and 6-7 years for drug offenders. It would be a better composite to take a whole year into account.....and what's that....Obama wants to double the tax on the rich? And what's with the bracket in the middle between 2-300k that only has to pay $12......???

Gotta love this stat...

"With less than 5% of world population; USA has over 2.3 million of 9 million world prisoners!"

"The U.S. incarceration rate is over 5 times higher than in 1971 when the impeached arch-criminal, "law-and-order" President Richard Nixon declared an evil "war on drugs" as a substitute for the good "war on poverty.""

"At midyear 2005, nearly 4.7 percent of black males were in prison or jail, compared to 1.9 percent of Hispanic males, and 0.7 percent of white males. Among males in their late 20s, nearly 12 percent of black males, compared to 3.9 percent of Hispanic males and 1.7 percent of white males, were incarcerated"

Oh he links to this great story too...

"CHICAGO -- The money spent on one day of the Iraq war could buy homes for almost 6,500 families or health care for 423,529 children, or could outfit 1.27 million homes with renewable electricity, according to the American Friends Service Committee, which displayed those statistics on large banners in cities nationwide Thursday and Friday.

0923 05The war is costing $720 million a day or $500,000 a minute, according to the group's analysis of the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes.

The estimates made by the group, which opposes the conflict, include not only the immediate costs of war but also ongoing factors such as long-term health care for veterans, interest on debt and replacement of military hardware.

"The wounded are coming home, and many of them have severe brain and spinal injuries, which will require round-the-clock care for the rest of their lives," said Michael McConnell, Great Lakes regional director of the AFSC, a peace group affiliated with the Quaker church.

The $720 million figure breaks down into $280 million a day from Iraq war supplementary funding bills passed by Congress, plus $440 million daily in incurred, but unpaid, long-term costs."

Of course he is also claiming that 1.2 million iraqis have died. I've heard the figures near the couple hundred thousand mark, but million?

Thanks for the zany link =)

Re:Tax Dollars

[sumdumass]

No he isn't sure of that. The pot possession charges go by weight unless your caught dealing. There is no minimum charge for possession, it goes by the weight of the plants. It also varies from state to state.

You have what they call a bulk amount that makes it a fellony and at least in my state, would commit you to a maximum of 18 months. If you 4 times the bulk amount, you would have to potention of 18 months times four but there is no requirement for that to be sentenced. I say a guy who was 3 times over the bulk amount get sentenced to 9 months with 5 years probation. After 4 and a half years, he ended up getting a PV and served the rest of his sentence.

These laws will vary from state to state which is primarily what makes his In the US portion of the claim invalid. In my state, 200 grams is the bulk amount and anything under that amount is a misdemeanor with anything under 100 grams being a miner misdemeanor. You don't get jail time mandatory until your around 25 times the bulk which is 5000 grams and a third degree felony. If it is over 25000 grams, then you get the maximum sentence for a seconds degree felony. The average usable weight of a single plant across the US is 589 grams. Of course that is dry and they will measure a plant wet but all you need to do is have them reweigh the plant before the trial and they won't have 80% of the evidence because it will be lost to the natural drying. However, unless you have some unmaintained monster plant, you shouldn't get over the 25000 grams with multiple plants. BTW, 25000 grams is something like 55 pounds. At 589 grams (1.2 pounds dry- 5-6 pounds wet), that would mean something around the order of 45-50 harvested plants or 8-10 fully grown plants green before you have a mandatory sentencing.

Re:Tax Dollars

[B4D BE4T]

I seriously doubt that censorship would be a problem. But I agree that high-bandwidth users will probably be charged more in the end. It will probably work a lot like over-the-air vs. cable TV. Commercial internet providers will begin offering the "basic cable" equivalent of internet service at a relatively low price. Those users who require more bandwidth could go for the "premium" service which, as you pointed out, will likely cost more without other users (paying for more than they actually use) picking up the extra cost. As for censorship, I doubt it would be censored any more than broadcast TV.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

how about the hard core criminals food? They eat better than I do!
How about the Hard Core criminals TV; Again better TV than I get (and they get it for FREE!)
How about that Gym membership they get... I can't afford Gym membership; maybe I need to get arrested for possesion, then I can live the good life.

No wait: I am an honest person, I work for what I get.

Prisons are a waste of money, as we run them.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Hubbell]

On the internet speed/access issue:
If you weren't a fucking retard you wouldn't have brought it up. All of the countries that top the US in access/speed aren't nearly the size of the US, and as such their population density is much greater. It's easy as fuck to build a Fiber network if almost your entire population lives within extremely high density areas, but not a single one of those countries would be capable of maintaining the same level of network access/speed if they had to deal with the sprawling communities like the US does. Any belief to the contrary is utopian dreaming and nothing more than naivete.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

You ever eat food that didn't kill you ? (FDA), or drink water?

Yup, I sure have- and guess what, it was all grown at home & never passed FDA approval at all. Or the approval of any other government agency.
We got our water from an underground well, if you drill it deeply enough it's already purified.

How about housing the hard core criminals in prison?
We used to house them in pine boxes with a rope necktie, worked faster and provided a better long-term solution.

Does it snow in your area? Plows are a nice thing to have.
Really? I never had any problem getting around in 6 feet of snow. All you have to do is wear snowshoes, or use this thing called a 'Sled', or a 'Sleigh'.

Sure, there is a lot of laziness in society, but even more waste in government.
The only thing the government really does, is to provide a framework for the development of large cities.

Granted, there are benefits to things like the FDA, or the Interstate highway system, but these are the few... and even they are not infallible.

Re:Tax Dollars

[digitalunity]

Similar pre-tax retirement savings plan. Has slightly different rules and is specifically for employees of government or non-profit orgs.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Poltras]

I love you too. What is it about being retard and insults? Next time, if you want to go the cheap road, just do your homework, Einstein. Just look north of USA. I'm in Canada, and although some parts are still using satellites, our population has a better internet speed than you guys. And by better I don't mean "a bit more", I'm meaning more than 3 times faster. July 2007 stats here. Has anything changed much since?

Re:Tax Dollars

[CrimsonAvenger]

The problem is that they'll stop bringing in that surplus and start spending from savings in a couple of years

This is a myth. There are no "savings" to spend from, since the Social Security tax revenues are dumped into the general fund just like all other tax revenues, to be spent in the year received.

Once the Social Security taxes no longer cover the expenses of the Social Security program (2018, or thereabouts), the Social Security tax rates will be raised to cover the shortfall, and we'll all just have to get used to higher taxes.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Mister Whirly]

Have you ever needed the police? Like knowing if your house is on fire someone will come to put it out? Like getting mail? Like eating food that won't kill you? Like driving on roads? And your electricity is probably subsidized by the government, even if they don't technically provide it.

And the government may not provide your job, but it is one of the biggest employers in the nation. (And it provides me a job directly.)

So I guess unless you are willing to contract your own police, firemen, road construction crew, private delivery service, etc. I would offer you the same advice as I offered the original poster.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the government heavily subsidizes your job in the form of roads, security, infrastructure, coinage, etc. These are all things that neither you nor your employer provide for yourselves. You may disagree with the rate the government charges for these services--considering them grossly overpriced--but to say that you live independently of the government in this day and age is laughable.

Re:Tax Dollars

[blazin-asian]

the government should work on investing for broadband development.

since the Bush administration, the US has dropped from 4th to 13th in global rankings of broadband Internet usage and is among the slowest, most expensive and least reliable in the developed world

the thought of sharing this abysmal connection makes me cringe. thats why i tether my cell phone to my laptop when i am in a bind.

Re:Tax Dollars

[KingJackaL]

Maybe they should have bought gold and a safe.

I mean, I use banks all the time, but if you're going to go the self-sufficient route, you DO have to do your own risk mitigation. And for your entire lifes savings, the cost of this isn't too extreme...

It's like hosting your own email server vs. using a free provider like Gmail or paying for one like your ISP. Sure, go ahead - just remember to set up backups!

Re:Tax Dollars

[XDirtypunkX]

It does however provide the backing to the money system to make it possible for you to exchange money for those services.

Re:Tax Dollars

[ImNotAtWork]

403b is similar to 401Ks but the constituents are people who work for the education system and non-profits.

Re:Tax Dollars

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

What the hell is with ragging on the USPS?

I ordered HDMI cables last Saturday from Seattle, and they arrived here (Colorado) yesterday (Monday). That's 2 days, and one of them was a Sunday.

Shipping cost? Under $4. UPS and FedEx want $5-7, and they wouldn't have delivered until Thursday at the earliest.

Letters get most anywhere in the US in 1 or 2 days, for under $0.50. You can't even buy a Coke for $0.50 anymore.

I have never, ever had anything lost by the USPS. Even letters that had the street name misspelled or were missing my apartment number were delivered (the latter with "missing apt. no" written on it).

Netflix isn't possible without the USPS. Nor are hundreds of other things. Our perfect paperless society hasn't arrived yet. I'm not sure it ever will. Regardless, I guess that I'm glad that the US has a postal system that is as reliable, cheap, and efficient as the one I've experienced.

Re:Tax Dollars

[tatermonkey]

The article makes "porn free" very clear. And if they kill file sharing that frees up all kinds of bandwidth. But what good is a porn free internet, its like caffeine free coffee , totally useless.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Frozen Void]

If they don't block proxies/tor/tunneling(etc),the sites could be accessed still(i know,with reduced speed and some manual settings).
The "Great Firewall of China" was circumvented many times,why FCC would be a problem?

Re:Tax Dollars

[Riven.exe]

To quote Wikipedia:

Records include ceramic jars from the Neolithic sites at Shulaveri, of present-day Georgia (about 6000 BC)

Ah, yes The Neolitic Republic of Georgia, or NRG for short.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

You speak as if being poor or old makes it ok to be a theif and a criminal.

Re:Tax Dollars

[tbrex33]

I think there are so many benefits that could come from this type of project. First, with the increasing digital divide in our country, students would have an increased access to educational material available online. More and more classrooms use online material that many students don't have access to outside the classroom. Secondly, with increased access to the network I think there would be a decrease in costs for many goods because of increased efficiency overall in the country. Lastly, budgeting money for such a project I think would increase awareness in our need for increased work to our countries communication infrastructure.

Re:Tax Dollars

[cayenne8]

"It's a way to collect SS dollars that will NEVER have to be paid out to the worker. Think about it. If they just wanted more workers, they could easily let more legal workers in."

Interesting theory...BUT, haven't the Dem's been voting (I thought successfully) to allow illegals to collect SS?

Re:Tax Dollars

[tekknoschtev]

As mentioned elsewhere, tax dollars go to a lot of things, but this proposal is kind of interesting. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out relative to the municipal wi-fi plans that have repeatedly failed. BAILOUTS FOR FREE WI-FI!

Re:Tax Dollars

[ArsonSmith]

I suppose if they only provide free internet to the .gov domain or something that may be true. Similar to the PBS free TV station where there is some good programming but people will still pay either by watching adverts, or paying money and watching adverts.

Re:Tax Dollars

[TheQuantumShift]

Relax. Once inside the prison system, those petty criminals and drug users will be turned into harcore criminals in no time...

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Right... promote general welfare. It is referring to the word welfare and not the modern concept of Welfare. I think you are twisting the words.

I do, however, see "secure the Blessings of Liberty". Try and not violate mine. Thanks.

Re:Tax Dollars

[mmwithpeanuts]

How dare you call God a Bozo!

Re:Tax Dollars

[penguin_dance]

No, it's not successful AFAIK. For one thing many of these bogus numbers belong to other people. I don't think all dems support this--some do--some Latino groups, certainly. But until they granted some sort of amnesty, they wouldn't be able straighten out the SS numbers and future payments. Anyone now found using another's SS# could be charged with identity theft.

Most illegals that I can see are not interested in becoming US citizens or counting on US retirement pay. Many leave their family back in Mexico and collect income-tax free money (they fill in enough exemptions so tax is not taken out). Then they cash their paycheck and send most of the money home with the idea they'll eventually make enough to retire back in Mexico comfortably since the cost of living is less. (Unfortunately for them, it may not always be that cheap. There are a lot of Americans who are retiring or living in Mexico because it's fairly inexpensive. If that trend continues, it will cause their prices to rise.)

Re:Tax Dollars

[GoGreenSlashWhite]

Yes, this is a great thing that the tax payers will provide for the US. In addition this can help lessen the digital divide to rural and unserved areas in the United States.

This could also lead to an increase in public safety, provide new business opportunities, and spur innovation.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

AGREED. Most people in this country do not know this. but it is True. Don't believe it? Ask any law enforcement officer, judge, or prison worker, and they will tell you. And I mean this. Go up to a cop in your neighborhood and ask them about it. If you don't see one cruising by or standing around, then go to your local police station and ask at the front desk. They work on your tax dollar, as well. They will answer you. Just say: I heard this rumor that ___, is it true?

Used to be, a stick of marijuana in your possession got you 2 years in the federal penitentiary. Is this a good use of My Tax Dollars? No. Why would I choose to ruin a young man's life over a stick -- even a bag for that matter -- of marijuana? It is obscene cruelty, if you ask me.

Our 'justice system' has become a money-mill for those that work in it, and the corporations that profit from supplying it with goods and services.

For shame.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Which is the same reason for why cable tv died a long time ago. No, wait...

Re:Tax Dollars

[Pharmboy]

No, I am positive about that. The FEDERAL limits are a minimum of 5 years for growing a pot plant. If it isn't prosecuted in a federal court, then state law would apply.

I wasn't talking about possession, I was talking about growing. It helps if you actually read what I said to begin with, then you don't look silly.

Re:Tax Dollars

[Pharmboy]

That is state time. If the feds get involved, then it is 5 minimum. If the feds are involved for other reasons and they just find the plant, then you are boned. Otherwise, if the cops just find a single plant, like your friend, then the feds usually don't get involved.

I worked as a defense investigator when the new federal minimums were introduced in the late 80s. They were a bad answer to a question seldom asked.

Re:Tax Dollars

[sumdumass]

I wasn't talking about possession, I was talking about growing. It helps if you actually read what I said to begin with, then you don't look silly.

There is no distinguishable difference between possession and cultivation in federal law except for the amount of plants.

No, I am positive about that. The FEDERAL limits are a minimum of 5 years for growing a pot plant. If it isn't prosecuted in a federal court, then state law would apply.

You would be wrong.

You seem to want to mention a the term cultivation (growing or manufacture) verse possession. The only federal law I know of distinguishing the two is if you are already permitted to manufacture controlled substances which if you get busted for growing pot also, it is 1 years on the first offense and 2 years on the second. There is no other distinguishable between cultivation and possession. In fact, the possession charges specifically mention plants. At one time, distribution and possession was separate and cultivation was part of distribution but I don't believe that to be true anymore.

Currently, the federal law (title 21 section 841) states that you won't get a minimum sentence for having pot plants or the production of pot plants or possession of pot unless it is more then 100 kilograms (about 220lbs) or 100 or more plants regardless of weight (841-a-1-b. For one plant, (section 841-a-1-d) the penalty would be 5 years (up to means can be less then) with 2 years supervised release for less then 50 kg of marijuana and less then 49 pot plants (50 or more go to the next level of punishment)

More then likely you are considering a state law that is a felony as a federal law or your information is a bit outdated. Certain possession charges of schedule I drugs do carry minimum of 5 year sentences but growing and possession of pot in small quantities is not one. Perhaps it is a state law in your area, if you provide the state, I can look it up and let you know. Or perhaps you can list the laws that you are referencing that make you positive so I can read them. There is no mandatory minimum sentence other then supervised release for 1 marijuana plant.

So when it is illegal...

[Skinkie]

So when site owners can make their own rules/laws on their website, you are unable to browse anonymously we are going to make internet free. What a great coincidence.

Free internet?

[neokushan]

Two entries down on the front page, there's an article speculating that the internet will meltdown due to some change an application is about to make, yet here's an article proposing FREE wireless internet to everyone?

If the infrastructure can't handle what people are paying for, how on earth do they plan to give it away for free?
Even with severe bandwidth restrictions, it's going to cause a hell of a lot more usage.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for this kind of thing and I'd love to see Free Wireless internet for everyone, I just wish people would make up their minds - is the internet ready to expand or collapse on top of itself?

Re:Free internet?

[truthsearch]

It should be made a public utility, not free. Just like electricity, gas, and water, let private utility companies run it but regulate the pricing and service quality.

Of course then our issues would be with the regulations, and not with the current monopolies. But I'd rather see it regulated and price controlled than the current situation.

Re:Free internet?

[omeomi]

yes, then we can pay more AND have an extra level of beaurocracy...where do I sign up?

Re:Free internet?

[truthsearch]

The water, electricity, and gas coming into my home are pretty cheap. Having regulated monopolies instead of the current unregulated monopolies should reduce prices.

And the new bureaucracy would mostly replace the existing corporate bureaucracy.

Re:Free internet?

[TomXP411]

The infrastucture can't handle when people abuse it. You can't use your home phone to talk 24/7, yet you have "unlimited" phone service. The same applies to home Internet service: right in your user agreement is a clause that says something like "it's unlimited, but that doesn't mean infinite."

Home internet service is designed to be used on-demand, not maxed out 24/7.

Re:Free internet?

[neokushan]

Nobody actually needs to use a phone 24/7, it's physically impossible to do so, but the internet is a different kettle of fish. When you say "Home internet service is designed to be used on-demand, not maxed out 24/7", I can happily say "Well it's been designed wrong".
At the very least, the advertised service plans are a disgrace, don't advertise what you can't provide, it's as simple as that. Why would it be so difficult for an ISP to advertise a truly unlimited 4Mbit connection instead of a severely oversold 15Mbit connection?
I believe some ISPs sell a certain speed connection (lets say it's 10Mbit), but what they do is throttle each connection after a few seconds. So for maybe 30s, you do get the full 10Mbit, then the speed drops down considerably, to like 2Mbit. I have no problem with this, except that they'll advertise it as a 10Mbit connection rather than a 2Mbit connection that occasionally jumps to 10Mbit. This needs to change and the sooner, the better.

Ideally, I'd like ISPs to use a system like this, but advertise the sustained speeds you're likely to get. So for "Mum & Dad" users that only need basic browsing and email, they'll get nice, fast, speedy connections and for those who want to constantly download, they'll get slower sustained speeds (Without compromising day-to-day browsing since each new connection gets full speed for a few seconds) but without the "fair use" crap that we've been forced to deal with, lately.

Or, better yet, have ISP's better regulated so if they offer you that 10Mbit connection, you GET that 10Mbit connection for however much and however long you like.

