I just recently dumped my ISP and went with a free ISP in my state. My old ISP has been overcharging me for years, so it felt like a heavy weight has been lifted from my shoulders. I know that Internet is free in certain places like McDonalds and Libraries, but it still needs to be paid if you are at home for nearly everyone. Is the main problem we don't have free internet for everyone GREED? It seems like it would be so nice if every computer already came with free internet. ISPs will still need to be around for those that download massive amounts of data every month, but I think casual internet usage with a little downloading shouldn't need to be paid. Is this simply too expensive for the government to provide?
Sorry but in places like McDonalds the internet isn't technically free. It still has to be paid for somehow, so each and every time you buy a burger and a drink a small part of the cost of that is what covers the operating expense of the internet access. Libraries if they are operated/owned by the governemnt be it national or local are funded by taxes so once again if you are a tax payer you have paid for it. A lot of these so called free internet are still paid for by indirect means.
Bandwidth is a limited resource. McDonald's isn't charging you for the internet, but that doesn't mean it's free (they pay for your use). Basically, cost is a way of rationing it because, otherwise, we would run out of bandwidth. And, while ground lines are getting cheaper, we're pretty close to hitting a ceiling when it comes to airborne internet (e.g., the kind on your smart phone). We're literally running out of usable radiation. So rather than things constantly improving, we may have hit a peak of unlimited internet that will be scaled back to the point where we can look to right now as the golden age of internet usage.
Now please don't start asking where you can get free internet. I don't want you slowing down the network for me and my friends. Seriously, the info is out there. Not to hard to find it.
And here I thought the reason for wanting free Internet was greed. Unless it's something produced naturally, someone will always have to pay for it. ---------------
It's not all that dumb, it just needs a business model like broadcast TV or radio where advertisers are paying for it. If ISP's had a bit more control over what you saw as you browsed the web (so they could derive ad revenue like the actual websites do), it would probably be workable.
Why isnt the internet free for Americans, comsidering that our tax dollars paid to develop the damn thing? Well our parents' and grandparents' tax dollars, but same diff. The problem with internet ads is that advertisers can accurately and directly measure the results, unlike print and TV (so far at least). Which allows them to realize that internet ads don't work. So they pay bottom dollar, demanding pay-per-click so that they aren't paying for worthless ads. Sometimes they only pay by result - not just a click, but some action taken such as signing up for something or buying something. Since advertisers have all the power, why not demand the moon? And the number of advertising venues is unlimited, which means an eternally escalating supply but a stable demand. That keeps driving prices down. Putting ISPs in competition with websites just increases the supply and does nothing to affect demand. Could be that print and TV have always been funded by worthless ads, too. Only the fact that the advertisers couldn't tell which half were worthless has kept the system afloat this far.
My apologies, but that is the biggest load of garbage. There is more than enough bandwidth to go around. ISP's don't upgrade their networks, nor are they using the best possible technology we can muster. In fact... big ISP's are actually trying to acquire as many frequencies as possible in order to prevent competition (which is only good for possibly lowering prices in a Capitalist environment - but it doesn't promote technological progress - cooperation does). Cost efficiency has NOTHING to do with resources or technological ability/efficiency because companies use things that are 'economically viable' (translation - cheap enough for them, so they can overcharge the consumer). They also use cheap means of production - even though we had superior materials and technology at our disposal for quite some time to do all of it in a timely manner, efficiently, with little to NO damage to the environment. Capitalism isn't interested in efficiency... its the opposite. Because, if we are actually designing things to be durable, upgradeable, and easily recycle-able with best technology and efficiency known to man (in a sustainable capacity) - then profits would plummet. Bottom line is: we have more than enough resources and technology to make internet hundreds of times faster, wireless, near 100% reliable, and accessible to the ENTIRE global population (several times over no less) - that's just the tip of the iceberg. Resources and technology aren't the problem... they never are... money on the other hand (and the idiotic notion of 'cost' and 'value'), is.
^ I think you're reading more into my post than what is there. I didn't say we have an efficient system or that there wouldn't be more bandwidth if the system was upgraded. Just that it is still a limited resource (which can be improved, but still has a limit until they do so) and that it either needs a mechanism for rationing or that investment needs to be made to expand it. Except for networks that smart phones use, that does have a fairly hard and fast limit. Even then, it would be tax supported more than free.
No, the problem is that the internet was and is INSANELY expensive to build and maintain. It probably costs close to fifty billion a year just to keep the core of the internet up and running just for the United States. That's the backbone and local connections. It doesn't include what websites like Google pay to service their websites or what user terminals like PCs and smart phones cost.
Yeah I came back to add that point, that even if the government provided "free" internet, we're paying for it through our taxes, so why even bother? Better to let people decide individually how much they are willing to pay for whatever they want to use, or even if they want to use it. Why should someone who doesnt use the internet, and yes they still exist, be forced to pay taxes to provide it free to others?