Trash pickup is free in Philadelphia. Why not internet?
Philly residents pay outrageously high city income tax so might as well use it to something useful.
Point is... The original plan was to create a high tech environment into the city which would be conducive to tech employers and employees which mean tax money was being used to "improve the city".
Since they already spent quite of sum of tax money, they might as well do something with the project at this point instead of tearing it down.
@John Well, actually, yeah. Find me the law that states you are entitled to clean, running water.
The problem he's getting at is that tax dollars are being used to provide Internet access to people who aren't paying taxes to support it. You don't get water if you don't pay for it; why should you get Internet access?
I like the ad-supported idea myself. Everyone wins.
Yes, access to relevant, timely information IS a physiological need.
The way that need is expressed is of course situational. The internet MAY not be a basic survival need in the middle of Antarctica (I can think of at least one researcher who would vehemently disagree).
In the jungle it's more about what can and can't see/eat/catch you, and how close you are to danger. However, in an urban setting where instant information is a critical factor in competing for the ability to earn income for basic provision, esp in such a location where the basic cost of living far surpasses the median income level - internet as survival need is more than legitimate.
When you go to jail do they take away your clean water? No. Clean water is so readily available in a developed country that it is a good as a right. In the end a "right" is a society's opinion of a minimum standard of living. It's all a matter of whether every one is wealthy enough afford it or the government plans to redistribute wealth.
I too like the ad-supported idea and agree that everyone wins.
You NEED to research (via a dictionary perhaps?) the difference between "need" and "want". It is NOT a necessity whatsoever. It may improve your quality of life and indeed HELP with survival, but its abscence will not directly cause your death.
@John:
No, you're right, they don't. But maybe they should.
“An engineer explained to us that hundreds of ear impressions were gathered in the name of research, and while each one obviously boasted its own unique shape and size, one single characteristic remained uniform across the board: the entrance into the ear canal is not a perfect circle, it's an oval.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Hopefully the whole network is turned to a secure private network.
People need to get over free internet. It isn't a right. It's a service.
...like clean running water is a service?
Sure, it's exactly like that. Assuming you think wireless internet access is something the human body needs to survive.
Trash pickup is free in Philadelphia. Why not internet?
Philly residents pay outrageously high city income tax so might as well use it to something useful.
Point is... The original plan was to create a high tech environment into the city which would be conducive to tech employers and employees which mean tax money was being used to "improve the city".
Since they already spent quite of sum of tax money, they might as well do something with the project at this point instead of tearing it down.
@John
Well, actually, yeah. Find me the law that states you are entitled to clean, running water.
The problem he's getting at is that tax dollars are being used to provide Internet access to people who aren't paying taxes to support it. You don't get water if you don't pay for it; why should you get Internet access?
I like the ad-supported idea myself. Everyone wins.
TheGasMan is right. People and their sense of entitlement, sheesh.
The little minus is up there to the right. Go ahead. :rolleyes:
Yes, access to relevant, timely information IS a physiological need.
The way that need is expressed is of course situational. The internet MAY not be a basic survival need in the middle of Antarctica (I can think of at least one researcher who would vehemently disagree).
In the jungle it's more about what can and can't see/eat/catch you, and how close you are to danger. However, in an urban setting where instant information is a critical factor in competing for the ability to earn income for basic provision, esp in such a location where the basic cost of living far surpasses the median income level - internet as survival need is more than legitimate.
@TheGasMan
When you go to jail do they take away your clean water? No. Clean water is so readily available in a developed country that it is a good as a right. In the end a "right" is a society's opinion of a minimum standard of living. It's all a matter of whether every one is wealthy enough afford it or the government plans to redistribute wealth.
I too like the ad-supported idea and agree that everyone wins.
@Jason:
You NEED to research (via a dictionary perhaps?) the difference between "need" and "want". It is NOT a necessity whatsoever. It may improve your quality of life and indeed HELP with survival, but its abscence will not directly cause your death.
@John:
No, you're right, they don't. But maybe they should.
@Corwin
Shut up. I didn't say the internet IS a need. I said it can be. It's just like what YOU need before you lose control and pee your pants: Depends.
Yes, the Internet is totally like clean water. I mean, we didn't have any sort of society before we had clean water right?
Right?
Oh wait, no.
Free Market FTW!