Sorta like these guys?
Posted on 10/03/2005 9:44:44 PM PDT by mr. mojo risin
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who became internationally known for his campaign a year ago to legalize gay marriage, on Monday said he considered wireless Internet access a fundamental right of all citizens.
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.
Newsom told a news conference that he was bracing for a battle with telephone and cable interests along with state and federal regulators who he said are 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 certain mobile phones. Local officials are mulling plans to blanket every nook and cranny of this hilly city of 750,000 residents with universal 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.
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 argued.
Thus, 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, 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.netscape.cnn.com ...
:-D )))
I'm against free Wifi because I'm not sure if the "add-on" or "value added" services will really provide enough revenue to attract competition to the market. No competition will mean no innovation, and in 20 years we might still be using today's infrastructure.
Since when did wireless internet or "universal access to information" become a basic right? These Dims keep redefining the word "right" as they see fit. Oh...I forgot....this is the same character who announced that gay marriage was a "basic right" too.
Obviously it's not a "basic right," the major misused the word. However, it is a piece of infrastructure that will attract jobs and money to the area.
How 'bout the fundamental right of people being free of exorbitant taxes to pay for other peoples' luxuries?
This is all a liberal scheme. They will argue next that if WiFi is a basic right, how can health care not be so.
Look, even WiFi is a basic right.....
Leftists in San Francisco should simply fix their roads.
Leave it to a lib to claim it's a basic right. How silly. I f it was a right, Hiwaii would be required to provide the service to Kali.
I'm not necessarily against it per-se, as long as there are no illusions that it is free.
The Truth that Mr Gay Newsom glosses over is someone has to pay for it. Bandwidth and access points do not grow on trees.
That means city funds have to be expended, and such a massive cost (and it will be massive) should at least be put to a vote of the people.
Cities provide some thing to citizens, variously, sewer, water, garbage. There is preciousl little precident for cities providing internet services, free or othewise, but its not totally out of line. (Anchorage AK used to own the telephone company. It was, like most government services, rather absymal, and a money loser. Subsequently sold to private operators who made it profitable.)
Still, there are Internet and wireless providers in the city now, and their business will be affected. Why should a government shut down private enterprise just cuz some leftist mayor things its the soclialist thing to do?
"My intent is to have the taxpayers pay little or nothing," Newsom said of the municipal wireless project.
I have always wondered what Mayor Newsom smokes. Maybe he's been frequenting the "medicinal" marijuana "clubs" a little too often! Anyone who doesn't realize that a city with a budget already about to burst will HAVE to raise taxes, one way or the other, to pay for this "right," has quite the surprise coming his way. Of course, the right to FREE Wireless Web is nowhere in the Constitution, but since when have the Libs bothered to read it? Why, if they read it, they would find the 2nd Amendment, with its fundamental right to bear arms!
Mayors,even sane ones, have no business or charter to declare rights. It's just not their business.
City mayors deal with city laws and ordinances only.
Likewise, I have often felt that I have a basic right to Catherine Zeta-Jones.
Newsom is doubly wrong.
Firstly, a "civil right" is not at all the same thing as a human right. A "civil right" is a right granted by a government. As a granted right, the grantor has full discretion regarding to whom the right is granted, and also has full discretion to revoke the grant at any time. A "civil right" is not an inalienable right that all persons intrinsically possess. This is why illegal aliens (for example) have no right to vote, nor to have taxpayers fund their children's schooling.
A human right is a right that any and all persons possess by reason of their nature. They are also referred to as "natural rights," so called because they refer to rights that inhere in all persons by their very nature as persons.
The second error in Newsom's proposition is the idea that a right can ever involve an obligation of one party to take positive action on behalf of someone else (e.g., a right to have others provide food, shelter, clothing, medical care or wireless internet service.)
A right in this sense is different from legal title to specific property, in the same sense that the right to own property is different from the right to dispose of a particular item of property. The general "right to property" is the right to acquire and transfer title to specific items provided the counterparty is willing, but is not the actual title to any specific items, nor is it the right to coerce others to transfer title to you.
A right in the Constitutional sense--a natural right--must be possessed by all persons equally. It is possible for all persons to equally possess the general right to property. It is not possible for all persons to equally possess title to all items that exist--at least, not without conflicts, disputes, battles and wars. The difference is that a human (natural) right is an abstraction referring to competency, whereas the "right" that Newsom is attempting to claim is a concrete grant of title to specific, concrete resources.
But it is precisely the impossibiliy for such title to the use of resources to be shared equally by all that prevents such things from being "rights." In fact, title to specific resources and items of property necessarily rests only with a particular, limited set of individuals (usually just one) precisely in order to resolve the logical conflicts and contradictions that would otherwise result.
If everyone possessed the equal right to compel others to provide support, then we could and would all just sit on our butts and demand that everyone else do our bidding. And that's been tried--in the old Soviet Union, for example.
The mayor here in Mpls want to provied "free" wireless services to everyone.
I wonder what new fundamental "right" the left will invent tomorrow.
Since when did wireless internet or "universal access to information" become a basic right?
April 27 2003 4:32am CST. Didn't you get the memo?
Then who will pay for it?
Cities like SF are in fierce competition to attract businesses, conventions, tourists, etc. SF can no longer say, "Hey we're San Francisco! Pretty City. Stanford! Berkeley! Harbor!" to businesses. The more infrastructure they can offer, the more likely they are to beat New York or L.A. for the Japanese ad agency that's going to employ 1,000 people or the German bank that's going to hire 3,000. Or the software convention that will bring 20,000 to town.
I figured Mayor Gavin would be pushing for internet (gay) marriages or some such BS. How come this clown is not behind bars for ignoring CA statute?
And he was the "conservative" one...
