7. Please elaborate on question above if interested.

1

Fed, state and local governments paid for a great deal of the backbone and early investments in these technologies. Businesses should be able to make their money off of providing access and services but should not make money off prioritizing content over the network we all paid for.

2

Internet should be viewed as a public good. Level playing field.

3

I don't think ANYONE should have priority options even at a price. The internet has been a great equalizer with the economic ability of either the person, or the companies out there being a much smaller factor than in any other type of media, technology or business concept in history. I STRONGLY feel that the current pay to use, spend what you have to and provide a service, get paid if people are willing TRUE FREE ENTERPRISE system is excellent and if we start down that road then those with the money will have all the advantage and control in the future.

4

Should the U.S. Postal Service be able to charge one rate for first class mail and a different rate for overnight service?

5

Isn't this what Google and Yahoo do when they sell advertising? The more you pay, the higher up your company is in their search results?

6

We are in a period where the business models that support differing interest groups are in some conflict (i.e. oversubscription models of telecos/cable carriers, are under assault). This has happened before (old dial up provisioning during the early 90s). It is true that currently the benefit in providing more content accrue to the server/content players (Google/Yahoo, etc.). And it is true that technology to constrain is available (MPLS primarily). Given these truths, no options exist to solve this dilemma and the end customer may suffer.

The keys to this emerging issue are the changes to the business models and the transition to fiber networks. The later can be promoted by governments with the aid of the capital markets. Making this happen is what is hard -- always has been.

7

Priority (first class, advanced, preferential treatment) all cost more and give you more in a free market place.

8

I think retaining access to the Internet

9

Corporations and wealthy interests already have a leg up on society. Preserving net neutrality will allow everyone to have an equal voice (provided they have the know how and internet access).

Plus I am already paying my ISP (VISI) and DSL provider Qwest for my broadband connection, they should not be allowed to make money off of the content providers.

10

ISP should not control the internet!!!

11

This should be user choice and preference and not biased by content providers with deep pockets

12

No, because those who have more will continual get more. Can perpetuate access for those with $$ and limit access for those without

13

Internet neutrality is essential if we are to have a truly honest exchange of information

14

My guess is that commercial companies will drive out the "little people," if they have priority.

15

To me, this is similar to purchasing guaranteed uninterrupted service at a price higher than "regular service". As such, I support it in principle. However the issue of Internet priority or equality is more complex. As long as "enhanced" priority does not interfere with "regular" priority, I think it's an option that can be offered.

16

Unless we can create another system for ISPs to recoup funding.

17

Giving priority to any entity is against the freedom inherent in the use of the web. Charging for it only gives more rights to content providers because (I think) they then have proprietor rights.

18

I don't understand the question, but I do think that getting access to the Electronic Lib of Minnesota (ELM) is EQUALLY or more important than Google.

19

I'm paying for my bandwidth, I should be able to use it for whatever type of content I like. Prioritizing some packets will create a two-tiered Internet. Not a good idea.

20

keep the internet flat

21

If you are speaking of Net Neutrality -- while I am a liberal, I believe that commerce shouldn't be bogged down by MySpace and YouTube. As long as the "lower tier" isn't as bad as dial-up or AOL.

22

Don't understand the question

23

Leave the system of tubes alone.
See: The Daily Show (TDS): Net Neutrality With John Hodgman (It is available on YouTube)

24

Exchange of traffic should be done in an amicable fashion, this whole 'split the net' stuff is so 1993...

25

no priority should be given

26

In the same way that our broadcast airwaves are "owned" by the public and are (well...should be) retained and protected for the public interest(s), the Internet should likewise be reserved. Selling access to the network itself to corporations only diminishes the public interest-- siphoning away bandwidth from those who need it most; clogging the flow of content with corrosive advertising. I'm all for commerce, just let's let it happen in an evenhanded way and not in a way which diminishes resources. Okay, I know it's not as plain a situation as I imply, but exaggeration is the only way to begin seeing the direction this is headed (is it already there?).

27

Not sure. I would need more information about this issue -- and it's implications either way before I made a decision.

28

Access to the internet should include the entire internet, without censorship.

29

Any fee that seems to apply only trickles down to the consumer, and high speed internet is already an expensive form of communication that continues to separate the haves from the have nots.

30

Security problems, especially on Microsoft platforms, continues to increase. Spyware/adware is the biggest threat today, and giving priority to such companies magnifies the threat.