The system is broken and it needs fixed, the internet has evolved beyond the bandwidth necessities of the 90's, now we're in the multi-GB era and thanks to the likes of On-demand streaming, even "average joe" users are going to need more and more bandwidth - enforcing caps will only delay the inevitable, ISPs need to seriously upgrade the entire infrastructure or the whole country will fall behind.

Re:Free internet?

[bladesjester]

You can't use your home phone to talk 24/7

You have clearly never seen a house full of teenage girls. lol

Re:Free internet?

[tmosley]

Or we could BREAK the monopolies and let the free market handle it. Stop showing favoritism to big corporations, and the little guys will outperform them most of the time.

Re:Free internet?

[truthsearch]

We've already seen de-regulation which hasn't brought about much competition. Breaking up a cable company will not create competition because they would each control a different area, just like when AT&T was broken up.

I would usually prefer smaller companies competing instead of regulated monopolies, but it just doesn't work well in this case.

Re:Free internet?

[xonar]

You can't use your home phone to talk 24/7

You have clearly never seen a house full of teenage girls. lol

You've seen girls?!

Re:Free internet?

[tmosley]

You can't just break up a huge monopolistic corporation into smaller monopolistic corporations. That wouldn't make any sense (and didn't, as with your example). There must be competition, and it WOULD work in this case, since there are so many different ways of serving internet content (cable, DSL, wireless, etc).

The very most the government should do is seize the infrastructure and lease it out to companies on a competitive basis, although privately held infrastructure would be better. Maybe that's the way to go, grant one company the right to build infrastructure within a given area, and that company leases the bandwidth to ISPs in big blocks, which they would use to provide access to their customers. then you can regulate those who hold the infrastructure without trampling the first amendment.

Re:Free internet?

[spartacus_prime]

Probably only through binoculars.

Re:Free internet?

[truthsearch]

That makes sense. My main issue is with the infrastructure ownership. If the cable company, for example, merely owned the cable and had to lease it out fairly we'd have a much healthier marketplace for services.

Re:Free internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have lots of times. Unfortunately that's why I now have to stay away 100 yards or farther at all times.

Re:Free internet?

[HardCase]

There are some cases where a regulated monopoly can deliver services more efficiently and cheaper than a free market system can, particularly when there are high infrastructure costs. Consider the water company - the distribution system just doesn't lend itself to a competitive structure. Imagine if you have several competing water companies in your town. They have the choice of creating a massively duplicitous distribution system or cooperating to create a single system, sharing the capacity. In the first case, the distribution system is amortized over a much smaller customer base than a single system and in the second case, the companies effectively create a monopoly.

With a public utility, the company exists in a non-competitive environment in exchange for subjecting itself to strict pricing regulations that limit the company's profits.

I guess that a case could be made for a telephone service-like system, where one water company would own the infrastructure and sell the water to another company who would resell it to the end user, but, like the telephone system, that just seems to introduce a new cost layer into the system. At some point, the product, whether it's water, sewer, telephone or whatever, is provided by a regulated monopoly.

That makes sense for a technology-type service, where the competition from the service providers drives innovation in terms of new services (call waiting and caller ID did not used to be ubiquitous). In other cases, there's only so much that competition can do to make the faucets run and the toilets flush.

As it happens, in my town, the water, sewer and trash are all small companies that service just my town. They've got monopolies, but they're not big corporations. And where my folks live, even the cable company is a small outfit. Not all monopolies are big corporations. And not all monopolies are bad.

Re:Free internet?

[TomXP411]

I definitely agree with one thing you said: disclosure. ISP's don't disclose the fact that they oversell their bandwidth by a factor of 10:1 or more. Not too long ago, I was working for an ISP. We had 1 modem for every 10 customers. The problem is, the modems cust us more per month than each customer; there was no way we could have afforded to have a 1:1 relationship of ports to users. It would have cost each customer $50 a month, instead of the $10 we were charging. Actually, it probably would have cost $100 a month to cover everything: bandwidth, harware, staff, and modem ports. And that was for DIALUP! Imagine if your broadband provider charged you what it actually costs THEM to provide 10MB of full-time 100% bandwidth. You'd be paying several HUNDRED dollars a month. Actually, for a 10MB leased line, it could be well over $1000. But that's the problem: People just don't get what things REALLY cost. I hear "it's my bandwidth. I paid for it!" over and over again, but it's simply NOT TRUE. You're paying for a fraction of the bandwidth you'r actually getting; you're getting it because you share it with many other people. And yes, there's a new thing called "Speedboost" in my market. My ISP does exactly what you describe: for 5 or 10 seconds, they let the modem faster, and then the connection is throttled back to the rated speed. I think that actually helps the ISP: shorter, faster streams should be easier to manage than more slower, longer connections. And yes, there's no doubt that we need upgrades - but how do you know that's not already happening?

Re:Free internet?

[TomXP411]

:D True. Actually, I know someone who had his line "upgraded" to a metered business line. The reason? It was in use almost constantly from the time his teenage daughters got home until they went to bed. Being a metered line, they charge by the minute, and so the bill went from $25 or so to a couple hundred bucks. Needless to say, he went to a different provider (I think he went with Vonage, actually.)

Re:Free internet?

[bladesjester]

My neighbor's teenage daughter will talk on the phone with her friend that literally lives across the street. It's insane.

Re:Free internet?

[Yvanhoe]

It wouldn't be free. It would be paid by the government and the taxpayer. I'm not sure it could be worse than the current situation.

And if you believe this meltdown cause on P2P, just understand that they are not afraid of growing traffic but of diminishing control on the content. In case of heavy traffic, the solution has always been to throttle. How would this be any different ? It really sounds like a scheme to frighten senators into giving fed money.

Re:Free internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude... Slashdot.

Re:Free internet?

[tmosley]

A better water based analogy would be a company or the municipal government owning the pipes, and leasing space to water companies. The innovation can come from the purification (how to make the water clean for less). This would impact prices as your water bill would consist of pipe lease rates+cost of water inputs. The former is pretty much constant, while the latter is variable based on the technology used.

Municipal water isn't very good overall because it doesn't deal well with shortages. They just limit total usage, rather than making it more expensive. In a free market, if someone wants to have a green lawn in the middle of a drought, they can, but it will cost them. It may seem superfluous, but there may be cases where water usage directly impacts profits (industry comes to mind).

Electricity could work much the same way. One party owns the lines, while electricity companies provide the juice. Its the same with sewer, again, one party owns the lines, and is responsible for their maintenance, and another is responsible for treatment of wastewater (that may be stretching it, as sewer usage isn't easily metered, and people can push all kinds of poisonous crap (lol) down the toilet).

From where I stand, it seems that the absolute best that a monopoly can do is get close to what would happen in a free market system. Anything else leads to waste and malinvestment.

Re:Free internet?

[eille-la]

+5 Funny

Could be a great idea!

[rotide]

Obviously you can't be looking for 10mbps connections to watch streaming video and download isos. But think about a simple internet connection that allows for basic web browsing, email use, IM texting, etc.

Out on the road? Can't find an open WiFi hotspot to check google maps? Solved.

Out on the road? Want to download the newest HD episode of your show? Ya, you're going to want to get a connection from a paid-for ISP.

Re:Could be a great idea!

[jorghis]

Censored internet? So basically the FCC will have the same level of control over the "free" internet that it does over things like radio stations and television? It sounds likely that this will turn into a situation where the majority of content producers have to conform to what the FCC wants because there is a nontrivial customer base that is using the free version.

Lets keep the current model, I would rather the government not take my tax dollars to pay for their version of what the internet should look like. I prefer paying for it directly and getting what I want rather than indirectly and letting someone else decide for me.

Re:Could be a great idea!

[0100010001010011]

So let people keep the "Paid for" alternative. You have free over the air TV. You also have paid for cable. Over the air TV has certain FCC regulation. Cable TV doesn't. I'd love to be able to get my parents on even 0.5Mbit connection just to send photos back and forth. USPS is literally faster to where I grew up than trying to send a photo website.

Re:Could be a great idea!

[rotide]

Obviously, if something is free, you can't complain about arbitrary restrictions. If you pay for it, then you can.

Yes yes... You pay taxes which go into making this "free" service. I get it. We still technically pay. However, if you are only planning on using this to fill in the gaps between using paid-for services, being able to have access to federal sites, email, basic surfing, IM, etc is still worth it.

If I'm out on the road, I can still get my email. I can still keep in contact with family. I can still get directions/maps. I can still get weather reports and satellite imagery. Without the "free" internet, I can't do any of that unless I pay a nice premium on my cell phone.

I think most people will fail in the "what the primary purpose" of this will be. No, it is NOT a replacement for your 5+ mbit connection. Sorry.

Then again, if you're out of a job, or having real issues with cash, or only NEED email access, then guess what, you're in luck!

Re:Could be a great idea!

[spydabyte]

Well if it's all going to meltdown soon anyways, what does it matter?

Re:Could be a great idea!

[Korin43]

On the other hand, it's not actually "free", and I'm not really interested in paying the FCC to censor a network I'm paying for..

Re:Could be a great idea!

[Dreen]

And yet you will have hundreds of BT client running there, and all sorts of imaginable abuse, just because it's free. Welcome to non-idealized (real) society.

Re:Could be a great idea!

[Mizchief]

I don't think this will be so great for general internet usage, but think of what you could do if there was free wireless internet everywhere. Imagine all of the small machines that can now be easily networked and accessed remotely. Vending machines that take credit cards, better sensors for controlling traffic, traffic reports while driving, more inexpensive sensors for weather reports, water and electirc meters that can actually report your true usage, etc.

Re:Could be a great idea!

[Windows_NT]

Maybe what the govt needs to do is invest in Fiber mains across the country in return lower prices for people. Maybe the best solution wouldnt be the govt maintaing the information, but the physical carrier. Living in northern MN, the schools up here have to piggy back off of the colleges (some 40 miles away). i know my highschool has a T1 that comes from BSU because the ISP around here wants too much for the public school to pay. Also, the ISP has a Fiber main, but none can tap it because its the only one.
I think it would be great for a few fiber splices to run from Minneapolis 300 miles north, and give us a change to have truely fast internet without the cost the ISP would want to charge.

Re:Could be a great idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but if the free service is actually good enough for reliable casual browsing and email, the current ISPs can't make keep making petty excuses for their current quality of service. Which means if they want to keep their customers, they're going to have to provide bandwidth and other service at a level the free one can't.

Of course if the free wireless isn't any better than dialup is now, then we'll just be stuck with the current status-quo. But at least the possibility was there.

Re:Could be a great idea!

[Belial6]

For me, I just want enough bandwidth to VPN into my home machine and get good quality screen sharing. That is what should be the end goal. Censorship would be no more of an issue than it is today. The fact that people do not receive static IP addresses is a problem that would end up solved due to demand.

Re:Could be a great idea!

[techess]

I'd be willing to take that sacrifice. I live in the boonies and my only option is dial-up. There are too many trees for dish & no wimax in the area. DSL & Cable companies aren't doing anything to provide internet out here. I can't even get cell service for phone let alone wireless internet.

They claim in the CTIA pdf they expect it to be better in 10 years. It won't. When I first moved to my area there was actually very good cell coverage. When one of the big mergers happened the new bigger company decided to save money and shut down a bunch of towers. Now many of the areas that used to have coverage are spotty. The companies are reducing their coverage in low profit areas and not improving it. As long as it is a private industry providing the service if the profit margin isn't high enough they will not increase the market.

The sad thing is I only live 30 minutes from two of the biggest cities in the state and an hour from the third. If this service means I'm restricted to checking my email and low bandwidth "G" rated sites I'd be ecstatic. It is not like providing this service for free would prevent anyone from staying with their paid service. I'm already living with FCC restrictions since I only view free antenna based tv and I'm happy with it. Instead of paying for nothing being on with 300 stations there is nothing on with 12 for free.

I also think the link to the PDF from CTIA showing "free" internet failures a bit slanted. Yes the free dial-ups failed, but having used Netzero I dumped it because Dial-up is painful enough. Add all the ads on top of it and it was pretty much unusable. The point of their service wasn't to provide you with free internet, but to annoy you enough that you'd shell out more money for the next level of service.

One of the quotes from the article:

Tim Wu in describing why municipal wireless networks have been "such a flop" came to
this conclusion: "The result . . . has been telecom's Bay of Pigs--a project the government
wanted to happen but left to underqualified private parties to deliver. Firms like Earthlink
promised too much, and the cities have stood by and watched as the firms trying to build Wi-Fi
systems have twisted and died on the beachhead."

So the flop wasn't due to the service not being wanted or used, but because the cities chose bad providers. This is sort of the best argument for & against a government provided internet. It only failed in the past because the companies did a bad job picking their vendor. If they did a good job it might succeed. Of course then we have to have faith that they would choose a vendor not just because they had the (unrealistic) low bid or because they gave the best bribes.

Re:Could be a great idea!

[westlake]

Out on the road? Can't find an open WiFi hotspot to check google maps? Solved

I'm betting municipal wireless will be targeting residential neighborhoods, the public parks, libraries. schools, other community facilities and the central business district. But the outer loop? The eight lane expressway? A true mobile service? That strikes me as unlikely. Your best option for a map will remain a GPS.

Consequences

[noundi]

I can just see the consequences that follow...

It's a trap!

[daveatneowindotnet]

and they are putting fluoride in the water.

Re:It's a Trap!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your 100% right on! Once the Feds Control the Net, blocking content and sites they don't want us to see, A 'Back-door' to ALL encryption, no more privacy. Big Brother will be here in Full Force. Check out '1984', "Fahrenheit 451", 'THX1138' and last but not least, 'Logan's Run'.

"Free" is relative

[tripdizzle]

The plan would involve some level of filtering...

I predicted this before I read it. Anything a government is going to provide you will also be completely controlled by them.

...but might allow adults to opt out.

That's the same thing they said about parents who want to home school their kids rather than sending them to public schools, but is not the case, they still have to pay for other peoples kids via taxes to get the worthless education currently being provided.

Re:"Free" is relative

[y86]

they still have to pay for other peoples kids via taxes to get the worthless education currently being provided.

Worthless, LOL -- it's subpar and possibly terrible, but worthless?

We need a voucher system to let the market help manage these terrible schools.

Also, my child will be going to private school in the near future.

Re:"Free" is relative

[Anonymous Coward]

Free as in beer: Nope
Free as in beer bought with welfare: Check
Free as in freedom: Nope
Free as in soviet Russia: Check

Re:"Free" is relative

[jamesmcm]

The plan would involve some level of filtering...

I predicted this before I read it. Anything a government is going to provide you will also be completely controlled by them.

Not really, If they didn't filter it - Fox News would have a field day about the evil government using your tax dollars to provide paedophiles with child pornography. And it's nothing like the home school vs public school debate. That is to to do with ensuring every child at least has a minimum level of education and _controversial_ theories like evolution are taught. And I'm not even going to mention the anti-tax sentiment for fear of starting a flame war.

Re:"Free" is relative

[tripdizzle]

Worthless, LOL -- it's subpar and possibly terrible, but worthless?

I suppose worthless was a bit harsh. It does function as a form of daycare.

I graduated from high school in 04 and I have a brother who will graduate this year. Outside of math classes (which are electives after sophomore year) nothing of use was taught to me passed elementary school. More choice needs to be enabled, so we aren't being held hostage until 18, 16, or 15 depending on the state you are in. It should have been up to me and my parents to get the hell out of there and start some post secondary much earlier in life. There is so much waste (more of time than money) within these institutions and something needs to be done.

Re:"Free" is relative

[jamesmcm]

I don't get the whole private school love. I live in the UK and go to one of the worst schools in the county. But I work hard and am doing well (interview at Cambridge tomorrow :O ) It is certainly NOT worthless. I think money should be spent on making state schools much better to provide good education for all - that is what propels a nation forward. They could get some more money by removing the charity status from private schools.

Re:"Free" is relative

[ubrgeek]

I don't get it. What's "Free as in soviet Russia: Check" mean? We're going to have to stand in long lines to pick up packets along with our toilet paper?

Re:"Free" is relative

[mrsteveman1]

Oh no we wouldn't want to upset fox news...

Re:"Free" is relative

[LandDolphin]

But that invovled people actually doing something. It is much easier for them to sit back and complain about other people/Government.

Re:"Free" is relative

[jamesmcm]

The politicians and so FCC certainly don't.

The media basically decide who is elected. Maybe they would be okay with sufficient bribes to Murdoch but really with filtering is the only way they can ever expect to implement this. At least for the start.

Re:"Free" is relative

[TheRaven64]

They could get some more money by removing the charity status from private schools.

Private schools do not have charity status. Public schools do. They are run by an educational trust and do not run at a profit. Private schools are privately owned and (aim to) run at a profit.

Re:"Free" is relative

[kannibal_klown]

I agree, there are some areas where the public school are quite good. Unfortunately the cost-of-living in those areas (along w/ property taxes) are quite high.

My old public High School used to be a decent place, back when I graduated (which wasn't THAT long ago) it was ranked in the top 15 of the state and I didn't have a hard time getting accepted into colleges. My graduating class was between 95-105 students.

Unfortunately, since then it has declined due to over crowding and poor management. The graduating class is about 3x what it used to be (with the younger grades even larger), but they've only been able to add a couple of classrooms. Meanwhile most of the managers (Principal, Vice Principal, Board of Ed Chair, etc) have been replaced. It's a shame.

Re:"Free" is relative

[Anonymous Coward]

It is much easier for them to sit back and complain about other people/Government.

"Everybody who read the Jungle Book knows that
Riki tiki tavi is a mongoose who kills snakes.
But when I was a young man I was led to believe
There were organisations to kill my snakes for me,
I was told i.e. the Church, i.e. the Government, i.e. School
But as I got a little older I learned I had to kill my snakes myself."

Re:"Free" is relative

[jamesmcm]

They still shouldn't have charity status IMO. It just leaves it open to money laundering and also increases inequality in education and generally.

Re:"Free" is relative

[jbolden]

The thing is it is not just your kid that matters. The high levels of interest by other parents positively impact your kid because it changes classroom dynamics. That's why I pay for private schools.

Re:"Free" is relative

[characterZer0]

Many private schools are affiliated and dependent on religious institutions, and are not run for profit. Many that are not dependent on another organization are still not run for profit.

Re:"Free" is relative

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, Internet checks you.

Re:"Free" is relative

[nschubach]

Trust me when I say that improving schools starts with parents actually taking an interesting in their child's education.

Why? That's why they pay taxes and have the Department of Education! If they have to start paying attention to what their kids are learning, why do they have to pay for someone else to do it?

This is why parents need to be paying for their kids to go to school and it needs to stop being a free service of the govt paid for by unfair taxation of people without children. If they were kicking out their own money to put their kids through school, parents would be more interested.

