Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

South Carolina Could Be Country's First Wireless State (state plans free wireless Internet service)
WYFF ^ | May 1, 2007

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: South Carolina; US: South Dakota
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last
To: Between the Lines

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.


21 posted on 05/02/2007 8:14:21 AM PDT by ASOC (Yeah, well, maybe - but can you *prove* it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Patrick1; Uncledave; camle
The free service would be for basic service and for those who cannot afford it otherwise. It is not being offered by the state, but by the service providors in exchange for letting those providers use the state's network of educational television towers and some excess state licensed frequencies in the 800Mhz band. The total cost for this is less than $500,000 for the state taxpayer.

Didn't anyone read the links I posted?

22 posted on 05/02/2007 8:48:11 AM PDT by Between the Lines (I am very cognizant of my fallibility, sinfulness, and other limitations. So should you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears; Constantine XIII; KoRn; TChris
Government watching what you type bump.

The state will neither own nor operate the system. Private service providers will do this using the state's network of educational television towers and some excess state licensed frequencies in the 800Mhz band.

This will work very much like in some cities where the electricity company uses city owned power poles or lines for their distribution.

23 posted on 05/02/2007 8:55:55 AM PDT by Between the Lines (I am very cognizant of my fallibility, sinfulness, and other limitations. So should you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

500,000 here, 500,000 there and sooner or later you’re going to come up with real money.

amazing how inexpensive some things seem when somebody else is paying for them..


24 posted on 05/02/2007 9:05:32 AM PDT by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: camle
why should taxpayers, particularly elderly and poor pay for joyriding on the information superhighway?

The Verizons of the world will skim the cream from the blue zones and ignore the red zones, that's why.

As much as I hate govt regulation, it's going to take an act of Congress (as with electricity and telephone) to make broadband ubiquitous.

There is ample justification because the internet is now a part of the critical infrastructure.


BUMP

25 posted on 05/02/2007 9:08:25 AM PDT by capitalist229 (Get Democrats out of our pockets and Republicans out of our bedrooms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: capitalist229
As much as I hate govt regulation, it's going to take an act of Congress (as with electricity and telephone) to make broadband ubiquitous.

Why the presumption that broadband should be ubiquitous? If there's a market, private enterprise will serve it.

26 posted on 05/02/2007 9:10:57 AM PDT by TChris (The Democrat Party: A sewer into which is emptied treason, inhumanity and barbarism - O. Morton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: camle
500,000 here, 500,000 there and sooner or later you’re going to come up with real money. amazing how inexpensive some things seem when somebody else is paying for them.

Actually the service providers will be paying the state to use it's towers and frequencies. The state makes money on the deal.

It is no different than if you owned a tower and charged cell companies to use it.

27 posted on 05/02/2007 9:23:46 AM PDT by Between the Lines (I am very cognizant of my fallibility, sinfulness, and other limitations. So should you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TChris
Why the presumption that broadband should be ubiquitous? If there's a market, private enterprise will serve it.

You sound like somebody who already has broadband access.

But for the rest of us, the govt will have to mandate it.

This is not about free access. It is about having any access.


BUMP

28 posted on 05/02/2007 9:23:59 AM PDT by capitalist229 (Get Democrats out of our pockets and Republicans out of our bedrooms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Patrick1

There is NO FREE lunch.


29 posted on 05/02/2007 9:25:10 AM PDT by incredulous joe ("Silence is golden, but duct tape is silver." - anon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

Oh... I get it now.


30 posted on 05/02/2007 9:28:51 AM PDT by wastedyears (To a liberal, "feeling safe" is far more important than "being safe" Credit to TruthShallSetYouFree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TChris
If there's a excessivly profitable market, private enterprise will serve it.

Fixed that for you.

31 posted on 05/02/2007 9:39:26 AM PDT by Between the Lines (I am very cognizant of my fallibility, sinfulness, and other limitations. So should you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: capitalist229
You sound like somebody who already has broadband access.

But for the rest of us, the govt will have to mandate it.

This is not about free access. It is about having any access.

There are people who own Cadillacs. I don't. Should the government mandate that everyone get a Cadillac?

Whether or not you have broadband is completely irrelevant to the nation, the state or the city. Whether I have a Cadillac is completely irrelevant to them as well.

32 posted on 05/02/2007 9:41:07 AM PDT by TChris (The Democrat Party: A sewer into which is emptied treason, inhumanity and barbarism - O. Morton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
If there's a excessivly profitable market, private enterprise will serve it.

Do you consider it evil to make a profit?

33 posted on 05/02/2007 10:03:57 AM PDT by TChris (The Democrat Party: A sewer into which is emptied treason, inhumanity and barbarism - O. Morton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: camle

“why should taxpayers, particularly elderly and poor pay for joyriding on the information superhighway?”

Because, otherwise, the elderly and poor would be shut out from joyriding on the information superhighway? That’s the answer you’ll get.


34 posted on 05/02/2007 11:57:14 AM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TChris
No, I was just pointing out the flaw in your statement. In this type of business where technology changes at a rapid pace a company will not invest in infrastructure if it is marginally profitable, profitable, very profitable or even wildly profitable, only when it is excessively profitable are they willing to take such risks.

But in a joint venture with the state, where the business uses the state's towers and frequencies, the risks become nominal and what was once a less than profitable sector of consumers becomes a viable market.

35 posted on 05/02/2007 12:16:24 PM PDT by Between the Lines (I am very cognizant of my fallibility, sinfulness, and other limitations. So should you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

so the state is in the tower rental business now?


36 posted on 05/02/2007 12:38:38 PM PDT by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
I don't know if S.C. will be the first. I believe Michigan will have free wireless statewide by the end of 2008.

We have it in the city where I live - it isn't superfast, but it is 6 times faster than dial-up. And it's free. You can pay $20 a month to get a 30 times faster than dial-up if you choose.

37 posted on 05/02/2007 12:42:28 PM PDT by Tokra (I think I'll retire to Bedlam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
In this type of business where technology changes at a rapid pace a company will not invest in infrastructure if it is marginally profitable, profitable, very profitable or even wildly profitable, only when it is excessively profitable are they willing to take such risks.

Where do you get the standing to make such assertions of what "a company" will and will not do? That's a pretty wide blanket statement about how individual business owners behave.

Also, where do you get the term "excessively profitable"? How is the profit "excessive" (i.e. too much profit)?

At what point is a profit margin "excessive"? 5%? 10%? 25%?

You're using that term as though it's a settled, well-known thing, but it's really very arbitrary.

38 posted on 05/02/2007 1:11:48 PM PDT by TChris (The Democrat Party: A sewer into which is emptied treason, inhumanity and barbarism - O. Morton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: camle
Not yet, but this bill is expected to pass the Senate easily and the Governor has said he will sign.
39 posted on 05/02/2007 1:12:14 PM PDT by Between the Lines (I am very cognizant of my fallibility, sinfulness, and other limitations. So should you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines

gee. maybe they should go into other rental businesses, too. it is frivilous and a waste of taxpayer dollars.


40 posted on 05/02/2007 1:15:47 PM PDT by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson