<!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+Mar 27 2005, 11:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ Mar 27 2005, 11:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CForrester+Mar 27 2005, 11:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Mar 27 2005, 11:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Drfuzzy+Mar 27 2005, 11:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Drfuzzy @ Mar 27 2005, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I hate companies like this, they cant stand to see themselfs lose their 1/10000000000000 of the money they make :/ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That generally means that you hate companies. Companies exist to make money. Don't delude yourself, no company wants to see you smile. They want to see you with your hands shoved deep in your pockets because there's no money in there to take up the space. They want to maximize their profits. That's why they're companies. The family image is just a front. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with this however, since when can a family with a total income of say 30k and below be bothered to pay Verizon or any other ISP for access.
How are they losing profits they wouldn't have made in the first place.
If you ask me, this is just spite. And it sickens me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My family only earns 22,000 a year. 24,000 If my dad works over time. We've had internet access and a computer for about 6 years now. However after I started working myself I've taken up my extras costs. (I still get free room and board however I have to pay for my internet, computer, etc) Life was, and I guess still is tough. However my parents are very, very good at handling money. They've managed to buy 3 different cars, always have food on the table, and EVEN do nice things for me every once and a while. I really didn't want to share that but I had to give you another perspective.
I don't see whats wrong with offering an NHS style internet service.
Have it so that you can get free internet access through wireless that may be restricted in some way (Like access at certain times of day, monitoring, slower speed, no extras, etc etc etc) but if you don't want that, go get your own connection.
The reason I liken this to the NHS is that the NHS offer free/very inexpensive healthcare, however if you don't want it you can always spend the money to go private and therefore get "better service" or something.
<!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Mar 28 2005, 02:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Mar 28 2005, 02:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+Mar 27 2005, 11:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ Mar 27 2005, 11:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CForrester+Mar 27 2005, 11:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Mar 27 2005, 11:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Drfuzzy+Mar 27 2005, 11:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Drfuzzy @ Mar 27 2005, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with this however, since when can a family with a total income of say 30k and below be bothered to pay Verizon or any other ISP for access.
How are they losing profits they wouldn't have made in the first place.
If you ask me, this is just spite. And it sickens me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> My family only earns 22,000 a year. 24,000 If my dad works over time. We've had internet access and a computer for about 6 years now. However after I started working myself I've taken up my extras costs. (I still get free room and board however I have to pay for my internet, computer, etc) Life was, and I guess still is tough. However my parents are very, very good at handling money. They've managed to buy 3 different cars, always have food on the table, and EVEN do nice things for me every once and a while. I really didn't want to share that but I had to give you another perspective. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I appreciate your honesty and I apologize for seeming like an arrogant ****. I know nothing of your family's situation, so I apologize for stereotyping. However, paying for internet service is just one more bill that you guys don't need right? Imagine if you were eligible for free wireless broadband? That would be a weight that you didn't need off of your back.
I guess not everone in that bracket is unwilling to spend the cash on internet services, but if anyone should see the cost of having the internet as extraneous, it would be the people in that bracket. All of us who have said things such as "the internet isn't a utility", "you don't need it to live", etc. we are just fooling ourselves. Because despite not needing it, it's still easy for us to afford it. The people who <i>really</i> end up thinking that way are the lower classes.
Juno offers 10 free internet hours a month, and a lot of dial-up companies offer unlimited access for ~$10 a month. If you can't afford $10/month than internet access is probably not high on your priority list anyway, if it is I guess you'd have to deal with learning to use 10 hours efficientley. Regardless, broadband wifi access is a luxury, I don't think it's surprising Verizon stepped in to stop it. Though free broadband would be cool.
<!--QuoteBegin-Crono5+Mar 28 2005, 10:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crono5 @ Mar 28 2005, 10:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Juno offers 10 free internet hours a month, and a lot of dial-up companies offer unlimited access for ~$10 a month. If you can't afford $10/month than internet access is probably not high on your priority list anyway, if it is I guess you'd have to deal with learning to use 10 hours efficientley. Regardless, broadband wifi access is a luxury, I don't think it's surprising Verizon stepped in to stop it. Though free broadband would be cool. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think the city council main aim was to provide free broadband as in free high-speed access to the internet. And the only practical way to provide it fast and easy was to do it via wifi, through wireless broadband access. It would be totally impractical for the city council to setup wired access in those homes because there are building regulation, mayb even wires to add, floor to take out.
And the council's also main angst i think was because some areas in the city (ie the poorer areas) still had not their phone exchanges setup to be ADSL enabled. Hence why wifi seems the best option. THe council themselves just setup the network along the streets along with ther normal utilities like the power and phone lines and then just guide users on gettin a wireless card and tada, net access avaialble.
