Posted on 10/04/2007 1:13:26 AM PDT by bruinbirdman
Paris has launched Europe’s biggest free wireless internet network as part of a scheme to turn the French capital into a “world digital city”.
Almost 400 broadband wireless “hotspots” are running in parks, gardens, squares, libraries and other public spaces. The scheme, which cost €2 million (£1.4 million) of public money to install and will cost €500,000 a year to run, is the latest attempt by the Socialist mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoë, to give Paris a modern, competitive edge.
The initiative follows Mr Delanoë’s bike-share scheme, which has proved an extraordinary hit since 20,000 bicycles were distributed around the city in July. Other cities around the world are rushing to follow suit. Ken Livingstone sent a team to study the initiative last month and Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, tried out one of the bikes last Saturday.
Mr Delanoë has also promised to ensure that 80 per cent of buildings have access to fast broadband via fibre-optic cable. It is relatively simple to lay cable along the wide, straight streets and boulevards of Paris.
The wi-fi scheme, however, falls short of the blanket coverage promised by San Francisco, Philadelphia and other cities. To calm commercial operators who fear losing business, the power of the hotspots has been limited and most will be switched off when public buildings and parks close for the night. Roughly half are inside city buildings such as museums.
“We’ll know in a couple of years.”
no, no, no, no, NO! Have you read about the demise of municipal WiFi in this country? But you really just need to read about Socialism in the 20th century.
This idea that has failed around this country will fare no better in Paris.
> Oh my.....You two need to immediately report to Constitution class. Government should not run private enterprises. It should not....because it cannot. It has been proven again, and again, and again.
It shouldn’t run private businesses. It should instead run public utilities and public services as monopolies. It should do this whenever it makes sense for them to do so, from a social policy viewpoint as well as from an economic viewpoint. Because it is good for the Nation and generally efficient.
> There are so many reasons why internet should not be provided by the government, but we really don’t need to debate them.
Let’s hear a couple. I can’t think of even one.
> If you believe this, you are just wrong. It’s a foundational principle of freedom and limited government.
Governments have been running public utilities and public services for a very, very long time, and “Freedom” and “Limited Government” have not suffered as a result. You’re talking thru the top of your hat on that one, drawing a very long bow.
Your US Navy, for example, was one of the very early public services established by your brand-new government, because it was more efficient to protect your shipping as a public service rather than as a series of private enterprises.
“Your US Navy, for example, was one of the very early public services established by your brand-new government, because it was more efficient to protect your shipping as a public service rather than as a series of private enterprises.”
The military is in the Constitution.
“Let’s hear a couple. I can’t think of even one.”
No, it would be futile for us to debate, we are diametrically opposed, literally, and figuratively on this matter. You are uneducable.
“You’re talking thru the top of your hat on that one, drawing a very long bow.”
Could be, but I won’t try to convince you either way, being from NZ, you actually sincerely believe this stuff....I mean no disrespect with that statement.
Did government provide telegraphy services? No.
First telegraph was funded by the gubmint.
> No, it would be futile for us to debate, we are diametrically opposed, literally, and figuratively on this matter. You are uneducable.
Sticks and stones, mate. If you don’t have the stomach to support your assertions just say so: fleeing the field and then insulting me is disrespectful and just plain rude.
And NZ accomplished all this with no infrastructure.
Incredible!! No....that's not the right word. I mean it is not credible.
As NZ did not accept independence until 1947, those weren't NZ troops, they were British troops from NZ. I'm sure there were troops from Liverpool & Manchester also. You have waxed poetic about great accomplishments in British history. What can you tell me of New Zealand history?
If America were as good at exporting its virtues as it is in exporting its vices...
Yeah. Sorry about those polyester suits, & that gangsta-rap thing. But, I get your point. NZ is nothing but (British)honor & valor, while America is pretty much responsible for all evil in the world...even that in Noo Zeelund.
And...somehow, this supports the nationalizing of private businesses for the good of the state.
Seems you & Hugo Chavez share much in common.
Maybe if I bought some rum & cigars from you.....Cheers, mate.
> And NZ accomplished all this with no infrastructure.
Incredible!! No....that’s not the right word. I mean it is not credible.
Ummmm... New Zealand became an independent Dominion in 1907, five years after the Boer War, considerably before most of the achievements that you find “not credible”.
That is, they enjoyed the same status as Canada did when Canada confederated in 1867, right up until 1980.
Indeed, the HMS New Zealand was funded by New Zealand as a gift of warmaking infrastructure to the British in 1909.
Lookit, mate, do yourself a favor: if you are going to debate NZ History, take a quick squiz at one of the many excellent reference books on the subject. Or, better yet, our Taxpayers have invested in producing a really nice online encyclopedia. You can reach it here: www.teara.govt.nz
If you look hard enough, you will even find me in it!
And nope — not red cent was invested by the Mother Country in its production: like all of our Infrastructure, it was Made in New Zealand.
> As NZ did not accept independence until 1947, those weren’t NZ troops, they were British troops from NZ.
Arrant nonsense.
The ANZACs of WW-I were an expeditionary force attached to British command, but were New Zealand and Australian troops wearing our own uniforms: per above, New Zealand was an independent Dominion in 1907.
In WW-II New Zealand troops fought under the New Zealand flag under New Zealand officers and under New Zealand command.
In both cases, New Zealand declared war in and of its own right.
> You have waxed poetic about great accomplishments in British history.
You are compounding your clear ignorance of New Zealand history with insult. I suggest you make a proper effort to learn your subject matter before you blat about New Zealand history, which is a subject you have clearly no understanding of nor acquaintence with...
