jm1fd Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Network Communication Speed Comparison TableWorthless I tell you...just worthless. They left off Token Ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fresnel151 Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 The taxpayer will be subsidizing this folly sooner or later. The city will mandate coverage (digital divide BS) in areas that will never produce enough subscribers to provide a return on investment much less a profit. The service provider will cry because they're not making any money and the city will be contractually obligated make up the difference. The city will explain that this is absolutely necessary because they now use this network for vital police, fire, water meter reading and city employee web surfing services. Counting on the generosity of building owners to provide roof rights for the suggested retail price of $1000 per month is lunacy. As soon as one demands and gets $1001, the next will be asking for $1002 and so on and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 White ready to unwrap city WiFi planA wireless Internet system would blanket Houston in two years, providing high-speed access at greatly reduced prices, under a contract proposal the city will unveil today, Mayor Bill White said Monday.While the agreement still needs City Council approval, its terms put Houston in line to have the largest such network in North America, covering nearly all of the city's 600 square miles by spring of 2009, White told the Chronicle.Some low-income residents could get subsidized access for as little as $10 a month, and most customers would pay less than they do now.White did not disclose which of two finalists received the contract for the $60 million project, saving that for a news conference scheduled for this afternoon.But his emphasis on the need for the contractor to have experience in the field suggested that Atlanta-based EarthLink Municipal Networks got the edge over a local consortium.full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Access would be even cheaper for about 40,000 low-income residents, perhaps including students and the elderly, whose price would be based on a $10-per-month wholesale rate, White said.Students I can understand, but how come the poor and elderly would get special treatment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Students I can understand, but how come the poor and elderly would get special treatment?perhaps they are on a fixed income? surprisingly the net is still a luxury for quite a few people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Some low-income residents could get subsidized access for as little as $10 a month, and most customers would pay less than they do now.Why can't they just say it, what is it, like $20 bucka, $25. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 perhaps they are on a fixed income?Perhaps they should make their own consumption choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Perhaps they should make their own consumption choices.no, i agree, many people, even smart ones, have difficultly in determining what they can honestly afford. this is another "feel good" program by our mayor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I'd like to see the city communicate the benfit of having this. I have yet to hear it. What's the advantage?Is the goal Internet for all? Then what?http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4548696.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I'd like to see the city communicate the benfit of having this. I have yet to hear it. What's the advantage?Is the goal Internet for all? Then what?http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4548696.htmlJust an additional layer of infrastructure. Keeps our city economically competitive with others, such as Austin, that also have it, and serves the wants of consumers. Because the City isn't paying a dime, there really isn't any downside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Students I can understand, but how come the poor and elderly would get special treatment?Why can you understand students but not the poor and elderly? Because students need it for research, etc??? Students normally get it through their university anyway. I'm just wondering what you're thinkin' with that statment...Trying to understand, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 So let's just do it and be done with it. Then po-folks can browse Internet porn, too.Oh wait, can po-folk afford a comupter?I don't really care. Let's just get wired and be done with it. This is issue is Mikey Mouse compared to the real work that needs to be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Why can you understand students but not the poor and elderly? Because students need it for research, etc??? Students normally get it through their university anyway. I'm just wondering what you're thinkin' with that statment...Trying to understand, thanks.In thier negotiations with firms competing for effective monopoly rights to Houston's wifi system, the City basically acted on behalf of the public by negotiating for the lowest rates. If the rate structure were completely flat, then the general public would enjoy the lowest possible rates, assuming negotiations were properly handled. But if a special public were granted some lower price within the context of this competitive bid, then in order for the project to remain profitable for the provider, the general public would have to pick up the slack or some other concession would have to be made by the City. If the negotiators were good, an effective equilibrium of value would be maintained. But the City seems to have arranged the deal in such a way as to favor certain special publics.Students tend to be young and are making an investment in the labor that they will bring to the workforce. The result of education is a positive externality because these people will be better able to participate in and contribute to society. Other populations are less likely to use these services for activities that would yield a social benefit in excess of the private benefit, and thus should not be subsidized as greatly, if at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest danax Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Students tend to be young and are making an investment in the labor that they will bring to the workforce. The result of education is a positive externality because these people will be better able to participate in and contribute to society. Other populations are less likely to use these services for activities that would yield a social benefit in excess of the private benefit, and thus should not be subsidized as greatly, if at all.Such a dry analysis of the situation might have logical validity but we all know that criticism would be leveled at the Mayor for not allowing the poorer people to access such a network at reduced rates. And, he might really believe in "bridging the technology gap" that supposedly separates the "haves" and "havenots" and "prevents" the poorer folks from