not being sure what one has to do with the other, let me put it this way - the interstate highway system is our counterpart to the German Autobahn - which was developed andd implemented for military purposes - civilian use is allowed, but these highways are primarily for the purposes of moving our military quickly from one part of the country to another. I support that, don’t you?
Well so was the internet originally, as ARPANET. ARPANET was developed and implemented for military information purposes - civilian use is allowed, but these (information) highways are primarily for the purpose of moving our military (information) quickly from one part of the (world) to another. I support that don't you?
Sorry just had to point out the similarities of your statement.
Yes, I think that the federal interstate highway system was a reasonable infrastructure investment.
It was your use of the metaphor "information superhighway" that made me curious if you supported the physical interstate highway system.
The state of South Carolina is putting up an information infrastructure that you asked of "why should taxpayers, particularly elderly and poor pay for joyriding on the information superhighway?"
I was just curious if the same questions existed for you about those people who use the federally funded interstate highway system for recreational driving.
As for my opinion, if the taxpayers in South Carolina are happy enough to pay for this wireless infrastructure then it's their decision. I don't know if there are state constitutional issues, but absent any of those, then putting such an information infrastructure will likely pay off for the state in the long run. And if the investment doesn't, then it was still probably a better use of money than, say, the federally funded Clyburn Connector.