31

The Internet now allows everyone to be a publisher. Charging to send content could go back to "Freedom of Speech only applies to you if you own a printing press or TV or Radio station."

32

This is a service that should be provided by those content providers at no charge.

9. Please elaborate on question above if interested.

1

Minneapolis is doing something.

2

We would like to increase our speeds and add wireless.

3

The ability to compete in the future will depend upon our ability to provide a broad range of services, this is one way the community can assist business in leveling the playing filed.

4

They do not do anything.

5

Rural areas are still limited to dial-up.

6

We have some places that can't even get DSL

7

We need to do more regarding the education aspect

8

For a more productive business climate and workforce.

9

I think we have very fast service, but I am not sure

10

I wish they'd do more for public safety

11

St. Paul, my community, is looking at wireless or fiber. There is no question that fiber is the correct path, but it is politically hard. It will take strong leaders.

12

I think that the city is reluctant to look into the issue since there are many residents and businesses that get some higher speed connections via private line connections or via the traditional cable modem or DSL services via the private sector as well as wireless hot spot connections at various locations throughout the community.

13

We have a cabin in Remer. My husband has a voiceover business but can not work on it at our cabin as there is only DSL, no broadband.

14

I am happy that my city is working toward a less expensive option that will benefit many.

15

I would like to have cheap, secure access to the Internet outside work. I cannot afford $35/month just for broadband access for the Internet.

16

I'm not sure whether it's my community or my ISP who needs to work to increase Broadband speeds, but I prefer faster access -- particularly for uploads.

17

more wi-fi please

18

It would be good if people that were on farms within 5 miles of a small town could us broadband. It would be better than using their telephone line to get to the internet.

19

We have a *lot* of speed and two major provider options. I'd like to see municipal competition, but I don't need any more speed, I already get 5MB to my house.

20

Wish there were more opportunities for those of us in the rural areas, outside the city limits

21

Not impressed with local politics.

22

Get things going to get the job done. Ignore all of the issues dealing with local government - just get it done, drop the politics, get it done now!

23

my broadband connection seems pretty fast...but I guess faster would always be better...

24

faster speeds are possible for all

25

I live in a marginalized community (geographically). It is spectacularly diverse in terms of racial and ethnic makeup. It is also spectacularly impoverished. Housing values are low. Crime is high. Businesses are faltering. Community self-determination is a dimly flickering flame. Public interest in our community mirrors our seemingly defeatist apathy. This community needs as much two-way activity as it can get. I believe that access via broadband technologies can only provide a mechanism for social change. It would be a resource, actually, not the mechanism, but a tool that could be harnessed by community groups and individuals that are now stifled in their access to information, resources, attention and respect.

26

Free high speed (secure) wireless for the City sure would be nice!

27

Right now we have a number of providers that offer high speed internet service. I think it would be better time spent trying to find ways to decrease costs to make it more affordable to the average wage earner.

28

I don't know if my community sees a demand for broadband

29

We have high speed access - up to 1056K, but it is expensive. We need to work to make it more affordable, not necessarily more accessible.

30

There are 'holes' in rural areas[e.g., Sunburg, MN] where broadband is either inaccessible or prohibitively expensive.

31

I think our broadband is fine as is...no improvement necessary.

32

While access to typical US speed Internet (Cable and DSL) is available, this is slow compared to other countries.

33

There could be more that is being done to get the community up to speed on internet issues, at an affordable/competitive rate.

11. Please elaborate on question above if interested.

1

The devil is in the details, but overall sure it sounds good.

2

Keep this private.

3

Rural access (outside the city limits) is the main problem

4

Paul Bunyan is doing that already. The city doesn't need to interfere.

5

I would also be in favor of my community giving me lots of services for half price, but I do not think that they can do it.

6

The triple play idea has finally hit home in the metro areas, I think that as the word gets out that it's a great opportunity for municipalities to have a revenue stream that is also beneficial to its residents. Long distance being the norm has brought cellular to the level it is, and if VOIP were to put up some competition the consumer and business market would both benefit IMHO.

7

I think the city of Brainerd and Baxter are wired. Plus they have cable internet through cable.

8

I believe the private sector should deliver the services for broadband. Where the private sector is unable to do it then the public sector should.

9

Cities should stick to the basics like streets, water, public safety and schools.

10

see above

11

100Mb is not necessary, but 40 to 60 is.