Re:"Free" is relative

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Nothing of use was taught to you "passed" elementary school. Forget learning to write essays, reading classic novels and stories, and starting to learn about the human condition because that's all trivial. Communication is so overrated.

I'm not meaning to sound overly harsh, but public education has been the whipping boy for far too long. Education is what you get out of it. Yes, some get out of high school without learning an iota of anything; yet, some get out of college without learning much either. However, some do. The almighty private school is not the panacea it seems to be.

Re:"Free" is relative

[YrWrstNtmr]

More choice needs to be enabled, so we aren't being held hostage until 18, 16, or 15 depending on the state you are in. It should have been up to me and my parents to get the hell out of there and start some post secondary much earlier in life.

No problem. Quit at 16, get your GED, start community college that fall.
After a year or 18 mos of that, transfer to a regular 4 year school. Degree at 20.

Re:"Free" is relative

[Killer Orca]

The plan would involve some level of filtering...

I predicted this before I read it. Anything a government is going to provide you will also be completely controlled by them.

...but might allow adults to opt out.

That's the same thing they said about parents who want to home school their kids rather than sending them to public schools, but is not the case, they still have to pay for other peoples kids via taxes to get the worthless education currently being provided.

Anyone who owns a home is automatically paying property taxes to fund education, whether you home school, have no children or can't even have children. The possible exception being the rich, of course, who figure out how to pay the least amount possible.

Re:"Free" is relative

[ubercam]

Math is an *OPTION* for grades 11 and 12?!? I am honestly shocked by that! I finished school in 2001. Our math teacher used to REPEATEDLY scream up and down that we would not receive a diploma without passing a grade 12 math class (pre-calculus, applied or consumer). Stopping at grade 10 sounds like a very stupid plan. My school cut back on things that weren't in the core curriculum, like wood shop, graphic arts, home ec, not math class.

Then again, I went to a halfway decent public French-immersion school in Canada. At the time I left, versus the national average, more of its graduates entered higher education and had higher paying jobs, so YMMV.

Re:"Free" is relative

[Killer Orca]

Like Fox "news" isn't having a field day already with Obama elected.

Re:"Free" is relative

[tripdizzle]

I have lived in MN my whole life, the public school system pushes the soft sciences here. Real sciences and math are being phased out, by unelected officials appointed by our legislature many many years ago.

Re:"Free" is relative

[Rolgar]

By the time you are talking about (late 90s), there was a choice. Homeschooling. My wife read an article about homeschooling in a recent parenting magazine, and she started reading on the internet, and books checked out from the library about homeschooling, and we've agreed that that's the route we're going to go. Studies indicate that home schooled children are significantly better off academically, and I think it boils to the following reasons:

1. Reduced socialization problems found in school, namely, cheating, cliques, peer pressure and bullying. I've realized that the biggest problem causing boys to underachieve is other boys' pulling each other down, creating a culture of non-achievement. My brother-in-law, who is your age, was the top student in his class, but rejected every effort to reward his accomplishments to keep from standing out and being treated differently for it. Don't forget most schools don't really discipline children either, so you can't even depend on students to know how to control themselves properly because they've never had to learn how to, and your children will learn bad habits from them.
2. Time wasted: Think of the time a child loses to school (commuting, wasting time waiting for other students to catch up, or for the one on one time needed to address the child's questions, so they might progress toward learning something: I figure this figure at a couple hours a day) that could be spent progressing towards a true education.
3. Individual attention: Researchers have found that students learn in more than a dozen different ways, yet we stick them all in rooms with each other, and expect a good result. With individual attention, students will be able to learn in a manner that allows them to reach their full potential by being energized and challenged without having to waste time as done significantly in our current system. Instead of the state mandated 20 or 30 to 1 student to teacher ratio, you end up a much better ratio, even in a large family. And older kids can help the younger kids by explaining things differently since they've progressed farther, and have recent experience with the subject being covered.
4. Parents that send kids to school are at the mercy of the school, teachers' union, and what they want to teach you: I recently heard on the radio an account of a European documentary about the US schools where a teacher was discussing the recent election, and made comments that basically would put any children raised in a Republican household in a conflicted situation of having to agree with their parents or their teacher, and which a parent can't control as long as their child is in the school. Now a current Democrat might disagree that this is a bad thing, but you have the alternative where creationists want your child to learn their religious beliefs in their science class. Both cases are avoided in the home where the parents are the final arbiters of what their children learn in these situations and other similar ones.
5. Customized curriculum: When we home school, our kids will be getting home economics, health, naivety training, and personal finance training for 13 years, with real experience. We might add self defense, the option to choose one or two sports, have a nature class so our kids are familiar with nature and be willing to spend more time outdoors than we do ourselves. Our literature, math, science, history and geography curriculum will go far beyond anything we learned in school, and we were both top students in high school and above average in college. We will probably require our students to do things like public speaking or debate, and as we think of additional things that would be beneficial, we will add those as well.

In one thing we've read done on this matter, we've found children are pushed to read too early, and so learn bad habits (reading slowly, one word at a time), where if they waited a few years, they would be much more prepared to read lines or paragraphs, process the information quicker, and learn more quickl

Re:"Free" is relative

[Windows_NT]

it needs to stop being a free service of the govt paid for by unfair taxation of people without children

Who paid for these peoples schooling when they were kids? my dad's school consisted of a one room school house for 20 kids(4 families?) thats was tax payers money, other wise there was no education. these pople that bitch about paying for schools when they dont have kids, and yet somehow they got an education when they were young. Public school are one of the best things our country have. they my not be the best in the world, but they give everyone an opportunity to succeed.

Re:"Free" is relative

[halcyon1234]

Liberally stolen from all over the Internet:

1. Meeting a child's parent(s) instantly answers the question, "Why is this kid like this?" (my personal favorite of any of the lists)
2. You have to leave town to buy your underwear 'cos your former students are check out clerks at your favorite stores.
3. You can maintain a straight face in any situation.
4. You want to slap the next person who says, "Must be nice to work from 8:00 to 3:20 and have summers free."
5. Your spouse starts telling strangers how hard teachers work.

Re:"Free" is relative

[nschubach]

Two things:
1. If you can't afford kids, don't have them.
2. There's nothing wrong with a $35K/year mother paying a good chunk of their kids' education fees. I have a problem with 100% funding through taxes.

Re:"Free" is relative

[Jaysyn]

Math is an elective now? That is nuts.

Re:"Free" is relative

[Hatta]

I agree, there are some areas where the public school are quite good. Unfortunately the cost-of-living in those areas (along w/ property taxes) are quite high.

The midwest mostly has excellent schools and low cost of living. We also tend to run fiscally responsible governments and have a strong economy. My state, Nebraska, is sitting on a large budget surplus, and is expected to outperform the national economy during the recession.

We may not be a cultural Mecca, but at least we can pay the bills.

Re:"Free" is relative

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if the housing crisis has taught us anything, it's that there's nothing better than combining government oversight with the private-sector profit!

Re:"Free" is relative

[Hatta]

it needs to stop being a free service of the govt paid for by unfair taxation of people without children.

So you're saying that as a child-free person, you don't gain *any* benefit from the rest of the country being literate? I don't plan on having kids either, but anything that will increase the education and sophistication of the average idiot is OK by me.

Re:"Free" is relative

[Anonymous Coward]

Outside of math classes (which are electives after sophomore year) nothing of use was taught to me passed elementary school.

Obviously.

Re:"Free" is relative

[HiThere]

I don't trust you, because I've heard of cases where the parent was definitely interested in their kids education, but had badly skewed ideas as to how it should be done. To the point of threatening the teacher for criticizing their child's behavior.

Re:"Free" is relative

[HiThere]

The ones affiliated with religious institutions are definitely run at a profit. Perhaps not for themselves, but for the religious institution with which they are affiliated. It's a profit that measured more in political clout than money, but political clout can be translated into money without being spent. As such it's a deeper profit center, even though it requires much investment to develop.

Re:"Free" is relative

[tripdizzle]

Read this for info on what i think of your grammar criticisms. Its funny how most that complain about the grammar are AC's

Re:"Free" is relative

[nschubach]

That is if it's actually increasing the "education and sophistication of the average idiot" which I have my doubts. I notice you didn't use the words "common sense" or "intelligence". Education implies knowledge, not wisdom, or common sense. While sophistication implies a certain amount of intelligence, it still falls short of promoting a person who promotes socially acceptable actions. You can educate the children all day long (in killing each other from sounds of it) but you'll never teach them how to be socialites simply through education.

You need to make the "adult" in the child's life more responsible for the actions and education o the children. Simply shoving your kids into a tax paid babysitting service does nothing for the country. Give the parents a reason to get involved in their children's education. Put their money on the line. Maybe we need to implement a fee based schooling system where children that are failing will end up paying more for their schooling through taking more classes. That might get the parents involved. Of course, this doesn't work if we are passing children on because we don't want to hurt their feelings.

By the way (some quick math): 40k teacher / (30 kids x 180 school days) ~ $7.40 /day/kid or $1334 year + building/admin/book costs distributed to all the kids ... it doesn't cost that much to send your kid to school. In fact, I'm sure we probably pay more in taxes than we need.

Re:"Free" is relative

[bennomatic]

It is much easier for them to sit back and complain about other people/Government
Yeah! Gosh darned government!

Re:"Free" is relative

[Rolgar]

In the U.S., the private schools (often Catholic schools due to discrimination by the Protestants running the public school system in the 19th and early 20th centuries) have significant performance advantage, in part because most private schools cannot fire incompetent teachers because teachers unions prevent it, which has become a spiraling deterioration situation, at least in many poor schools. Bad teachers, who can't, or more likely won't, find a job else where stick around until retirement, and as their students run amok, other teachers get fed up, and leave, either to stop teaching or go elsewhere. Eventually, these schools are paralyzed with the inability to correct the situation. This is a situation no amount of money can fix, because you can't get rid of the bad teacher even if you have more money to hire a good one. This week's TIME magazine cover article is about this exact problem, and the woman trying to fix the worst schools in the country. Read here.

Private schools also benefit from being more expensive, because the parents who are paying that money make darn sure their kids are doing what they are supposed to. Also, they can kick out disruptive kids, public schools have less leeway in the matter, plus they get money from the government for every student enrolled, so they have a financial incentive to take the student.

Meanwhile, many teachers (my sister is one) choose to work at the private schools despite making less money because of the better environment.

Re:"Free" is relative

[phantomlord]

My former high school is a little different. Same status as one of the better public schools in the state back when I was there. Since I've left, dropouts have increased from 5% to near 20% and on time graduation rates are down from 87% to 72%. Classes have increased from 100-120 when I was there to about 150 now, so it's not quite the growth your school saw, but in response, the school has spent a buttload of money building extra classrooms (because, you see, each teacher has the right to have their own classroom, which sits empty half the day, so we need to build a new one for every teacher hired). We've spent about $10 million a year in bonded capital improvements over the last decade or so while we've averaged around $150k a year on books. And that's before we even talk about lighted lavish sports fields and buildings (and I'm someone that played high school football under the lights on a field that had its own field house)

The mis-spent money is one thing... where the real difference comes in, and it was noticeable between my "generation" (class of 95) and my sister's (who is 7 years younger than me), was the teachers. As I came up through school, most of my teachers retired within a year or two of my having them. I had the old school teachers who taught the 3 Rs, taught you to memorize things and instilled some measure of critical thinking ability. Some where better than others, some were worse, but we had a clear foundation to build on. My sister got their fresh faced replacements, fresh out of college with new ideas on how to teach. They focused more on self-esteem and using technology than understanding how things actually worked. As such, my sister didn't get that same foundation to build on that I did.

I managed a restaurant for 10 years and dealt with kids about my own age and with this next generation... Even the dimmer bulbs of my generation had a little drive and a desire to learn how to do things. The newer generation of kids expect everything to be handed to them, can't properly fill out an application (and their spelling is atrocious!), can't do simple arithmetic without a calculator and whenever you tell them they're doing something wrong, no matter how gently you try, they completely break down. I couldn't tell you the number of people, especially girls, I've had cry on me in recent years because they made a very minor mistake and had to be corrected on it (such as not charging for a 25 cent side).

Yeah, for a lot of kids, it's the parents that need to take a majority of the blame for their kids being spoiled, can-do-no-wrong, praise seeking idiots, but the education system is very flawed as well (given that such a dichotomy can exist within the same family... my sister was pushed by our parents the same way I was). We need to look at education theory and throw in a little practice; We need to start doing the things we know work again and stop placing the majority of our focus on things that should work because someone in an ivory tower said so.

Re:"Free" is relative

[Planesdragon]

Trust me when I say that improving schools starts with parents actually taking an interesting in their child's education.

No, that's step 2.

Step 1 is getting parents to realize that "grades" are not "education." I have a good friend who swore off teaching because of parents, who were more worried about their little brat's grade than what said brat learned in his class.

Re:"Free" is relative

[Anonymous Coward]

In some places, it is indeed sub par, but in others it's very good.

By comparison to other public education, maybe. By comparison to an actual education? Not so much. Not that private schools are much better, of course.

Trust me when I say that improving schools starts with parents actually taking an interesting in their child's education.

Sure. By far the largest factor in the success of a school is the behavior of the kids. Teachers, unless they're either exceptional (very rare) or dire (still quite rare) are a 2nd order effect. Auditoria, stadia and all the other stuff that schools spend money on don't even register.

Re:"Free" is relative

[Repossessed]

Trust me when I say that improving schools starts with parents actually taking an interesting in their child's education.

Parents who would fail the 4th grade getting involved is supposed to help? I suppose it does force the kid to study and do his homework, but I've always felt that kids needing to do work at home is a weakness in education. If you have a kid for 6 hours a day, and he or she still needs to go home and do *more* in order to learn*, what exactly were those 6 hours for?

*I'm making an assumption that I was wrong as a child, and my teachers were not just feeding on my suffering by assigning homework (4th grade math not included, the homework there was designed to break our spirits.)

Re:"Free" is relative

[characterZer0]

Political clout? Please explain.

Go talk to an administrator of a private school with religious affiliations. Chances are that most of the students are not otherwise affiliated with the religious organization affiliated with the school, they are there for the environment and education. And chances are that the school is run at a net loss, dependent on donations from religious institutions and private donors to break even.

And while I highly doubt this...

[daveschroeder]

...will ever happen, before anyone cries foul about the proposed "pornography filter", waxes philosophic about who decides what's blocked, melodramatically laments censorship in all its forms, and then makes tired, mind-numbing slippery slope arguments, from TFA (not to mention the summary itself):

To address concerns about the filter, the FCC is proposing that adults could opt out and access all Internet sites.

That, and under the proposal, access would be free, no one would have to use it, it is not designed to be a primary means of access, and the filter, when present at all, would only be for "pornography". (Yes, I realize the problems of filtering in this way, both technical and otherwise.)

Ignoring all the nightmarish technical and logistical details of how one might reliably "opt out" of the filter, not to mention the myriad hurdles to providing of free nationwide wireless internet (even if only in major metro areas), this isn't going to happen anyway. ;-)

Re:And while I highly doubt this...

[brian0918]

That, and under the proposal, access would be free, no one would have to use it

A free tax increase with no incentive or requirement to use the service funded by the tax? Yay!

Re:And while I highly doubt this...

[Adrian Lopez]

Once they start filtering content they believe children shouldn't see, why would they not also filter -- and perhaps monitor -- adult access to gambling websites, The Pirate Bay, Al-Qaeda websites, etc.?

Re:And while I highly doubt this...

[daveschroeder]

Once they start filtering content they believe children shouldn't see, why would they not also filter -- and perhaps monitor -- adult access to gambling websites, The Pirate Bay, Al-Qaeda websites, etc.?

Because:

1. Anything other than pornography filtering is not part of any proposal.

2. No one has seriously considered anything other than pornography filtering in the interests of "children".

3. The opt out proposal specifically allows for unfiltered access.

So, thank you for proving my point, and making a slippery slope argument to boot. You can argue slippery slope all you want, but the fact is that the US doesn't filter internet traffic as it is, there is no precedent for what you assert, no one is talking about filtering anything other than "pornography".

Again, I fully realize the subjectivity of this issue, and the drawbacks of the "Think of the children!" mantra. But the point is, the only thing on the table here is pornography filtering, and filtering from which one can opt out at that.

Now as for monitoring, that's a different issue altogether.

Keep in mind, though, that foreign intelligence collection on communications where one endpoint is outside of the United States and the target of the monitoring is not a US Person does not require, and has never required, a warrant or other judicial oversight or intervention...

Re:And while I highly doubt this...

[mrsteveman1]

The effectiveness or lack thereof, is not the problem. The bigger problem is as follows:

First, They intend this thing to be available to the majority of the population, that means it will be a significant market force and not just some kind of low income, rural internet access for those who don't have one now. That means even if i choose not to use it, i will be affected by it in some way.

Second, these people, M2Z (the company) and the ones pushing for this behind the scenes, jumped right to porn when the question of blocking came up. Why porn? That question must be asked. Why not violence? Why not hate speech? Why not unhealthy recipes for sweets? Are we protecting children, or imposing a social agenda on the population? If you are going to block something, other things should be higher on your priority list if your excuse is protecting the children. Something tells me protecting children isn't the goal, or rather the idiots involved think porn is the most harmful thing children (or anyone?) could see on the internet.

Next, it isn't free either, it's ad-supported. No matter what, i am funding your censorship of me by using this network. They are either going to be altering traffic transparently, or forcing users to use a proxy, or run a desktop client (substantially limiting its usefulness) to show you those ads. And they are going to be selectively blocking one type of content unless you pay more as the summary states (maybe).

Those 2 things, altering traffic to show ads, and selective content delivery or prioritization (network neutrality etc), are things the FCC has been railing against for a long time. It is a conflict of interest for the FCC to be encouraging these things in one situation while profiting from the thing, while blasting other ISPs for doing the same thing.

I can only hope this entire thing fails at this point, it's a somewhat good idea, being hampered and fucked with through government interference and mandate (which might even be unconstitutional), and behind the scenes influence.

Re:And while I highly doubt this...

[Anonymous Coward]

..before anyone cries foul..

You pre-emptively disclaimed what it all means, though. It's technically infeasible (so it will block things that aren't porn, and you'll still be able to get porn through it). This means the porn filter was either added to the idea as a poison pill, or it was added by people who are clueless. Whatever happened, it reveals the FCC is up to no good. Any time filters like that are proposed, people should cry foul.

Re:And while I highly doubt this...

[level_headed_midwest]

...and how long do you think that the restrictions will be limited to just porn and you can opt out? We have things like the "fairness doctrine" being kicked around in Congress to censor political speech on radio and **AA legislation for physical media. Once you give the government control, the cat is out of the bag and not going back in. Why do you think this will be one iota different?

