RSSBush administration urges FCC to vote against free broadband mandate
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published December 12, 2008, 11:19 AM
Sure, the US government has been in favor of expanding access to free "broadband" service to the masses. But the current administration is opposed to mandates, and there's still enough time to make that opposition stick.
In an open letter to US Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin yesterday, Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez repeated the current administration's opposition to the idea of mandating that a portion of the Advanced Wireless Services AWS-3 spectrum being auctioned off next year, be exclusively set aside for businesses that wish to operate no-fee nationwide broadband services.
As it stands now, the winning bidder in the AWS-3 auction must set aside 25% of the capacity it purchases for the implementation of a network with 768 kbps downstream capacity. It's the subject of legislation still before Congress (as one might imagine, there have been other pressing matters of late), which would effectively codify that requirement into law. But there's considerable speculation over the possibility that next Thursday, December 18, during the last regularly scheduled FCC meeting of the year, Chairman Martin may decide to overturn that order prior to debate on that legislation taking place.
That decision, if it comes, would be welcomed by Sec. Gutierrez.
"This mandate would likely lead to congested and inefficiently used broadband, and it would be inconsistent with the Administration's view that spectrum should be allocated by markets rather than governments," the Secretary wrote. "The history of FCC spectrum auctions has shown that the potential for problems increases in instances where licensing is overly prescriptive or designed around unproven business models. In contrast, open and highly competitive auction processes have supported both greatly expanded broadband services and the taxpayers' interests in spectrum license allocation. Moreover, a government-mandated free nationwide network is not the most effective or efficient way to assist underserved areas."
Proponents of the new business models to which the Secretary referred had an opportunity last October to plead their case before a willing audience at a conference on white spaces technology, which was attended by M2Z Networks -- the firm that has publicly lobbied to become the operator of this free broadband service. But the stage there was shared by other proponents who managed to steal the spotlight, including representatives of firms whose aim is to use white spaces technology in and around the AWS-3 block to deploy what are called smart radios -- devices whose channels can change themselves, adjusting to find the best frequency for any given moment.
One of those proponents was Michael Calabrese, the director of the Wireless Future Program for the New America Foundation, a public policy advocacy group. Communications Daily quoted Calabrese at the time as having gone so far as to advocate a second phase of the DTV transition, which amounted to no less than a dissolution of broadcast television altogether.
"Take TV off the air," Calabrese suggested, in words that were repeated on the Foundation's own Web site. In a proper world, he added, the entire broadcast spectrum should be opened up to wireless broadband, with television relegated to cable, satellite, and the Internet.
Calabrese's remarks may have actually served to guarantee opposition to the free wireless broadband plan, by effectively lumping M2Z's proposals in with virtually unworkable, and arguably ludicrous, plans to rid the airwaves of broadcasting.
In a weekly radio address earlier this month, President-Elect Obama voiced his support for the notion of free broadband service, listing it as among one of the public works projects that he believes could help restore the American economy.
"It is unacceptable," Mr. Obama said, "that the United States ranks fifteenth in the world in broadband adoption. Here, in the country that invented the Internet, every child should have the chance to get online, and they'll get that chance when I'm President -- because that's how we'll strengthen America's competitiveness in the world."
But Mr. Obama's comment did not necessarily mean that either his commerce secretary --very likely at this point to be current New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson -- or his nominee for FCC chairman will feel any differently than the current administration about the approach to bring that about. As a presidential candidate himself, Gov. Richardson advocated guaranteeing rural broadband access, which suggests that he may be in favor of the 25% mandate. However, whether the government should maintain control of the buildout process, as the FCC's current draft order for the AWS-3 auction suggests, is not a matter about which the incoming administration has gone on the record.
For now, the current FCC chairman is looking for a way to leave his stamp on the office, and he has these words from current Sec. Gutierrez to consider: "The Administration believes that the AWS-3 spectrum should be auctioned without price or product mandates. The FCC should rely on market forces to determine the best use of spectrum, subject to appropriate government rules to prevent harmful interference."
11:10 am EST December 12, 2008 - Reuters is reporting this morning that Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D. - W.V.), who is perceived as most likely to head the Senate Commerce Committee in the new Congress come January, may ask the FCC to delay its vote on the AWS-3 auction rules -- as well as any rulemaking concerning spectrum -- until after the DTV transition on February 17.