accessing the information needed to participate in the modern world. I agree that it would become just another subsidy for those who, when the choice is between a 12-pack of Bud Light and internet access, would choose the beer almost every time, and I say fine, let them make that choice without government interference. On the other hand, some of the poorer kids might benefit potentially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 And, he might really believe in "bridging the technology gap" that supposedly separates the "haves" and "havenots" and "prevents" the poorer folks from accessing the information needed to participate in the modern world.This is what I would like to hear as far as why they (our leaders) think we need it.A Democratic mayor would never shoot that straight with the public. We've got to keep is fuzzy on what we plan to get from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Such a dry analysis of the situation might have logical validity but we all know that criticism would be leveled at the Mayor for not allowing the poorer people to access such a network at reduced rates. And, he might really believe in "bridging the technology gap" that supposedly separates the "haves" and "havenots" and "prevents" the poorer folks from accessing the information needed to participate in the modern world. I agree that it would become just another subsidy for those who, when the choice is between a 12-pack of Bud Light and internet access, would choose the beer almost every time, and I say fine, let them make that choice without government interference. On the other hand, some of the poorer kids might benefit potentially.Poor kids, if enrolled in school, are students. Those households should be subject to a student discount IMO. Poor folks generally, on the other hand...if they want to use the service that bad, they'll have to come up with the extra $2, just like me. That means that they can either sacrifice some other expenditure or increase their earnings power...just like me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Hmmm...I know every students case is different, but if I remember correctly, the bulk of my education didn't require me to have an internet connection wherever I went. It was more of a luxury than anything else. A connection at the library or in my dorm (which I know not all students live on campus) was most likely more than enough.And the internet could could be a place of knowledge and opportunities to those less financially fortunate, in which otherwise they might not have. Of course the internet is full of false information and useless sites, but there is much out there to help them gain more knowledge and other beneficial things...don't ya think? Which can also help them turn into more knowledgeable, more educated -minus the paper- citizens. Of course, this is all assuming that they'll use it for this these purposes.And if we really thought students should get more beneifts because of their future contributions, shouldn't companies like Verizon, Sprint etc offer a reduced rate for wireless internet for students? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest danax Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Hmmm...I know every students case is different, but if I remember correctly, the bulk of my education didn't require me to have an internet connection wherever I went. It was more of a luxury than anything else. A connection at the library or in my dorm (which I know not all students live on campus) was most likely more than enough.And the internet could could be a place of knowledge and opportunities to those less financially fortunate, in which otherwise they might not have. Of course the internet is full of false information and useless sites, but there is much out there to help them gain more knowledge and other beneficial things...don't ya think? Which can also help them turn into more knowledgeable, more educated -minus the paper- citizens. Of course, this is all assuming that they'll use it for this these purposes.And if we really thought students should get more beneifts because of their future contributions, shouldn't companies like Verizon, Sprint etc offer a reduced rate for wireless internet for students?Yes, my daughter's about to graduate from UT, in only 3 years I might add (brag...brag) and I don't believe she has ever had internet at home or in her dorms/apt, in her entire life. She would go to the library, many times taking the bus, or begging a ride......using her own motivation to make it happen. A self-propelled human being is a wonderful thing!Politicians tend to be gutless and encourage less self-reliance, not more of it, but let's not get too far off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Hmmm...I know every students case is different, but if I remember correctly, the bulk of my education didn't require me to have an internet connection wherever I went. It was more of a luxury than anything else. A connection at the library or in my dorm (which I know not all students live on campus) was most likely more than enough.And the internet could could be a place of knowledge and opportunities to those less financially fortunate, in which otherwise they might not have. Of course the internet is full of false information and useless sites, but there is much out there to help them gain more knowledge and other beneficial things...don't ya think? Which can also help them turn into more knowledgeable, more educated -minus the paper- citizens. Of course, this is all assuming that they'll use it for this these purposes.And if we really thought students should get more beneifts because of their future contributions, shouldn't companies like Verizon, Sprint etc offer a reduced rate for wireless internet for students?Granted, it can get to be a complicated issue, but I think that the jist of it is clear. A student that is more readily able to learn is more likely to learn. I'm less concerned with educating self-motivated individuals than I am with educating those that otherwise might not be willing to make the expenditure of energy, but that might still vote (for example).I don't think that it is a matter of asking whether Verizon or Sprint should offer reduced rates, so much as it is whether and how governments at various levels should subsidize such programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston1stWordOnTheMoon Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I am amazed at some of the comments here from some of the so called "educated" people in regards to poor and elderly people and internet access. Absolutely amazed!Theres nothing wrong in bringing modernization to those that cannot otherwise afford it, especially if those that cannot afford it are our own citizens. It never ceases to amaze me how we can support giving help to other peoples abroad and in the very same breath damn giving help to our own citizens at home. One of those things that make you go hmmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 One of those things that make you go hmmmm.If this program is "internet for the poor" the city