Re:And while I highly doubt this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you.

The fairness doctrine is fucking required when most of the media in this country are controlled by very few people. Otherwise their agendas get out hand.

In closing, go fuck Ann Coulter in the ass.

Re:And while I highly doubt this...

[westlake]

We have things like the "fairness doctrine" being kicked around in Congress to censor political speech on radio

The "Fairness Doctrine" never meant that you had to censor political speech.

It only meant that a station had to provide time to those who wanted to present an opposing point of view.

Looking back on the early years of Meet the Price, Edward R Murrow, Huntley-Brinkley, Walter Cromkite, Eric Severeid and others, what I see is a loss in civility, restraint and integrity in public discourse. The late William F Buckley was some light years removed from the populist agent provocateurs of what passes for the right wing talk show now: the Limbaughs, the O'Reillys, and their kind.

Re:And while I highly doubt this...

[hoojus]

Because that is how the Australian filter started as a optional porn filter at ISP level. It then got additional filters to get voted through parliment which included a two tier level first tier mandatory for "illegal sites" and a second optional tier for "child unfriendly sites". Unfortunately the mandatory site list keeps getting longer. I know US politics is different but it is noted that you do get a lot of ammendments to your bills too.

Nice attempt to wiretap without a warrant

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

This way it takes loads off from judges and law enforcement needs for warrants.

Re:Nice attempt to wiretap without a warrant

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not wire tapping. That's wireless tapping.

USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn't

[MosesJones]

Seriously folks, can't the greatest power in the world today do some form of prioritisation? Free internet access, brilliant a free utility, a basic fundamental right of every american guaranteed by the constitution and our founding fathers.

Free Healthcare of course is a communist plot to subvert the country and destroy everything America stands for.

Free Healthcare should be a right, the internet should be a utility just like power and water... something that you pay for.

ISP

[Drakin020]

Yes I'm sure the ISP's will let this one go through....

Re:ISP

[apoc.famine]

Um....for a government paycheck? Has Haliburton not taught you anything?

ISPs will FLOCK to this, like sharks to a water aerobics class. They'll charge the govt for 3x what they provide, filter it to minimize traffic, use the funds to advertise their services as better alternatives to the free wifi, and use their peering agreements to further reduce their costs.

If the FCC does this, and the large ISPs in the country don't make BILLIONS, I'll be shocked.

internet should be cheap, not free

[Anonymous Coward]

Health Care should be a right.
Internet access should just be affordable with reasonable performance.

Try getting old and/or sick sometime and you'll get the perspective.

Some level of filtering

[nurb432]

And a hell of a lot of monitoring...

Re:Some level of filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

how will i look at all my loli's with them watching me? thats like jerking it in front of your parents

Re:Some level of filtering

[hoojus]

Australia has tried this and test show the filtering will also slow you down up to 87%. So it will be dial-up speed wi-fi for free.

Re:Some level of filtering

[Anonymous Coward]

That infrastructure is already in place.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Anonymous Coward]

Since water and food are necessary for health, are you advocating that those two commodities are free to all?

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Zackbass]

What power does the FCC have over health care?

Wireless Philadelphia

[snarfies]

I am a resident of the city of Philadelphia. Maybe you've heard of our cities wireless initiative over the years. It began, as the Slate article mentions with Earthlink putting up access points all over the city, and charging $20/month for access. The main problem was that the service rarely actually WORKED. I tried it for a week when I was unemployed and looking to save money. They gave me a box to connect to my computer with an antenna the length of my arm, and even so the signal would fluctuate wildly from minute to minute, from full strength to zero strength, no matter where I put the box or aimed the antenna.

The network is still there after Earthlink abandoned it. It shows up on my celphone (sometimes) as something I can connect to. Only I don't think I've ever once successfully loaded a web page using in on my celphone, and not for lack of trying in all different parts of the city. In other words, now that its free its more useless than ever.

Re:Wireless Philadelphia

[Jeff DeMaagd]

WiFi isn't a very good technology to use for a city wide mesh anyway. I'm sure it can be done, but number of failed citywide WiFi networks vs. the few that are said to be effective reinforces my opinion on this. It looks to me that by and large, the people that set them up didn't understand and compensate for the weaknesses of such a network.

Re:Wireless Philadelphia

[TomXP411]

That's because wifi is Not a good solution for net access. However, tv white space spectrum: that could work.

Re:Wireless Philadelphia

[jbolden]

The city of Philadelphia wasn't willing to spend tens - hundreds of millions to make this really work. At $20/mo the cost is getting close to what a wired connection (cable / DSL...) costs in which case most people would rather go wired. This should have been free and well funded to be a real experiment.

Re:Wireless Philadelphia

[Anonymous Coward]

that's because fuhrer rendell is a used cars salesman in a politicians suit.

Re:Wireless Philadelphia

[CompMD]

The city I live in pulled it off. There's over 70k people in Lawrence, and the Lawrence Freenet service is pretty good. I've been able to download torrents at 100K/sec. Oh, and Lawrence Freenet uses the same PePWave boxes that Earthlink used in Philadelphia, so you can't blame the client side hardware...

Government-run communications

[Adrian Lopez]

I don't want the government to be my ISP, and I really don't like the implications of having a net connection that is so directly controlled by the government. The fact that filtering is even mentioned at all suggests what a potentially bad idea this really is. Filtering, surveillance and the displacement of unfiltered commercial alternatives? No thanks.

Re:Government-run communications

[Ambiguous Coward]

...the displacement of unfiltered commercial alternatives...

I'm sorry, but where the heck did that come from? A government-supplied free option in no way precludes the private industry from offering premium service. They just have to make it worthwhile, and if the free version is censored/filtered/monitored/whatevered, that's not a very difficult thing.

And before you say, "Why would anyone pay for it if there's a free option?" consider premium channels such as HBO. People pay for those all the time, when they could be watching the local FOX broadcast for free. It's because there's content that is unavailable elsewhere, and people want it.

But again, where did you get the idea that this would displace unfiltered commercial alternatives?

Re:Government-run communications

[tmosley]

TV stations and utilities are two very different beasts.

Most ISPs will end up going out of business as the government backed monopoly steals their market share. Once the government creates a monopoly, that market is essentially closed to competition, even if they open it back up at a later date. Sure, you might have a few providers targeting high end (commercial) users, but you and I will be out of luck, unless you want to pay $120/month for satellite.

Re:Government-run communications

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. This is a trap waiting to be sprung. Logically, the best possible way for government to control communication is for government to own and operate the means of communication.

There is a reason why mass media overwhelmingly falls on the side of government in nearly everything government does: because government is deeply entangled in the business of mass media. They are essentially business partners. If you don't think this is true, then you are exactly the kind of person they hoped to turn out: the kind who spends his entire life knowing nothing but absurdly powerful and consolidated government -- the kind who now can't imagine life without it.

If government takes over the business of internet access, this is EXACTLY what will happen.

Re:Government-run communications

[nsteinme]

What I don't understand is why people are so afraid of the government, like it's some big monster. In our country, the U.S., the government is run by the people. If you don't like how it operates, then elect different representatives next time around (you can also write letters, etc.).

Transparency is a very important concept to democracy. Yes, a lot of improvement needs to be done in this area, but why do Americans consistently trust private corporations more than our own government? If you have a privately owned ISP, you have actually less say in what goes on there (and even less knowledge of such) than if it were a government-owned ISP.

I agree that the internet should be a public utility and that health care should be a right, I just don't understand why when people hear the word "government" they automatically think "bad".

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[hey]

It seems a whole lot easier to provide free wifi.
Maybe some day medical stuff can carry connected PDAs for accessing patient info.

It's not WLAN

[Anonymous Coward]

The slate analysis is about Wi-Fi. The current plan is about allocating a frequency band to a private company and in return that company must use part of that band to provide free wireless internet access. That is not the same as a WLAN you can hop on with every notebook.

Re:It's not WLAN

[TomXP411]

As long as they're not using microwave-free license-free spectrum, it could work. I've used communication devices on nearly every band you can think of: HF, VHF, 400 and 800 MHz UHF, and Microwave. Microwave communications are great for short-range (home WiFi) or point to point communications such as connecting two office buildings or radio repeaters with line-of sight coverage. However, for broadcast coverage, you pretty much need something right in the middle of the TV spectrum... conviently enough, some this is being freed up for other use in 3 months. Cellular technology has been proven to work; the sheer number of mobile phones is proof of that. Something like this could be buit as an outgrowth of the existing cellular infrastructure, and I could see this working very well. Of course, existing broadband providers, ISP's, telcos, and wireless providers are going to fight this tooth and nail. Giving someone free, portable data access means severely undercutting what is a very profitable business right now. While I think free Internet is a great idea, I don't think it'll fly. However, I'm betting that a $20/mo service could succeed - but only with some severe modifications to existing protocols. Considering the difficulty in managing such a large network, it'd be necessary to build bandwidth controls in to the system, prventing someone with a P2P peer from bringing a whole cell to its knees. A simple quota-based system might work (each cell throttles anyone who's using more than n bytes/hour), and it might even be the most fair: you can use as many bits as you want when nobody else needs them, but once someone else connects, you have to slow down and make room.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

panopticon

[globaljustin]

from TFA:

a plan to offer free, pornography-free wireless Internet service to all Americans

To address concerns about the filter, the FCC is proposing that adults could opt out and access all Internet sites.

Yeah, just type in your social security number and your password...

Age verification = no privacy...on a government network at least...

I really can't imagine a more effective way for the government to track and monitor the activities of its citizens. Which is bad. Normally I would love the idea, even if it had to be offered at slower speeds, but unless we make it open, with NO AGE VERIFICATION or anything of that sort we're just asking for 1984...

Re:panopticon

[nschubach]

I still think the only way to do truly open WiFi is through solar/wind(?) powered WiFi routers with some sort of node based network and routing protocol. You'd place these throughout the city, utility poles, homes, etc. Of course, places like Boston would have a throw a hernia because of all these blinking boxes all over the place.

Re:panopticon

[Planesdragon]

Age verification = no privacy...on a government network at least...

If you think you have privacy now, realize that's ONLY because the government hasn't got a good enough reason to watch you.

Your privacy is protected far more by the rule of law and the patriotism of government employees than any scheme you personally partake of.

Re:panopticon

[globaljustin]

i love the solar/wind power substation idea!

thank you...because in january I will be starting grad school for my MS in Information and Communication Sciences at a midwestern state university and one of the workgroups i'm going to be part of will be doing WiMax stuff...

if i ever make any real money off the idea i'll kick down an appropriate ammount for you

Re:panopticon

[nschubach]

I'll be patiently waiting right here... ;)

Free Internet!

[MrPerfekt]

The better to monitor you with! Would this be government operated? Yikes!

Re:Free Internet!

[drinkypoo]

The better to monitor you with! Would this be government operated? Yikes!

The interstate highway system is partially funded by and partially monitored by the federal government as well as local law enforcement, blah blah blah. Still, a great deal of nefarious traffic is carried upon it. The same will be true of any government-provided internet.

It wouldn't replace all other ISPs. The only reason I can see that it would be a bad idea is that it would basically be the end of the mom and pop ISP.

This isn't the Internet - it's filter data access

[yourpusher]

The free service could be slower and would be required to filter out pornography and other material not suitable for children.

Right, the same FCC that is fining stations hundreds of thousands of dollars because they didn't bleep out Bono's "fucking brilliant" in time will determine what is and isn't suitable content accessible through this service.

Fuck that.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[jamesmcm]

For me, the government should provide both wireless and healthcare. Better than spending the money on propping up the failing rich or killing foreign 'terrorists'. But then I live in the UK so maybe I have a different perspective.

Free Internet?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can we expect "Free Internet" to work, when we can't even get "Not-Free Internet" to work?

I live in Brooklyn (New York City), and we don't have cable access to our entire BLOCK. I don't care about the TV signal, but that also means no Internet. It seems to me that we should first make sure that everyone in the USA can get paid-for internet before we start worrying about giving it away.

'Adults'

[GenP]

What is an 'adult'?

Re:'Adults'

[Anonymous Coward]

Best guess they will use the Alcohol definition so the age will be 21.

Re:'Adults'

[nschubach]

Someone who can legally be responsible for their own actions... at least in theory.

Free _wireless_?

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoy the free cancer.

- a pig from guinea

Wishful thinking...

[Joce640k]

People will absorb ANY amount of bandwidth if it's free. This thing will ALWAYS be overloaded and unusable. Period.

Re:Wishful thinking...

[ShieldW0lf]

People will absorb ANY amount of bandwidth if it's free. This thing will ALWAYS be overloaded and unusable. Period.

A properly designed mesh will have more bandwidth the more users it has. Bittorrent is a virtual mesh network, and it works so well that the legacy network can't handle the simulation.

Re:Wishful thinking...

[umghhh]

There is no such thing as free and of course you are right to say that if it is free it will clog and be maintained badly. There is similar but not quite the same problem with any service where there is no relationship between actual usage and charge users must pay. It may work but will be slow, unreliable and expensive for tax payer (somebody will have to pay for it at the end). Better let private enterprise make things happen in a framework state or communities set. Something like for a basic fee (incorporated in the local taxes somehow) you get basic not very useful but existing service, to get anything useful like bandwith, static addresses, webspace, qos and what not, etc you need to pay extra. But I guess that is too much to ask. There will always be opposition for 'free' service for all ('you commies want to ruin our finances') and any reasonable pay scheme ('but fees violate the very idea internet was funded on').
In my view the problem is unsolvable.

Re:Wishful thinking...

[Glenstorm]

Like most of the highways in major American cities, during rush hour. However people still use those.

Re:Wishful thinking...

[ShieldW0lf]

There is no such thing as free and of course you are right to say that if it is free it will clog and be maintained badly.

The people who built the power installations at Niagara Falls are long dead. The installation is publicly run and has been providing power to millions of people for a century. All it requires is a relatively small crew to maintain it so it doesn't break down. If you educated the people in the society in how to maintain it, and made them each take a shift, they'd most likely only have to work a single day of their lives to meet their domestic electricity needs. Sounds pretty close to free to me.

Re:Wishful thinking...

[Anonymous Coward]

"pretty close to free" --- Well, it's mandatory government service. Not conscription for war, but something similar nonetheless (in many persons' opinions). Of course, there are places in the world where part of your duties as a citizen include a few years of mandatory military service.

If you could get a 20% discount on your taxes by doing non-combat government work for one month out of every year, would you? 70% discount?
-os

Re:Wishful thinking...

[Anonymous Coward]

They might have to ban bittorrent and other high bandwidth applications. It may not be the internet that we are used to currently. But, I could see them making a new network that would whitelist things that are allowed. Then again, maybe there would just be a usage tax if you want to download a few movies from iTunes.

My Mythtv DVR would like being able to receive it's TV guide over the air. It could also send data back to the TV networks to see how many people watch their show. A wireless network would be good for cars and trucks, you could get really good traffic updates and it could plan alternative routes for you. The power and gas company could build a small wireless meter reader so they could get real-time power useage stats and know who doesn't have power in a storm. There are plenty of small low-bandwidth apps that could be made and would improve things if the internet was free.

Re:Wishful thinking...

[Windows_NT]

The way this sounds to me is you would have two internets. Your private, and then free WIFI access to cities, and the eventually rural areas. The government would set up Canopy type wireless ontop of regular internet. Kind of how you can have Cable TV, but still get your locally broad casted TV

Re:Wishful thinking...

[limaxray]

In theory you are correct, in practice you are not. You see, with a mesh network, the greater the density of nodes, the greater the available bandwidth between those nodes becomes. The thing is, in this situation you're going to also want to access hosts outside of the mesh, meaning data is going to need to be routed over the mesh to a gateway. This is where the bottleneck lies - the actual performance of the internet will depend on the throughput provided by a relatively fixed number gateways. And I would bet, in typical government fashion, the rate at which users join the mesh would out pace the rate of added gateway capacity.

Re:Wishful thinking...

[ShieldW0lf]

In theory you are correct, in practice you are not. You see, with a mesh network, the greater the density of nodes, the greater the available bandwidth between those nodes becomes. The thing is, in this situation you're going to also want to access hosts outside of the mesh, meaning data is going to need to be routed over the mesh to a gateway. This is where the bottleneck lies - the actual performance of the internet will depend on the throughput provided by a relatively fixed number gateways. And I would bet, in typical government fashion, the rate at which users join the mesh would out pace the rate of added gateway capacity.

Your point is valid, however, such an arrangement would dramatically reduce the travel across the backbone. Any discrete piece of data only needs to travel across the backbone once, after which it would be in the mesh and there would be no further need to touch the backbone. It's similar in principle to a squid proxy cache.

Re:Wishful thinking...

[LandDolphin]

"Sounds pretty close to free to me."

close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and dancing.

Re:Wishful thinking...

[ShieldW0lf]

"pretty close to free" --- Well, it's mandatory government service. Not conscription for war, but something similar nonetheless (in many persons' opinions). Of course, there are places in the world where part of your duties as a citizen include a few years of mandatory military service. If you could get a 20% discount on your taxes by doing non-combat government work for one month out of every year, would you? 70% discount?

Personally, I think all taxation should be paid strictly in labour, that it should be mandatory to work in and develop a familiarity with each discrete industry, and that any industry that is essential for human life should be excluded from the private sector with no exceptions. The way things are run now, the vast majority of people are so highly specialized that their right to vote is rendered meaningless because they are functionally ignorant, and they are engaging in arbitrary and unnecessary tasks and hoping that somehow that will translate into the stuff they need to live. This is functionally equivalent to slavery, and those who are responsible for the maintaining this situation should be held accountable.

Re:Wishful thinking...

[cayenne8]

"Bittorrent is a virtual mesh network, and it works so well that the legacy network can't handle the simulation."

Does anyone actually get good results, speedwise from BT? I tried it a few times back...and when I could get things to download...took FOREVER, and often things would just stop during the download (granted, some were a bit obscure, so not widely seeded)...

Anyway, I got frustrated with BT...and just seem to be able to get things much easier and faster off USENET...especially since I discovered .nzb files.

But my experience with BT, and some of my other friends...just don't see it as a great source due to its slowness. What was I doing wrong? Or is that the nature of the beast? I was sharing as well as downloading...etc...

Re:Wishful thinking...

[swillden]

Does anyone actually get good results, speedwise from BT?

Are you kidding? BT is the best way to test your download speed to find out just how much you can get. It screams.

If you were getting bad performance, that's almost certainly because you were behind a NATing firewall, which was not configured to allow external connections to your computer. That prevents other BT clients from connecting to you, and causes your incoming data to get throttled.

