You first said "teach" and then "lead". Teach they do - they teach kids to not waste ammo, to aim for the body center and to keep scanning for new targets quickly. They do teach how to kill more efficiently.
Actually, most frag-fests tend to glorify the headshot and the absolute wasting of ammo. Part of why I don't like them. They do teach scanning for targets, however. Now actual light-gun type games can teach a bit of pistol marksmanship...I'm still convinced I learned everything I needed to know about firing a pistol from Time Crisis. I used to play gun games in the arcade every now and again, and having never fired any firearm in my life, I hit 20 out of 20 targets my first time shooting a pistol in the army. Went on to shoot best in my company in basic as well. But if you're doing your aiming with a mouse or controller, I can't imagine you're really getting all that much from it.
But, even assuming a game can teach a kid how to kill more efficiently, what society should really be looking into is what is making them *want* to, dontcha think?
Side note: For those thinking that I would have been firing a rifle rather than a pistol in basic training, I was in the one enlisted specialty (Armor Crewman) that I know of that qualifies on M9 pistol rather than M16 rifle (some others do both). I was in the army for 3 years before I ever fired a real bullet from a rifle. And I sucked at it.
Which brings up an additional point...if we want to ban video games because they can make kids more effective killers, shouldn't underage hunting go with it? That teaches kids quite literally how to kill, and vastly improves their marskmanship as well.
The only thing this guy says that I can really get behind is that we need to restrict the sale of violent video games to minors. I firmly believe that developers have the right to make games like GTA or Manhunt, much the same way directors have the right to make games like Pulp Fiction or Goodfellas. But I don't believe that minors have any right whatsoever to buy them. I was once the manager at a video store, and I think I was thought of as a ratings nazi, because if you weren't 18, and your parents weren't okay with it, you weren't renting it. Simple.
The problem, of course, is that you can make it absolutely impossible for kids to buy these games and they'll still get them, because the average parent is too damn stupid to know that GTA may or may not be appropriate for their 10-year-old. There is this idea that the over-40 set has stuck in their head that *videogames are automatically for kids*...same way cartoons are automatically for kids. They can't grasp the idea of either one being made with adults as an intended audience. I was working at said video store when GTA:III first came out. I told every parent whose kid convinced them to rent the game for them, whether they solicited my advice or not, that it might not be appropriate. Most were like, "what, is there some swearing or violence in it?" I would reply the same every time: "You can beat hookers to death with a baseball bat to get back the money you gave them to have sex with you in the back of the car, which you stole from an old man who you also beat to death with a baseball bat."
Nine out of ten put it back. Parents just don't get it. Maybe if the game industry had paid whatever the MPAA was more than likely asking to use their ratings scheme it would sink in a little better...parents see an "R" rating and they think 16 or 17 and up. They see "M" and they think 10 or 11 and up. Because again, videogames are just for kids, right?
My opinion is that violent movies can have nearly as much effect on kids as games, but you don't see a push to ban violent movies. It's not hard to figure out why this is, of course...lawmakers actually watch violent movies. They don't tend to play games. I think ten years from now when the videogame generation starts getting elected to office (if they get up of the couch and run, that is!), maybe this will finally become the non-issue it should be...because the people in office will actually understand that videogames aren't much different from movies, and that violent players are the rare exception, not the rule.
On a final note, I am so damn sick of hearing video games being blamed for Columbine. Nobody seems to think that maybe the way kids treat each other, combined with general lack of give-a-damn from parents and faculty, combined with relatively easy access to guns that led to that incident. The video games were just an excellent scapegoat.
It doesn't make sense that I can chat with my friends halfway around the world on my PC but get totally reamed when I call home to talk to my Mom. I just helped a charity switch to VoIP and now the biggest cost in their organization is now budgetable, they actually know how much they are going to pay each month.