should just say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I am amazed at some of the comments here from some of the so called "educated" people in regards to poor and elderly people and internet access. Absolutely amazed!Theres nothing wrong in bringing modernization to those that cannot otherwise afford it, especially if those that cannot afford it are our own citizens. It never ceases to amaze me how we can support giving help to other peoples abroad and in the very same breath damn giving help to our own citizens at home. One of those things that make you go hmmmm.Whoever said anything about foreign aid??? I don't much care for that either.Bringing modernization to those that cannot afford it costs money. The money has to come from somewhere. How about rather than government subsidy, you just start up a non-profit whose mission is to bring low-cost wifi to the poor and elderly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 If this program is "internet for the poor" the city should just say so.Nah, that's just something to help it deflect criticism from those that might cry foul over City-granted monopolies and backroom dealings. A small part of the program really.Frankly, I probably blew it way out of proportion in my rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I am amazed at some of the comments here from some of the so called "educated" people in regards to poor and elderly people and internet access. Absolutely amazed!Theres nothing wrong in bringing modernization to those that cannot otherwise afford it, especially if those that cannot afford it are our own citizens. It never ceases to amaze me how we can support giving help to other peoples abroad and in the very same breath damn giving help to our own citizens at home. One of those things that make you go hmmmm.I don't think anyone has a problem helping others. my problem is that many who "claim" they need help, don't really need help at all. their house may be falling apart but they sure have satellite tv/cable, cell phone, etc. when i was in school, it was embarrassing for a child to get free lunch. Now, many expect it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 The agreement sets a wholesale rate of $12 per subscriber per month, which the builder of the network would sell to various Internet service providers, White said. Those ISPs would add a profit margin to the base price and sell access to residents and businesses. White has said previously that he hoped to cut average cost of high-speed Internet access in half, though he did not state a specific figure. High-speed cable connections now cost about $45 a month, while DSL ranges from $15 to $35 depending upon its speed. Access would be even cheaper for about 40,000 low-income residents, perhaps including students and the elderly, whose price would be based on a $10-per-month wholesale rate, White said. The contract calls for the city eventually to receive a 3 percent cut of the revenue from the wireless system, and some of that would be used to provide reduced rates for low-income residents, White said. http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4548696.html I guess the city will be making some money too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 I don't think anyone has a problem helping others. my problem is that many who "claim" they need help, don't really need help at all. their house may be falling apart but they sure have satellite tv/cable, cell phone, etc. when i was in school, it was embarrassing for a child to get free lunch. Now, many expect it.So true. Of course not all of them are like that. But I worked for Rent-a-Center for a while just coming out of college when I really needed a job and I hated it. They rip off the their customers, the same people who can't afford those things. The majority of the customers had to return the items b/c they couldn't make payments. And these items were Big Screen TV's and stuff. Many were 'fridges as well and furniture. But you'd go into a house that was about to collapse and you're there to take away their tv and dvd player.Sorry, don't mean to get off subject again. Just had to piggy back on musicman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston1stWordOnTheMoon Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 It is not only bad thinking, it is also completely stupid to think that having affordable internet access for people that cannot otherwise afford it is a bad thing. The internet opens up opportunities and knowlege to those that wouldnt have such opportunities readily available to them. That in turn is better for our society as a whole. Knowlege and access to knowlege is a very powerful thing.Im a firm believer that an armed society is a free society, and that statement just doesnt apply to firearms. Arming our society as a whole with affordable access to knowlege that can be gained through the internet is not only the right thing to do, it is the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 It is not only bad thinking, it is also completely stupid to think that having affordable internet access for people that cannot otherwise afford it is a bad thing. The internet opens up opportunities and knowlege to those that wouldnt have such opportunities readily available to them. That in turn is better for our society as a whole. Knowlege and access to knowlege is a very powerful thing.Im a firm believer that an armed society is a free society, and that statement just doesnt apply to firearms. Arming our society as a whole with affordable access to knowlege that can be gained through the internet is not only the right thing to do, it is the best.Yeah, I like the idea of having the infrastructure out there, just as I like having gun shops. Freedom is good. That doesn't mean that I want to buy every poor person a gun, though. Probably not the best analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonsemipro Posted February 13, 2007 Share Posted February 13, 2007 Earthlink will be the provider! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest danax Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Arming our society as a whole with affordable access to knowlege that can be gained through the internet is not only the right thing to do, it is the best.What about our free schools and libraries? Aren't those opportunities to access knowledge? And a lot of the poorer people chose not to. Will the internet suddenly change their way of thinking, or will it just become another boob-tube?Sometimes the people accused of being out of touch are actually more in touch. If you live in a poorer nabe, you see people spending what they've got on what they want, not necessarily what they need, or what others think they need.Actually, Rice U has a free wireless high speed internet network up and running where I live. They thought the people were poor and "underpriviledged". They found out that the people here have money, although more than 90% of the children eat free lunches, and can afford to pay for internet if they wanted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.