Try connecting your computer directly to your cable/DSL modem so that it has a real Internet address and see what happens. Or configure port forwarding on your router correctly. Either way, given a decently-seeded torrent, your connection will be maxed to the point that other network connections seriously bog down. That's why all BT clients have the ability to restrict their own bandwidth usage, because otherwise they'll completely fill whatever pipe you have.

Re:Wishful thinking...

[Sancho]

This is fine for some things, and terrible for others. Video conferencing? Nope. Youtube videos? Yup.

But it also requires vitally different infrastructure than just a bunch of computers connected to wireless. It requires that each computer on the public network allocate storage and act as a server. It requires protocols which can search out information on this network quickly, and my bandwidth is decreased when someone's getting data out of my cache. It has problems with tampering, to boot.

Re:Wishful thinking...

[Sancho]

Are you behind a NAT box or other firewall? Are you forwarding the appropriate ports, or are they open through the firewall? Are you stingy with your uploads? Do you traffic-shape appropriately so that your computer is capable of sending ACKs in a timely manner? Are you going after well-seeded torrents, or old things with one or two peers and seeders?

I've had great luck with Bittorrent. Every time a new Ubuntu version is released, I grab it using Bittorrent. I come close to saturating my connection (both directions.) But then, I've taken the time to tweak things so that it works well, and I'm using popular torrents.

Re:Wishful thinking...

[Jorophose]

Aren't most datacentres in the world in big cities along the east & west coast of the US?

And in various European metropolitan areas?

Those places aren't very dense. If every big datacentre is within 100km of a city, you just line up the 10/40gbps connections to the city, and plop wireless everywhere.

A long-time personal "dream/goal" of mine is to see a working implementation of the Web over a BitTorrent-like protocol, one completely decentralised. No more lag. All the sites load up quicker if more people want them. High-demand content is then incredibly fast and widespread. Unpopular content maybe not so much, but even then you should still have the traditional connection speeds, and it should be even faster because you're going on a gigabits-line that isn't saturated with a million people hitting youtube.

Instead, YouTube could be mirrored across several cities, and people would be able to fling these bits all across the air. Imagine that, strings of data weaving over our heads.

Then again, Canada loves to eat its citizens' children, so I don't know if we'd ever see something like this. Have fun my American friends, just make sure you get this working so you can help us build one later.

Re:Wishful thinking...

[cayenne8]

"If you were getting bad performance, that's almost certainly because you were behind a NATing firewall, which was not configured to allow external connections to your computer. That prevents other BT clients from connecting to you, and causes your incoming data to get throttled. "

Yep..I was behind a NAT, but, I went in a set up port forwarding (I did research to find out which ones at the time)...I did allow shares/connections and could see them on the display while watching things download...but, it still just seemed dog slow.

I was able to download a 30 min tv show in minutes from USENET compared to what seemed like a day or more on BT. My friend said he still experiences the same thing. We're both on Cox....but, I've not heard of them throttling traffic? Not sure what the deal is.

I'll give it another try to see....but, so far, I find downloading distros directly from a company (linux, solaris...etc) or things from USENET with .nzb files so far is much faster for me....

Free Lunch !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

free lunch = higher taxes + bureaucrats = double plus ungood

A great opportunity to push IPv6

[Nicolas MONNET]

There wouldn't be enough IPv4 to provide such a large scale service.
Just make the all thing IPv6, possibly with proxies to access the IPv4; that would instantly provide a massive incentive for third parties to start supporting IPv6.

Re:A great opportunity to push IPv6

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you assume it has to be on the internet? I'd argue that it actually has to be behind a NAT (otherwise you have people hosting servers with no accountability given the anonymity it (should) facilitate). There are 16.7 million addresses within 10.0.0.0/8, and there is no reason that every city that has this service has to be on the same network. If 16.7 million IPs isn't enough for one metropolitan area, I'm sure other ranges could be made available, like 1, 2, 5, 23, or 31 to name a few un-allocated x.0.0.0/8 networks (surely IANA can spare another VPN network to accommodate further NATs that can help stave off IPv6 another several years).

Yes, it is a good opportunity for IPv6, but it's not required. Since I'm arguing for having the whole thing firewalled and NAT'ed anyway, I think there's enough room for IPv4, so therefore there's no reason for an additional hurdle. If you want to throw IPv6 in there, make it some kind of desirable perk, like preferred routing or something, but let's keep IPv4 in the mix for now.

pornography-free?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's left???

Grammar

[Anonymous Coward]

nothing of use was taught to me passed elementary school

It shows :)

Re:Grammar

[tripdizzle]

If you are going to be a grammar nazi, do it properly. Passed is a verb (and was used properly), where past can be a noun, adjective or adverb.

Re:Grammar

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

you beat me to it. i would tend to think that it was not learned, rather than it was not taught. it is terrible how many otherwise intelligent people don't put any thought into the benefits of learning how to communicate properly. no matter how much expertise you have in your field, you are limited by how well you can express it.

and i would like to forestall the criticism that a technically-taught communication class is/was not available in high school...i learned to read and write coherently by studying english literature.

...and yes, i am aware that i am not capitalizing

Re:Grammar

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are going to be a grammar nazi, do it properly. Passed is a verb (and was used properly), where past can be a noun, adjective or adverb.

No. You did not use it properly.

"If I had paid attention in the past I might have passed English and would know the difference between past and passed, alas I did not, and the opportunity to do so has passed into the past."

Re:Grammar

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

Passed is a verb

right, and your sentence already has a verb: "taught"

you were looking for "past" to be used as a preposition. e.g. it is past midnight.

not trying to flame you or be a jerk...it is just that you are so sure that there is nothing to be gained outside of math classes. when i read an error like that it is like fingernails on a chalkboard, and it makes me think you learned to write by listening not reading. i am sure that you can find something similar that would bug you about math.

Re:Grammar

[jtesorie]

I agree with the parent post. http://www.dailywritingtips.com/passed-vs-past/

Re:Grammar

[Anonymous Coward]

Except you're not using passed as a verb. You mean to use past as an adverb modifying taught--answering the when. Me is a indirect object, not the subject. Nothing is your subject and did not pass anything.

Re:Grammar

[tripdizzle]

Ok, so my grammar is not perfect, but I did get my point across, and you understood what I said. Mistakes in math crash systems and cause bridges to fall, where grammar mistakes make English nerds cry. (Not trying to flame either, just wanted to try and make my point with some humor) We just have a general disagreement on what parts of an education that are currently being offered (and forced upon us) are important, and that is perfectly ok, but we both should have been able to exercise choice earlier in life to avoid things that do not interest us, and are not going to benefit us. Chemistry and Biology classes were a decent exercise in short term memory, but that was it for me. The periodic table of elements, balancing chemistry equations, and learning the Latin names of animals and insects was something learned, tested on, and forgotten about never to be thought of again (until I need to remember it to write about all the time I wasted.)

Re:Grammar

[smoker2]

If you are going to be a grammar nazi, do it properly. Passed is a verb (and was used properly), where past can be a noun, adjective or adverb.

Maybe if you had stopped in as you passed school you may have learnt something.
"Outside of math classes (which are electives after sophomore year) nothing of use was taught to me passed elementary school."
Only the bit in bold relates to the word 'passed'. Just read that bit and it doesn't make sense. The elementary school is used as a marker point beyond which nothing of use was taught. You can pass(verb) a marker point, and then you can say you have passed (verb past tense)it, but NOW you are(verb) past(noun) that point. Don't use it as a verb when the verb already existed (taught) in the sentence.
http://www.surrey.ac.uk/Skills/pack/english/past.html

Just strip all unnecessary clutter from the sentence and see if it makes sense.
nothing was taught passed elementary school.
Did "nothing was taught" REALLY pass elementary school ?

Re:Grammar

[tripdizzle]

So my grammar was incorrect, and I have admitted to it, but read this to see where I am coming from. You obviously understood what I was saying, otherwise your response would not have been tailored to what I said. Communication is art with a purpose, and when it serves its purpose (understanding), being a grammar whore is treating the written word as art for art's sake, which doesn't really serve a purpose, other than your own need to put others down for some strange sense of self-satisfaction.

Re:Grammar

[tripdizzle]

retraction

Re:Grammar

[Anonymous Coward]

People who don't capitalize sentences are like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. I guess we're all different types.

Re:Grammar

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

sorry for causing you pain. i blame microsoft office...i used to always capitalize sentences and proper nouns until i realized it did it for me. i wonder when firefox will get in on the auto-correct action?

Re:Grammar

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

sorry you got slapped with the modstick...i don't think that was really flamebait

responding to the content of your post, you picked 2 pretty spectacular examples of a math mistake causing havoc and destruction. i will rebut with this: poor grammar or inexact word usage could render a law unenforceable, a translation nonsensical, or an instruction unintelligible. clear and precise communication can be vitally important depending on the circumstance.

i think we really agree about education more than you think; i wish there was early vocational education available as a substitute for normal curriculum, and less emphasis on memorization. (i as well remember next to nothing from biology and chemistry) however there is something to be said for challenging oneself in areas that you are not strong. most classes came easy to me, and i worked harder than i ever have in school to pass the AP calculus test...that was the last math i ever took. was it beneficial to someone who didn't go on in math and hard sciences? hell yes, i can solve and construct a simple equation in my sleep and that has come in handy in the real world. and i got a fat load of college credits for free. studying different subjects makes you learn to think in different ways, and that is always a good thing...consider it another tool in your toolbox.

Re:Grammar

[smoker2]

Yeah right, so you've learned nothing.

If I write
cout >> $something
is that ok ? You may or not know what it means but the fact is that it is wrong. So we can write anything we like, and leave it all open to the readers own understanding of a subject, because that's what science is all about - ambiguity and inaccuracy. Just because I know what I meant doesn't mean somebody else does. Communication isn't supposed to cater only for the knowledgeable, it defines how we see the world. If anybody can make up their own rules then communication will become less and less efficient and meaningful and slowly die. See the "Tower of Babel".

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Don't expect others to "fill in the blanks". The mere fact that you responded to someone who told you of your mistake by insisting you were correct shows how little you know of the subject, and now your response to me shows that you don't care that you were wrong. Maybe you should work for NASA, I mean - what does it matter if you use imperial rather than metric, they should know what you mean from the context right ?

And to suggest that I get any satisfaction out of spending MY time trying to educate somebody who obviously doesn't have the first clue is laughable. And besides, not all communication is art. Poetry, prose, haiku, fine. Written words intended to establish a point about the real world are not art, they are science. How can you define anything scientifically if you cannot rely on the meaning of the words ? Do you understand the words in the way I understand the same words ? If not, then we are not communicating, one of us is having to second guess your meaning. We get around this by agreeing to use terms with previously established meanings. You obviously don't agree so I may as well be writing in chinese. On the other hand, you are correct in that you didn't learn anything useful past elementary school. Can you see the irony in your comment yet ?

ps. regarding that link - so if I write H20 or CO2 or Pb or Fe, or Cu you have absolutely no idea what I'm referring to ? Just because you don't want to learn something doesn't make it useless to you. I'm not a chemist or a biologist, but I recognise the terms they use which gives me some idea of what they are talking about. You, it seems, prefer to remain ignorant, after all it's easier to say "I don't know" rather than participate intelligently (or at the very least stay out of the discussion).

Re:Grammar

[tripdizzle]

I still dont get what you are trying to tell me. Because I used passed instead of past, it somehow drastically changed what I said, because it didn't, and everyone that has such huge problems with grammar mistakes need to chill. We are posting on the internet, not writing a novel or a thesis paper. Do I need my coworkers to come and peer review my posts before I submit them?? This is ridiculous and people posting grammar corrections are inherently flamebait because they don't serve a purpose, you cant edit your comments. You claim you are trying to educate, but you insult and demean at the same time, which proves you are trying to score mod points off grammar junkies, or you do get some sense of intellectualized self-satisfaction from correcting people. I suppose the more accurate statement should have been I wasn't taught anything I see as serving a purpose past elementary. The only purpose I have found so far in using perfect grammar is to not get into an argument on slashdot about grammar.

If I was to be as fussy with compounds as you are about grammar, I would be saying that you saying H20 and CO2 is meaningless because you did not use subscript.

Re:Grammar

[zippthorne]

"Mistakes in math crash systems and cause bridges to fall"

So, too, do mistakes in grammar and syntax. Language, in a sense, is a subset of math. It's definitely worth trying to get right.

The fragment, "passed elementary school," has some rather unfortunate interpretations which do not quite fit with the first part of the sentence. Unfortunately, once you think it, you can't un-think it.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Anonymous Coward]

And shelter too! Much more important than healthcare, and more expensive as well. Whee! It's communitarianism!

Huge geographical areas...

[Anonymous Coward]

...of the US are a big bucket of fail when it comes to providing affordable internet access, forget broadband that is unobtanium, just dialup costs way high because of the required landline before you can get internet on top of that. I'd be happy if I could skip the telephone part and all those fees I barely use and could do without easily and just get any sort of cheaper internet. Broadband speeds even at the very low end would be gravy. So I am all for it. I pay right now double in cost for what I see people pay for broadband in order to have a real slow dialup connection. There is no "3g" service, there is no "wimax" service, there is no "cable" service, there is no "dsl" service, nor is there likely to be for the next..decades who knows. All those places fixate on areas that already have decent enough broadband options, they aren't moving out to cover more of the nation. I don't know if what wireless frequencies they are talking about in the article would actually work, but so far, except for ridiculously expensive and very limited cellphone "plans", there is no other option here. All the wireless that is being used now by internet providers is line of sight to some transmitting tower, and if you don't have that, just one hill in the way, SOL. And the US has a lot of hills and this isn't just some near wilderness areas we are talking about, tons of places that would qualify as merely suburbia still don't have any broadband options. Satellite costs even more and has a host of issues with it. The "market" as it is today apparently doesn't give shit one, so if my tax money can be used, I am all for it, that is one of the reasons we have governments and taxes, to provide for the common good. The government trusted "the market" to get decent internet out there to everyone, by giving them exclusive deals and tax rebates and so on, access to spectrum, all of that, 200 billion dollars worth just to the telcos in the 90s to roll out FIBER all over, and they slammed to a halt at the city walls and all that public money has *disappeared*. Some areas are just now getting very ,limited little areas with fiber, we ALREADY paid for getting fiber most everyplace and nothing happened, not telco fatcat one in front of any congressional committee explaining what happened to the money. Now they want to bitch again, fuck em! I'll take the municipal wireless if it works, sick of BEGGING the regular providers to take my cash for some sort of broadband, they just aren't going to do it now that they spent all that money on..whatever it is they spent it on, sure didn't see any better quality copper or universal fiber going in all over.

huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

The FCC (that's part of the government, if I remember correctly) is considering an idea, and someone is saying that this business model will fail? I'm not sure that's a contradiction; if the government is doing it, then there isn't a "business model" involved. It's wealth redistribution, not a business.

Re:huh?

[jbolden]

They are using the term in the sense of
business model = method or providing specific services or goods at a particular fixed unit cost to a specific population.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Jaeph]

Government screws up everything it touches. Roads, military (talk to someone in the military and you'll get a million stories), mail, everything.

I'm not advocating zero government here, but we need to be wary about giving the government more work to do on such basic services. The opportunities for corruption (intentional or due to negligence) are immense here. Right now I fail to see the pros outweighing the cons when it comes to both govt-controlled internet and health care.

-Jeff

Not Free

[TonyXL]

Whether you use it or not, you will pay for it via taxes, debt, or inflation.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, Pip!

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[khellendros1984]

medical stuff

Awesome, are you implying the future existence of robot paramedics and doctors?

Good Idea

[KingJ]

I think this is a good idea, Internet access has now become a crucial part of the day to day life of most people and as such is a utility, like water, power and such. However, I don't want to give the Government complete control over my internet, so it should be offered as a 'basic' internet package capped at 256kbit/sec. This is good enough for people that really need to access the internet. You then still have the choice of another provider, with higher speeds if you need/want it. This is intended for those that only need internet because it has been integrated into so many things now - Taxes, Banking, Shopping etc not for Entertainment and such.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess, you're a young (<40) person that has this idea that all these places with free health-care are so much better than the US. You have never actually lived in another country for 10+ years and had to use the services or hear the real stories of how it works from people caught in it.

Let me put it to you this way, despite giving up their free health care people in other countries want to move to the US and don't see that as a drawback.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[jbolden]

Most Americans support some form of free healthcare. A free limited health care system that provides a minimal level of public health would get strong support and some support from both parties. Lets not forget that McCain campaigned on $5000k / person health insurance. The real issue has always been how to provide supplemental coverage.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[TomXP411]

No person should be denied the basic necessities of life because he can't pay for it: food, shelter, electricity, water, basic communications, and basic medical care. YES, we should be providing these things for all citizens, and every citizen of this country should get BASIC service at no cost.

Besides, other people ARE working on free health care, and the FCC isn't responsible for health care. It's the FCC's job to promote and regulate wireless communications. Using an article about the FCC to whine about health care is about as stupid as using an article about health care to complain about your TV reception. It's a non-sequiter.

As to utilities: I've long thought that we should subsidize a certain level of baisic service for those who can't pay for it. We all pay a Universal Lifeline fee to help pay for phone service for the indigent. Why not transition the telephone ULF to an Internet ULF in preparation for the day that telephones disappear altogether? The switched telephone network is dead; it's just a matter of time until everyone realizes it.

Hmmm...

[Terrorwrist]

They better not monitor my surfing habits while I'm watching porn! FCC (Freaking Crap Company)

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[characterZer0]

Most of us agree that the federal government, which generally overspends and either under-delivers or flat out fails on nearly every project it undertakes due to a variety of reasons including red tape, accountability, nepotism, corruption, power seekers, over-regulation, and plain old mismanagement, would do a lousy job providing internet access.

And some of you want to this same bureaucracy to provide health care?!

Like the post office

[iSzabo]

It's an interesting idea if you attempt to equate the internet's email to classic dude-with-a-sack mail. The national postal service has roots in government funding - the infrastructure is maintained by the government (i.e. everyone) and incidental costs (like mailing a letter) is payed for with stamps. The interesting thing about the internet is that if it were made free in this way: the infrastructure would be maintained by the government and the incidental cost of mailing an email would be payed for by you buying something after reading some ad that is supplied by Google, Yahoo, etc. Really it's similar to the post office with the difference that the government only has to worry about the actual infrastructure.

Re:Like the post office

[loafula]

I actually thought they should give control over this to the USPS. This would guarantee everybody an email address, and we can all use less and less paper mail.

Re:Like the post office

[overcaffein8d]

yes, but not everyone has a computer

and judging by the computer users i know, even less know how to use one.

btw love the sig :)

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[gad_zuki!]

