4 ms·

A bigger issue issue for who? Telecommunications companies have decided that it's not worth investing much in connections to low density areas. If there are eno

by natrius 17y ago

A bigger issue issue for who? Telecommunications companies have decided that it's not worth investing much in connections to low density areas. If there are enough people clicking on ads in those places to make it worthwhile, maybe Google will provide connections in those areas. If that doesn't happen, I don't see any justification for subsidizing people's connections above a level that is necessary for basic access of information to aid in making informed voting decisions since we share a government.

ericd 17y ago
That's the thing, I think internet access is essential to being an educated citizen nowadays, and many websites are no longer viable for dialup users to visit. High speed internet for all should be placed on the same level of importance as education for all.
- natrius 17y ago
  Satellite internet speeds are acceptable for web browsing and is available everywhere. I'd consider subsiding the costs of such connections for those who can't afford it. My understanding is that things like Universal Service Fees subsidize even those who can afford it.
  - nradov 17y ago
    Have you actually tried satellite service? Latency is worse than dial-up. We tried for a while to get some of our customers using satellite but that turned out to be a failure due to the miserable performance.
- 27182818284 17y ago
  If you feel it is essential for the educated citizen today, then it isn't Google's job to address the lack of broadband in some areas, but rather the government's job. I'm fond of the idea of refreshing old programs like Rural Electrification by changing them into new broadband expansion programs. Whispers of this have been made by politicians including our President while he was campaigning, but as far as I know nothing even remotely substantial has happened to either promote or cancel the idea. Instead it just seems forgotten.
  - ericd 17y ago
    Sorry, yeah, this is what I was referring to, I wasn't trying to imply that Google is responsible for doing it.

by natrius 17y ago

ericd 17y ago

That's the thing, I think internet access is essential to being an educated citizen nowadays, and many websites are no longer viable for dialup users to visit. High speed internet for all should be placed on the same level of importance as education for all.

natrius 17y ago
Satellite internet speeds are acceptable for web browsing and is available everywhere. I'd consider subsiding the costs of such connections for those who can't afford it. My understanding is that things like Universal Service Fees subsidize even those who can afford it.
- nradov 17y ago
  Have you actually tried satellite service? Latency is worse than dial-up. We tried for a while to get some of our customers using satellite but that turned out to be a failure due to the miserable performance.
27182818284 17y ago
If you feel it is essential for the educated citizen today, then it isn't Google's job to address the lack of broadband in some areas, but rather the government's job. I'm fond of the idea of refreshing old programs like Rural Electrification by changing them into new broadband expansion programs. Whispers of this have been made by politicians including our President while he was campaigning, but as far as I know nothing even remotely substantial has happened to either promote or cancel the idea. Instead it just seems forgotten.
- ericd 17y ago
  Sorry, yeah, this is what I was referring to, I wasn't trying to imply that Google is responsible for doing it.