12

Not city owned. City has enough issues to deal with.

13

Private enterprise can do this. Government would mess it up.

14

The Remer area needs to upgrade to high speed broadband at competitive prices. Their DSL costs now are very steep. In PC World magazine I learned those high costs are paid by only 4% of people in the US.

15

I feel that a city owned system would be the best safe guard in preserving net neutrality. I also feel that Minneapolis provides a great economy of scales in providing water, sewer, and trash functions. So I don't see how city run would provide more than adequate (if not superior) service and be more cost effective for the consumer.

16

Competition is always good and we only have one high speed broadband option currently (Comcast)

17

why should the government get into it if they aren't bringing prices down, or supplying increased access to folks who have no computer, etc.

18

I consider Broadband to be a "utility" type of service, which like natural gas, electric and phone service is best provided by private industry with governmental oversight.

19

I would prefer a city-owned fiber network if this did not cause any kind of censorship to take place - given that the government could then pass new access laws changing the fabric of the internet's relatively un-tethered existence.

20

If it could do rural homesteads in the same area.

21

OK, if you put it that way, yes, I'll take that speed if the price is competitive. I'd rather see 1.5 MB speed cheaper than 100MB speed at the same high price.

22

In my graduate program I did a paper on subsidized Wi-Fi. This would help low-income families compete in the real-world.

23

Reliability would probably suck.

24

City should not own such infrastructure. chaska.net is a great example of a horrendous example of city owned infrastructure not allowing free market growth.

25

I need to qualify by saying that I said "yes" to the question as asked in a vacuum. If this is the only and best option available, then by all means. I'm cognizant of potential problems with such a system. Namely, the city may not be the best steward of the technology-- unable or ignorant to act upon rapidly changing technology and social trends. This could stagnate the city's momentum in such a rapidly moving tech environment. If the city can be innovative in creating a structure for managing a technology network, I'd be in favor of this approach. But, I'd want to analyze the alternatives before casting my vote.

26

This is a democracy - and if local gov't can make it faster and cheaper - they should go for it- they have every right to as it is now a basic infrastructure element like water and waste

27

Yes! I think this would also allow Internet access to folks who might not be able to afford current high speed rates.

28

I'm not sure what speed I have now, so that might not be worthwhile to me if I already have a comparable service, unless it was much cheaper.

29

I currently do have access to city water, sewer, voting, etc. therefore that would not be a benefit to me or a lot of others who currently reside on the outskirts of Grand Rapids. Frankly, I think the city of Grand Rapids has other expenditures that need their attention. Like funding a library.

30

I do not live in town therefore I do not believe I would have access to broadband but if the city people had access to it at a competitive price I think it would be favorable

31

Not sure it would benefit those of us outside of city limits, out on the township roads, for example.

32

1. I’m thinking that greater than 100MB service would be nice.
2. I’m not sure city owned is the best solution. Public/private partnership at the state level, perhaps?

33

We have it.

13. Please elaborate on question above if interested.

1

problem is that once a company gets a monopoly in this area they can raise rates without competition.

2

I'd prefer it to be owned by government or a nonprofit.

3

See #11. It is a cooperative that owns the fiber network going into the ground right now.

4

Same as above.

5

If municipalities don't see the opportunity or are not willing to invest, then I think private business should certainly swoop in. I think that it would be a good 'business' for the communities, but I also think that private business usually does a better job and provides a competitive market whereas government usually has a monopoly and is not as efficient as cost effective... but it IS an opportunity, especially for rural communities, but if they don't see it that way, well they'll miss out.

6

The city should never do anything that eliminates competition

7

If it is entirely financed by the private company. Don't risk my tax dollars.

8

Sure, as long as it is privately financed.

9

Who wouldn't? But how at the same price.

10

Whatever it takes to get high speed broadband at a decent price. Remer should band together with other communities so the cost would not be as high.

11

I could live with that, but I feel that city owned would be cheaper and more likely to preserve net neutrality.

12

I think so, not that different from the Minneapolis wireless project (only for wireless I don't need to let strangers into my home).

13

I would expect that other ISP's could still compete for my business.

14

what is the advantage. The reason I don't have broadband is price

15

not exclusive contract but any competition is good

16

I am afraid of one company having all the "power."

17

See #11. I don't care who does it, just so that people have access to such a basic communication and resource device as broadband provides.

