said by pnh102 :

It is also called the truth.

Internet access, like a Bentley, is a luxury item. People lived for thousands of years without Bentleys or Internet access, and they will continue to do so.

They also shield taxpayers from paying more and more money for a venture that the local government shouldn't be doing anyway. I say that is a good tradeoff.

I have some friends of mine who use 3G as their primary broadband provider because they cannot get DSL or cable where they are. I am certain they are not the only people who do this either. In a sense, whether or not it was intended, 3G is being used as a replacement for wired broadband.

said by factchecker :

Still hyperbole.

said by factchecker :

For example, the number of HR departments that will accept paper applications is declining. In fact, most employers now list only on their own HR websites and no longer in print media.

Wanna get a manual for an appliance? Most manufacturers will no longer send them to you, instead sending you to the internet.

said by factchecker :

Corporate America is rapidly converting to the internet as their preferred and, in some cases, sole means of communication.

said by factchecker :

I'm more inclined to allow local residents to decide that on their own...

said by factchecker :

State governments are so easily bought off, it isn't even funny.

said by factchecker :

And I'm of the opinion that neither you or I should be determining what is or is not right for a locality, and neither should politicians who take kick backs from incumbents and are clueless about the localities in their state.

said by factchecker :

I'd like to let you know that your friends may very well run afoul of the providers doing that. I know they are using it as their primary connections, but providers never intended their 3G networks to be used in such a manner.

said by factchecker :

Additionally, 3G networks are not designed for that type of use.

said by pnh102 :

Again, the fact that it is a irrefutable truth renders such a judgement irrelevant.

People can still use dialup or a public library for these things.

So why give a handout to Corporate America? If private companies want broadband, let them pay for it.

So then when the next "free" fad comes along, it would be ok for local residents to vote themselves that too? Especially when it comes from the backs of other taxpayers? If I were an enterprising politician... I would promise free Bentleys.

So can local government. In many regards, local governments create more of an impediment to broadband than anything else by making ridiculous demands from ISPs in exchange for the right to conduct business.

I am certain that you can find people like me in just about every state. Ergo, I can claim that I speak for them.

True, true, and I know that in one of those situations Verizon did yank access. However, I think for the most part they don't use enough bandwidth to get noticed.

said by factchecker :

It is nice to see the meaning of the words "irrefutable" and "truth" being abuse... There is nothing irrefutable about this.

said by factchecker :

The reason there is so much debate on this topic is because of the mixed success of such operations.

said by factchecker :

Any one who claims that every muni operations out there is a failure is either lying or distorting the truth because of an agenda.

said by factchecker :

I could show you quite a few HR portals that are so bogged down in useless Flash crap that it would take quite a while to fill out an application as you wait for the pages to load.

said by factchecker :

As for the library option, keep that in mind next time the library asks for more taxes to pay for the additional computers and bandwidth to meet the demand of the patrons.

said by factchecker :

Nice diversion there... You shift the demand for broadband from end users to the companies that generate content with the flick of the wrist... Amazing. To bad that isn't how it works.

said by factchecker :

End users want broadband... Most are willing to pay. The marketplace has failed them. Period.

said by factchecker :

We've hashed this point out... You have your opinion, I have mine.

said by factchecker :

Note that things like franchise agreements don't apply.

said by factchecker :

So? Let them speak their mind at the voting box when measures like this are put up for a vote. Simple as that because in that case, everyone gets to voice their opinion.

said by factchecker :

Get ready for that to change. Note the story post this morning about Sprint and other providers moving to caps. It is a capacity issue and it will take years to resolve.

said by factchecker :

3G is not, nor never was, designed as a last mile replacement technology.

And why not? We saw how FIOS video was held up in NYC (and in other areas) over concerns regarding cherry-picking. The end result of this was no one got any video service. We also saw that in places where there were looser restrictions, such as Indiana, there was broader deployment of service.

I'm curious about this too. My personal guess is that Sprint just wants to have a way to cut off people who they believe abuse their service. At the very least Sprint and Verizon advertise their caps, unlike some other ISPs.

said by factchecker :

Video service... Not ISP service... Only video service was really affected. Verizon could have easily rolled just data and phone.

said by factchecker :

Actually, it is a capacity issue. Sprint has started running into issues with backhaul saturation on towers in some of largest markets. Until 4G wireless or greater backhual becomes more readily accessible, the caps will remain.

said by factchecker :

Hopefully Sprint doesn't pull 5GB caps on their enterprise customers because we'll definitely consider pulling out of our contract if they do.