Wont anyone think of the layers and layers of middlemen between a dollar and actual healthcare service? Well, politicans do. The healthcare system is such a racket that fixing it will lead to a lot of redundant jobs. A lot.

Lots of eggs need to be broken to make this omelette. Who is willing to step up and do this? No one.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. The Government screws up everything it touches. Meanwhile, not a single private company has ever screwed anything up. Not once. In history. Ever. It's well known that private enterprise is truly flawless. Or so I hear on /..

If anything it would put more pressure in ISP's

[DJRumpy]

Sure, there will always be people who want or require premium service, but it will certainly lower prices. Not many average Joe's will want to pay premium prices when you can get the basics for free. This is great news if it ever actually materializes.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[mrsteveman1]

Someday, your medicine will come through the tubes as well.

Social (in)Security and retirement

[qbzzt]

well have no fear, the same program guarantees that other people will help pay for your disability or retirement in the event you need it,

Disability? Maybe. Retirement, out of what funds? Retirement (whether private or government) is based on two main assumptions:

1. People in their fertile years work hard to raise large families, so each generation is a lot bigger than the previous one.

2. People die soon after retirement anyway, so their retirement doesn't cost that much.

Both assumptions are false for my generation. We'll be lucky to have the same number of workers in my kids' generation we have in this one, there aren't enough Sarah Palins who raise five kids.

Re:Social (in)Security and retirement

[shawb]

Don't worry, the second assumption will become true again if our healthcare system isn't fixed.

Re:Social (in)Security and retirement

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

And the ones who are raising five kids raise them to live off the welfare system.

Re:Social (in)Security and retirement

[bensode]

No sorry. My wife, five children and I do not collect welfare. Please don't confuse those of us that planned to have a large family as welfare recipients. And, while on the subject, please don't generalize that all welfare recipients are degenerates looking to increase the hand-outs. I've met a few single and young parents that now have to depend on food stamps to get by because they were recently laid off. You see, two or three retail jobs that pay minimum wage might keep the mortgage paid and the lights on, if you can even find one now, doesn't leave much food on the table while you or your spouse are looking to bounce back from being laid off because of tough economic times.

Re:Social (in)Security and retirement

[jcnnghm]

If you think things are going to improve once the government is in charge, I've got an oceanfront home in Arizona I'd like to talk to you about.

Re:Social (in)Security and retirement

[b96miata]

Don't worry, it really will be oceanfront in 100 years or so.

Re:Social (in)Security and retirement

[jcnnghm]

Given that the sea level is only projected to rise by 9 to 88 cm before 2100, I'm not holding my breath. Don't believe the propaganda, especially when the guy that's pushing at it has a ton to gain trading carbon credits.

Re:Social (in)Security and retirement

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Idea: Maybe you should have planned out your future instead of just pumping out 37 hungry future criminals.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[gad_zuki!]

Obviously you've never received care in a wealthy European nation. After spending some time overseas coming back to the US's healthcare system is like going back in time to the middle ages. "Oh, you wont cover that? You say its pre-existing? You wont pay for that test by doctor wants? Oh only $800 deductible? Oh, another bill from another readjustment? Oh, I lost my job and wont have insurance for two months and COBRA is 800 a month?"

>Government screws up everything it touches.

Bullshit. Certain people in power want you to believe competent government cant exist, but it does all over the world. Republicans love to sell you on this line because it helps their corporate masters make more money and provides an excuse for their corruption in office. Perhaps you should be voting in the guy who is willing to do things right as opposed to resigning yourself to shitty government run by shitty people.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Anonymous Coward]

No person should be denied the basic necessities of life because he can't pay for it: food, shelter, electricity, water, basic communications, and basic medical care. YES, we should be providing these things for all citizens, and every citizen of this country should get BASIC service at no cost.

Of course that only works as long as you can tax the rest of the country to pay for it.

Once people start saying to themselves, "WTF am I working for? The government will pay for my food, shelter, etc. All I have to do is kickback and enjoy it. Working and paying taxes is for suckers.", things will deteriorate very quickly.

Yes, I know, you're not worried about that.

I guess they could put quotas on it

[Joce640k]

If you're limited to 'X' Kb transfer in any one minute ('X' to be calculated on demand) then web surfing, email, Instant messaging would be Ok but things like BitTorrent and Youtube would be unusable.

That could work out...and the "filtering" would be quite simple to do and it would be pretty impossible to get around it - it's not based on type of traffic, only volume.

Public WiFi vs. public roads

[mi]

WOW! Something that my tax dollars pay for that MIGHT actually benefit me? Neat-o.

You are, certainly, correct, that public roads are enough of a disaster, that you may not benefit from them. But what makes you think, the free WiFi will be any better?

At least, with the roads, the excuse for government's involvement is that there can't really be competing private roads for the same destinations, and thus free market (which requires competition) can't be used to build and maintain them efficiently.

There is no such justification for WiFi.

Re:Public WiFi vs. public roads

[MadMidnightBomber]

From the URL in the sig:"If you've participated in the above-mentioned hate-mongering of America, you must now -- as a penance -- go and burn Indian flag in front of their embassy or consulate."

FUCK'S SAKE! Just because I criticise the Israeli army for shooting journalists in the West Bank, it doesn't mean that I support Palestinian suicide bombers, does it? NO, OF COURSE IT FUCKING DOESN'T. So I don't like Guantanamo - many other people including the British Attorney General and Barack Obama have criticised it as well - but we didn't ask the Indian navy to shoot up some pirate ships either and leave them all for dead. It may surprise you to know that the Indian government doesn't know what I think about the issue and wouldn't give a flying fuck if they did.

Re:This isn't the Internet - it's filter data acce

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps on that free WIFI you'd just be fined $5000 dollars for not adding an * to that!

Re:This isn't the Internet - it's filter data acce

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck that.

Ah. So that's why I can't access this post from my shiny new FCC-filtered wifi connection...

Good way to roll out IPv6

[IGnatius T Foobar]

"Free" (not free, taxpayer funded) wireless Internet for everyone -- but they should only support IPv6.

Then watch how fast the entire industry trips over itself to get IPv6 deployed. It'd happen really quickly.

Mod parent up!

[Chrutil]

Now where are the mod points when I need them?

Oh really???

[Nicolas MONNET]

How insightful of you to point this out. Someone's gotta pay for it! No way! Get out!
Do you seriously believe that nobody realizes that?
That's not the damn point. The point of something being free of charge is that you don't pay to use it. Take WikiPedia. Even if you didn't pay to use it, it's free for everyone else to use. Yet dozens of thousands of people donated something to keep it going. Is that not free?
So what if the gov't is paying for it. It pays for the roads, doesn't it? Even the most retarded Ayn Rand fetishist libertarians have to admit that having tolls on every road wouldn't be very practical. Yes you pay for it through taxes, and it's certainly more efficient than the alternative.
I'm not saying this is a great idea, but yes, it's free. As in beer.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.webmd.com

There, problem solved.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Anonymous Coward]

"Government screws up everything it touches."

Sounds like a person ignorant of any good effects of government, and who is more than willing to vote for the "low government" people known for doing nothing but fucking up infrastructure and wasting money under any guise.

Another Fail: St Louis Park, MN

[flanders123]

Chalk up St. Louis Park, MN as another failure: http://www.startribune.com/local/west/34437914.html

I frequent this community and the ugly solar-powered transmitters still litter every other residential block.

If a city of 45K can't pull this off, nor can the bumbling FCC, IMHO.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[toadlife]

Let me guess. You live in a metro area where you have the choice of several different doctors. When you go to the hospital, the staff are competent and are able to make the right diagnoses on their first try most of the time.

Try living in rural America for awhile, where hospitals have to turn to temp agencies for doctors because the doctors refuse to live and work in the area on a permanent basis, and where the doctors that do agree to work are the ones that graduated with a B-- average from Devry medical school.

Try making a doctors appointment in poor, rural America and watch a ten minute doctors appointment take four hours out of your day.

Try having a major heart attack in rural America and watch as the incompetent hospital staff give you two extra strength Tylenol and tell you to go home.

Our "free market" heath care system is utterly broken, and in most of the country, is worse than any socialized system in the world.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

It's true that there are horror stories (like waiting lists) with the various national health care systems. For every horror story you can find about the British, Canadian, French, etc. health care system, I can find the exact same story, or worse, right here in the US.

In the US, I've had to sue my health care provider to cover medically necessary expenses. My mother had to do the same, twice. I had to wait more than a year to have something treated. I have an ex-girlfriend who was denied coverage because we didn't call their fucking bean counter up and ask permission to go to the emergency room when she was bleeding all over the place. Cost us $1,200 even though she "had insurance".

So, go live in a civilized country for a while and maybe you will come to realize that the US healthcare system sucks goat balls.

interesting timing

[Anonymous Coward]

am i the only one that realizes that he's proposing this at the last possible second? it wont happen and he just committed political suicide and he knows it.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[bhv]

No such thing as free healthcare. Speaking as a Canadian who has spent 10 of his 50 years south of the 49th the US system wins for me. It has issues to be sure but the Canadian "free" system is far more expensive and the service is moving laughable at best.

My brother in-law was had a small heart attack this last thanksgiving and had to wait until wait for an MRI because the operators were away for the long weekend, now that's quality right there. I can add many more stories....its just sad.

I know a few canucks that have mortgaged their house to pay to get have surgery done in the US rather than wait the 6-18 months or longer in Canada.

When was the last time you heard of an efficiently and effectively run government program. They are only good at getting in the way and paying 10x the market rate for snow.

Heaven help us all if the US follows the same broken path. We'll have to fly overseas to find an available surgeon.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Scarletdown]

I'm not advocating zero government here, but we need to be wary about giving the government more work to do on such basic services

My big concern here is that the funding for this will mean less funding available for me to continue refining this silly walk I have been developing.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[moosesocks]

The interstate highway system seems pretty damn good to me.

Do you think that part of the problem could be that the people in power for the past 25+ years have operated on the same ethos as your post? They made the entire "inefficient government" thing into reality, while actually *growing* the size of the bureaucracy.

The private sector has done an abominable job of running the healthcare industry. It's already been demonstrated that the usual laws of Supply & Demand economics do not apply to healthcare.... it's about time we start basing our policy decisions around that.

Funny interpretation of FREE

[Phizzle]

So this is going to be a service that I didn't ask for and will not use, paid for with my Tax Dollars, regulated by a government agency that I didn't vote for (FCC thugs are appointed not voted). They only let you to opt out of using it, not paying for it.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Anonymous Coward]

For me, the government should provide both wireless and healthcare. Better than spending the money on propping up the failing rich or killing foreign 'terrorists'.

But then I live in the UK so maybe I have a different perspective.

For me, the federal government should provide neither. That is not the roll of the federal government. Show me where in the constitution it says the federal government has the authority to provide "free" internet and "free" health care.

If you want it, push for it at the state level.

Final Insult from Republican FCC

[Doc Ruby]

So the FCC screws us all for the entire Bush Era. Then, in the last few weeks he can make a press release, Kevin Martin promises FREE WIRELESS INTERNET FOR EVERYONE!!!

Even though he won't have to pay for it, oversee it, or anything. Even though he could have done it while he did have those responsibilities. Even though the cablecos/telcos will kill the plan, but Democrats actually running the FCC who never promised it will get the blame.

And just to prove that the whole stunt is political sabotage BS, he makes sure to promise "porn-free". No word on how that would work - which it wouldn't. And certainly no word on why porn is the #1 priority to protect us from over national airwaves, rather than all the fraud and other national security threats that come with any network, especially free nationwide wireless.

Martin is a fool. Only an experienced Republican hitman like him could actually give FREE WIRELESS INTERNET a bad name, without even giving it to us.

Re:Final Insult from Republican FCC

[BitZtream]

You are correct, this is probably political posturing.

You are also a complete fucking idiot if you didn't see the Democrats doing the EXACT same shit for the last 8 years. Obama hasnt even taken office officially yet and he's already changing his mind on stuff that helped get him elected. I'm not actually complaining about this persay, just pointing out that anyone who thinks what a politician says during an election run is what he's going to do if elected is an idiot, pure and simple.

There really isn't a reason why a democrat run goverment can't pull this off based on what has been proposed, its not specific enough to be hard to implement so if they choose to fail, its because they wanted to, not because they had to. That doesn't mean they did the right or wrong thing because there is fair more to running a government than any single issue, this particular one may be traded off in favor of a more aggressive transition to renewable energy or better efficiency in our energy use for example.

The problem here isn't really that the republicans are evil bastards trying to fool you. The problem is that YOU have been fooled. If this was the first time you had been fooled it would be one thing, but you're old enough and politically involved enough to post such a comment which means this is most certainly not the first time you've been fooled by a politician, which makes it your problem more so than theirs.

Stop being a fanboy for the Democrats. They aren't better, they are just different from the Republicans. They are both teams of politicians and you're just being ignorant if you treat them as anything other than that. Each and everyone one of them is out to serve themselves and no one else, thats just nature. We, the people, have to play the game with them or get rid of them. Since they really aren't THAT bad, getting rid of them isn't happening any time soon. So we have to figure out how to make our wishes benificial to them. Which we don't do, instead we have too many people playing fanboy for their favorite party thinking that the world will change based on which team wins the superbowl, err, election.

The funny thing is going to be in 4 or 8 years when we change presidents again, and presumably back to the republicans (just guessing since its pretty much impossible for Obama to live up to the ridiculous expectations that people have for him at this point as the 'first black president and son of god') and there is that whole group of republic fanboys doing the same thing you are, being ignorant tools of politicians.

Re:Final Insult from Republican FCC

[Doc Ruby]

You are a complete fucking idiot. The Democrats didn't have any power from 2001-2006, so they weren't even in a position to do what THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FCC IS DOING. Policy announcements by the controlling official are not the same as campaign promises. But after 8-14 years of the Republican Era, culminating in the Bush "Permanent Republican Majority", I suppose you've forgotten what actual government policy and rulemaking looks like, as distinct from a campaign promise. But forgetting that is for complete fucking idiots.

I don't even see Obama "changing his mind on stuff that helped get him elected". Unless you can show me where Obama promised FREE NATIONWIDE WIRELESS INTERNET, or something actually comparable to it, which he's now changing, you're just a complete fucking idiot.

I had said nothing about the Democrats, because this story is about the Republican FCC chief doing something that has no facts about Democrats attached to it. But since you brought it up, I'll cut you down. Nor did I say that Obama is "son of god", though you seem more obsessed with him being the first Black president in a way that is totally irrelevant, and therefore racist. Congratulations: you're a complete fucking idiot racist. Even if that's just a bonus, a more precise idiocy than the actual point of this story - but you brought it up.

What you need to do now is start whining "But Clinton...", which is the standard formula for you "they're all the same" idiots. Especially since a Clinton is now about to be Secretary of State. See how easy life can be for a complete fucking idiot?

Re:This isn't the Internet - it's filter data acce

[Anonymous Coward]

"Right, the same FCC that is fining stations hundreds of thousands of dollars because they didn't bleep out Bono's "fucking brilliant" in time will determine what is and isn't suitable content accessible through this service."

Obama's FCC isn't going to give two shits about the American Family Association spamming the FCC's lines over and over again about Janet Jackson's titty.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[level_headed_midwest]

There are just as many or more layers of middlemen in government as in an insurance company as both are large bureaucracies. The government is perhaps even worse as it can pass rate increases and benefit reductions by law and has no competition. If the government takes over being the payer for health care, basicall only the names of the middlemen will change and little else, besides your tax bills. The only way to eliminate the extra crap is to pay for your health care out of your own pocket.

Let's hit the underconnected areas first

[n-baxley]

Before we go giving free internet to everyone, let's spend a little money on building out the infrastructure in the underconnected areas. Sure it's still giving away some money, but by taking on some of the startup costs, the government can encourage new businesses in areas that could use more connection options. At my house, I currently have 1 option for getting online at decent speeds. And that is expensive ($50 for 768 down and 200 up). Competition!

Powered by Unicorn's Dreams

[gelfling]

Not only will it be free it will make you a better lover and help feed miserable brown babies in the world.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Anonymous Coward]

Free Internet! and as long as they don't filter VOIP services then blammo no more phone companies!

well that's a bit of a strech we'd have to give them a few hundred billion to float them a few years first.. then they can go and mangle voting in flordia.

Why that almost sounds like they're promoting the ability for any one person to talk to another..

this free speech thing confuses and scares me

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Government business

[Anonymous Coward]

A very good way to sell this would be that much government business could be moved totally online (documents, office locations, hours, court docets, etc) and that people would not need to pay a monthly fee to do business with the government.

I'm absolutely not fond of the censorship. I find that some idiots believe that firearms are as offensive as pornography.

the only problem

[overcaffein8d]

the only problem that i might have with it is the fact that it would probably be very slow.... which is what would keep ISPs in business

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[gad_zuki!]

I dont believe thats true. Look at how medicare works. Medicare pays one fee for service. They dont negotiate, they dont do the billing back and forth, they dont check on pre-exsiting conditions, etc. The government has the power to dictate prices on socialized programs. Doctors and hospitals are forced to bill the flat amount. That right there cuts out all manner of insurance adjuster, doctor's staff, back and forth billing, etc.

Socializing this system will simplify it. There's no denying that.

Government is no more inefficient than private business. Except in this scenario you just cut out a whole lot of useless middlemen because the process itself is simplified.

You idiots, it's not FREE!

[k1e0x]

Government doesn't have anything it didn't get from someone else. There is NOTHING they provide that is free.

It is an absolutely horrible idea to have the government become your ISP. Think of the danger this presents to free speech when the method of communication you use is controlled by the government. Would you have free speech if government controlled all the TV Networks or Newspapers? What if they said they will preform "some filtering" on them?

Now I know that they did not say they would be getting rid of traditional ISP's (who suck because they are usually government "provided" duopolies in most places) however if people feel they *already* pay through taxes for a service why pay extra again? Would that not make the government the dominant ISP?

Government has TERRIBLE customer service, it can't fix the roads, it can't do anything on budget, it can't fix our schools, it can't take care of the veterans, it can't make the poor wealthy, it can't solve the economic cries, it can't make you safe, and it can't make you happy... yet you idiots continue to turn to it to solve your every problem.. Why? What is wrong with you people?

Re:You idiots, it's not FREE!

[BitZtream]

You are most certainly correct, nothing is free, we'll pay for it one way or another, and I'm okay with that.

As far as the goverment being our ISP and filtering/monitoring, the only way that happens is if WE allow it. The goverment is nothing without the people. The only reason the goverment does all the 'bad' things is does now is because for all those people that bitch and moan about it, its really not that bad, if it was we'd either change the laws or revolt.

