|
Rhea
1/12/2009 11:07 AM | Until a week ago, I had no idea that Obama had a facebook/myspace/website like this at all. I hadnt had cable t.v. or internet in over 2 years. Thats just the start of it. Besides helping me to get a new job (because i spend all day and most of the night working) I also am able to connect with my extended family more and research valuable knowledge on my daughters medical condition. |
|
Jesse E
1/12/2009 1:02 PM | It may seem like too large of a task, but not more so than our interstate system that promotes pollution. We need to think big and this could be a huge part of building a beneficial infrastructure for the US. |
|
Palal
1/12/2009 1:05 PM | At least providing some sort of national internet coverage (not necesserily wifi) is appropriate. Wifi may not be the best technology, but IÂ definitely agree with teh concept. |
|
BradyBastian
1/12/2009 1:25 PM | I agree to this but, Socializing the internet would lead to more government control over what you can and cannot view. It is inevitable.
|
|
Greetings_from_Brussels
1/12/2009 2:19 PM | Might I add the possibility to use the Electrical grid to provide network access. It could prove an easy way to get connectivity in remote areas without expensive new cables or antenna's.
Note: WiFi has still a way to go to prove it is not harmful for humans, building an infrastructure with even a small suspicion something could damage our health could prove a costly mistake. |
|
hope
1/12/2009 3:51 PM | A wi-fi infrastructure could potentially be built from the ground-up, using residential mesh-networking, if only a reliable and secure open mesh routing system could be devised. |
|
Curtis L Walker
1/12/2009 7:57 PM | Â National WIFIÂ should be implemented INÂ RURALÂ AMERICAÂ first, since RURAL AREAS, generally do not have coverage NOW, other than very expensive satellite service which can be double or triple what urban areas pay. |
|
arsonata
1/13/2009 5:35 AM | Wi-Fi is not harmful to humans. It is no different than all of the other countless radio wave frequencies that would be passing harmlessly through our bodies even without convenient wireless internet access. And even if it will be the death of us all in 50 years time, there is no way to test conclusively that it was death by Wi-Fi. Could have been the cell phone. Or the microwave. Or the syphilis. You'd have to start their lives over and isolate them from Wi-Fi somehow to see what the difference is--and you'd find nothing. They may get so depressed, however, from not being able to obsessively check for updates on HuffingtonPost every 10 minutes that they simply opt for manual deletion. National WiMax coverage would open a floodgate of new technological innovation in this country like you can't even imagine. If you try to imagine it, your brain will hemmorrhage and you'll die--long before Wi-Fi ever gets you. |
|
Somebody
1/13/2009 6:57 AM | IÂ don't trust the government not to censor it. |
|
the0wl
1/13/2009 8:36 AM | Presently, I teach pre-certification computer and network suport and maintenance courses for the adult continuing education department of a local community college (workforce development). I'd like to be able to point my graduates to projects like this. Is there a way to get the ball rolling?
Cheers;
the0wl
|
|
Chris W
1/13/2009 10:47 AM | Why do we need national WiFi??
I thought I was only allowed to choose Time Warner or Verizon?
Wait, IÂ still am only allowed those 2, nevermind.
|
|
breadman23
1/13/2009 3:56 PM | If the government is to provide free WiFi access, we must ensure that this access is NOTÂ CENSORED INÂ ANYÂ FORM.
Think about it.
If you were offered free internet access, or to pay $29.99 per month, which would you take (assuming service is reliable).
The government would be at liberty to censor the free access, and because no one wants to pay for access, there wouldn't be an alternative.
IÂ am most certainly for free WiFi, but there must be NOÂ CENSORSHIPÂ INÂ ANYÂ FORM. This is what has made the internet what it is.
|
|
JDoops
1/13/2009 4:17 PM | This is all good and well, but not worth it....the premis is to make internet access free so that poor folks won't fall behind, but the reality is that if a person is too poor to afford the $20 per month for internet service, they probably can't afford a computer either...I think this needs a little more thought... |