Cha Ching! Another Liberal Assigns "Rights" to Something With a Price Tag

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
Amazing how this works. I'm trying to figure out where in the first 150 years of our country any of our basic rights came with a price tag. Now everything that is now a "right" to liberals, like universal health care, welfare, SSI etc. has a price. Well now the newest "right" that is being bandied about by a criminal mayor of a major U.S. city is "free Wi-Fi". Why, who could that be? None other than your favorite law and oath breaker Gavin Newsome!

S.F. mayor sees wireless service as basic right

By Eric Auchard Tue Oct 4, 2:05 AM ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who became internationally known for his campaign a year ago to legalize gay marriage, said on Monday he considered wireless Internet access a fundamental right of all citizens.

Newsom told a news conference that he was bracing for a battle with telephone and cable interests, along with state and U.S. regulators, whom he said were looking to derail a campaign by cities to offer free or low-cost municipal Wi-Fi services.

Wi-Fi is a short-range wireless technology that is now built into most laptop computers and is increasingly offered on handheld computers and certain mobile phones. Local officials are mulling plans to blanket every nook and cranny of this hilly city of 750,000 residents with Wi-Fi access.

"This is inevitable -- Wi-Fi. It is long overdue," Newsom told a news conference at San Francisco's City Hall. "It is to me a fundamental right to have access universally to information," he said.

Officials said 24 proposals had been turned into the city to deliver wireless Internet services, ranging from Web search company Google Inc., Cingular, the No. 1 U.S. wireless carrier, to Internet service provider EarthLink Inc..

Newsom told reporters he hoped to streamline the final bidding process and choose a contractor to build the city-wide wireless service in as little as five to six months.

But a series of public hearings and city approval processes, as well as potential lawsuits by opponents, could drag the process out far longer, he cautioned.

Making wireless access affordable to the entire population of San Francisco was a vital step to differentiating the city in order to make it more economically competitive on a state, national and global level, Newsom said.

But the mayor also singled out the power of Wi-Fi as an alternative network to provide emergency information to all citizens in the event a natural disaster such as an earthquake were to strike the city and knock out other communications.

"CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE"

Wireless access can be seen a basic right that should be available not just to business professionals but also lower-income citizens. "This is a civil rights issue as much as anything else," Newsom said.

The mayor said he had no exact figures on how much it would cost to build a wireless umbrella to cover the entire city, but cited general estimates that have ranged from $8 million to $16 million for antennas and other gear.

"My intent is to have the taxpayers pay little or nothing," Newsom said of the municipal wireless project.

Chris Vein, director of telecommunication and information services for the City of San Francisco declined to comment on whether any of the participants planned to use an alternative technology known as WiMAX, which provides higher speed wireless service using fewer antennas.

One company, which Vein declined to name, has proposed an advertising-supported plan for free wireless access, he said. That company appeared to be Google. A Google spokesman on Friday had confirmed that its Wi-Fi access proposal could be funded through online advertising.

City officials said other companies submitting business proposals for the municipal wireless access project included a mix of network equipment suppliers, wireless service providers, local start-ups and community wireless projects.

Potential bidders include Sweden's Ericsson, Motorola Inc., Canada's Nortel, Extreme Networks Inc. and two fixed wireless suppliers, Israel's Alvarion Ltd. and WiLine of San Francisco.

Other names on the list were GigaBeam, Symbol Technologies Inc., SkyTel, the old pager unit of MCI, which is due to be acquired by phone company Verizon Communications.
Link

Doesn't anybody think they have to pay for anything anymore?
 
While I don't believe it is a "right," I am all for free wireless if some company wants to provide it. Of course, given the number of advertisements you would have to sit through, I may elect to take the pay option in any event.
 
I have zero problem with a company coming along and offering to build this for nothing hoping to make their money back on advertising.