18

See number 9.

19

If the infrastructure is *shared* amongst those that want to provide services - that is the hard part when dealing with private entities.

20

I'm going to naively point to the cable system as my example of how things go wrong with such a system (taking a public resource and squeezing the public out of its control and relegating its ability to create content to a small media ghetto within it while extorting the same public into paying for it twice-- once via subscription funds, twice with rampant advertising). I'd like to see the public (using the city as its agent) retain control of the resource. At least the experiment could start from a more even-handed public position.

21

Hmm... If there were guarantees that the prices would not sky rocket over time, maybe. I know Mpls is doing this.

22

See above

23

Same as above. I also believe that this may be a joint powers issue. It also makes me uncomfortable to contract solely with one company in city limits - which would then lessen competition and potentially increase costs. Case in point - Bell Telephone.

24

See answer 11 - just to have access to it at a competitive price would be key - not necessarily where it came from (city or private)

25

I would like to see greater than that. 100 MB is really the entry point (not the end point) for video technologies

26

In answer to 10 and 12 above, I think we need to look at all options that make sense in our community - whether they be city-owned or private enterprise or a combination of the two.

15. Please elaborate on question above if interested.

1

Don't know enough about it to say that this is the best way to do it. I believe in the concept...just don't know if USF is the way.

2

The USF should be reformed so that we do not have the great disparities that we do now. Some rural areas have excellent services; some have poor services. Some places in urban areas have poor services.

3

I don't know enough about the structure, funding, distribution of funds and the impact to have an informed opinion. I'd be curious.

4

That is one reason I use a calling card. Too many fees and charges. I see rural consumers are to get some funds from USF. Where is this now happening?

5

Is it helping?

6

Let's level the playing field

7

Yes, but distribution formulas should be looked at more closely.

8

It hasn't worked.

9

Rural areas need lower rates because incomes are much lower.

10

The Johnson Telephone prices are very costly.

11

Yes, it is key that we provide a pooled resource to investments that the business community often won't.

12

I support the idea, but am not sure how it's being implemented.

13

The internet has not proved to be that big a learning tool for schools

14

This should continue to help reduce the 'information divide' of haves and have nots

15

I have a phone line that costs less than $10 a month, but all the "taxes" on it make it almost double that. I don't know if these same charges apply to wireless telephones or voice over IP services.

16

Yes, but maybe it should be broadened to provide more technology than phone service?

17

Freedom of access!!!

18

If the money is for schools and libraries to have good communications, that is really important.

19

Yes, but it should also be used in non-rural situations as well.
if you want to live in the country...then live in the country.

20

Yes it should be collected. Perhaps the allocation of the collected funds needs to be re-thought in light of the swiftly changing world of communication.

21

Absolutely! They should also tap into the wireless companies. Not the consumer, but the companies them selves. They are making a huge profit on cell phone use and should give back to society/community.

22

I do not have enough information or insight to provide a thoughtful answer.

23

telephone services has become a need and not a want therefore all should have access to it

24

I'd need more information

25

USF is not being used to help low-income / rural consumers. Schools/libraries have other resources.

26

I would support it for public schools and libraries- not for low income residential.

17. Please elaborate on question above if interested.

1

Of course.

2

see 15.

3

Services and prices should be consistent across the state.

4

I'd question the efficiency of the program first and if it shows merit, then yes I think that the internet is a communication mode that keeps telephone companies competitive and may eventually merge them together or replace them.

5

The regular consumer continues to support with nothing in return. Sell shares.

6

If they will continue to collect it.

7

Let's level the playing field. Are costs reasonable for schools & libraries and rural consumers? If so lets not subsidize it. In terms of low income I don't know.

8

This is critical to the continued equal access to customers in rural areas where costs of deployment are higher, yet the economies are not as affluent as the metro areas

9

It hasn't worked.

10

The cost of upgrading to faster cable is very expensive for the Johnson Phone company as they are a small company without a lot of extra money for new technology. The rural customers do not have any alternatives in Remer as Johnson is the only carrier. Therefore, they need all they can in funding to upgrade their systems.

11

Pooled resources to help close the digital divide is crucial. Affordable internet service is a key part of this.

12

Fast reliable internet service is as necessary as telephone service today.

13

Something should be done to ensure the affordable service, but don't know enough to know the options.

14

I support this idea in principle, but want to know more details before I say yes or no

15

Again, freedom of access.