The US military finally figured this one out too, and awarded a contract to provide VoIP phone centers on installations over here in Iraq, so we pay 4 cents a minute to call home rather than the 17 or so that AT&T was charging at their phone centers. Of course, the internet here is satellite based, so the lag sucks...but still nice nonetheless.
But, I don't want to be associated with the rabid fans of OSS...the ones who talk about how Microsoft is 'evil' in our planning meetings.
But Microsoft *IS* evil, aren't they?
The problem is, that isn't enough. Most people don't want to hear why they shouldn't use (insert product), they want to hear whey they *should* use (insert alternate product)...especially when the first product (in this case Microsoft software...or commercial software in general) has, for better or worse, become the standard.
This is, to me, the beauty of Firefox. It's one of the first open source products that performs just as well as the standard (IE), and is just as easy to use. It's polished. It's not just something for geeks to use...my mom uses it. Granted, I had to tell her about it, but then she got it, and she uses it. For the first time, non-commercial software is beating out commercial software for normal desktop users, not just geeks, not just servers. Now they have a product they *should* use, not just one they *shouldn't*.
The host computer can be moved offshore, but the phisher himself can still be nabbed as long as he stays in the US (or a country with an extradition treaty). As a few people pointed out on spammer thread the other day, not many of the crooks are willing to actually go live in Elbonia so they can hide from the law.
Bah. I hear Krapistan is absolutely beautiful this time of year. That, and their Prime Minister just died, leaving a sizable estate with no heir. Just think of the possibilities!
I'll second that point of view... it seems to me that even if the old laws somehow don't just make scamming in general illegal, then perhaps those laws should be adjusted so that they do.
First, there are many different ways to "scam," and the law, much like coding, is very syntax sensitive. So often times things need to be more specifically defined. In addition, you don't want any particular law to be so darn complex that trying it becomes that much more difficult, so often they break them up so they can just charge you with the part *you* broke. At least, thats how it has always seemed to me.
That way, we can have one law that says scamming people is illegal rather than one law that says scamming people over the phone is illegal and another for scamming people on the internet, and another for scamming people in person, etc...
One major difference between internet scamming (such as phishing) and, say, phone or in-person scamming is that the latter are very labor intensive, whereas the former can run more on auto-pilot. Kinda like foot soldiers vs. simply planting land-mines. Which leads into...
It's all the same crime - there's no reason to distinguish at the legal level, only in the methods of prosecution and gathering proof.
My guess is that they want to differentiate between phishing online and offline scamming because of the speed with which one can gather information illicitly on the internet. Otherwise generally it is better to wait until you have a victim (assuming we're talking non-violent crime, of course), because it makes it vastly easier to prosecute. Online, they can't afford to wait that long, both because you end up with far too many victims, and the perps can disappear (and reappear) much more quickly.
What most people here are complaining about are the situations where an area is not being served by a broadband provider, which is still significantly more than 50% of the US, yet would be prevented from setting up their own divisions to cover the need, because they would be threatening potential business that the broadband providers at some point in the future might want to exploit. But as most of the people in these areas have been waiting for years for coverage maps to bother with them, it seems perfectly acceptable for localities to choose to pick up the slack.
Are we talking 50% of the US population doesn't have _access_ to broadband...or just doesn't have broadband? If you mean access that seems kinda high...though I suppose it could be that bad.
Either way you still had a point. I think the problem is that many people who have broadband internet access can't imagine the idea that there are still people who simply don't have access to it, for any reasonable price (because satellite is way too expensive for Joe User). My parents didn't have any form of broadband access available to them at their house until last year...and they live right across town from me. And for a large percentage of households, they have only one choice for broadband access, which doesn't make for great competition. For instance, until recently I only had access to DSL (and only Qwest, at that), and my parents only had access to cable (again, from only one company: Bresnan).
Wow. Watch the free market work it's magic, eh?
Even in larger cities there is often only one provider serving a particular neighborhood, so at that point the competition sucks. So all this talk of keeping the government out of the market or letting the market work without government interference doesn't impress me.