> NZ is nothing but (British)honor & valor (snip)
...and until you do, I am disengaging from this discussion. I’ll waste no more time debating your fanciful revisionist interpretations of NZ history.
As to whether I have anything in common with Mr Chavez I really can’t say. What I *can* say with a high degree of certainty is that as each day passes you will have more and more in common with Mr Fox, and for some reason your sitting President seems to like that idea. Go figure.
“Sticks and stones, mate. If you don’t have the stomach to support your assertions just say so: fleeing the field and then insulting me is disrespectful and just plain rude.”
You’re not being insulted. You are socialist to the core - you believe that internet is infrastructure that can and should be provided by government. I am respecting your views, even if they are wrong.
If you weren’t on the other side of the planet, in a country that is a geographical afterthought, I would perhaps find your views worthy of debate, but for now, I will respect your views and not be bothered to try to convince you how wrong you are.
Durasell, is likely educable because I don’t see him/her as a committed socialst such as yourself, and the effort is worthwhile, in that there is potential payoff in taking the effort.
Please don’t go away though, Your views are a welcome to me and a needed dose of cognitive dissonance to this board. The way you matter-of-factly discuss governments everpresent role in your life is a harbinger of what American thinking could be, should we allow government to encroach further into our lives.
“First telegraph was funded by the gubmint.”
In what branch of government does Western Union belong?
This was pre-Western Union. Basically “proof of concept.” Morse was having a hard time raising funds privately, so Congress stepped in.
Sigh.
Durasell, is likely educable because I don’t see him/her as a committed socialst such as yourself, and the effort is worthwhile, in that there is potential payoff in taking the effort
I’m not a socialist at all. I’m for what works. Sometimes it’s private industry and sometimes it’s gubmint. Sometimes what works changes over time.
Good idea over the next decade I see this becoming a major competitive advantage.
Yeah, if yer into totalitarian states with death meted out for the slightest attempt at free speech, where cars are nearly non-existant and those that do exist are 50 years old (literally), where health care will kill you quickly and education consists of learning your Imperial Leaders best quotes.
It's great, if you like that sort of thing.
> where cars are nearly non-existant and those that do exist are 50 years old (literally)
I’m amazed those things are still running. They must have some pretty innovative mechanics in Cuba.
I know this is sad... and I blame myself as well as the media but my first thought was “why is Paris Hilton wireless?”
I don't think so. I'd rather smoke a Honduran myself. Besides every Cuban cigar you buy puts dollars into the pocket of one of the most brutal dictators on the planet.
I enjoy cigars, but I enjoy a clear conscience even more.
L
“I’m not a socialist at all.”
Ok, I will call off the conservative re-education intervention team that was being organized on your behalf.
Don’t scare me like that again, ok? ;^)
> You’re not being insulted. You are socialist to the core - you believe that internet is infrastructure that can and should be provided by government. I am respecting your views, even if they are wrong.
Not all socialism is bad, mate. Just like not all capitalism is good. Neither are mutually exclusive and neither exclude conservatism.
Any concept, when polarized and made extreme and absolute, runs into serious implementation issues.
Not even the US Constitution (we haven’t got a constitution in NZ) was not good enough in its original form to be practically implemented: it still required (and probably still requires) amendment.
Your second amendment, for example, probably needs further amendment to make its intent crystal clear and for the removal of all doubt. Then that task is completed I guarantee a large proportion of the US population will be very angry — no matter which side of the Brady Bill the amendment comes down in favor of.
Who says your Constitution shouldn’t be amended to include the provision of essential services? And who says some of those services should not include electricity, telecommunications, basic healthcare and public transport? (They’re not “essential” you might say. Fine — try living a few months without them, nationwide. Wasn’t a large part of the Y2K scenario based upon this potential prospect? I suspect they would be deemed “essential” so fast it would make our heads spin, after say the second continuous month with no end in sight: particularly if all that stood in the way of resuming services was the mere passage of a law.)
Your Founding Fathers did a fine job of crafting the Constitution, based upon fantastic forward-thinking and principled reasoning. No small coincidence that many of them were Freemasons. But as clever as they were, they could never envisage life in America in today’s environment — not even Franklin in his wildest dreams could have seen that coming.
So to say that I am “socialist to the core” I guess is, at one level, true — on an issue-by-issue basis. I am also “capitalist-to-the-core” on other issues, and “communist-to-the-core” on still others (particularly labor law: I have never met a company that had a union that didn’t, once-upon-a-time, desperately and richly deserve it). And all of this exists very comfortably in a deeply Conservative context.
This is because none of these concepts are mutually-exclusive until they approach polarization.
> I don’t think so. I’d rather smoke a Honduran myself.
That’s probably a fortunate thing for you, then — aren’t Cuban cigars still considered contraband in the US?
> Besides every Cuban cigar you buy puts dollars into the pocket of one of the most brutal dictators on the planet.
It probably also puts a few pesos (or whatever their currency is) into the pocket of a subsistence tobacco worker so that he can feed his family.
If we voted our human rights consciences with our wallets, we would buy absolutely nothing from China. Nor South Africa. Nor most of the Middle East. Nor Japan until they said “sorry” for what they did before and during WW-II. That would make life intolerably inconvenient — far easier to pick on the Cubans because having a social conscience only inconvenience American enjoyers of fine cigars, rum, and holidays in the sun.
‘Tis a social conscience of convenience. That’s the sort of conscience the Hollywood types and aging Rock Stars like.
> I enjoy cigars, but I enjoy a clear conscience even more.
After nearly fifty years it is probably time for the US to recognize that the embargo on Cuba has been an abject failure in foreign policy, and has caused more misery and suffering to the average brutalized Cuban than it has solved. Surely a full-on invasion would be kinder?
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.