That would not only give time for Sen. Rockefeller to take his new seat in charge of the debate over free broadband, but to set the agenda for an even bigger and more pressing matter in the interim: the possible complete restructuring of the Federal Communications Commission. Granted, commissioners often come and go with passing administrations; but for over a decade, Sen. Rockefeller has voiced his support for legislation that would alter the mandate of the FCC, limit the terms of its commissioners, and conceivably make them more accountable to Congress.
If the free broadband debate has to wait for that discussion to conclude, the best-laid plans of M2Z Networks may have to be tabled for yet another year. Pres.-Elect Obama has been conspicuously silent about any potential nominees he may make to the FCC, in what could be perceived as, at the very least, interest in Rockefeller's proposals.
"the possible complete restructuring of the Federal Communications"
IT IS LONG OVERDUE.
i think that given the choice, the american people would fore go free broadband
and instead want the restructuring of the fcc.
the fcc is the worst federal department and it is time to clean it up and to
toss out those arrogant s.o.b.'s that sit on a throne with a complex and
deliberate bureaucracy that bridles the voice(s) of the american people.
after the fcc, the fda then the department of energy.
Score: 0
|I would have to stick the Department of Edukashun up there just a bit higher! ;-))
Score: 0
|Wouldn't have any affect on you, ape-boy. Not even God can fix that amount of stupid. ;-))
But at least your brainless ranting is, "free".
Score: 0
|Insanity personified.
At least you're not afraid to advetise the fact.
The irony, unlike your "free" MP3s that require a subscription payment each month, my ranting IS free, as it requires NO payment.
The really funny thing is that this poor fool buys low-fi MP3s!
Score: 0
|Heh...
Guess what, genius? Remember when I asked what the subscription cost was?
Do you think I'd ask such a thing if I actually _were_ a subscriber?
Are you really that stupid? Wait, don't bother. We all know the answer to that one.
But _do_ reply. This is most entertaining. I want to see how far your ego is going to force you to take this. I mean, if you can't be right, know the facts of the discussion, or even make the slightest bit of sense, at least you can rant idiotic until everyone gives up, right? Hey, when all else fails, you "win" if you get the last post, right?
Who needs "dozens" when you have this brainless oaf?
Score: 0
|It is not free broadband. It is providing a platform for software development and hardware development companies to have a quick and easy way to market. It is promoting competition that is up to speed with the rest of the world.
Too much red tape has caused stagnation, if there is a reason to change, this is the battle cry. If they block it, it will put the US behind the rest of the world even further.
Please see "Any lawful device" a story about the Carter Phone and you will understand the mentality the free people of this Nation contend against.
Score: 0
|hey horsecharles seeing you in here a lot. You really shouldn't talk so much though. It shows that you have no brain capacity. As for the article, I like the idea, but much like some other people in this forum have said I don't think this should be free, but I do think that the broadband market in rural areas is disgraceful at best. I live in a rural market, and have had "broadband by satellite" this is a joke. If you ask me the FCC should take a look at how Hughesnet, Wildblue, and other satellite internet providers do business. $300 upfront. The installer didn't even know how to use Vista. No surprise that he didn't install the dish right. I call Hughesnet only to find that they charge another $200 just to come look at the dish. Why would I want to give another $200 when I just gave $300? That is the only highspeed option where I live. With that said I don't think cable or DSL will ever come this far. I fully expect wireless broadband to be the future (e.g. cellphone tethering). Maybe the new networks will provide better signals?
Score: 0
|Yet you just agreed with me....
PS i have 200+ IQ...
Score: 0
|"PS i have 200+ IQ..."
Then please demonstrate it - beginning with constructing a proper sentence.
Score: 0
|Kindly allow me to check my brains in the coatcheck room, prior to posting this reply:
Fark off and shut the buck up both of yous drama queens:
why insult me and attack me for stating an opinion?
Go back to playing with your barbies, ya hairless pencil deeks!
Score: 0
|This is an area where we need to learn more from the EU...how it mandates things for the collective good(in spite of seemingly limiting individual freedoms at times).
Just like utilities and public transportation in the past... if today we don't roll out ultra fast broadband & wireless, we risk becoming an also-ran backwaters of a nation.
Another Bush blunder... with Jeb looming in the background...who the heck made a royal family of such an incomptetent clan? And the looming alternatives are not much better: Hillary, Chelsea, McCain(false war hero as well as military, corporate and political careers silver spoon mediocrity-- just like W)... Such an advanced nation...and we only seem to wind up with The Joker, The Riddler, The Penguin, Roger Rabbit, Henry VIII, Ralph Kramden and Barney Fife for Presidents.