Maybe it is a bit luxurious for starting net acess to be wifi but I think wifi is now seen as the next step after wired internet access because of the less invasive nature of installation.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+Mar 28 2005, 05:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ Mar 28 2005, 05:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CommunistWithAGun+Mar 28 2005, 02:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Mar 28 2005, 02:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cold NiTe+Mar 27 2005, 11:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cold NiTe @ Mar 27 2005, 11:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-CForrester+Mar 27 2005, 11:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Mar 27 2005, 11:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Drfuzzy+Mar 27 2005, 11:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Drfuzzy @ Mar 27 2005, 11:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with this however, since when can a family with a total income of say 30k and below be bothered to pay Verizon or any other ISP for access.
How are they losing profits they wouldn't have made in the first place.
If you ask me, this is just spite. And it sickens me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> My family only earns 22,000 a year. 24,000 If my dad works over time. We've had internet access and a computer for about 6 years now. However after I started working myself I've taken up my extras costs. (I still get free room and board however I have to pay for my internet, computer, etc) Life was, and I guess still is tough. However my parents are very, very good at handling money. They've managed to buy 3 different cars, always have food on the table, and EVEN do nice things for me every once and a while. I really didn't want to share that but I had to give you another perspective. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I appreciate your honesty and I apologize for seeming like an arrogant ****. I know nothing of your family's situation, so I apologize for stereotyping. However, paying for internet service is just one more bill that you guys don't need right? Imagine if you were eligible for free wireless broadband? That would be a weight that you didn't need off of your back.
I guess not everone in that bracket is unwilling to spend the cash on internet services, but if anyone should see the cost of having the internet as extraneous, it would be the people in that bracket. All of us who have said things such as "the internet isn't a utility", "you don't need it to live", etc. we are just fooling ourselves. Because despite not needing it, it's still easy for us to afford it. The people who <i>really</i> end up thinking that way are the lower classes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Eh I didn't take offense just wanted you to realize that while I agree it should be free, income dosen't always determine your true fiscal situation
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited March 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-CForrester+Mar 27 2005, 08:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CForrester @ Mar 27 2005, 08:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Because the people who can afford it have to pay for them in the form of taxes, when they may not want to. An Internet connection is not an essential service. Why should I pay for them to receive something that they don't even need, just because I was more determined and got a better job than they have/don't have?
I would much rather have my money go in to paying for public terminals that anyone can use. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wouldnt have my hard earned money spent to something as useless as public terminals, bah. All these grand city initiative financed by stolen gold.
<!--QuoteBegin-StormLiong+Mar 28 2005, 01:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (StormLiong @ Mar 28 2005, 01:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Crono5+Mar 28 2005, 10:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Crono5 @ Mar 28 2005, 10:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Juno offers 10 free internet hours a month, and a lot of dial-up companies offer unlimited access for ~$10 a month. If you can't afford $10/month than internet access is probably not high on your priority list anyway, if it is I guess you'd have to deal with learning to use 10 hours efficientley. Regardless, broadband wifi access is a luxury, I don't think it's surprising Verizon stepped in to stop it. Though free broadband would be cool. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think the city council main aim was to provide free broadband as in free high-speed access to the internet. And the only practical way to provide it fast and easy was to do it via wifi, through wireless broadband access. It would be totally impractical for the city council to setup wired access in those homes because there are building regulation, mayb even wires to add, floor to take out.
And the council's also main angst i think was because some areas in the city (ie the poorer areas) still had not their phone exchanges setup to be ADSL enabled. Hence why wifi seems the best option. THe council themselves just setup the network along the streets along with ther normal utilities like the power and phone lines and then just guide users on gettin a wireless card and tada, net access avaialble.
Maybe it is a bit luxurious for starting net acess to be wifi but I think wifi is now seen as the next step after wired internet access because of the less invasive nature of installation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Any house with a phone line can be set up for DSL so long as the phone company supports it. If the phone company doesn't, then the project should've been giving the phone company the capability to give DSL instead of setting up a large wireless network. Either way it seems rather easy to abuse, I don't quite understand the necessity for broadband wireless...
Comments
That generally means that you hate companies. Companies exist to make money. Don't delude yourself, no company wants to see you smile. They want to see you with your hands shoved deep in your pockets because there's no money in there to take up the space. They want to maximize their profits. That's why they're companies. The family image is just a front. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with this however, since when can a family with a total income of say 30k and below be bothered to pay Verizon or any other ISP for access.
How are they losing profits they wouldn't have made in the first place.
If you ask me, this is just spite. And it sickens me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
My family only earns 22,000 a year. 24,000 If my dad works over time. We've had internet access and a computer for about 6 years now. However after I started working myself I've taken up my extras costs. (I still get free room and board however I have to pay for my internet, computer, etc) Life was, and I guess still is tough. However my parents are very, very good at handling money. They've managed to buy 3 different cars, always have food on the table, and EVEN do nice things for me every once and a while. I really didn't want to share that but I had to give you another perspective.