16

of course it should be as close to equal as possible, but the money for this is in the urban sprawl, allow the urban sprawl to benefit as well.

17

Bingo! Just the idea I was alluding to in my previous comment.

18

Sure, if it's possible to do this -- but not take away from its current benefit.

19

If not currently doing so, but I thought that was one of the reasons for USF indicated in number 14.

20

maybe - based on the need - want theory I don't see the internet as a need however it can be crucial in the development and education of the community

21

This seems to make sense

22

Yes for public schools and libraries, but not for low income residential. I don't feel it is a necessity.

19. Please elaborate on question above if interested.

1

The information is out there for the most part, I just don't know off the top of my head.

2

They do not believe that the govt. should be involved in providing the service. They would prefer to let local business provide the service and charge a market based fee.

3

Here I assume state legislators. Don't know. Don’t know about congressional folks either.

4

I do somewhat, but at the most local levels it's still being blown off as something they don't have to really dig into yet. I think that we are at the noise stage of elected officials jumping in but that many of them are not well enough educated on the subject to be taken seriously even if they have something to say!

5

Net neutrality should be decided nationally. It would be a mistake to have 50 different state positions.

6

Not always. But I have pushed my Minneapolis city council member to include net neutrality into the sale of the cable monopoly company (Time Warner to Comcast, not sure the buyer) and in their selection of a wireless system.

7

At the congressional level, I suspect I do, but not sure. I know how my city councilor voted on the Minneapolis wireless.

8

That's why we have the Minnesota Telecommunications and Information Policy Roundtable....

9

Don't care, politicians are looking for the angle to make money later in their lives.

10

There are so many issues that I think communication is low on the priority list.

11

I've become more aware of the process in Minneapolis as it is further along and much more present in the public discourse-- newspapers, tv, radio. I need to catch up to the conversations taking place in St. Paul. I need to know where the City Council, Met Council, Ramsey County, and the Mayor stand on this issue. I know there have been some public opportunities to discuss this (I think) but have missed both the events and the summary of those discussions (if there are any).

12

Not in its entirety. Good questions to ask before an election!

13

Not at the local level

21. Please elaborate on question above if interested.

1

I don't think they understand it as much as I wish they did. That is not to say they just don't understand it.

2

Rarely hear them speak of it. I don't think they follow it. I may be wrong.

3

At least a few of them should understand the issues.

4

Some yes, some a little, many not at all

5

Have you ever talked to them - I have.

6

Very complex topic.

7

They need to attend some of your seminars. There is so much more the North country could do with better communications technology available.

8

It depends on the official. Clearly Ted Stevens (Senator R-AK) has no clue. But others have heard from their constituents and paid attention to the issue.

9

They don't understand anything else so I sure they're just as far off base on information and communications technology policy

10

I would say probably not, it doesn't seem to be a high priority issue

11

Even more important for elected officials, that's why we have the Minnesota Coalition on Government Information

12

Given the current political right-wing interpretation of information access of the internet, fear and greed outweigh information access.

13

I think it is hard for everyone to understand.

14

Most people will answer "No" because of people like Ted Stevens. I think most elected officials either understand it, try to seek out the information, or rely on lobbyists and experts to relay the "talking points" to them.

15

I can only speak for the city of Minneapolis. I don't know if other elected officials understand.

16

I think most people above the age of 45 don't really get it.

Unfortunately, I will be there soon, hopefully I won't be as ill informed.

17

No, most of them are middle class white males who don't have a clue.

18

I'm going to hold out hope that they do. It seems that St. Paul is taking a more deliberative approach to the wi-fi issue at least. I'm hoping this is to analyze the issues surrounding this phenomenon in realizing that the technical considerations are just the tip of the iceberg. The social ramifications are huge. In terms of other technology policy issues, I've heard very little. Again, I'm hoping that this means that my officials are not jumping any guns but willing to look into the implications of policy before taking action. Then again, I have not been impressed with progress of late which somewhat dampens my hope.

19

I think some of my elected officials do -- and the importance of universal access, but not sure about all elected officials.

20

I think in the business alone there is lack of shared meaning about what is exactly meant by information and communications technology. Similar to what is and isn't innovative?

21

I think they apply their ideologies without giving it much thought - they seem to break into two camps: either free market or government involvement.

22

Our local elected officials do.

23

You’re kidding with this question. Right?