Hell, there's no way that you couldn't make money selling online space/search rankings/banners etc. with an initial $20 million investment (If that's what it can be built for.). If this is the new "broadcasting" you need to open it up to competition though and can't grant someone like Google an exclusive deal.

That's a whole 'nother can o worms though.
 
Typically, I'd argue that, given internet terminals in public libraries, it's a moot point, providing free wireless service will likely only reinforce inequality by benefiting those people who have the technological capabilities to begin with.

In other words, I don't imagine that you're going to see the homeless start taking advantage of this with the laptops they already don't have; with that in mind, why are you complaining?

I imagine that changes in what is considered "worktime" motivates this. People want to have constant access to the internet. Perhaps Newsom thinks that providing this will serve as an incentive to get people out into the city to spend money in the city (so they aren't bound to their offices in order to stay connected to the 'net at all times). Perhaps, in the end, it's all about increasing business (given the geographic focus on the advertising involved, it's far more than simply "perhaps").

For you to compare this to other evidently laughable "rights" as health care, welfare services, and SSI is an indication that you have no fucking clue what life is like for the truly disadvantaged in society. I only wish that you had to experience a disadvantaged upbringing.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Doesn't anybody think they have to pay for anything anymore?[/QUOTE]

They're still paying, it's just through taxes instead of directly to a private provider. And that makes it more expensive because you have to have a bureaucracy. But quite frankly, although using the term "universal right" to describe wi-fi access is laughable and I don't support a government-paid-for network like this for a whole host of reasons, I see no reason why the legitimate political leader of a city can't make the decisions he was elected to make. In other words, if the city thinks this is the best option, that's why we're a democracy, so they can do what they want.
 
You're right PAD. There IS a price to this. $10 to $20 a month. Get your facts straight before crying foul.

"When completed, the network will cover the entire city, offering free Wi-Fi connections in city parks and historic attractions. City residents will be able to get Internet access for $20 per month, while residents in designated low-income areas of the city can get it for $10."

http://www.wirelessweek.com/article/CA6263027.html
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Amazing how this works. I'm trying to figure out where in the first 150 years of our country any of our basic rights came with a price tag. Now everything that is now a "right" to liberals, like universal health care, welfare, SSI etc. has a price. Well now the newest "right" that is being bandied about by a criminal mayor of a major U.S. city is "free Wi-Fi". Why, who could that be? None other than your favorite law and oath breaker Gavin Newsome!

S.F. mayor sees wireless service as basic right

By Eric Auchard Tue Oct 4, 2:05 AM ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who became internationally known for his campaign a year ago to legalize gay marriage, said on Monday he considered wireless Internet access a fundamental right of all citizens.

Newsom told a news conference that he was bracing for a battle with telephone and cable interests, along with state and U.S. regulators, whom he said were looking to derail a campaign by cities to offer free or low-cost municipal Wi-Fi services.

Wi-Fi is a short-range wireless technology that is now built into most laptop computers and is increasingly offered on handheld computers and certain mobile phones. Local officials are mulling plans to blanket every nook and cranny of this hilly city of 750,000 residents with Wi-Fi access.

"This is inevitable -- Wi-Fi. It is long overdue," Newsom told a news conference at San Francisco's City Hall. "It is to me a fundamental right to have access universally to information," he said.

Officials said 24 proposals had been turned into the city to deliver wireless Internet services, ranging from Web search company Google Inc., Cingular, the No. 1 U.S. wireless carrier, to Internet service provider EarthLink Inc..

Newsom told reporters he hoped to streamline the final bidding process and choose a contractor to build the city-wide wireless service in as little as five to six months.

But a series of public hearings and city approval processes, as well as potential lawsuits by opponents, could drag the process out far longer, he cautioned.

Making wireless access affordable to the entire population of San Francisco was a vital step to differentiating the city in order to make it more economically competitive on a state, national and global level, Newsom said.

But the mayor also singled out the power of Wi-Fi as an alternative network to provide emergency information to all citizens in the event a natural disaster such as an earthquake were to strike the city and knock out other communications.

"CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE"

Wireless access can be seen a basic right that should be available not just to business professionals but also lower-income citizens. "This is a civil rights issue as much as anything else," Newsom said.

The mayor said he had no exact figures on how much it would cost to build a wireless umbrella to cover the entire city, but cited general estimates that have ranged from $8 million to $16 million for antennas and other gear.

"My intent is to have the taxpayers pay little or nothing," Newsom said of the municipal wireless project.

Chris Vein, director of telecommunication and information services for the City of San Francisco declined to comment on whether any of the participants planned to use an alternative technology known as WiMAX, which provides higher speed wireless service using fewer antennas.

One company, which Vein declined to name, has proposed an advertising-supported plan for free wireless access, he said. That company appeared to be Google. A Google spokesman on Friday had confirmed that its Wi-Fi access proposal could be funded through online advertising.

City officials said other companies submitting business proposals for the municipal wireless access project included a mix of network equipment suppliers, wireless service providers, local start-ups and community wireless projects.

Potential bidders include Sweden's Ericsson, Motorola Inc., Canada's Nortel, Extreme Networks Inc. and two fixed wireless suppliers, Israel's Alvarion Ltd. and WiLine of San Francisco.

Other names on the list were GigaBeam, Symbol Technologies Inc., SkyTel, the old pager unit of MCI, which is due to be acquired by phone company Verizon Communications.
Link

Doesn't anybody think they have to pay for anything anymore?[/QUOTE]

Well access to information is increasingly difficult without access to the internet in modern times, and lacking such universal access will leave the poor further behind. I don't personally agree it's a right, but I can understand how one could conclude that it is.

But to suggest that all "rights" come with a price tag, that's just wrong. A right to abortion is not costing the government, same with same sex marriage. Hell, there's a tourism industry built around same sex marriage.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I only wish that you had to experience a disadvantaged upbringing.[/QUOTE]

Liberalism at its root. Spread misery around equally.

Thanks for the window into your soul.
 
I don't see what's wrong here. The mayor of SF wants to provide a service to his citizens that can be relatively expensive for a reasonable price. Adding wireless internet access to the entire city makes it easier for employees who are constantly on the move to be able to communicate with their employers, thus boosting efficiency, boosting profits, and increasing tax revenue. It also allows for people who either can't afford the high cost of cable or DSL, or don't have access to it, to be able to use broadband internet services.

And as CappyCobra pointed out, the service is only free in city parks and historic attractions, while the rest of the city has to pay a small fee. Also, no government service is really "free" if you pay any taxes.

It should also be noted that you don't actually have a right to your Social Secuirty payments.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Liberalism at its root. Spread misery around equally.

Thanks for the window into your soul.[/QUOTE]

Liberalism at it's root was minimalist government for the people, instead of a government controlled by the aristocracy (or big business) that only catered to the wealth and well-being of the rich and powerful. Aristocratic governments whose ruling class might say of starving peasants "Let them eat cake"; or tell New Orleans survivors that they "were underprivileged anyway, so this -- this is working very well for them."
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Liberalism at its root. Spread misery around equally.

Thanks for the window into your soul.[/QUOTE]

If you want to read it that way, fine. You are, undoubtedly, fully aware that you're consciously interpreting my comments in a way markedly different from what I meant them. So, you are wrong, but if you want to consciously be wrong, I won't get in your way.

In the unlikely event that you truly are that dense, I'll spell it out in better detail; since you clearly seem to think that things such as being healthy, having the pharmaceutical and medical opportunities to consistently remain healthy, and receiving aid in order to avoid losing your residence and possessions when in between jobs are superfluous in regards to the fact that it might evidently get in the way of your ability to purchase an Xbox 360 on launch day (as a result of the excessive taxation necessary to support such people), I typically only see one solution to what I consider to be the problem of being blinded by privelege.