Have it so that you can get free internet access through wireless that may be restricted in some way (Like access at certain times of day, monitoring, slower speed, no extras, etc etc etc) but if you don't want that, go get your own connection.
The reason I liken this to the NHS is that the NHS offer free/very inexpensive healthcare, however if you don't want it you can always spend the money to go private and therefore get "better service" or something.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with this however, since when can a family with a total income of say 30k and below be bothered to pay Verizon or any other ISP for access.
How are they losing profits they wouldn't have made in the first place.
If you ask me, this is just spite. And it sickens me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My family only earns 22,000 a year. 24,000 If my dad works over time. We've had internet access and a computer for about 6 years now. However after I started working myself I've taken up my extras costs. (I still get free room and board however I have to pay for my internet, computer, etc) Life was, and I guess still is tough. However my parents are very, very good at handling money. They've managed to buy 3 different cars, always have food on the table, and EVEN do nice things for me every once and a while. I really didn't want to share that but I had to give you another perspective. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I appreciate your honesty and I apologize for seeming like an arrogant ****. I know nothing of your family's situation, so I apologize for stereotyping. However, paying for internet service is just one more bill that you guys don't need right? Imagine if you were eligible for free wireless broadband? That would be a weight that you didn't need off of your back.
I guess not everone in that bracket is unwilling to spend the cash on internet services, but if anyone should see the cost of having the internet as extraneous, it would be the people in that bracket. All of us who have said things such as "the internet isn't a utility", "you don't need it to live", etc. we are just fooling ourselves. Because despite not needing it, it's still easy for us to afford it. The people who <i>really</i> end up thinking that way are the lower classes.
I think the city council main aim was to provide free broadband as in free high-speed access to the internet. And the only practical way to provide it fast and easy was to do it via wifi, through wireless broadband access. It would be totally impractical for the city council to setup wired access in those homes because there are building regulation, mayb even wires to add, floor to take out.
And the council's also main angst i think was because some areas in the city (ie the poorer areas) still had not their phone exchanges setup to be ADSL enabled.
Hence why wifi seems the best option. THe council themselves just setup the network along the streets along with ther normal utilities like the power and phone lines and then just guide users on gettin a wireless card and tada, net access avaialble.
Maybe it is a bit luxurious for starting net acess to be wifi but I think wifi is now seen as the next step after wired internet access because of the less invasive nature of installation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with this however, since when can a family with a total income of say 30k and below be bothered to pay Verizon or any other ISP for access.
How are they losing profits they wouldn't have made in the first place.
If you ask me, this is just spite. And it sickens me. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My family only earns 22,000 a year. 24,000 If my dad works over time. We've had internet access and a computer for about 6 years now. However after I started working myself I've taken up my extras costs. (I still get free room and board however I have to pay for my internet, computer, etc) Life was, and I guess still is tough. However my parents are very, very good at handling money. They've managed to buy 3 different cars, always have food on the table, and EVEN do nice things for me every once and a while. I really didn't want to share that but I had to give you another perspective. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I appreciate your honesty and I apologize for seeming like an arrogant ****. I know nothing of your family's situation, so I apologize for stereotyping. However, paying for internet service is just one more bill that you guys don't need right? Imagine if you were eligible for free wireless broadband? That would be a weight that you didn't need off of your back.
I guess not everone in that bracket is unwilling to spend the cash on internet services, but if anyone should see the cost of having the internet as extraneous, it would be the people in that bracket. All of us who have said things such as "the internet isn't a utility", "you don't need it to live", etc. we are just fooling ourselves. Because despite not needing it, it's still easy for us to afford it. The people who <i>really</i> end up thinking that way are the lower classes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh I didn't take offense just wanted you to realize that while I agree it should be free, income dosen't always determine your true fiscal situation
I would much rather have my money go in to paying for public terminals that anyone can use. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldnt have my hard earned money spent to something as useless as public terminals, bah.
All these grand city initiative financed by stolen gold.
I think the city council main aim was to provide free broadband as in free high-speed access to the internet. And the only practical way to provide it fast and easy was to do it via wifi, through wireless broadband access. It would be totally impractical for the city council to setup wired access in those homes because there are building regulation, mayb even wires to add, floor to take out.
And the council's also main angst i think was because some areas in the city (ie the poorer areas) still had not their phone exchanges setup to be ADSL enabled.
Hence why wifi seems the best option. THe council themselves just setup the network along the streets along with ther normal utilities like the power and phone lines and then just guide users on gettin a wireless card and tada, net access avaialble.
Maybe it is a bit luxurious for starting net acess to be wifi but I think wifi is now seen as the next step after wired internet access because of the less invasive nature of installation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Any house with a phone line can be set up for DSL so long as the phone company supports it. If the phone company doesn't, then the project should've been giving the phone company the capability to give DSL instead of setting up a large wireless network. Either way it seems rather easy to abuse, I don't quite understand the necessity for broadband wireless...