I understand Jack's thinking toward the terrestrial mediums, that broadcast TV and radio are old school and on the decline in influence. But with the exception of the digital TV transition, they're both 'paid for' given that almost everyone, rich or poor, has access to a TV or a radio. I want to see more minority owned broadcasters (commercial and non-profit) and would make rule changes allowing more full and low-power DTV and radio stations.

But I'm certainly not oblivious to keeping emerging internet technology a priority. I agree with the second suggestion of making high speed internet available over the public airwaves–I would love to see any government help in ensuring municipal wi-fi like the kind that just died in Philadelphia this summer. How great would it have been for cities to provide basic internet access (at speeds not quite 'high', but certainly faster than dialup) to everyone for free or at a reduced price? The AT&Ts and Comcasts have no reason to cry foul as they can bundle phone, TV, and other enhanced services–the municipal service isn't really trying to compete like that.

I definitely agree toward protecting a neutral internet at all costs. We don't need AT&T or Comcast deciding what content will load first or fastest. For that matter, I'd love to put the boots to the telcos and the cablecos and make them fullfill the broadband infrustructure promises to which they have yet to fulfill from the Telecommunications Act of 1996. American 'high speed' is a joke compared to what our allies overseas have.

I'll have to do more research about the Universal Service Fund, but if it'll increase internet access to the people than I'm definitely for it.

I understand Jack's thinking toward the terrestrial mediums, that broadcast TV and radio are old school and on the decline in influence. But with the exception of the digital TV transition, they're both 'paid for' given that almost everyone, rich or poor, has access to a TV or a radio. I want to see more minority owned broadcasters (commercial and non-profit) and would make rule changes allowing more full and low-power DTV and radio stations.

But I'm certainly not oblivious to keeping emerging internet technology a priority. I agree with the second suggestion of making high speed internet available over the public airwaves–I would love to see any government help in ensuring municipal wi-fi like the kind that just died in Philadelphia this summer. How great would it have been for cities to provide basic internet access (at speeds not quite 'high', but certainly faster than dialup) to everyone for free or at a reduced price? The AT&Ts and Comcasts have no reason to cry foul as they can bundle phone, TV, and other enhanced services–the municipal service isn't really trying to compete like that.

I definitely agree toward protecting a neutral internet at all costs. We don't need AT&T or Comcast deciding what content will load first or fastest. For that matter, I'd love to put the boots to the telcos and the cablecos and make them fullfill the broadband infrustructure promises to which they have yet to fulfill from the Telecommunications Act of 1996. American 'high speed' is a joke compared to what our allies overseas have.

I'll have to do more research about the Universal Service Fund, but if it'll increase internet access to the people than I'm definitely for it.

I understand Jack's thinking toward the terrestrial mediums, that broadcast TV and radio are old school and on the decline in influence. But with the exception of the digital TV transition, they're both 'paid for' given that almost everyone, rich or poor, has access to a TV or a radio. I want to see more minority owned broadcasters (commercial and non-profit) and would make rule changes allowing more full and low-power DTV and radio stations.

But I'm certainly not oblivious to keeping emerging internet technology a priority. I agree with the second suggestion of making high speed internet available over the public airwaves–I would love to see any government help in ensuring municipal wi-fi like the kind that just died in Philadelphia this summer. How great would it have been for cities to provide basic internet access (at speeds not quite 'high', but certainly faster than dialup) to everyone for free or at a reduced price? The AT&Ts and Comcasts have no reason to cry foul as they can bundle phone, TV, and other enhanced services–the municipal service isn't really trying to compete like that.

I definitely agree toward protecting a neutral internet at all costs. We don't need AT&T or Comcast deciding what content will load first or fastest. For that matter, I'd love to put the boots to the telcos and the cablecos and make them fullfill the broadband infrustructure promises to which they have yet to fulfill from the Telecommunications Act of 1996. American 'high speed' is a joke compared to what our allies overseas have.

I'll have to do more research about the Universal Service Fund, but if it'll increase internet access to the people than I'm definitely for it.

If the likes of Rush Limpnuts, Falafel O'Lielly and Lou Dobbs want to be on the air waves spewing their filth, they should have to play by the rules, and that means anytime they say anything that instigates riots, Klan rallies or increases in hate crimes and death threats or incite treasonous acts against the government, the stations that carry their programs get heavily fined and repeat offenses get their licenses yanked and their shows pulled off the air.

I've got cousins who cannot fathom the way I use the internet so casually. Which means they might as well be back in the fifties.

These are the less sexy, less controversial things we should really be thinking about, and aggravating our representatives about DAY and NIGHT.

Don't get me started on the sub $100 laptops we are shipping overseas to foreign countries for their children when there are children right here in the U.S., kids so close I could be at their door in 20 minutes, who are living in third world conditions right here.