With the exception of Reagan, I wipe my arse with every single nincompoop & arrogant imbecile in High Office after Roosevelt.
How long has Warren Buffett been around-- and Obama's the only one with sense enough to consult him, rather than be beholden to the Pirates and Robin Hoods of Wall Street & corporate America?
Score: 0
|"This mandate would likely lead to congested and inefficiently used broadband, and it would be inconsistent with the Administration's view that spectrum should be allocated by markets rather than governments."
You mean if the government gets involved, they might F it up? No way, not possible.
Score: 0
|Nothing is free, someone is going to pay for it...and that someone will be anyone above the poverty line. But what about those of us who are "barely" above that line and cant afford the tax hikes....
The rich need no help, the poor need tons and the middle class pays for it...welcome to America.
Score: 0
|This question isn't over a Bush policy but rather a liberal policy in which he is against.
Score: 0
|Why should my tax dollars pay for someone else to have broadband internet? let em stick with $9.99 Netzero for all i care. If they want better internet service, they need to improve their economic status and afford it on their own.
as to rural broadband deployment...that just sucks. I sympathize greatly, but i still dont want to pay the government to expand otherwise unprofitable pipeline and cabling to their low-density areas.
Score: 0
|"Why should my tax dollars pay for someone else to have broadband internet?"
And there, folks, is the real question here. As Thomas Jefferson said:
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Why do I have to spend my money on people who may or may not even have a frikin job?
I'm sure there are some people who are hard workers, but feeding their family comes before Internet. This would be good for those people. My beef is the federal government doesn't have a friggen clue when it comes to who needs what--this is apparent with FEMA, welfare, and just about everything else government "gives" select people. Local folks are much better equipped and able to help--just ask people who helped the most after Hurricane Ike. It was local charities and churches--and in the end I'll bet they spent less than one one-hundredth the amount of money that the government spent. In fact, I'm almost (but not quite) inclined to say that rather than spend money on government programs they should be giving this money to local charities and churches since they are obviously more knowledgeable of local needs that the federal government is.
If someone needs free Internet the good people of this country should help them out, not a mandate from the federal government.
Score: 0
|The fact is that the bandwidth is, and has been for many years, being used by many industries!!!!! Be it Pro audio video (ie wireless mics and comm), security and many other industries.
But now an alliance of "we care about YOU" firms lead by Google wants effective control over it - of course only in YOUR interest - so that they can control the bandwidth - of course, FOR YOU- in order that their products and their standards can provide you with FREE access - except YOU don't actually get free Internet access, as its not really for YOU. But they propose others doing things for YOU.
And its free - except that you will no longer be able to use existing technologies that currentlyuse the space, and you will not actually be able to do anything there for free.
But let's not confuse the issue - as they use the word "free" don't they?
So it must be "free". Because Google is just one hell of an altruistic company.
Sort of like a bank is "free" as you line up to efectively loan them the use of your money for free (aside from the many fees they charge YOU!) as they then invest YOUR free money and make a profit from it as they charge you fees. But ask them for some money on the same terms as they get it from you - you know - for "free".
LOL!
But as we have learned on theis erudite site - if you pay $14.95 a month for music and they say X number of downloads are "free" - only if you pay $14.95 a month - the hordes will line up! As you see, $14.95 a month is "free" if you simply include offers of "free" material available only for $14.95 a month..You know - for "free" ...plus $14.95!
LOLOL!
Score: 0
|"But as we have learned on theis erudite site - if you pay $14.95 a month for music and they say X number of downloads are "free" - only if you pay $14.95 a month - the hordes will line up! As you see, $14.95 a month is "free" if you simply include offers of "free" material available only for $14.95 a month..You know - for "free" ...plus $14.95!"
No-one _ever_ said $14.99 was "free".
I cannot believe you're still obsessed with this. The question was answered by dvferret, in less that four words, even. Get over it.
Score: 0
|I think its hilarious. Dimwit, NOTHING in the offer was "free"!!! But you and other's persisted in trying to determine the value of the included "free" content! An utterly meaningless phrase. Simply Hilarious!
Or for that matter, pay them the subscription price, and EVERYTHING INCLUDED IN THE DEAL IS "FREE"! Only idiots like yourself would give ANY credance to the meaningless use of the word in that context!
As long as you pay the mandatory price of $14.95, its ALL "free". And simply a steal! And all for "free" - oh, and $14.95 a month!
I wonder, does that only apply to things priced at $14.95 a month, or does "free" have a different definition if the price is different?
So many factors to consider!