Now I'm going to have to nitpick a little:

Government has TERRIBLE customer service, it can't fix the roads,

IIRC, we have more roads than any country in the world and while not perfect and certainly for what we pay for them they SHOULD be better, they really are NICE roads. Live in Mexico for a year or so, pretty much anywhere, then get back to me about how shitty our roads are.

it can't do anything on budget

Ahh, and I suppose you can point out a goverment somewhere that actually can do something on a budget?

it can't fix our schools

Because our schools are so horrible right? I live in North Carolina, ranked 48th as far as school quality and just recently was talking to a local teacher who was bitching about that ranking and how we need to fix it. So I asked really how bad that was, I mean can our 48th educated students not get jobs or get into schools else where? And the response was basically that A) the ranking system is retarded and B) it really made no difference because our education system in the US is pretty damn good overall. There is ALWAYS a lowest ranked on the list of rankings, that means nothing out of context because if as an example you take all of the physists that worked on the original atom bombs for the US, take the dumbest one in the group, whoever it may have been, he's still going to make you and I look like complete morons when we try to talk to him about such matters. So, when you start comparing our education system to the rest of the world, and you're comparing it to countries that have 'the best' education systems, not being at the top of the list REALLY isn't that big of a deal because education today is still far better than it has ever been in history, you just aren't able to overlook a retarded ranking system and put things into a real context.

it can't take care of the veterans

My dad is an 87 year old veteran of WWII, and he gets FAR better health care than I do working for a company that provides GREAT health insurance for everything. I have to work to get my health care covered, he just goes to the VA hospital and the shit is handled, period. He's had cancer in several different organs, lung issues, heart issues, has a pacemaker put in, all sorts of crap, they just took care of him. They also make sure he isn't homeless in his old age and will gladly provide living space for him should he not be able to provide it for himself. Any veteran in America who isn't being taken care of is that way because they don't want to be, not because it isn't offered. One thing America does very well is take care of its vets.

it can't make the poor wealthy

And thats not its job, its not there give you a free ride. You control your wealth and your ability to be wealthy. No one is going to give it to you, you get what you earn. Its rather retarded for you to think 'everyone can be wealthy'. No, they can't, there will ALWAYS be some with more than others because SOME people work harder than others and some people are just luckier than others. Its great that you live in an idealistic world where you think everyone can be wealthy, but you are also more than slightly delusional and certainly extremely unrealistic.

it can't solve the economic cries

Actually, the 'economic crisis' we're in is a result of panic, nothing more. The mar

Re:You idiots, it's not FREE!

[k1e0x]

the only way that happens is if WE allow it. The government is nothing without the people.

You think you control the government ehh? I don't believe in such a delusions. DownsizeDC reported that message to congress against the bailout came in at a rate of 100/1 against.

Our presidential candidates "selected" for us were not in disagreement about the socialism they wanted to give us.. only how much socialism. There is no choice and the people have no power. Wake up, the republic is dead and this "democracy" is a sham. It's controlled from the top down by a single ruling party of elites. You can dream about being in control of the government.. but the real truth is, they are in control of you.

Now.. If my wife asked me to go out and buy a car, and I went out and paid $100,000 for a Ford Focus.. would she consider that "successful"? I have a car after all. No, she would kick me out of the god dammed house! However, you seem to think that if the government does someone albeit un-efficiently than it's all ok because ALL governments are inefficient.

Well duhh.. all governments are inefficient. There are really good reasons why. They are not incentivised to be efficient because they are not going to go out of business and it's not their money. The problem is rooted in the fact that government is a cohesive organization so it can not be fixed by getting a better government, ALL governments are cohesive. Force is the ONLY tool they have. They can force you to do something, force you not to do something, or force you to pay for something, that's the only ability they have.

When you say we need government to be our ISP even though they are inefficient, your saying you want to pay more money for worse service than what is already provided to you by your current ISP. It works that way with everything not just ISP's.

Actually, the 'economic crisis' we're in is a result of panic, nothing more.

Your economic theories are laughable. To assume that a good economy is the result of *only* consumer spending is absurd. Consumers can not cause recessions. There are so many problems with thinking they can that I don't know where to start. If that were true, than to have good times for the rest of humanity all people need to do is stop saving and spend every dime they get. Hell go ahead and spend more than you make, whats wrong with that? lol -- What your failing to realize is that there is a relationship between production and spending. When spending is higher than production you are in a market bubble. When production is higher than spending you are in a recession. What needs to happen is there needs to be a happy balance between the two and government pumping cash into the market will do nothing to fix the problem, instead they make it worse because they are taking money away from productive parts of the economy and giving it to the unproductive parts. The unproductive failing parts of the economy need to fail to release resources to the productive sector and open the market for new business that can make a profit. (The term for this is "creative destruction") GOVERNMENT CAN'T CONTROL MARKET FORCES. Market forces are created not by government, not by Obama, not by Kind George, or Congress, but by millions of individual, real flesh and blood, thinking people, just like you and me, doing whatever it is *they* (not the government) believe is in their own best interest. Market forces are always more powerful than government.. even the Soviet Union couldn't over power market forces.

By your standards, no one can solve any problem.

The market solves problems every day and it does it efficiently. People solve problems working together voluntary because they have an interest in solving it. It's not the abstraction called the government that is solving problems.. its people. Sometimes those people work for government and inefficiently "solve" problems.. but most often they work to better themselves and their surr

Re:You idiots, it's not FREE!

[k1e0x]

Maybe I shouldn't be so harsh on you, you want liberty too right? Everyone does. What you need to understand however is what your saying is basically that other countries have a worse form of cancer so we should be happy with cancer we have. I don't accept that, cancer is cancer and it's always bad.. it doesn't matter if other people have it worse.

You need to start looking at unintended consequences, you see the surface of things, but you don't appear to be aware of what is not seen. Government giving is very visible and on the surface it looks good.. but it always, ALWAYS, involves government taking, and that hurts people.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[kaizokuace]

no, he is implying "stuff".

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Anonymous Coward]

Government screws up everything it touches. Roads, military (talk to someone in the military and you'll get a million stories), mail, everything.

Gosh - I always find blanket statements like this to be incredibly enlightening.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[tmosley]

Yes, but most companies don't have the ability to take your money at gunpoint and do whatever they want with it. If you don't pay, you get killed or put into a cage for a long period of time.

The problem here is that government has the ability to enforce it's will with deadly force, where private entities do not. It is best not to have the guys with guns involved in every aspect of your life, because you start to look an awful lot like a slave.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[toadlife]

I never said that. I was ranting against the assumption that the free market increases the quality of health care.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[tmosley]

The private sector doesn't really run the healthcare industry. It is up to its eyeballs in government regulation and intervention. Already, many doctors are wanting to leave. There is almost no-one willing to be a general practitioner. This is all because of paperwork forced on them by government backed corporations and governmental and semi governmental organizations.

There isn't an industry in the USA that isn't covered in the greasy fingerprints of the government. If they get more control, things will probably only get worse, as they will never force the (government created) corporate monopolies away from the public feeding trough.

Don't listen to him. It's propaganda...

[Anonymous Coward]

from the People's Front of Judea

- the Judean People's Front

Social Security doesn't *have* any savings

[billstewart]

Yes, there's a Social Security Trust Fund that's invested in T-bills. That just means that they've taken any surplus they had in the past and lent it to the Government, which spent it, and which promises to tax people in the future to pay it back. So when all of us Boomers start retiring and not dying off quickly enough, not only will the Social Security Tax on working people not be enough to cover the costs, but the Feds will have to start running a budget surplus to pay off the debt, instead of continually borrowing more like they did while we were working. So it's going to suck to be young and working, or old and collecting taxable interest on our savings.

Before Bush took power, we had a $5T national debt, because previous administrations didn't have the financial discipline to not run deficits even during boom years. Bush's Fiscally Responsible Small Government Republicans doubled that before the Crisis, and it looks like they're spending another $5T-10T on bailouts (though ostensibly they'll get some of that back.) The current total debt is about 1 US GDP, or about $50K/American.

And to the extent that us older people saved money in forms other than houses (oops), we'll be getting lower interest rates on what we saved than what I'd been planning on, because more of us will be competing to invest it in whatever businesses the younger people who are working are running. So it's going to suck to be old and not working. And because it's also going to suck to be young and working, those people aren't going to be buying $5 coffees that much, and Walmart only needs so many greeters, so obvious old-people jobs are going to be scarce.

Alternatively

[Technopaladin]

Private companies do a great job of botching things up too.
Our Roads are made by Private companies(though funded by taxes).
Our military is supported by consultants and companies like Halliburton.
Mail- DOnt know about you but i get my mail. Even when I move it finds me.
Companies dont seem to be that much more efficent.

Truth is the Government does Ok with stuff that is well considered and regulated.
Could it be streamlined? Sure. I will say this though as much as I distrust the Government I can honestly say I trust Corporations alot less.

I wish

[linuxgeek64]

Hasn't something like this already happened before?

Free*

[mosb1000]

*For extremely high values of free.

"Free" Internet won't be very fast

[billstewart]

There's only so much spectrum out there, especially if they use longer-wavelength systems which get better distance and penetration and therefore have more users per chunk of bandwidth. So it's going to have a lot less average bandwidth per user than wired systems, regardless of what the airspeed of any given connection might be. That's going to annoy the kinds of people who gripe about Americans having a lot less bandwidth than [cliche]old people in Korea[/cliche], and it's not going to handle BitTorrent or streaming video downloads reliably, but it'll probably beat modems and text messaging.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[limaxray]

SHHH you'll pop their utopian bubbles!

I worked at a hotel near a US hospital when I was in college - the gross majority of our guests were Canadian patients, or families of patients, reiterating the same story as you. It really says something when such a large number of people are willing to travel and pay out of pocket for services they could have gotten for free at home.

The experience has really made me question the idea of free health care - I'd rather get my health care and owe a huge pile of cash than not receive health care at all.

Takes business to really screw things up.

[wfstanle]

... and to REALLY screw things up, you need to turn to business! Look at the fiasco we have in the banking industry and the auto industry. Government has to come to the rescue and the CEO's get the gold mine while their workers (and the taxpayers) get the shaft.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[seven of five]

Government screws up everything it touches. Roads, military (talk to someone in the military and you'll get a million stories), mail, everything.

This message brought to you by Ajax HealthCo, where your care is our top priority!

Off-topic: burn an Indian flag

[mi]

I criticise the Israeli army for shooting journalists in the West Bank, it doesn't mean that I support Palestinian suicide bombers

These two are not related.

So I don't like Guantanamo ... but we didn't ask the Indian navy to shoot up some pirate ships either and leave them all for dead.

These two are directly related, as explained in my article. There are only three things, that can be done to losers of a battle:

1. Let them go (this is done to qualified Prisoners of War after the war ends).
2. Detain them until a trial of some sort.
3. Kill them or let them die.

Talking about (alleged) terrorists and (alleged) pirates, the first one is a no due to the gravity of the allegation. The second is what the evil AmeriKKKa is doing (and will continue to do — welcome to the real world, Obama-fans). So, the third option was deemed the easiest by the India's Navy...

And it would've worked perfectly well, if that particular ship have not turned-out to be a Thai vessel, full of innocents...

It may surprise you to know that the Indian government doesn't know what I think about the issue and wouldn't give a flying fuck if they did.

Oh, it certainly does not give a grain of basmati over what you think. But it is no less certain, that they are well-aware of the world's opinion of Guantanamo. People like yourself hate the prison with passion, and, except the minority like myself, fail to acknowledge the absence of a viable alternative.

Now that Obama is almost President, expect to see justifications for the prison's continuing existence from the same papers and TV-stations, that helped him pound on Bush and McCain on the issue. Poor fishermen should be safer.

Why?

[mattwarden]

What need is the government fulfilling? What justifies the additional bureaucratic overhead of tax-payer-funded, government-administered "free" wireless Internet? Why give the federal government control over one of the last remaining free media where control is inherently difficult?

Makes. No. Sense.

Proxies?

[Explodicle]

So long as they don't try to block encrypted proxies, I don't think that would be a big deal.

Screw-ups

[PPCAvenger]

You want to talk about an organization that screws everything up? Let me tell you about this company I used to work for... How many people have stories like that?

  Corruption? Come on. No sane person can say private industry is free of corruption and mean it.

  Private industry is not intrinsically more efficient than government.

  The only operational difference between the two, as far as I'm concerned, is that government's mandate is to provide a service within the budget granted while private industry is tasked with providing a service in budget AND with a profit margin.

  The other differences are procedural and irrelevant since procedures can be changed with effort.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[FiloEleven]

Of course private companies screw up. Ideally, when they do that, they fail and are replaced by another company with a better plan.

When government screws something up, it either stays screwed up and creates more problems or, if the issue is big enough, there is a revolution resulting in loss of life, nationwide instability, and the installation of a new government that is likely just as bad as the old government only in different areas. The same can be said for companies except for the whole loss-of-life and nationwide instability bits.

It's amazing the difference the threat of force can make.

ATTENTION EVERYONE

[Explodicle]

Cease all discusssion of public anything until we've settled the health care debate!

Skynet.

[Anonymous Coward]

I smell Skynet. I'd much rather pay for internet that is much too understaffed and would need to be paid off and outsourced to other private industries to label me a terrorist than to be funding with my own tax dollars the ability to charge my friends and family with terrorism accounts or piracy. Free does not mean freedom.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[toadlife]

But your examples are problems that do not depend on the market/socialist healthcare system, so while a market healthcare system does not help those problems, it does not hurt them either

Actually, they do. In rural areas of the country, providing quality health care is not economical feasible. I have fantastic health insurance - the best you can buy, but the terrible quality of health care when I live has driven me and my family to drive 75 miles to the nearest metro area to see doctors. We have a hospital here, but unless it's a life a death emergency, I will drive 50 miles to what is a "semi-metro" area where there are two hospitals that prove vastly superior care.

My story about the local hospital telling the heart attack victim to go home after taking two Tylenol is a true story. That person's wife then demanded that he be taken to the hospital 75 miles away. Once he arrived they had him on the operating table within an hour and performed life saving bypass surgery.

It's a Trap!

[Reichiru]

Seems to me like they're trying to use the incentive of "free" to just get a better grip on Internet regulation. I'd rather keep paying for Internet than allow them to dictate what I'm allowed to view online. And while it starts out as just a "smut free" service, what's to stop them from branching out restrictions after that?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Chris Burke]

Yes. Because all of those downsides put together are better than handing all the money to a for-profit intermediary whose most powerful financial motivation is to not provide the service you're paying them for so that they can keep more of the money.

Most of those downsides still apply in the current situation, anyway. Mismanagement, power-seekers, nepotism, corruption, lack of accountability, red tape? Yep, big ol' check mark there. Sure the government overspends, but frankly I'd rather have someone receive an expensive treatment they didn't need or that was overpriced than not receive any treatment at all, with the money saved going into an insurance exec's pocket.

I'd rather have free electricity for everyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or water.

Or food.

Or shelter.

Or medical care.

Free internet? Not so much a necessity for the entire usa as much as the above.

Shows where our priorities really are. Doing something we don't need that we know will fail.

Man, we're one fucked up country, in fucked a up world, populated by fucked up people.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Hatta]

Government screws up everything it touches. Roads, military (talk to someone in the military and you'll get a million stories), mail

Right, because that privately funded interstate highway system has been so successful. Also, what's wrong with the USPS? AFAICT, it's cheap, convenient, fairly reliable, and definitely more secure than the private alternatives.

Right now I fail to see the pros outweighing the cons when it comes to both govt-controlled internet and health care.

You sound like someone without a pre-existing condition.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The overhead cost for Medicare is approximately 1/3 that of private health care plans.

France manages to have a healthier population while spending 1/2 as much per capita on healthcare as the US. Stuff isn't automatically more expensive just because government is involved.

I know it's popular to just repeat "Government is inefficient" over and over, but it's not always true.

Opt-out of filtering

[californication]

I especially like this part:
"The plan would involve some level of filtering but might allow adults to opt out."

I think this opt-out attitude is great. Children can be protected by having the filters in place by default but adults can retain their freedom by having the choice to opt-out.

Good idea/Bad idea?

[spartacus_prime]

Federal government-run wireless? What could POSSIBLY go wrong? I'm not worried about the potential for spying, however: that goes without question. I worry about implementation, specifically the cost. Unless the FCC plans to have states subsidize it, or, even better, existing ISPs, this will come out of our pockets, whether we use the Internet or no. This seems to be just another attempt to stay relevant by a federal agency that should have been eviscerated long ago.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[LandDolphin]

"Socializing this system will simplify it. There's no denying that."

No, it should simplify the system. There is no guarantee that it will do so effectivly.

Meh..

[Anachragnome]

To be used in a positive manner, allowing discourse and access to information.......until the next administration rolls around.

Then your worst Orwellian nightmares come true, AND there is no longer an alternative.

Not sure I like this idea.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[toadlife]

That's a good point, but I think our pseudo-free-market health care system drives doctors to urban areas because of the morass of badly run social health care programs and budget ("HMO" style) health insurance policies that fight tooth and nail from having a pay for their customers' health care needs.

Removing the complication of payment collection (even if it meant, *gasp*, regulating costs) would remove the biggest stress of a doctor's life, and might encourage them to stay in rural areas. The malpractice "industry", the ridiculous amount of regulations (probably stemming from the malpractice "industry") and drug costs, are issues that inflate our costs to levels that tower above any other nation.

I'm sure health care in rural areas will always be inferior, but right now it is at third world levels, and for a country with a 20 Trillion GDP, that's just plain wrong.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[LandDolphin]

As liquidpele mentioned, a Socialized Healthcare system is not going to remove the problems you lsited:

-incompetent hospital staff
-doctors refuse to live and work in the area on a permanent basis
-a ten minute appointment taking four hours

Re:mod Hup

[Alarindris]

I secretly hope posts like this are the internet trying to communicate with us.

What about

[hesaigo999ca]

At one time, netzero was supposed to be free, so they proved that model does not work, and is too costly, how about just giving more regulations about ISPs charging for bandwidth, and keeping the prices low, by offering them compensation, everybody wins. We get better and cheaper internet, the ISP gets more money, and the government does not lose so much starting a project they will abandon 5 years from now seeing the are unable to keep up with the costs, this way they only spend to improve whats already there.

Censorship by glut of internet?

[w0mprat]

It's surreal reading this article next to the Censorship by Glut article. I wonder if this mechanism of censorship could apply to internet access.

If reasonable free internet access was ubiquitous was free who would pay for it? What concerns me is that this internet access would likely be filtered to some extent, if not fully censored, locked down and monitored for illegal file sharing etc. We have to do that otherwise it will be abused, they will say.