23. Please elaborate on question above if interested.

1

It depends how broadly you define info and tech. Education is very important.

2

This is a minor issue in today's age.

3

Almost impossible to know where they stand. If I rated this high, I'd almost have to stay away on election day as I couldn't make heads or tails of any of them!

4

ICT is integral to many important issues like education, health care and economic development

5

I never make a decision on one issue

6

We have way bigger issues than this one that elected officials need to be dealing with.

7

Health care, tax policy, trade issues are very important to me.

8

To me, this is an issue that effects education, we do this right, education quality will go up

9

This just one of many basic economic equity issues to consider.

10

It's very important, but there are man variables, e.g. how much the candidate knows, to whom he/she is indebted, whether he/she can get beyond the technology to the policy issues

11

Policy must
1. Make the Internet accessible to all who cannot afford it due to income, location far from cities, et.
2. Corporations cannot be allowed to take over the Internet to the point of barring free speech, lest the US becomes a commercialocracy rather than a democracy/republic.

12

I now am more aware of the need to educate those who would be making this decision. I assume Democrats would not put restrictions on the internet, but I can't be certain of that at all given the fear, political climate, and greed of corporations (and their lobbyists.)

13

It is hard to get people to mention it as part of the issues they discuss.

14

It is important. But there is K-12 Education, Higher Education, Health Care, International Relations...there is no such thing as a "most important" issue.

15

Politics should *not* factor in.

16

It would be nice to know where the candidates stand. However there are so many other important issues, (war, crime, school funding, and library funding) that it's a lower priority.

17

Right in the middle. Again, the rather marginalized status of my neighborhood leads me to look most heavily into direct service issues. While I understand (or think I know) the social justice and community development importance of technology access and how that access is utilized, there are more dire needs that will have to be addressed to pave the way for technology access to have a fighting chance of having the impact it is capable of having before being totally co-opted by commercial interests which have already had a crushing impact on the area in which I live.

18

I think it's important, but they don't address it.

19

Right now I am more focused on my own core values then about the infrastructure and services - which are not unimportant just seem less important at this time. However, I agree that if we ignore the access in rural we will do ourselves a disservice.

20

I believe communication technology is not a single answer to rural community health - it is dependent on other factors therefore the candidate I choose hopefully would have communications technology part of their policy along with additional community development policies

21

There are more pressing issues confronting local, state and national politics than communications technology.

24. Anything else you'd like to tell us about your use or your community and broadband technology?

1

We are interested in wireless...

2

Our community needs better and more affordable high speed internet service. We currently use it for a home based business, watching and waiting while other communities and areas zoom by use is not smart. The council may need a grant and a workshop to move them forward...

3

Big generational gap in Internet users....need to lessen the intimidation factor.
Business owners "don't get" the importance of web page accessibility by potential customers

4

Our council was wise in granting a franchise to the rural cooperative that is overlaying a fiber-to-the-home system. Qwest's and the cable company's prices have dropped! Hurrah, the market works! Smart people and smart action.

5

I'm a technology person, as an interest, as a business person and as a community member. I don't get into the 'fun' uses of it, I'm into the practical business applications and what it can be done to benefit society, not watch TV, not broadcast music, but things I consider to have more value to society.

6

I find it interesting I'm two miles from a major fiber optic line and it not possible to get service. Rural consumer is limited to cell tower modems and dial up.

7

As I mentioned, we have no cell service in Remer, no high speed broadband (just DSL), access to mail delivery and newspapers is limited, and that limits business opportunities and the ability of people to work remotely and stay informed.

8

Though I am from the urban area, I do care a great deal about statewide issues - one fear is that the technology will separate rather than unit the state. Politicians need to understand the long-term implications of their ad hoc decisions.

9

The less money people have, the more they're dependant on libraries to access the Internet. The poorer the neighborhood, the less computers the library has, per capita.

10

I am a public librarian and I see a very important role that broadband plays in our society today. Speed makes everything downloadable.

11

We are using dial-up because that is what is easy and safe for the computer and not as expensive as satellite. It would be good to have faster access to look up www addresses but not if it is going to be lots more expensive.

12

Good survey. Good luck in your endeavor.

13

pr0n sells the Internet.
The internet is made for pr0n.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlkHQ2CEqGM
If you don't think it is...

14

Don't get me started... okay, you already have.

15

I know little about broad band and feel I need to learn more.