South Carolina Could Be Country's First Wireless State (state plans free wireless Internet service)

WYFF ^ | May 1, 2007

[ASOC]

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.

[Between the Lines]

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?

[Between the Lines]

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.

[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..

[capitalist229]

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

[TChris]

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.

[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.

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.

[capitalist229]

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

[incredulous joe]

There is NO FREE lunch.

[wastedyears]

Oh... I get it now.

[Between the Lines]

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

Fixed that for you.

[TChris]

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.

[TChris]

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

Do you consider it evil to make a profit?

[gcruse]

“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.

[Between the Lines]

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.

[camle]

so the state is in the tower rental business now?

[Tokra]

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.

[TChris]

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.

[Between the Lines]

Not yet, but this bill is expected to pass the Senate easily and the Governor has said he will sign.

[camle]

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