TANSTAAFL...but.

While our clothes are not free and our lighting is not free, they cost so little in comparison to what things 'used to cost' that this type of progression is worth musing over.

In the Middle Ages, a typical (and generous) annual wage for a maid or servant was 'a suit of clothes'. Yeah. The value of a suit of clothes was, in terms of minimum wage worker, about $20K. In comparison to this, when I go to Walmart and pick up a pair of jogging pants for $10...my clothes are almost free.

Another example is 'aluminum'. Ludwig the Mad's favorite dinner plate was made of aluminum...it was more valuable than if it had been made of solid gold. Now, while aluminum is not free, by comparison to Ludwig's plate, it is 'almost free'.

The same is true of 'enough light for an hour of reading'. The cost of an hour's light goes from 'weeks worth of work' to 'fractions of a penny' from ancient times up to the present.

This is the power of technology. I recall hearing (from Wm) that in the 1950's there was discussion of not charging for electricity that came from nuclear power plants, because the cost of billing for it would exceed the worth of the electricity used by the average household.

So, while Google is welcome to give away its products out of its own pocket (but not out of my pocket) the idea that fiber communications will always have a meaningful charge is debatable.

Jan

I only found out a few years ago that "free" phones were being given to people, paid for by an extra tax on my cell phone bill. Sure this is more of the same

Did they do it because they WANTED to do it, or were they coerced, either by the Gov't or by collective social guilt, to do it? THAT is the question...

I would guess this is an attempt to get cities to pay for some or all infrastructure improvements needed for the service.

Exactly. Nothing in life is free. This is being paid for by current subscribers. It would possibly be acceptable if the access was very limited. Education, jobs things like that. My guess is we are just giving free porn to people.

They sell many many services directly and indirectly (ad revenue is huge for Google) over the internet. So giving away internet access is a loss leader strategy for them. It makes
sound sense.

Well, that's interesting. Still, I have been using
the Internet for a few years in the Richmond public
library without charge, except for the fact of being
a taxpayer.--As to phones, I got one as a result of
being in a medical experiment.

let us just have a poor population. seems the government doesn't have a lock on keeping people poor they have a world of assistance from all of these companies who have made lots of money. they believe they are doing good. give a man a fish and he has a meal give him a fishing rod and he will feed himself for ever.

There ain't no such thing as a free phone.

Cheap advertising