Re:"Free" as in Routers are Purchased by Magic Elv
on
Free Wi-Fi Threatened?
·
· Score: 1
Or free as "Using Taxpayer Money" kind of free?
Well, most metro areas use taxpayer money to help build stadiums for profitable professional sports teams to play in. At least free wi-fi I might personally benefit from. I mean, if we're talking about "wasting" taxpayer money and all.
If it's the latter, have the taxpayers forking over the dough had any opportunity to vote how they wanted their money used, vis-a-vis large metro-area technology installations?
Well, if this is the issue you have with it, they more than likely elected the officials who are making this decision...or the officials that appointed those officials. And since our governments, even at the local level, tend to lean toward being a republic rather than democracy, that probably qualifies as good enough...or as good as you are likely to get on an issue this small (I doubt this is a significant portion of the city budget for the year or anything).
Basically, the electorate put into office the kind of people who would support such things as "free" (as in subsidized) wi-fi in their city. If they didn't know they were electing these kind of people, then they probably didn't bother to educate themselves as to the kind of people they were voting for...or didn't vote at all. In which case they have no bitch.
But now this is moving into an argument as to the kind of government that is best, rather that having much to do with wi-fi. Even a direct popular vote on such a thing would not be perfect. Example: the athletics fee levied at the university I attended (before I got activated, of course)...nearly a hundred dollars a year. Absolutely no way to get them taken off, at least according to the several officials I talked to in several departments. They were passed by a majority of the student body. They tell me that I benefit from this, because I can go to any MSU sporting event I want to for free (as long as they aren't sold out, of course...because season ticketholders STILL get priority). Have I ever gone to a game, or do I want to? Nope. But every person that voted "no" still has to pay for it.
This is, I believe, the same way many metros decide whether to use taxpayer money to build major-league stadiums...direct vote on something such as a sales-tax increase.
Again, at least "free" wi-fi is something I can get behind, and would make use of. And it's probably cheaper.
1) Has a computer
2) Is interested in Internet access
3) Can't afford $20 / month dial-up
4) Doesn't smoke
5) Doesn't drink
6) Doesn't use other recreational drugs
7) Doesn't have cable or satellite TV
8) Owns a car with the stock stereo system in it
9) Spends not more than I do on shoes (around $20 every 3 months)
10) Doesn't buy lottery tickets
Your list is a little off, because many of the people that free wi-fi would benefit are children of the parents who do the above, and thus have no power over these choice.
For instance, from my childhood:
1. We had a computer.
2. Um...yeah.
3. We could afford $20 dial-up, but barely. And my mom got pissed when I tied up the phone line, so I couldn't use it all that often.
4. My mom smoked. Tried to convince her not to. So what can I, as a child (but still a citizen being helped) do about this?
5. Same as 4...plus she didn't drink much.
6. Not that I know of.
7. Not everybody in metro areas bothers with these...in Phoenix we could get all the TV we needed with an antenna.
8. Even after I had a license, we had only one car, roughly 15 years old, an yeah, it still had a stock stereo.
9. I don't know exactly what we spent on shoes...but I know I usually only got 1-2 pairs per school year. I know I wasn't wearing Air Jordans(TM), if that's what you're getting at...maybe a 50 dollar pair of Simples (both because I liked them and they tended to last longer than most other shoes)
10. Nope. And even if my mom did, again see intro.
Remember, you make these blanket statements forgetting that there are kids in poor and/or single-parent households that should not be held responsible for the decisions (however poor) their parents make.
That and I think many people don't know what it's like to be poor and not have much control over it (such as being raised by a single mom on 15,000 or less a year...with no child support coming in from a deadbeat dad). Some parents do the best they know how and still can't provide better.
Seriously, that's who these free wi-fi projects would help the most in large urban areas...the kids of poor adults...not the poor adults themselves. Decide for yourself whether or not it's worth it. Having been one of those kids, I think it would be. Hell, and I didn't have it as bad as many.