The result is by private do-what-you like internet becomes pushed out by a glut of free civil internet access.

Opt out for adults only?

[PPH]

What about Slashdotters?

I'm going to have a temper tantrum right here until I get my way.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[toadlife]

I'd rather get my health care and owe a huge pile of cash than not receive health care at all.

That's called socialized health care, only it's handled through the bankruptcy courts. With the exception of some cases like cancer (where you *will* be denied treatment and allowed to die if you can't pay) the U.S. already has free health care. It seems to me that we should just admit so and focus on making it work more efficiently.

Functions of the Federal Government

[rlp]

It's amazing all the things that are now a function of the federal government: wireless internet access, banking, insurance, the auto industry ...

Re:Functions of the Federal Government

[JSBiff]

To be fair, this proposal isn't the Fed government providing access. It's a proposal to give some company a block of spectrum (I think for free) with the requirement that the company provide some kind of free Internet access using part of the spectrum, and they would be allowed to provide a 'premium' internet service which they would charge for with the rest of the spectrum. So what you would probably get is free Internet access at probably very low speeds, with 1/2 of the web 'filtered', along with, I bet, things like games, P2P file sharing, etc, also filtered, or you can pay $50-$80/mo for full, high-speed access.

Re:house full of teenage girls

[Anonymous Coward]

I seen it on a webcam. It's on 24/7.

lol

snicker

chortle

tee-hee

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[TrekkieGod]

Government screws up everything it touches. Roads...

You actually think that you would have ANY TYPE of road system without the government? Private roads with tolls in places with enough traffic for there to be a profit. How do you GET there?

And if you just built roads leading to private roads, you'd never achieve something like the interstate system. The cost of investment is just too high for one company, and too expensive to travel over if you need to pay a different toll every time you get to a section owned by a different owner.

...military...

We should hire Blackwater to handle that stuff for us!

...mail...

When the hell hasn't the mail been both cheap and reliable? What's your beef with it?

I'm not advocating zero government here, but we need to be wary about giving the government more work to do on such basic services. The opportunities for corruption (intentional or due to negligence) are immense here.

I agree, but you picked the wrong examples there. You picked just the right services that I wouldn't want anybody BUT the government to provide (well, maybe not mail these days. At one point, it was quite necessary. You wouldn't have a private company delivering to a rural area).

Public WiFi

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to say that if the federal government wanted to provide internet access they should handle it like the interstate system where local authorities received the funding and contracted the service out. This way it wouldn't need to be placed through the FCC (internet, cheap cable, and sattelite radio will make the FCC usesless in 15 years, which is why it's looking for a new technology to govern so it can stop losing importance.)

But then I remebered how the federal government has already missued the interstate funding authority to impose illegal age discrimation laws in all 50 U.S.

No thanks, keep the federal government out of any services industry other than those that are armed. The federal government wields enough power over its population as it is...

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Anonymous Coward]

Government screws up everything it touches. Roads, military (talk to someone in the military and you'll get a million stories), mail, everything.

What's wrong with the US mail? For a few coins I can drop an envelope in a box and in a few days have it hand delivered to someone a thousand miles away.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Garrett Fox]

Health care is not a right under our laws or the philosophy behind them, and in fact there is no Constitutional authority for government-provided health care in the US. Any federal government program that provides health care outside of some "necessary and proper" function of one of its actual powers, eg. providing health care to soldiers as part of maintaining an army, is illegal. "Free" Internet access is just a more egregious example of such an abuse of power.

All I care about is...

[hamburgler007]

...will they throttle my torrent usage?

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Garrett Fox]

I agree that such a proposal probably would get substantial support from both parties and maybe even from a majority of citizens. However, it would be unconstitutional unless done through a Constitutional amendment. (Ditto for "free" Internet access.) That's an angle of debate that is unfortunately outside the mainstream.

($5000K/person health insurance? That's almost enough to get the Six Million Dollar Man upgrade! =) )

By Neruos

[Anonymous Coward]

SSI, social security insurance, insurance is for when something can no longer happen due to an known/unknown reason. It SHOULD be called insurance. The government will not be lossing money on SSI, SSI will be around for a long time and will continue to be there for all those who pay in to it.

Let's just take an example from the $600 billion USD wallstreet/bank loans, they are loans, the government isn't giving them that money free of charge. It's like any other note, it will have interest and a time line. At the low end, Fed gives out 600 bil, and gets back 900 bil over the next 30 years.

People please learn some economics before posting on the doomsday end of everything that comes out.

I take it your torrenting porn right now?

[jonaskoelker]

People will absorb ANY amount of bandwidth if it's free.

Right now, all I'm using is a little HTTP here and there to browse slashdot.

I have plenty of things to do before I'll just chill out and watch some video. When I do, I have plenty of video queued up. Once it looks like I run out, I'll probably download some more. While I download the newest open movie from the blender project, I'll happily entertain myself with work, Guitar Hero III or hacking on compiz/network-manager/synergy2.

When I'm out of the house, sure it'd be nice to stream music off my home server to my portable music player, but it's not a hard requirement. Besides, if I know I'll be out for long, I'll bring my laptop and play off of ~/cache.

I'd like to have semi-reasonable browsing and ssh speeds everywhere I go, though, but then I'll shut up and be happy.

ssh is your friend

[jonaskoelker]

Out on the road? Want to download the newest HD episode of your show? Ya, you're going to want to get a connection from a paid-for ISP.

Find the torrent on the FCC connection, ssh into your home server, and run rtorrent or some other command-line torrent client in your screen session to grab the file.

Besides, I hope you were not planning to watch HD on your 14" laptop screen ;)

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[jonaskoelker]

Right now I fail to see the pros outweighing the cons when it comes to govt-controlled health care.

Come to Denmark for a while. Get sick. Spend the summer in the hospital. You'll be happy that you didn't ruin yourself and your family. You'll be happy that your parents didn't have to drain your college fund. Not that they'd have one for you, seeing not only how is education free, but also how you get paid to take it.

Yeah, we pay taxes for it. So what? We live a happy life over here. There's data that's only a few years old putting us as the number one Happy Nation (with apologies to Ace of Base). I think we're still doing well on that measure.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Jaeph]

"You sound like someone without a pre-existing condition."

I have crohn's disease. It put me in the hospital twice, and I need to buy supplies for the rest of my life.

-Jeff

The end of the Telco as we know it.

[Donovon]

The Telcos would surely shoot down any national free internet out of self preservation.

OTOH free IP telephony is one heck of a competition booster.

=-D

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Jaeph]

The current situation re:insurance is brought about by over-regulation coupled with lawyers running wild. While I grant that govt control will put a lid on the latter issue, the former will simply get worse.

"Certain people in power want you to believe competent government cant exist, but it does all over the world."

Hah. Every last one of them has huge failings that people overlook. For example, on slashdot today there was a story about the education system failures in the UK, which certainly mirrors my observations in the US, and I presume elsewhere.

Govt screws everything up. In the case of a military, there isn't much choice (mercenaries are a far worse solution, historically). But we need to be very careful about what we shove under government control.

"Republicans love to sell you on this line because it helps their corporate masters make more money and provides an excuse for their corruption in office."

In your words, bull. For the record, I am not a republican, and resent the inference. Furthermore, both parties are in the pockets of corporations - e.g. fannie and freddie gave more money to his majesty Barak Obama than the evil McCain. The dems also have ties to organized cri...er, I mean the sweet and cuddly unions, but there's only good there, right?

But it's not just corporations, it's our civil rights that get screwed up as well. Obama voted for FISA (after saying he wouldn't) right along with the republicans. Many democrats also joined the republicans to vote for the pseudo-war in Iraq.

Both parties want you to believe that they can do for you better than you can yourself. Both parties pander to the public by promising free suff. Both parties are simply in it for the power, not for our own good.

-Jeff

Web Access of Last Resort

[Plekto]

I completely agree. While it might work, CDMA phone type speeds(think 28.8K modem speeds) and bandwidth issues would cripple it. Yes, I know what they propose is supposedly faster than that. But, we're talking dial-up modem speeds for most of the web, though, since binary data like jpegs and so on can't be compressed. And the speeds that they list for wireless and dial-up modems assume/ed a best-case ASCII only HTML scenario. Take a 64K modem and dump a torrent through it and watch it crawl at 3-4K a second.(cell phones do this as well if you have a wireless card in your computer)

Think of it as a open wireless router in every cell phone cell(I can't imagine they would place them any other locations due to zoning and permits). I've seen nonsense like this myself and it's largely worthless in practice.

Yes, you can get on. Yay. Too bad even Slashdot takes a full minute to load...

You're Misinterpreting the Constitution

[OakLEE]

First, IAAL, take it for what it's worth. Second, by saying the following, I am in no way attempting to disparage the welfare state, or suggest that it is unconstitutional. In fact, there is plenty of case law suggesting it is. (Google "Lochner Era" and "economic substantive due process" if you want to find it.

That said, your reading of the Constitution is wrong.

The Preamble neither limits or grants any power to any branch of the Federal government. The Supreme Court has read it that way for the last hundred years. Source.

Article I Section 8 only gives the Federal government power to tax and spend for the general welfare:

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The clause is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power. Any taxing and spending must be consistent with the rest of the Constitution. The clause does not give Congress any power to legislate any law it wants for the common welfare. Source.

Misinterpreting the efficacy of the preamble is understandable, even I had to look that up. But as for Art. I Sec. 8, if you are going to try to interpret the Constitution, at least read it! The limitations of the power are right in the text.

Why censor when you can monitor?

[OakLEE]

I don't mean to put on my tinfoil hat, but why would the government want to censor when they can just start logging people's browsing histories at the router level.

At least right now (in theory) they have get a warrant to force an ISP to turn over it's history logs. But if they controlled the internet backbone they could just monitor and store logs of every website or IP you access.

Just imagine what power you could wield if you could threaten anyone with a public release of the list of porn sites (or other skeevy stuff) he or she has visted.

Re:The only popular socialism in america

[bussdriver]

The only politically accepted socialism in America is corporate socialism (and I'm not just talking about the recent bailout; it has been the largest 'welfare' expense of them all - for over a generation too.)

Wrong approach?

[JSBiff]

These Muni Wi-Fi projects that are failing by the dozen - I've always wondered. . . "Why Wi-Fi"? WiFi was never intended to be a very wide area technology. Its meant for a house or small office, or a small sub-volume of a larger building (that is, it's not uncommon to need more than one *per-building* in large buildings like office buildings, hotels, hospitals, libraries, etc.

Seems to me that if you want to roll out municipal high-speed wireless access, you need something like 3G Mobile Telco networks. Those, by their nature, are *designed* to work as reliably as they are able to pull off, in a very wide area, without needing the excessive number of access points that you need for Muni WiFi. But wait, we *already have those*. Yeah, they're kinda expensive right now. Maybe the FCC could just look into price-fixing/gouging in the mobile telecom industry.

Still, my point is, I think that WiFi is just the wrong answer to the whole city-wide wireless internet question. I think the engineers that developed the 3G tech standards have solved the municipal wireless problem, mostly, it's just a matter of getting that wireless data connection reasonably priced so people can afford it. For example, the FCC could look into the nonsense of mobile telcos requiring a seperate data plan for your laptop than your cell phone. If I'm paying for wireless data bandwidth, what does it matter what device I use it on, I'm paying for the bandwidth? Don't allow the telcos to force the customer to pay twice. Don't allow them to charge such exorbitant rates for data (for an example, see AT&T DataConnect Plan Pricing; they charge $40/mo for a 50MB limit, or $60/mo for 5GB - I mean, if the actual cost of the data connection were in anywhere approaching a scale to the price you pay, AT&T could never afford to let you jump to 100 TIMES more data for a mere 20 dollars, so they just obviously charge you whatever the hell they want).

The absolute fastest and easiest way to get wireless internet access out to the country and have it be affordable is to simply put an end to this price-gouging crap by the mobile telcos.

Re:Wrong approach?

[jbolden]

You have a good point about there already being a system. But that system was expensive to create. The whole theory of wifi is that it is cheap. If it isn't then the basis for the theory is wrong.

What you are describing is more like nationalization of a major utility.

Paranoia...

[iztehsux]

Absolutely genius. Why bother spying on everyone when you have a giant free wifi network run by the government? I'm sure the NSA would love this idea.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Planesdragon]

Certain people in power want you to believe competent government cant exist, but it does all over the world. Republicans love to sell you on this line because it helps their corporate masters make more money and provides an excuse for their corruption in office

Oddly, they're right in everything but the pivotal subject.

A bureaucracy invariably makes things more complex, and has an innate ability to screw things up. This is true if the bureau is public (see: DMV, INS, CIA, NASA) or private (see: Microsoft, GM, Ford, Citibank).

The pivotal question is "is this something best done by a single actor" -- such as, oh, licensing drivers on the road or deciding who's a lawyer and who isn't. If so, then it should be government. If not, then it should be private -- because you can always compete with a private entity, but you can rarely compete with the government.

("Rarely"? Yep. See: USPS v. FedEx/UPS)

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[jcnnghm]

I can't wait to give all of my money to the government so they can provide me with all of this free shit. Wait... And it will be shit, take a look at the public schools for proof of that.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[gacl]

Health care is indeed a right. You can go to other countries and get treatment for anything without paying a cent. My aunt's ex-husband moved to Venezuela for that very reason. After developing some strange condition here in the US he realized that it was actually impossible to pay for the treatment. In this country if you have no money it is expected that you'll just lay down and die. He's well now, by the way. And i think he's staying there for good. . . for obvious reasons.

Like Long Island's Wi-Fi Plans

[gacl]

This reminds me of the Long Island Wi-Fi project. It's pretty much dead.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone screws up everything everyone touches.

Why not give people something?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to say, as a working American, living in a rural community where typical ISP's don't give a rats ass about us; this will be a welcome change.

I pay my taxes, I work, I rent my home, and I am willing to PAY for internet. However, Why am I paying $22/mo for Dial-up, when AT&T customers get DSL for $15/mo? Time Warner told me that my house was 1/2 mile too far, and they would not run a cable.

Verizon said - well, it can be done (DSL), but since we cannot guarantee the speed (1.5Mbit) then we won't do that.

I don't care how fast it is, as long as I have something. Dial-up is too slow for daily use(Vista updates anyone) and businesses won't drop in DSL willingly.

I wish for two wishes

[tiananmen tank man]

Hey, why wish for free internet. Instead wish for free unfiltered internet.

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

[Anonymous Coward]

...and "free" healthcare, welfare, social security.

The country worked just fine for a few years without all the "FREE STUFF!!!11!1!!" I'm pretty sure it can last a few more.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[jbolden]

We had something like this with the bureau of public health back around the WWI days. Why do you think it would unconstitutional today where government's role is seen as even larger?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Censoring

[logjon]

As soon as I saw the headline I knew it was coming: "The plan would involve some level of filtering"

Re:This isn't the Internet - it's filter data acce

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, your post certainly wont be accessible :P

I know it's not required

[Nicolas MONNET]

Hence the use of the word "opportunity" instead of "requirement."

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[rabiddeity]

You do realize the USPS hasn't been government-run for quite some time now, right?

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[characterZer0]

First of all, there is a distinction between "health care" and "health care insurance".

I really do not understand what the problem is.

I have had health care insurance through three different companies in the US. I have had to use it a lot - I have been admitted to the hospital on average once every year and a half or so. I have only ever had one dispute with the insurance company about their payment, and the doctor did a bit of advocacy on my behalf and the insurance company paid for it. What is covered is pretty clearly spelled out, and when it is not clear enough, you have to work it out. Just like any contract. They cannot simply not pay, because the policy says they will.

And if a company gets into too many fights with its customers, it loses customers to other companies who have better practices. Such is the beauty of a sensibly regulated free market.

Ain't going to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

And in related news, Republicans (pro-business, anti-government) like Kevin Martin stop giving a damn what big business wants and suggests government compete with the private sector.

Sorry folks, the leopard doesn't change its spots. Kevin Martin has political ambitions and when he runs he wants to talk about all the pro-consumer things he'll claim he tried to do while FCC chair, not all the pro-business things he actually did.

Re:USA where Internet is a right and Heathcare isn

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally haven't had access to any of the European health care you talk about, but I do know a guy who has employees in Canada and the US. One of his employees in Canada had a wife that needed an operation, because she didn't have a job she was way down on the list (meaning that she would probably not ever gotten the operation). The employer ended up transferring his employee to the US for a couple of years so his wife could have the operation and get through rehab. I don't want to live in a country where the government decides who gets health care and who doesn't.

GOV'T. is a body of HIRED EMPLOYEES: Not masters

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sure there is a lot of waste in government, but you get a lot more benefit then you are giving them credit for" - by nurb432 (527695) on Monday December 01, @11:56AM (#25946623) Homepage

The BIGGEST WASTE I place @ the head of leadership, in "Giorgo Bushby & Darth Cheney" - with great power comes great responsibility, & that's that - you screw it up as those 2 have? They ought to take the blame. I say we garnish their wages & holdings totally & that of their families as well for generations to offset the debt their outright stupidity & war profiteering have caused.

----

"You ever eat food that didn't kill you ? (FDA), or drink water? How about housing the hard core criminals in prison?

Does it snow in your area? Plows are a nice thing to have." - by nurb432 (527695) on Monday December 01, @11:56AM (#25946623) Homepage

Wait a friggin' second - they are OUR EMPLOYEES, & nothing more... they are not our "generous masters" whom are throwing crumbs from their tables to us, first of all, so please - don't even TRY to make it "come off like that", because I for one, took it that way!

Hey... that is their JOB! They are not royalty, they are not masters, & WE are NOT THEIR SERVANTS... they, are ours. That is their DUTY!

Now, WTF should I be thanking them for, when they are elected officials, simply HIRED help basically, to provide such things AND with any taxpayer's money?

(That's their job to provide the things you list & more, and with YOUR money (it's NOT theirs))

Give us a break!

Especially when "Giorgo Bushby & Darth Cheney" plus all of their "no traditional bid for the job Haliburton cronies" spent COUNTLESS BILLIONS on a war, rather than the things you noted, & far more, that is needed internally/domestically, instead.

NO Net Neutrality

[kieblerh]

yea im sure they government would love to offer you free internet that they can filter and monitor as much as they want. If they want to filter it they can keep it.

ALWAYS... is a BIG word

[Anonymous Coward]

ALWAYS, is a BIG word (& not usually advisable to utilize in debate, as there are always multiple answers to many given situations, especially when it is a complex situation, as in multivariate calculus or linear optimization - always "outliers" & exceptions, if not just multiple possible answers, some more "optimal" than others, in diff. situation &/or conditions)

APK