So has this guy dropped the Democrat label and just gone ahead and embraced the communist party along with it's philosophy?
Boy, you coulda fooled me!
I've always wondered this about the internet, Whose paying for it? Whose DOING it !?!?
Gnomes!
The high cost of living doesn't enter into it. If the German bank, for instance, was interested in such costs then they'd put Fort Dodge, Iowa or Jackson, Mississippi no their list of possible North American headquarters locations. What they are interested in is an infratsructure that is state of the art, access to bright people from other companies and a well-educated population.
This was a savvy business decision and other cities will be forced to respond.
ridiculous item of the day...lol.
Ah, but the greatest heroes of liberalism never worry about the cost. It is their duty to be the gracious heroes, and the duty of those who have selfishly earned too much money to cough it up.
That's the problem with Leftists. They're always running around confusing rights with entitlements.
Hey, Gavin! The Second Amendment gives me the right to keep and bear arms! SO WHERE'S MY FREE GUNS, SUCKER?!
Same as TV or radio. Its the adds that pay for it.
You seem to have obviously misintepreted the second amendment. When it says "right to keep and bear arms" it is talking about the arms of a baby, meaning that a woman has a right to choose to either keep and bear the baby or abort it. Don't forget, its a living breathing Constitution, and you must be sufficiently liberal to read it correctly<\sarcasm off>
Sorta like these guys?
We just avoided getting stuck with paying for broadband on dedicated light transmitting cable. Wireless made it obsolete. At least it is not needed for the wireless masses. If this was a British thing we would have little coin operated meters in our homes.
the 2nd Amendment was the first thing I thought of when I saw this. I wonder how the SF Mayor stands on that one? I dint find much except this recent opinion piece where the Mayor has stayed silent on this bill. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/09/14/cstillwell.DTL
Before Wi-Fi, how about free cell phone access, free electricity, free batteries, free cars, free gas, free food/shelter/clothing/healthcare, etc.
Public libraries already allow everyone universal access to information, and libraries often have free internet on their computers (time limited so it can be more "universal").
Let San Francisco set up wireless internet as model demonstration project. It seems google is in on it to. Lets see how it works and if it can a model for other cities or utilities to emulate.
Just from the looks of it, it's cheaper than anything effin Comcast is offering.
Monopolists such as Comcast will be sweating this one, I can tell by the law they and others pushed through the Florida legislature that makes municipal wireless more difficult
SF is actually a good city to start in with wifi. If memory serves, I believe they still have under 1 million population. The city is fairly compact. And there will be a high percentage of users.
Those screaminng about rights this and rights that, have no idea what these cities will need to do in the next decade to remain competitive on a global level. They've seen what happened to the smokestack industries in the midwest during the 1980s and have no intention of letting it happen to them.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
This San Fransisco move is pure capitalism. Because it's a demonstration project to test the feasibility of municipal wireless. If it succeeds then cable and telephone companies are free to propose similar services to other cities.
Hard wired telephone and cable are always granted monopolies because you can't have 10 companies ripping up the streets. Municipal wireless internet means competition for these slugs and they hate it. So far they oppose it everywhere, there is nothing to prevent them from going the wireless route and selling hi-speed access cheaper
Good point! I wonder if 10 companies offering wireless in a fragmented market would employ more or fewer people than a giant monopoly.
If google's the prime mover on this it's a brilliant move on their part. If they wire up San Fran with wireless hi-speed internet and it works, many other cities will ask them to do the same.
Google has great brand name recognition. People trust it for searches and other things. Have you ever tried "Google Earth"? Google has zero investment in hard wired anything. Google has zero legacy baggage there. They can become tremendous in municipal hi-speed access. How come the Microsofties fell asleep at the switch on this one?
You best believe Comcast, other cable and local telecoms are cursing google these days
Google was always aggressive and they always courted the folks with influence.
Microsoft -- if you recall -- also fell asleep with the internet hit big. They were into interactive media at the time and missed the boat. Reminded me of IBM and the PC Jr on that one (dig that chicklet keyboard!). I always suspected, but can't prove, that Microsoft is uncomfortable with actual people. Their big thing has always been B to B licensing deals etc.
The downside to this is the creation of yet another digital divide between first and second tier cities. You'll have wired cities like NY, SF, LA Chicago, etc. and then smaller towns that will fall more out of the loop.
This is more than just a convenience thing, with technology what begins as neat-o novelty, quickly becomes necessity.
I was GIVEN an IBM PC Junior but was too stupid and gutless to try it it out. My first "computer" was a Web TV. I need that GUI just like all the poor uneducated people. Mayors will jump at wireless internet because this is socialism lite. An outreach to the poor/minorities. Information super highway blah blah blah
Many small cities and hick towns are jumping for wireless internet without google involvement. The politics can be less complicated for them
I always suspected, but can't prove, that Microsoft is uncomfortable with actual people. Their big thing has always been B to B licensing deals etc.
_______________________
Can't the Microsofties hire representatives who can deal with actual people. These days at least.
Interesting...I happen to think Catherine Zeta-Jones is a basic right that should be available not just to business professionals but also lower-income citizens!
"Anyone who doesn't realize that a city with a budget already about to burst will HAVE to raise taxes, one way or the other, to pay for this "right," has quite the surprise coming his way."
Actually, I'm sure that he expects the evil corporations to fund it. Of course it is Stage 1 thinking at it's finest!
1. Free wireless internet everywhere. 2. Start controlling "access to hate sites", such as FR."
He probably means the SF taxpayers. He wants all US taxpayers to pay.
But on the bright side, it'll probably cost US taxpayers less than the boondoggle in Boston (Big Dig). /sarc
Woo Hoo, Free Internet Porn for everyone!
As long as he gets a cut of the action, the Mayor said. /sarcasm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.