Posted on 05/02/2007 7:25:10 AM PDT by Between the Lines
GREENVILLE, S.C. -- Soon, the entire state of South Carolina could go wireless.
Many spots in the state still don't have access to high speed Internet. But a new bill in the Senate could change that.
The bill would create the Wireless Technology and Communication Commission. That group would gather the information and technology needed to make it happen.
State Rep. Dwight Loftis co-authored the bill. He said that statewide wireless access would allow South Carolina to connect with the world.
"It will provide the virtual infrastructure that rural communities don't have. It will add to a benefit to healthcare. It will have a benefit in the area of education -- virtual schools, distance learning. It will facilitate law enforcement, emergency services."
If the bill is passes, the wireless network could be up and running in just 24 months.
If you think wireless is expensive now wait until its free.
Apologies to P.J. O’Rourke.
Florida could become country’s first treeless state.............
Appropriating business from telecom/cable outfits. How thoughtful of them.
How about “free” food?
why??? why should taxpayers, particularly elderly and poor pay for joyriding on the information superhighway?
Government watching what you type bump.
Speaking of superhighways, do you support federal funding of the interstate highway system?
not being sure what one has to do with the other, let me put it this way - the interstate highway system is our counterpart to the German Autobahn - which was developed andd implemented for military purposes - civilian use is allowed, but these highways are primarily for the purposes of moving our military quickly from one part of the country to another. I support that, don’t you?
“Speaking of superhighways, do you support federal funding of the interstate highway system?”
Note to self: Send snowsislander to the store for oranges and (s)he will come back with apples.
Well so was the internet originally, as ARPANET. ARPANET was developed and implemented for military information purposes - civilian use is allowed, but these (information) highways are primarily for the purpose of moving our military (information) quickly from one part of the (world) to another. I support that don't you?
Sorry just had to point out the similarities of your statement.
They already do that, lol.
Yes, I think that the federal interstate highway system was a reasonable infrastructure investment.
It was your use of the metaphor "information superhighway" that made me curious if you supported the physical interstate highway system.
The state of South Carolina is putting up an information infrastructure that you asked of "why should taxpayers, particularly elderly and poor pay for joyriding on the information superhighway?"
I was just curious if the same questions existed for you about those people who use the federally funded interstate highway system for recreational driving.
As for my opinion, if the taxpayers in South Carolina are happy enough to pay for this wireless infrastructure then it's their decision. I don't know if there are state constitutional issues, but absent any of those, then putting such an information infrastructure will likely pay off for the state in the long run. And if the investment doesn't, then it was still probably a better use of money than, say, the federally funded Clyburn Connector.
And porn will stream into every village and hamlet, destroying more lives and marriages. That's the downside.
the government does NOT provide free use of it’s highways - most states have tolls, etc. The telephone has military uses - do you think that the government ought to provide free use of the telephone?
we also pay our gasoline, vehicle costs etc. to subsidize the highways.
I agree that in marketing terms, the highway system is a market failure. but creating other market failures isn’t the way to make things right - it’s the poor who cannot afford computers, and the elderly, etc who will be paying for this luxury for others to enjoy.
I’m not getting into your argument, I’m just pointing out the irony of your original statement. That said, I live in SC and do not support this plan due to too many unanswered questions.
Any bets on how long until they try denying access to ‘certain’ sites, and censoring content? If they did free, state provided internet here in VA I would stick with my DSL, assuming it is still available after the state pulls the bottom out of the market.
Great. Another government that thinks it should be in the telecommunications business. Never mind that private enterprise is already serving the demand, the State needs to go into competition with them to make everything “right”.
This is why I wouldn't use free, state provided internet, especially in SC. Many folks like you will demand the politicians put in place access and content restrictions, "for the common good". On the other side, the left wingers will go after sites they don't like for their various reasons.
No thanks. I'll gladly pay for my internet as I am now, and stay away from the "free" web access.
S.C. must have jack for telecom inrastructure.
Alaska has internet access even to the poorest of village schools (thanks to the USF) and the commercial provider also provides internet to villages homes via WiFi, at a cost. No free ride.
Alaska is bigger than S.C. and has no real road system, most of telecom is via SATCOM links and still, it works here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.