Should the access to the internet be dependent on your ability to pay?
That's a slightly different question to the thread title.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Should the access to the internet be dependent on your ability to pay?
I can let you know when its all put together.I've been working on a news blogI can't imagine farmland ever becoming cheap but I see the similarities. You need to help Care and GC with the grassroots movement for rural America.
uh oh---I knew it
I can let you know when its all put together.I've been working on a news blog
uh oh---I knew it
Don't take this wrong but I will probably be the worst enemy that every money grubbing SOB out there has. We won't be delivering anything grown from this place into the hands of those who have abused and mistreated the middle class and poor, ever if I can help it. It would all rot in place first.Ame®icano;2095126 said:Well thank you Mr. Dillo. There may come a day rural folks don't give a damn about whether they have those food products that are grown in the rural areas. Who knows justice has a way of working out.
Don't get this in a wrong way, but you are getting paid when you deliver, right?
Traditionally in such a situation, some enterprising person would start a company that would figure out a way to get these people the internet, would make millions and be hailed as the American way.No, but I do feel it's pathetic that millions of people (and businesses) in rural areas can't get reliable broadband access no matter how much they're willing to pay. Some things should be done not because they are a "right", but because they are the right thing to do. Rural access is one of those things.
Traditionally in such a situation, some enterprising person would start a company that would figure out a way to get these people the internet, would make millions and be hailed as the American way.No, but I do feel it's pathetic that millions of people (and businesses) in rural areas can't get reliable broadband access no matter how much they're willing to pay. Some things should be done not because they are a "right", but because they are the right thing to do. Rural access is one of those things.
These days however, the answer always appears to be the government must spend more money.
What's wrong with this picture.
I wouldn't hold owning your own gun against you. Where would we be today if the countries founders had not had a means to protect and defend against tyranny?I can let you know when its all put together.uh oh---I knew it
I have guns if that will help
Ame®icano;2094777 said:Ame®icano;2094768 said:Should we all own a Ferrari?
I want a Lamborghini. I decided a long time ago that if anyone ever offered to buy me whatever car I wanted, I'd pick the Lamborghini. Why? Because it's the most expensive car in the world and I can sell it and buy what I want and do a whole bunch of stuff with the rest of the money.
You kinda missed my point.
By the way, most expensive car is Bugatti Veyron @ $1.7M, and Lamborghini Reventon is second most expensive @ $1.6M.
They put in fiber optic lines here last summer. No hookups yet. This is a fairly rural area. I have heard that the project was paid for with a grant. We do not have a land line phone here because it is expensive and does not include long distance. Previously even calling twenty miles away here from the land line meant a long distance charge.
Is it a right to have high speed Internet? Probably not but I'm with Goldcatt, I think it is the right thing to do. Wealth in every way you can think of has been stripped from rural communities for years and years in favor of corporate globalization. Would everyone now deny the people in rural America a service that cities that were built largely with the help of taxpayer dollars enjoy?
Traditionally in such a situation, some enterprising person would start a company that would figure out a way to get these people the internet, would make millions and be hailed as the American way.
These days however, the answer always appears to be the government must spend more money.
What's wrong with this picture.
Well thank you Mr. Dillo. There may come a day rural folks don't give a damn about whether they have those food products that are grown in the rural areas. Who knows justice has a way of working out.They put in fiber optic lines here last summer. No hookups yet. This is a fairly rural area. I have heard that the project was paid for with a grant. We do not have a land line phone here because it is expensive and does not include long distance. Previously even calling twenty miles away here from the land line meant a long distance charge.
Is it a right to have high speed Internet? Probably not but I'm with Goldcatt, I think it is the right thing to do. Wealth in every way you can think of has been stripped from rural communities for years and years in favor of corporate globalization. Would everyone now deny the people in rural America a service that cities that were built largely with the help of taxpayer dollars enjoy?
Not me but without political clout they don't give a shit about your internet.
Don't take this wrong but I will probably be the worst enemy that every money grubbing SOB out there has. We won't be delivering anything grown from this place into the hands of those who have abused and mistreated the middle class and poor, ever if I can help it. It would all rot in place first.Ame®icano;2095126 said:Well thank you Mr. Dillo. There may come a day rural folks don't give a damn about whether they have those food products that are grown in the rural areas. Who knows justice has a way of working out.
Don't get this in a wrong way, but you are getting paid when you deliver, right?
Nothing produced by somebody else is a right.
Ame®icano;2095248 said:Don't take this wrong but I will probably be the worst enemy that every money grubbing SOB out there has. We won't be delivering anything grown from this place into the hands of those who have abused and mistreated the middle class and poor, ever if I can help it. It would all rot in place first.Ame®icano;2095126 said:Don't get this in a wrong way, but you are getting paid when you deliver, right?
Money grubbing SOB's are in Washington.
Now, are you willing to stop delivering even if it means losing subsidies?
Ame®icano;2095248 said:Don't take this wrong but I will probably be the worst enemy that every money grubbing SOB out there has. We won't be delivering anything grown from this place into the hands of those who have abused and mistreated the middle class and poor, ever if I can help it. It would all rot in place first.
Money grubbing SOB's are in Washington.
Now, are you willing to stop delivering even if it means losing subsidies?
my guess, those subsidies are going to the big corporations, not the little farmers.
Nothing produced by somebody else is a right.
so clean water to drink isn't a right?
Nothing produced by somebody else is a right.
so clean water to drink isn't a right?
Nothing produced by somebody else is a right.
so clean water to drink isn't a right?
No, it isn't. It takes resource to process and transport drinking water.
If someone else has to work and/or to expend capital to provide a product or service, they deserve fair compensation for it. In the case of water, the supplier does owe the consumer a clean product (i.e., contaminants below a safe level) as the consumer's reasonable expectation is that the water is safe to drink.
God gives water freely. Man may have a right to charge to deliver it but man also has an obligation to insure those who have pollutes the waters pay for the cleanup of those waterways.