I wish no harm upon you (I have more pity than hatred for the deliciously ignorant), nor do I wish you to "live in misery." I merely, instead, wish that you had experiences that would render you more empathetic towards your fellow humans (or, at the very least, fellow US citizens). What you seem to consider superfluous and wasteful government spending is keeping your fellow citizens alive. I don't consider that to be a waste if it means I pay an individually insignificant increase in taxes at some level.
 
I've been at numerous rungs of the socio-economic ladder. Yeah, I grew up in a relatively well to do home, attended three years of private high school, went to private universities but while a student I was dirt poor and my first two years working professionally I made less than $25K. Between jobs I paid my own COBRA benefits I didn't need a government handout, program or agency to make sure I wouldn't die.

The American populace, well, the whining gimme gimme gimme class anyways, is incomprehensibly dependent. The ones I pity are those that enable people to live a sustinence lifestyle and existence by insisting government be the provider of life's necessities. Oh, and those that vote for them and empathize with them such as yourself.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I've been at numerous rungs of the socio-economic ladder. Yeah, I grew up in a relatively well to do home, attended three years of private high school, went to private universities but while a student I was dirt poor and my first two years working professionally I made less than $25K. Between jobs I paid my own COBRA benefits I didn't need a government handout, program or agency to make sure I wouldn't die.

The American populace, well, the whining gimme gimme gimme class anyways, is incomprehensibly dependent. The ones I pity are those that enable people to live a sustinence lifestyle and existence by insisting government be the provider of life's necessities. Oh, and those that vote for them and empathize with them such as yourself.[/QUOTE]

Relatively poor student years and first job making 25k a year (I'm assuming you were living alone or with roomates), that's your hardship? Isn't that basically everyones "hardship"?
 
This is actually a really smart thing. It stops the telecommunications companies from dominating markets with overpriced services and brings in some competition.

Also what PAD's article fails to mention is that Google wants to provide the internet access for FREE. This was in today's USA Today.
 
"It is to me a fundamental right to have access universally to information," he said.

I think his heart is in the right place, but the flaw is that it won't help those who don't have access to computers in the first place. The idea of making the information available on the internet available to everyone is noble, but first you have to make sure that everyone has the means to access the internet.

PAD is, of course, reducing Newsom's comments to their most absurd, choosing to slect the words "right" and "wi-fi" and ignore everything else. It isn't a right to have wi-fi, but it should be a right to have access to information, which is what he was trying to get at.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Mars.[/QUOTE]

I lived in Mars for a year. They didn't send out memos. Don't believe me? Look it up on Mapquest. Mars, PA.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Liberalism at its root. Spread misery around equally.

Thanks for the window into your soul.[/QUOTE]


Haha, spreading misery? Check into just about any media outlet once in awhile, spreading misery is at an all time high this day in age, and for what? Is it cause' FREEDOM IN'T FREE, HYUCK?

Do you really want to talk misery? You don't know a god damned thing about it unless you've seen your family ripped apart by a supposed "SMART BOMB" in Iraq, the ones designated to track specific targets, but once in awhile just happen to crash into someones house (OOPS!). Anyone remember the gulf war babies, or the gulf war syndrome? The numbers of uranium deaths in Iraq doubled the number of dead, how convenient the united states military still supplies the troops with depleted uranium tipped rounds.

we've all seen the images of new orleans as well, how about watching your city become a toxic soup? watching your neighborhoods that you grew up in destroyed because your federal government ignored warning after warning about a faulty levee system that was degrading with age. How about spending a week or more in the blistering heat surrounded by sewage without ANY basic human necessitys? Your mom dying in the nursing home across town & your family ending up in the superdome with 50,000 other desperate people.

The list of blunders goes on and on, but people like your president and his completely subservant supporters always use the same dodgy tactics to sideswipe the issues. You sound like rush limbaughs half retarded clone right there.

thank you for the window into your mentality, seems like your soul just doesn't exist...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top