This has got to be one of the most amazing examples of idiotic consumer mentality in the site's***ory! And that's saying something. Yup, when is "free" "free"...Well, after you pay $14.95 a month, of course!
Or is it suddenly "free" when Google and friends control it?
LOL!
Score: 0
|Broadband is not a service like food stamps it's infrastructure like a road. Access for everyone means everybody can shop at your website, click ads on your blog, and subscribe to your web service.
The benefit is for every business on the web, not just rural and low income users.
Score: 0
|Simply amazing.
A question dvferret answered in less than four words is _still_ impossible for you to wrap your enormous ego around.
"NOTHING in the offer was "free"!!!"
Hey, sherlock. Last time: No-one claimed it was. "What is the cost of the subscription now compared to the cost prior?"
I _love_ the fact that when told how completely useless your "answer" was it caused you to go off on some wild-eyed, frothing rant on the meaning of the word, "free"....and you _still_ don't get it.
Truly spectacular. You should be in politics.
Score: 0
|Since when did the benefit of business become a government goal? The government exists to serve the people, not the corporations.
Score: 0
|You're spot on there, champ. Everyone knows that business are owned and operated by werewolves and extraterrestrials, not humans with bills to pay.
Score: 0
|Hey dimwit, if you go back and look at my initial sarcastic response posted far before the weasel responded - in fact one of, if not the first - I sarcastically said NOTHING in the offer was free! And that the entire concept of anything being free was nonsensical!
That was my point from the beginning and it continues to this day - but geniuses like yourself STILL don't get it!
So now tell us dimwit, how "free" is the product for which you must pay $14.95 a month?????
But its now rather apparent that your nome de plume refers not to your temperment, but to your mental incapacity.
Score: 0
|I'd laugh, but it's just so sad...
_You_ don't get it, "dimwit." No-one ever said it was free, as they were obviously still charging for a subscription. You've been arguing with yourself.
I asked what the subscription prices were before and after. The comment regarding the word "free" was _only_ relevant to the subscription cost being raised or not.
Oh, and the subscription price, again, is $14.99. Amusing, considering in all your herculean yet futile efforts to be "right" you've managed to get that _wrong_ in every post you've made regarding it.
Score: 0
|My point, genius, was that they do not serve entities, but individuals.
The comment above mine implied the opposite.
Champ.
Score: 0
|The use of the phrase was meaningless then, just as it is with regrds tro Googles "free" broadband.
And the references absolutely were oriented towards the change in the perceived value of the package that cost $14.95 a month.
Only folks like you and a few others tried to calculate the vlaue of the "free" features available for $14.95 a month.
Try to spin it as you want. The original observation was that NOTHING was free, and the package was and still is, $14.95 per month.
And dimwit, your response was NOT the only wacko attempt to ascertain the value of the "free" offereings that cost $14.95 per month!
And who gives a f$#% what the price was. NOTHING mentioned in the package was "free". But keep trying to calculate the per unit value dimwit of the "free" product!
Score: 0
|And you were also one of several who tried to calculate the value of the "free" MP3 files as well.
LOL!
Score: 0
|Oh
My
God.
He's still here...
Package prior to offer: $14.99
Package with 10 unprotected tracks: $14.99
End net additional cost to end user: $0.00
That is all my original question was trying to determine. No-one was under the impression you could get the tracks for free, since anyone with a brain knew you had to have a subscription to get them.
You are the only one having a problem with the word free. I'd venture to guess there's some deep dark reason for it, but then I haven't seen any indication you're actually capable of reason.
No-one was trying to calculate anything but the net cost difference to the user. It was a simple calculation.
...and you _still_ can't get the price right. It's hilarious.
Thanks for the entertainment, genius.
Score: 0
|Wow.. You mean I was one of several people trying to find out if they were charging more for the additional service?
Bummer.
Sucks to be you, the _only_ one who couldn't figure that out. Hell, I bet it is still too much for you to wrap your enormous ego around.
Score: 0
|Poor baby.
There was no "free" anything! Not then, not now!
Sorry that is so kompleekated for you!
But then, idiots like you are exactly the folks at which the marketeers aim their ads!
So why not explain to everyone how Google's free broadband will be? Won't cost anyone a thing, will it? Aside from buying their compatible equipment and... oh wait...that's not "free" too???? Well sure it is, as after you buy the other stuff that never mentioned, everything is "free". LOL!
But its "free"! LOL!
Score: 0
|Net additional cost to get "free" tracks?
Nitwit, the concept is a logical fallicy.
