AnchorDesk Lounge: POLL: Should the government provide free Wi-Fi?
POLL: Should the government provide free Wi-Fi?
by tmoynihan - 5/19/05 12:18 PMDiscuss the poll for the Friday, May 20th AnchorDesk newsletter (http://www.cnet.com/2001-6033_1-0.html):
POLL: Should city governments provide free Wi-Fi access?
1) Yes
2) No
Yes and NO
by SantiagoCrespo
- 5/19/05 6:30 PM
In reply to: POLL: Should the government provide free Wi-Fi? by tmoynihan
IMHO, I think city or state goverment should provide free wi-fi in public places, but in-store (McD's, Starbucks, etc) wi-fi should be kept privately owned.
Should Government provide " FREE " Wi-Fi Access
by polrbear - 5/20/05 9:06 AM In reply to: Yes and NO by SantiagoCrespo
Yes, I believe they should provide Wi-Fi Access
" FREE ". Reason: Notebook Computers cost enough money that only the well to do people can afford. Business'
& people use them on the road, or when they're away from home to get in touch with people/business to get directions & a whole lot of other things.
Phrase your question properly
by PaulofYork - 5/20/05 5:15 AM In reply to: POLL: Should the government provide free Wi-Fi? by tmoynihanYour question reflects a mindset that it's the city's money. The question should be:
Would you pay for free Wi-Fi access for everyone in your city.
The majority may still say yes but I'll bet the percentages woould be closer.
No to government providing Wi-Fi
by jeepf250 - 5/20/05 6:24 AM In reply to: Phrase your question properly by PaulofYorkIt is not the job of the cities to provide this sort of service. Not everyone uses it and it should be left to coffee shops etc as an incentive to draw in certain customers. Go to a library and use their wi-fi, and read a good book while there to broaden your horizons.
on the other hand
by SantiagoCrespo - 5/20/05 9:15 AM
In reply to: No to government providing Wi-Fi by jeepf250
A city with 100% Wi-Fi coverage would attract tourism, conventions, etc, so that would mean MORE money coming into the city and the city's businesspeople
I would be merly nice
by JBengeII - 5/20/05 6:18 AM In reply to: POLL: Should the government provide free Wi-Fi? by tmoynihanI could see hosting a website on my local city ip address.Maybe even serving my own email,Local games would be awsome too.
Absolutely Not
by Mike2002 - 5/20/05 6:49 AM In reply to: POLL: Should the government provide free Wi-Fi? by tmoynihan1. As PaulofYork points out, it's not the city's money, it's our money. Asking the majority of citizens, many of whom don't have wireless devices, to pay for our wi-fi amounts to a sort of reverse welfare. The poor subsidizing the convenience of the middle class.
2. Does anyone really want to send personal information over a wireless network that's controlled by the government. I certainly don't. This has "big brother" written all over it. I trust Starbucks much more than I trust my local government.
Nothing is free - especially in the government
by sodabob - 5/20/05 7:30 AM In reply to: POLL: Should the government provide free Wi-Fi? by tmoynihanFor those folks who want "free" wi-fi access provided by the city: who do you think PAYS for something like that? If you're a tax payer, then YOU do. Nothing is free.
Do you really want government - that can't even manage something as simple as Social Security or run an efficient and cost effective bus service - to be in charge of your Wi-Fi service? Free Wi-Fi may sound like a great idea, but in the long run it you would have a less expensive, better service if private companies were to provide such a service.
In short, wouldn't you rather be able to choose to pay for such a service, by signing up with a privately owned Wi-Fi service provider, than be forced to pay for such a service - through higher taxes - whether you use the service or not?
Too Good To Be True
by gfmansur - 5/20/05 7:38 AM In reply to: POLL: Should the government provide free Wi-Fi? by tmoynihanThings that are "too good to be true" usually are. And free universal wi-fi from city government is just that. All governments have terminal diseases called politics, graft, inefficiency, and lack of responsiveness; how would you like your friendly Housing and Urban Development Department to be in charge. Competition, which is really "survival of the fittest", is the only proven policy that really works for any service. You techies need to remember this.
gfm
What about my roads and bridges?
by Teako - 5/20/05 8:07 AM In reply to: POLL: Should the government provide free Wi-Fi? by tmoynihanI would rather the government concentrate on those things they they alreasdy have on their docket. Things like road maintenance, bridge repair, education, and police and fire services. these all have much higher priority than FREE Wi-Fi that would serve a very small and narrowly defined group of people, most of which are upper middle class and above. Let them "buy" there own connection. Go to Starbucks.
Appalling
by ohri - 5/20/05 8:42 AM In reply to: POLL: Should the government provide free Wi-Fi? by tmoynihanWhat does internet access (a very nice to have, but non-essential service) have to do with government? Government exists to provide a number of services, but luxuries are not one of them. For government to provide a non-essential service like this is appalling. The government doesn't provide telephone, power, or gas, all more essential services. Why would we hike up our taxes even more for something like this?
Wrong question
by BruceGil - 5/20/05 9:01 AM In reply to: POLL: Should the government provide free Wi-Fi? by tmoynihanThe question should be:
Would you be willing to pay additional taxes or give up some other service to get city-wide WiFi?
That's the real question. Anything that requires equipment and people to operate has a cost that has to be paid by someone or some group of people.
Ask this question and see what the response is.
'Free' WiFi is like 'free' garbage pickup or 'free' fire protection. I don't pay a fee to a private firm, but I do pay taxes.
Wasting taxpayers money?
by mawbvw - 5/20/05 10:34 AM In reply to: POLL: Should the government provide free Wi-Fi? by tmoynihanIf Government are going to waste taxpayer money on something (and they WILL!), woudn't it be a nice change if just this once, it could actually benefit us directly?
Yes, but without tax subsidy...
by fire1fl - 5/20/05 11:54 AM In reply to: POLL: Should the government provide free Wi-Fi? by tmoynihanOur utility (city-owned) already provides a myriad of services -- including gas, water, electric, waste-water treatment, internet (dial-up), internet (high-speed in limited new construction), fiber-optic for city users and other local governments and institutions. There is one broadband provider (cable) and one DSL provider -- both of whom have carrier partnerships for fiber with our utility. Each city-owned enterprise is both independent internally (no cross-subsidies allowed)and non-taxpayer supported. The difference from privates are two-fold -- the "profits" pay for other local government services (fire, police, parks, recreation -- thus providing better services and lowered taxes, instead of going elsewhere (out of our community) to stockholders (whom the Bush adminstration has kindly relieved of almost any tax burden)-- and the rates, for all utilities, are in the bottom 10% statewide. So here, at least, it would be a great benefit -- which, of course, the telecom providers are hastily attempting to change by purchasing the state legislature. They apparently haven't yet learned that the freedom to provide service anywhere, conferred by the TelCom Act of 1996, applies to *all* providers -- not just the new consolidated, re-invigorated, Bell-remnant amoeba monopolies.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