The USA's Medicare program, health coverage for elderly and (I believe) poor, is significantly more efficient that the private sector. There are lots of numbers out there, but most of them show that the amount of money spent on administrative overhead by HMOs and other private health insurance corporations is 5 to 10 times higher than that spent on administrative overhead in Medicare.
I think a better example for socialized health care would be the military's health care system, since there the government is actually providing the medical care as well. I'll not be the first to say that army hospitals deliver quality that is consistantly poorer than what one would recieve in a civilian hospital. However, I can say that in the few years I spent in the army I got to actually recieve medical care close to a dozen times (actually more if you count all the visits for a broken bone individually)...and in my first 18 years of life as a member of the poorer percentile in this country I saw one maybe a couple times.
The point? Many socialized services are not up the the same standard as their private counterparts (whether we're talking about medical care, education, OR internet access). But a better service that one cannot afford access to provides the same net benefit as NO service at all. The question you have to as is should (insert service here) only be available to those that can afford it?
When we include such things as medical care in the picture, internet access doesn't seem as important. But lets forget about that for a minute. Those of us on that are a little better off seem to forget that there are large numbers of families that can't afford high-speed internet access. Hell, some can't afford a damn phone line (yes, there are people in this country with no home phone service), which precludes dial-up. Monthly bills that never stop are harder to afford than say a couple hundred bucks one time for a used computer and a wireless card, which is about all the average family would need for basic internet usage. Hell, you could probably put together a good enough computer from dumpster diving or garage sales for next to nothing, and just add a wireless card.
So what does internet access actually offer the poor that is worth subsidizing? Certainly makes it no harder to find a better job (whether it makes it easier is up for debate). Might help the kids with schoolwork (and certainly makes a cheap computer seem like a better investment when it's not an overpriced typewriters). Can't think of others off the top of my head right now...but I'm sure we could come up with more.
I think the best analogy I can think of here is that this feels like book publishers trying to keep the government from supporting libraries because it decreases their sales. Except for some reason I think the telcos and such will win this one.
Slashdot Mirror
You first said "teach" and then "lead". Teach they do - they teach kids to not waste ammo, to aim for the body center and to keep scanning for new targets quickly. They do teach how to kill more efficiently.
Actually, most frag-fests tend to glorify the headshot and the absolute wasting of ammo. Part of why I don't like them. They do teach scanning for targets, however. Now actual light-gun type games can teach a bit of pistol marksmanship...I'm still convinced I learned everything I needed to know about firing a pistol from Time Crisis. I used to play gun games in the arcade every now and again, and having never fired any firearm in my life, I hit 20 out of 20 targets my first time shooting a pistol in the army. Went on to shoot best in my company in basic as well. But if you're doing your aiming with a mouse or controller, I can't imagine you're really getting all that much from it.
But, even assuming a game can teach a kid how to kill more efficiently, what society should really be looking into is what is making them *want* to, dontcha think? Side note: For those thinking that I would have been firing a rifle rather than a pistol in basic training, I was in the one enlisted specialty (Armor Crewman) that I know of that qualifies on M9 pistol rather than M16 rifle (some others do both). I was in the army for 3 years before I ever fired a real bullet from a rifle. And I sucked at it.
Which brings up an additional point...if we want to ban video games because they can make kids more effective killers, shouldn't underage hunting go with it? That teaches kids quite literally how to kill, and vastly improves their marskmanship as well.
The only thing this guy says that I can really get behind is that we need to restrict the sale of violent video games to minors. I firmly believe that developers have the right to make games like GTA or Manhunt, much the same way directors have the right to make games like Pulp Fiction or Goodfellas. But I don't believe that minors have any right whatsoever to buy them. I was once the manager at a video store, and I think I was thought of as a ratings nazi, because if you weren't 18, and your parents weren't okay with it, you weren't renting it. Simple.