If you have to pay for service, NOTHING IS FREE - or by your illogic, Everything is free after you PAY.
Still trying to convince yourself that your asinine calculation made any sense? Or how free things are AFTER you pay for the service?
Fine nitwit - your "free" tracks are exactly that - believe whatever you want, as you are so stupid as to think ANYTHING warranted the misuse of the term "free".
There was NOTHING in the ad that was "free". THERE WAS NOTHING THAT WAS OFFERED WITHOUT THE NEED TO PAY THEM FIRST.
But - please - be my guest - you can believe that any or all of the package was "free" if you like. After all, its your fantasy!
You are 'free' to believe the term "free" can mean anything you want it to be - Just like the term "pure", which a normal person might normally interpret to mean "only the stated component", but which legally means 'whatever they happen to put in it as the product'! So if their sugar just happens to be 30% sand, well, enjoy, as its "Pure Sugar".
But then you buy buttons that come with "free" pants attached; and and mice with a "free" computer attached; and lint, with a "free" blanket attached; and bull, with all the "free" sh!t you can stand.
LOL!
The advertisers pray for more geniuses like you!
Score: 0
|I am laughing so hard it hurts.
Your ridiculousness is mind-blowing.
Why do you keep saying it's not free? Has _anyone_ disagreed with you? Even once?
No.
Everyone knows there's a subscription fee. But you are _so_ retarded, you actually believe I or anyone thought at any time that the tracks didn't have to paid for.
It's absurd. You're absurd.
A joke doesn't even _begin_ to describe what you've made yourself. But keep posting, man. I can always use the laughs.
Score: 0
|No-one said anything was free, you retarded monkey.
Get over it. You've proven you're an imbecile. No need to keep doing it...over...and over...and over.
Your ego simply can't let you stop, can it? No matter how many times I laugh at you, explain what an idiot you are, or that _you_ are the only one who thinks anyone ever thought the tracks were free.
Wait, I know. Explain it to me again, ya brainless ape. Is the oxygen you're breathing free? How about the candy at the bank in the tin that says "take only one"? Is that free? What about the "free" cup of coffee you get after buying 10, is that free?
Woo, boy...bet your gonna have an aneurysm over that one, eh?
Man, I hope they broke the mold when they made you. I believe you've officially broken the record for stupid.
Score: 0
|My, and you use so many words to say absolutely nothing!
Dimwit, you wre the one trying to determine the value of eh "free" content that cost a required $14.95/$14.99/$40million pesos/umpteen goat's whiskers - as if it matters...
Yup, just "how free is "free".
Its not, never was, and yet you worried about trying to determine how much the "free" material was worth - as if there was such a thing. And now you want us to all believe that you really didn't care about hat which you made such a fuse over.
Step right up folks and view the genius who thinks that 10 free MP2s, after you pay a monthly subscription fee entitling you to their entire library, isgeeting a better deal than the one who does not get the "free" MP3s!
LOL!
Don't worry folks, he is busy now scouring the back covers of old comic books looking for deals as we speak.
Maybe, with a bit of encouragement, he can be coaxed to share his latest discovery with us regarding an offer for "X-ray glasses" for only $9.95!!!!!
Score: 0
|You Dimwit!
The phrase had no meaning, and yet you and others attempted to detemine the amortized cost and determine which was a better deal!
The answer: The exact same value as if no "free" files were included!
But he and others calculated that the "free" files made it a better offer! After all, it included 10 "free" files! What a steal!
LOL!
Yet you and others attempted to determine how much more of a deal you were getting by the inclusion of the "free" files!
And now you say that you were saying the exact same thing that I said, yet you debated.
That is what is so funny! And you still don't get it.
But no one wake the nitwit up - let him persist in thinking it was a better deal by virtue that the "unlimited" subscription (up to as many as they have!) included 10 "free" files! It makes him feel like a Consumer Reports Shopper!
Score: 0
|Wow.
"The answer: The exact same value as if no "free" files were included!"
Wrong? It's the same service....with 10 unprotected tracks. The value is the unprotected tracks (only available at additional cost with the old service). You really are that stupid, aren't you?
Oh, and I'm not debating you. I'm laughing at you. There's a big difference.
"let him persist in thinking it was a better deal by virtue that the "unlimited" subscription (up to as many as they have!) included 10 "free" files!"
The unlimited was for protected tracks. The added value would be the 10 unprotected tracks. Helps if you have a clue what you are talking about, doesn't it?
