I submit that if you're going to live out in the boonies, you can't expect all the trappings that come with living in the 'burbs.The US needs to step up to the plate and do something about all this profiting off something that was supposed to be free in the first place.
I wasn't implying that. I was saying that it sounded like you expected some gubmint to step up and do it and that isn't typically how it works.No. I am not suggesting any company run a cable to my house so I can have affordable/reliable internet.
The government can only do so much and to ask someone in San Diego or NYC to subsidize Internet service for someone outside of Wagontire, Oregon or Antlers, Oklahoma seems unfair. That said, I recall that the feds poured quite a bit of money into Excede.I'm making a much larger point. I think we as a nation are behind on making the internet available to everybody, or at least a huge majority of the country, be it satellite, DSL, or anything else.
Chances are that the fiber was run by a regional utility company (and not necessarily a telecom utility).In fact, years ago fiber optics were run in my county to make us on the leading edge of technology concerning the internet. I'm not sure who paid for it but I'm sure the government had something to do with it because as of now NOT ONE person has it.
Much is made about how other countries have such wonderful Internet coverage but many of those countries have a much higher population density than the areas of the US that we're talking about and some of those countries have land areas that are smaller than our larger states to cover. Number one on the list is the Falkland Islands that has a population of just over 3,400 people. Iceland and Bermuda are next on the list followed by Scandinavia.My point is, from what I have read (no sources to cite at the moment) lesser developed countries have done a better job getting internet service to the masses.
Ah... Just what do you call a "critical utility"? I can go it alone on power, water, and sewer, and do that in the middle of nowhere. So those 3 can't be some critical utility that anybody needs the government to provide. But for telecommunications including the Internet, we just can't do without somebody somewhere making the connection. It makes sense to me to ask for government to step up to the plate and coordinate, standardize, and perhaps even subsidize, for the public good.Internet isn't an inalienable right and it isn't an absolutely critical utility so if some region is committed to joining the Internet age, they need to collaborate on a solution rather than expecting one to be handed to them.
These "mandates" only cover the ISPs that the state gubmint uses and what they use probably isn't what we use. I would imagine that more than a few of them exist solely to service the government anyway.Governors of Montana and New York sign executive orders requiring net neutrality in their states.
I think there is a book about something like that..it was called 1984Ah... Just what do you call a "critical utility"? I can go it alone on power, water, and sewer, and do that in the middle of nowhere. So those 3 can't be some critical utility that anybody needs the government to provide. But for telecommunications including the Internet, we just can't do without somebody somewhere making the connection. It makes sense to me to ask for government to step up to the plate and coordinate, standardize, and perhaps even subsidize, for the public good.
I assert that it isn't reasonable to lump broadband Internet in with telecommunications.But for telecommunications including the Internet, we just can't do without somebody somewhere making the connection.
The vast majority of that infrastructure is privately owned.I don't want a government handout. I simply think that the internet has become so necessary in relation to business, education, etc., that it should be considered part of our infrastructure. Like a highway, and other infrastructure.
People without it cannot compete.
Let's be careful not to confuse having Internet access with having "broadband".You shouldn't have to have wide streets, streetlights, and sidewalks to have the internet.
The FCC seems to disagree with you. They pretty much stomped on the idea that Internet service is a utility.I think we have differing understandings of "infrastructure."
I believe the internet has changed from a novelty to a necessity in the last 20 or so years. As such, should be regarded as a public utility, not a luxury such as HBO etc.
There's a gargantuan difference between helping with legal issues and footing the bill. Both the TR and the Erie Canal were privately funded (gubmint sponsored bonds aren't gubmint money). Various government agencies would have to go through much greater number of hoops now to establish rights-of-way as there are so many more property owners now. I get the feeling that you want them to throw in a few billion in walking around money.A good example of technology changing from something that benefitted a few, to becoming of such importance it became part of our infrastructure, would be the transcontinental railroad in the 1800's. Privately owned, the government saw it's importance to the economy for everyone, and helped with eminent domain power land acquisition etc.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Shouldn't those who don't have it and want it contribute substantially to making it available?I say the internet is now such a necessity it should be considered a vital part of our infrastructure.