All they are going to do is to help fund it so companies have a reason to offer the service. They are not going to offer it or run it. BTW they don't need to run it to gain access to it.

And this is a quote from you

"So we have roughly 111million households in the U.S. and only 1.11million are missing out on broadband?"

What kind of info do you think they are getting that they need to get the last 1.11 million of people online with high speed internet?

I don't know what it is that people are worried about them getting.

James

That's what they told GM too.

I have 2 problems:
1) Why is high-speed internet considered a "right"?
2) More importantly, the cost per person reached has gotta be much higher in sparsely-populated areas. In some places you could put up a tower that would only reach 2-3 people.

YOU pay for it.

We all pay for it, but in case you nitwits missed it, we all benefit. The plan calls for improvements in bandwidth and capacities for all, in order to catch up to other countries, since we now rank 15th.

Maybe I missed where they called it a "right". They believe that it will help by people and the economy by making it available to as many people as possible.

Yes the cost per person is higher thats why the government wants to step in and help with funding so that this service can be offered.

James

YOU also paid for those robo toilet seats back in the day that car collecting dust somewhere in a back room (I think they did sell them off years ago but they were collecting dust). At least this is something that will be used and can also be helpful as unknownroad pointed out.

James

"We already waste" is the line you tow in every single argument, and it's equally irrelevant every time. If we funded every single thing anyone wanted because hey, there's waste elsewhere, so why not? We'd have the finances of Zimbabwe. Waste is not an excuse for more waste. If someone wants something so badly they can pay for it themselves. I'd benefit from a subway stop in my front yard but you don't see me campaigning for it because "hey, there's waste elsewhere, and at least this will benefit people" because incremental costs are still costs, no matter where they are.

I'm not saying do it because money is wasted everyday. I'm saying this does have a use.

James

Great, you need it, you pay for it. I can't understand why anyone would even argue that.

By the way, rural areas already have broadband in the form of satellite. It ain't as good as cable, but it's broadband.