OK, someone tell me why the END USERS don't pay for this!
If a school wants to be wired, the local school board can pay for it (and the local taxpayers can vote for the millage increase). If you don't think every five year old needs a net connection (maybe because you are afraid of them seeing nekkid ladies, or because you just think teachers should teach and not rely on technology to do their jobs for them), you can vote against spending the money.
As for subsidizing rural customers, those people made a choice to live in a rural area, for whatever reason. I see no reason to subsidize that choice. Unless of course they want to pay higher taxes to subsidize the costs for my living in the city.
Clay
I wouldn't normally respond to such an offtopic post, but this post is so egregious I couldn't let it pass. Who says they make a choice to live in rural areas? Do they also choose not to have enough money to pay for shoes? So, because they live in a poor district they are not entitled to the same level of education as a rich city suburb? The illiteracy rate in Alabama is 40%! This is just plain sick! I don't think that every school needs a net connection, I think they need better teachers. But the statement that we shouldn't subsidize rural customers because they CHOOSE to live there (even though some are poor and can't afford to live anywhere else) is just plain fallacious. Just because you choose to live in the city does not mean people always choose to live where they live. Education is one thing (perhaps the only thing) that deserves to be subsidized in this country. We're rapidly falling behind. I don't agree with the $10. I'd need convincing that every school needs a net connection when the students can't read, but the tone of the above message is callous, besides being wrong. -- ____________________________________________________________________________ Doug Hughes Engineering Network Services System/Net Admin Auburn University doug@eng.auburn.edu Pro is to Con as progress is to congress