Putting The Broad In Broadband
Is Broadband internet access really something everyone in the country needs or should have? It's a bit debatable, since it could be viewed as entertainment like television, or as a powerful learning resource. The Government seems to feel it could be a powerful resource if everyone has it. The problem is, to give this to everyone someone will end up paying for it:
This bold vision will not only be costly but could well end up stymieing the goal of competitive broadband deployment.Critics to this often state, 'Why not install satellite television, while your at it'. Clearly broadband internet access is not as crucial as electricity, heat, and hot water, but it does offer something beyond pure entertainment, using it for job searches and school homework. The reason this is becoming an issue is state laws are beginning to require broadband internet access in low income housing. If those in need to certain agencies' web sites can't access them, then something does need to be done. An intertesting option would be public hotspots. It could drastically cut down on costs for hardware and monthly access fees. Of course everyone would need a computer with wireless access, but these days that is relatively inexpensive. Of course if you are going to require that low-income housing has access to broadband internet, then it would seem reasonable to assume that computers would be provided as well. However, if you give this to someone without any knowledge of computers, are you also required to provide training? For all the good these plans seem to imply, they also tend to veer towards a slippery slope of more and more expenses piling up for something that not everyone can agree is necessary. Would I like my broadband internet access at home to be free or much lower cost? Of course, but if the government is involved, why do I feel that won't be happening?
Posted by monkeyinabox ::: |