Well, not _you_. Nothing could help you. But it helps when others know what they are talking about so we can all witness your ego-driven insanity.
You just can't stop, can you?
Score: 0
|"And now you want us to all believe that you really didn't care about hat which you made such a fuse over."
I never made a "fuse". I asked a simple question. The answer was given by dvferret in less than four words. _You_ made the "fuse".
...and I'm beginning to think it's psychologically impossible for you to stop.
"
Step right up folks and view the genius who thinks that 10 free MP2s, after you pay a monthly subscription fee entitling you to their entire library, isgeeting a better deal than the one who does not get the "free" MP3s!"
So the service without 10 unprotected tracks is exactly the same value as the service with _no_ unprotected tracks?
Wow, you _are_ clueless. I suppose it might help if you knew what you were talking about (MP2? Fuse?)
Do you know whether the "entire library" included unprotected tracks? I would guess you don't, since you seem to be under the impression that the 10 unprotected tracks are nothing new to the service...which shows your basic lack of understanding regarding the entire point.
Go figure. You've not a clue what you're talking about. Who'd have guessed?
So, do your posts get more and more nonsensical as you continue to descend into complete absurdity, or did you forget your meds today?
Score: 0
|Yup, now the question is: Where do we apply to buy a Senate set?
Score: 0
|I believe the free broadband will help all Americans. It will create employment to more people. It will drive people to build new products. There will be effective utilization of Radio Waves. I dont think Bush know all these. Even the government should stand for free Wireless Broadband. The only loss because of this is the present Broadband providers like AT&T, Time Warner Cable and Comcast. Did these companies lobbying Bush, if so i am going to fight for Free Wireless Broadband. I will discontinue the service from them.
Score: 0
|Oh no...another who reads the label and thinks that they are really talking about "free" broadband in the sense that all will have "free" broadband!
Next!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This topic is both a great literacy as well as 'reading for meaning' test!
And I have a "free" bridge in Brooklyn for you!
Score: 0
|oh yeah?
the american people has mandated the bush administration to high tail it back to the hill countries on their sorry ass's, i.e. mules where they came from.
Score: 0
|"the american people has mandated the bush administration to high tail it back to the hill countries..."
Yup, 53% versus 46% sure is a landslide. ...And that even with major conservative groups opposed to both Bush and McCain!
And you're a great example of exactly who constitutes the 53%!
Why do I have the feeling that you can't identify nor find those "countries" on a map!? LOL!
But in case you want to try, here's a county by county map you can peruse - you'll note the majority of "hill countries" that out number your regions of urban sprawl and the counties most dependent upon welfare programs. While you're at it, try to figure out to what country or "countries" the map refers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...n_Results_by_County.PNG
Score: 0
|The answer here is simple, all those for it have something to gain. All those against it have something to lose. Read between the lines of their excuses and you will find why they dont want it.
And to ladylust many communities have already begun to shut their public libraries down do to lack of resources and funds to keep them in operation. My suggestion is if you have interests in keeping the cable companies in major power of broadband internet access whether it is because you own stock in those companies or whatever other reason open more broadband accounts with them and support them but I for one hate how cable companies have monopolized this sector of the internet charging outrageous fees and regulating whatever they simply because they know most have no other choices but their internet for broadband.
Score: 0
|Free is a relative concept. Something some just don't quite understand....
Score: 0
|No its not. "Free" means that one does not have to exchange anything of value in order to obtain that to which it refers.
Nothing relative about it. It is an objective measure.
Only a socialist would render such a term as relative - as in, a socialist doesn't fell they have to provide anything if they have entitled themself to what others have that they desire.
Score: 0
|This is a yet another classic case where "Free" means anything BUT "Free".
As the entire AV and associated industries are screaming bloody murder against Google's control of the "Free" bandwidth, you would think someone somewhere would finally hear this and not fall for the "free" label!
And lady, this is not about the "free" use of anything. This is all about the handing over of a region of spectrum that HAS been available to all to a few for their control - lead by Google - all in the name of being "free".
Score: 0
|So then, you must feel that the soon to be former governor of Illinois was just exercising his right to charge for everything. After all since you insist that nothing is free (how much do you pay for oxygen? Can I sell you some?) surely you must agree with him on the idea of selling a Senate seat.
Please send your Oxygen payments care of Ponzisareus.com
Thank you for your payment foxfyre. I will be sure to do no good with it.
Ethelred
Score: 0
|Im against it to... You have free broadband.. its called your local library. If you already dont have internet access, stay away your going to break the internet on us ;)
Score: 0
|