The problem, of course, is that you can make it absolutely impossible for kids to buy these games and they'll still get them, because the average parent is too damn stupid to know that GTA may or may not be appropriate for their 10-year-old. There is this idea that the over-40 set has stuck in their head that *videogames are automatically for kids*...same way cartoons are automatically for kids. They can't grasp the idea of either one being made with adults as an intended audience. I was working at said video store when GTA:III first came out. I told every parent whose kid convinced them to rent the game for them, whether they solicited my advice or not, that it might not be appropriate. Most were like, "what, is there some swearing or violence in it?" I would reply the same every time: "You can beat hookers to death with a baseball bat to get back the money you gave them to have sex with you in the back of the car, which you stole from an old man who you also beat to death with a baseball bat."
Nine out of ten put it back. Parents just don't get it. Maybe if the game industry had paid whatever the MPAA was more than likely asking to use their ratings scheme it would sink in a little better...parents see an "R" rating and they think 16 or 17 and up. They see "M" and they think 10 or 11 and up. Because again, videogames are just for kids, right?
My opinion is that violent movies can have nearly as much effect on kids as games, but you don't see a push to ban violent movies. It's not hard to figure out why this is, of course...lawmakers actually watch violent movies. They don't tend to play games. I think ten years from now when the videogame generation starts getting elected to office (if they get up of the couch and run, that is!), maybe this will finally become the non-issue it should be...because the people in office will actually understand that videogames aren't much different from movies, and that violent players are the rare exception, not the rule.
On a final note, I am so damn sick of hearing video games being blamed for Columbine. Nobody seems to think that maybe the way kids treat each other, combined with general lack of give-a-damn from parents and faculty, combined with relatively easy access to guns that led to that incident. The video games were just an excellent scapegoat.
It doesn't make sense that I can chat with my friends halfway around the world on my PC but get totally reamed when I call home to talk to my Mom. I just helped a charity switch to VoIP and now the biggest cost in their organization is now budgetable, they actually know how much they are going to pay each month.
The US military finally figured this one out too, and awarded a contract to provide VoIP phone centers on installations over here in Iraq, so we pay 4 cents a minute to call home rather than the 17 or so that AT&T was charging at their phone centers. Of course, the internet here is satellite based, so the lag sucks...but still nice nonetheless.
But, I don't want to be associated with the rabid fans of OSS...the ones who talk about how Microsoft is 'evil' in our planning meetings.
But Microsoft *IS* evil, aren't they?
The problem is, that isn't enough. Most people don't want to hear why they shouldn't use (insert product), they want to hear whey they *should* use (insert alternate product)...especially when the first product (in this case Microsoft software...or commercial software in general) has, for better or worse, become the standard.
This is, to me, the beauty of Firefox. It's one of the first open source products that performs just as well as the standard (IE), and is just as easy to use. It's polished. It's not just something for geeks to use...my mom uses it. Granted, I had to tell her about it, but then she got it, and she uses it. For the first time, non-commercial software is beating out commercial software for normal desktop users, not just geeks, not just servers. Now they have a product they *should* use, not just one they *shouldn't*.
The host computer can be moved offshore, but the phisher himself can still be nabbed as long as he stays in the US (or a country with an extradition treaty). As a few people pointed out on spammer thread the other day, not many of the crooks are willing to actually go live in Elbonia so they can hide from the law.
Bah. I hear Krapistan is absolutely beautiful this time of year. That, and their Prime Minister just died, leaving a sizable estate with no heir. Just think of the possibilities!
I'll second that point of view... it seems to me that even if the old laws somehow don't just make scamming in general illegal, then perhaps those laws should be adjusted so that they do.
First, there are many different ways to "scam," and the law, much like coding, is very syntax sensitive. So often times things need to be more specifically defined. In addition, you don't want any particular law to be so darn complex that trying it becomes that much more difficult, so often they break them up so they can just charge you with the part *you* broke. At least, thats how it has always seemed to me.
That way, we can have one law that says scamming people is illegal rather than one law that says scamming people over the phone is illegal and another for scamming people on the internet, and another for scamming people in person, etc...
