Thursday, October 25, 2007
Give Us Wi-Fi
Wi-Fi for all. Thats something i agree with and i hope more and more people fight for it. I believe that Wi-Fi will help this country gain some ground in the digital revolution race. We are behind other country's and there is no reason we should, but one reason is the political garbage that goes on over companies and money.
Reading the article by Robert MacMillan about the future of Wi-Fi and how it will be the next great issue to hit the supreme court got me thinking. Why does Optimum Online charge $40 a month plus tax for access to the internet? The internet was originally designed as free ware yet we have a few major companies charging us for it. But in order to be constantly connected, we must pay. Thus a constant flow of money into their pockets and for what? I have a cable modem and the service they provide for me is something you cant even see! It comes through my almost 30 year old cable wires.
We are not paying for the internet but rather access to it, and yes some companies have better set ups and offer faster speed but you cant tell me it cost Optimum Online $40+ to run the internet to my house. And now these companies are getting annoyed that certain city's and towns are talking about basically free internet access for anyone with a PC. This is called Wi-Fi. certain stores and chains offer free Wi-Fi in their buildings such as Starbucks and even Macdonald's, yes you can get a big mac as you download your music.
I think this is good and the only con is that if Wi-Fi does catch on in city's and towns across the nation, competition may be lost and service may suffer. But then again, there is no real competition now between ISPs its either $40 or more a month. If internet access was offered for free or at low cost i would be on board and i know any other American who isn't so oblivious to the robbery thats going on would be too.
Reading the article by Robert MacMillan about the future of Wi-Fi and how it will be the next great issue to hit the supreme court got me thinking. Why does Optimum Online charge $40 a month plus tax for access to the internet? The internet was originally designed as free ware yet we have a few major companies charging us for it. But in order to be constantly connected, we must pay. Thus a constant flow of money into their pockets and for what? I have a cable modem and the service they provide for me is something you cant even see! It comes through my almost 30 year old cable wires.
We are not paying for the internet but rather access to it, and yes some companies have better set ups and offer faster speed but you cant tell me it cost Optimum Online $40+ to run the internet to my house. And now these companies are getting annoyed that certain city's and towns are talking about basically free internet access for anyone with a PC. This is called Wi-Fi. certain stores and chains offer free Wi-Fi in their buildings such as Starbucks and even Macdonald's, yes you can get a big mac as you download your music.
I think this is good and the only con is that if Wi-Fi does catch on in city's and towns across the nation, competition may be lost and service may suffer. But then again, there is no real competition now between ISPs its either $40 or more a month. If internet access was offered for free or at low cost i would be on board and i know any other American who isn't so oblivious to the robbery thats going on would be too.
Comments:
<< Home
A very good discussion.
What should the role of government be in these markets? Should governments compete with private corporations in the broadband market? In areas that do not have service because there is not enough profit involved then government should be stepping in to subsidize access. The controversey arises in areas where government intervention would threaten corporate profits.
Post a Comment
What should the role of government be in these markets? Should governments compete with private corporations in the broadband market? In areas that do not have service because there is not enough profit involved then government should be stepping in to subsidize access. The controversey arises in areas where government intervention would threaten corporate profits.
<< Home
