Nintendo Switch review: Hands on with the intuitive modular console and its disappointing games…
I read today in a rival mag that Ireland is going to miss out on a free Wi-fi network. It would have been for the public and managed by the Local Councils but they pulled the plans due to heavy pressure by the Telecoms Industry.
Think of the potential, oh it makes me mad!
cynicism in the UK is like fashion it coms and goes..
There was a short period of time when the networks were in competition with each other and the price of calls became as low as 2p/min.
But then they got together and agreed they could get much more money if they worked together.
Hence 35p/min mostly profit..
But I still think if we the customers weren't so spinless we could have voiced more protest at being milked like dumb animals.
Having the opinion 'because its like that' (RunDMC) is just weak or lazy.
"...a free Wi-fi network. It would have been for the public..."
I think that should read "it would have been PAID for by the public."
Even those who didn't want it and wouldn't use it no doubt.
Ever heard of fairness?? You want Wi-Fi everywhere - you pay for it. I like to decide for myself what my money is spent on.
PS - I don't live in Ireland.
Theres no such thing as free. Someone would have to pay for it somehow, whether through adverts or financing by the government. If its the latter its your money they would be spending and I'm sure if you didn't need it or want it you would not be pleased at your government spending your cash on something you didn't want.
I haven't seen this article but no one would setup a free Wi-fi network without getting something for it.
"But then they got together and agreed they could get much more money if they worked together."
That would be illegal - and if they see you making such an unsubstantiated allegation, and it was untrue - they could sue the pants off you!
We all pay for it dont we. Are you so selfish you couldn't pay a penny towards a substantial community asset.You might not want to pay for something you already have but I bet plenty of parents would agree that it was worth paying for.
You've got to agree it could be much cheaper for many families who otherwise might not be able to pay for it?
Is it a substantial community asset?
I know loads of people who don't have a computer and have no interest in getting one and are not interested in Wifi. So how can you describe it as a community asset? You'd get a biased response here as we all have computers but how many would really be interested in this?
And as regards your comments on them getting together and price fixing, which is what I think you are saying, do you have any proof of that? If you don't and its just your opinion, which I think it is, you are skating on thin ice.
I'm not saying I wouldn't like things to be cheaper because of course I would. But one way or another we would pay for it.
I think its a terrible idea personally.
No, I don't think "the state" via taxation should pay for everything. We don't get free telephones, free public TV, free Sky TV, free water, free electricity, free gas, free housing, free football matches,free food, etc, etc, etc.
I think to the maximum degree possible people should be able to choose where and on what they spend their own money, and not have that decision made for them by the state.
I recollect a discussion here several years ago on this forum, saying broadband should be subsidised to encourage it's uptake. I argued it shouldn't be. In fact without subsidy or state provision, the uptake has been rapid and enormous.
This would be a pertinent place for the F.E. to step in and desect this thread with some rational logic. Totally-braindead the fact that you know one or two people who don't have a computer is irrelevant, of course if housing schemes/estates had Wi-Fi it would be an asset for the whole community allowing more people (and children) to access the internet.
[In fact there are just two many rediculous assertions in the last two posts to mention]
The government has been funding computers in schools on a national level for decades, why stop there if the issue is:- 'access for all' and 'social inclusion' not just access for those who CAN afford it.
finlay.mitchel I never said one or two. Actually of the people I know perhaps half don't have PCs and have no interest in them.
You are entitled to your opinion of course but so am I.
I do not consider free wifi a "substantial community asset" others may disagree including perhaps the FE as lets face it he works full time in the IT industry. And I know its been one of the governments targets to get broadband into as many homes as possible.
Of those many people I know who don't have internet access I'm very sure they would not be happy at paying for free wifi. They might well be happy at spending money on IT at the likes of schools but I do not think they would be willing to pay lots of money for something they have no interest in.
I repeat what I said, its not free, someone will pay for it and from what you seem to be saying its the government that would pay.
As for your comment on pressure brought to bear by the telecom industry you might be right. But you might be wrong and you have no evidence to substantiate your claim.
My comments were not any sort of personal attack on you and I'm sorry if you think it was. But at the end of the day I disagree with what you have said. And that is my opinion.
In Speakers Corner you will find many people have different opinions.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.