One major difference between internet scamming (such as phishing) and, say, phone or in-person scamming is that the latter are very labor intensive, whereas the former can run more on auto-pilot. Kinda like foot soldiers vs. simply planting land-mines. Which leads into...
It's all the same crime - there's no reason to distinguish at the legal level, only in the methods of prosecution and gathering proof.
My guess is that they want to differentiate between phishing online and offline scamming because of the speed with which one can gather information illicitly on the internet. Otherwise generally it is better to wait until you have a victim (assuming we're talking non-violent crime, of course), because it makes it vastly easier to prosecute. Online, they can't afford to wait that long, both because you end up with far too many victims, and the perps can disappear (and reappear) much more quickly.
What most people here are complaining about are the situations where an area is not being served by a broadband provider, which is still significantly more than 50% of the US, yet would be prevented from setting up their own divisions to cover the need, because they would be threatening potential business that the broadband providers at some point in the future might want to exploit. But as most of the people in these areas have been waiting for years for coverage maps to bother with them, it seems perfectly acceptable for localities to choose to pick up the slack.
Are we talking 50% of the US population doesn't have _access_ to broadband...or just doesn't have broadband? If you mean access that seems kinda high...though I suppose it could be that bad.
Either way you still had a point. I think the problem is that many people who have broadband internet access can't imagine the idea that there are still people who simply don't have access to it, for any reasonable price (because satellite is way too expensive for Joe User). My parents didn't have any form of broadband access available to them at their house until last year...and they live right across town from me. And for a large percentage of households, they have only one choice for broadband access, which doesn't make for great competition. For instance, until recently I only had access to DSL (and only Qwest, at that), and my parents only had access to cable (again, from only one company: Bresnan).
Wow. Watch the free market work it's magic, eh?
Even in larger cities there is often only one provider serving a particular neighborhood, so at that point the competition sucks. So all this talk of keeping the government out of the market or letting the market work without government interference doesn't impress me.
Or free as "Using Taxpayer Money" kind of free?
Well, most metro areas use taxpayer money to help build stadiums for profitable professional sports teams to play in. At least free wi-fi I might personally benefit from. I mean, if we're talking about "wasting" taxpayer money and all.
If it's the latter, have the taxpayers forking over the dough had any opportunity to vote how they wanted their money used, vis-a-vis large metro-area technology installations?
Well, if this is the issue you have with it, they more than likely elected the officials who are making this decision...or the officials that appointed those officials. And since our governments, even at the local level, tend to lean toward being a republic rather than democracy, that probably qualifies as good enough...or as good as you are likely to get on an issue this small (I doubt this is a significant portion of the city budget for the year or anything).
Basically, the electorate put into office the kind of people who would support such things as "free" (as in subsidized) wi-fi in their city. If they didn't know they were electing these kind of people, then they probably didn't bother to educate themselves as to the kind of people they were voting for...or didn't vote at all. In which case they have no bitch.
But now this is moving into an argument as to the kind of government that is best, rather that having much to do with wi-fi. Even a direct popular vote on such a thing would not be perfect. Example: the athletics fee levied at the university I attended (before I got activated, of course)...nearly a hundred dollars a year. Absolutely no way to get them taken off, at least according to the several officials I talked to in several departments. They were passed by a majority of the student body. They tell me that I benefit from this, because I can go to any MSU sporting event I want to for free (as long as they aren't sold out, of course...because season ticketholders STILL get priority). Have I ever gone to a game, or do I want to? Nope. But every person that voted "no" still has to pay for it.
This is, I believe, the same way many metros decide whether to use taxpayer money to build major-league stadiums...direct vote on something such as a sales-tax increase.
Again, at least "free" wi-fi is something I can get behind, and would make use of. And it's probably cheaper.
Show me a 'poor' person / family who:
1) Has a computer
2) Is interested in Internet access
3) Can't afford $20 / month dial-up
4) Doesn't smoke
5) Doesn't drink
6) Doesn't use other recreational drugs
7) Doesn't have cable or satellite TV
8) Owns a car with the stock stereo system in it
9) Spends not more than I do on shoes (around $20 every 3 months)
10) Doesn't buy lottery tickets
Your list is a little off, because many of the people that free wi-fi would benefit are children of the parents who do the above, and thus have no power over these choice.
For instance, from my childhood:
1. We had a computer.
2. Um...yeah.
3. We could afford $20 dial-up, but barely. And my mom got pissed when I tied up the phone line, so I couldn't use it all that often.
4. My mom smoked. Tried to convince her not to. So what can I, as a child (but still a citizen being helped) do about this?
5. Same as 4...plus she didn't drink much.
6. Not that I know of.
7. Not everybody in metro areas bothers with these...in Phoenix we could get all the TV we needed with an antenna.
8. Even after I had a license, we had only one car, roughly 15 years old, an yeah, it still had a stock stereo.
9. I don't know exactly what we spent on shoes...but I know I usually only got 1-2 pairs per school year. I know I wasn't wearing Air Jordans(TM), if that's what you're getting at...maybe a 50 dollar pair of Simples (both because I liked them and they tended to last longer than most other shoes)
10. Nope. And even if my mom did, again see intro.
Remember, you make these blanket statements forgetting that there are kids in poor and/or single-parent households that should not be held responsible for the decisions (however poor) their parents make.
That and I think many people don't know what it's like to be poor and not have much control over it (such as being raised by a single mom on 15,000 or less a year...with no child support coming in from a deadbeat dad). Some parents do the best they know how and still can't provide better.
Seriously, that's who these free wi-fi projects would help the most in large urban areas...the kids of poor adults...not the poor adults themselves. Decide for yourself whether or not it's worth it. Having been one of those kids, I think it would be. Hell, and I didn't have it as bad as many.
The USA's Medicare program, health coverage for elderly and (I believe) poor, is significantly more efficient that the private sector. There are lots of numbers out there, but most of them show that the amount of money spent on administrative overhead by HMOs and other private health insurance corporations is 5 to 10 times higher than that spent on administrative overhead in Medicare.
I think a better example for socialized health care would be the military's health care system, since there the government is actually providing the medical care as well. I'll not be the first to say that army hospitals deliver quality that is consistantly poorer than what one would recieve in a civilian hospital. However, I can say that in the few years I spent in the army I got to actually recieve medical care close to a dozen times (actually more if you count all the visits for a broken bone individually)...and in my first 18 years of life as a member of the poorer percentile in this country I saw one maybe a couple times.
The point? Many socialized services are not up the the same standard as their private counterparts (whether we're talking about medical care, education, OR internet access). But a better service that one cannot afford access to provides the same net benefit as NO service at all. The question you have to as is should (insert service here) only be available to those that can afford it?
When we include such things as medical care in the picture, internet access doesn't seem as important. But lets forget about that for a minute. Those of us on that are a little better off seem to forget that there are large numbers of families that can't afford high-speed internet access. Hell, some can't afford a damn phone line (yes, there are people in this country with no home phone service), which precludes dial-up. Monthly bills that never stop are harder to afford than say a couple hundred bucks one time for a used computer and a wireless card, which is about all the average family would need for basic internet usage. Hell, you could probably put together a good enough computer from dumpster diving or garage sales for next to nothing, and just add a wireless card.
So what does internet access actually offer the poor that is worth subsidizing? Certainly makes it no harder to find a better job (whether it makes it easier is up for debate). Might help the kids with schoolwork (and certainly makes a cheap computer seem like a better investment when it's not an overpriced typewriters). Can't think of others off the top of my head right now...but I'm sure we could come up with more.
I think the best analogy I can think of here is that this feels like book publishers trying to keep the government from supporting libraries because it decreases their sales. Except for some reason I think the telcos and such will win this one.