-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Corporations trying to stifle wireless initiatives
- Thread starter IEC
- Start date
it's not fair for governments to tax private companies to give those services out for free.
it's like the government deciding spyware is a problem and having free clinics for people to bring their PC's in while they tax the IT people that provide these services to pay for the "free"clinics
it's like the government deciding spyware is a problem and having free clinics for people to bring their PC's in while they tax the IT people that provide these services to pay for the "free"clinics
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
I'm siding with Verison and the rest of the communications company in this case. I would rather pay for my own internet than have the .gov dole it out and control it. Like most any government bureaucracy, providing broadband will become a tax burden overloaded with layers of fat and will tend to stifle competition as well.
Not to mention the big brotherish aspect of it all.
Not to mention the big brotherish aspect of it all.
kranky
Elite Member
There is no need for the government to provide communications services in a competitive environment. Like any other government "business", it will balloon into a giant bureaucracy so they can create do-nothing jobs for relatives and political friends. By the time it ends up costing a fortune (remember, no one ever loses a job for incompetence working for the government), it will be too late.
I just roll my eyes at the quote in the story "We wanted to bridge the digital divide for residents who wouldn't have access to the Internet, particularly schoolchildren." Please, think of the children! The same children who already have taxpayer-funded internet in school and in libraries!
If it's that desperate of a need, why don't people just get together and set up a WiFi network in their neighborhood? Answer: because as soon as you let everyone on for free, the bandwidth costs will be multiples of what anyone ever imagined.
I just roll my eyes at the quote in the story "We wanted to bridge the digital divide for residents who wouldn't have access to the Internet, particularly schoolchildren." Please, think of the children! The same children who already have taxpayer-funded internet in school and in libraries!
If it's that desperate of a need, why don't people just get together and set up a WiFi network in their neighborhood? Answer: because as soon as you let everyone on for free, the bandwidth costs will be multiples of what anyone ever imagined.
Liberal Canadian here, and I'm against gov't run wireless companies in principle.
What makes businesses work well? The fact that that if they are not successful they will either run out of money and go under (private) or will be bought out when their share prices drop and the management will be fired (public).
What happens if a public company does poorly? The taxpayer steps in to fill the breach, paying off debts etc. in order to save the jobs. This wil give them a competitive advantage, allowing them to do weird things like undercharging, thus forcing out more efficient competition (at the expense of the taxpayer) until they then hold a monopoly on the market, at which time they can jack up the price, usually in order to pay for the extra "expenses" the management suddenly incurrs. Thus the taxpayer gets dinged covering the expenses of poor management or anti-competitive behaviour, and then the consumers (who are usually the same people) pay either higher prices or recieve poorer service due to a lack of competition.
Now, if a city or school board sets up the infrastructure in order to gain cheaper access for it's own needs, and then extends this access to it's employees, that's a different story. It then boils down to whether or not the institution actually saves money on the deal.
Edit: My bad, I just read the article. What they are talking about is essentially starting a public, open broadband service, like the schools. That would likely be considered expropriation of assets. Imagine if you sold flowers on the corner. Now imagine if the gov't started up a program across the street that allowed people to get flowers free, or really cheaply. It effectively takes away your business.
Now, there are a lot of good reasons why you would want Broadband cheap or free to all citizens. But the city should get that done either by subsidizing the companies and let them provide it, or pay compensation for the expropriation, you know, like in your constitution. But I think that this kind of program could be cool. The gov't does something like that up here in Canada, where they set up broadband access for people who lived in the northern territories who weren't being served by private companies.
What makes businesses work well? The fact that that if they are not successful they will either run out of money and go under (private) or will be bought out when their share prices drop and the management will be fired (public).
What happens if a public company does poorly? The taxpayer steps in to fill the breach, paying off debts etc. in order to save the jobs. This wil give them a competitive advantage, allowing them to do weird things like undercharging, thus forcing out more efficient competition (at the expense of the taxpayer) until they then hold a monopoly on the market, at which time they can jack up the price, usually in order to pay for the extra "expenses" the management suddenly incurrs. Thus the taxpayer gets dinged covering the expenses of poor management or anti-competitive behaviour, and then the consumers (who are usually the same people) pay either higher prices or recieve poorer service due to a lack of competition.
Now, if a city or school board sets up the infrastructure in order to gain cheaper access for it's own needs, and then extends this access to it's employees, that's a different story. It then boils down to whether or not the institution actually saves money on the deal.
Edit: My bad, I just read the article. What they are talking about is essentially starting a public, open broadband service, like the schools. That would likely be considered expropriation of assets. Imagine if you sold flowers on the corner. Now imagine if the gov't started up a program across the street that allowed people to get flowers free, or really cheaply. It effectively takes away your business.
Now, there are a lot of good reasons why you would want Broadband cheap or free to all citizens. But the city should get that done either by subsidizing the companies and let them provide it, or pay compensation for the expropriation, you know, like in your constitution. But I think that this kind of program could be cool. The gov't does something like that up here in Canada, where they set up broadband access for people who lived in the northern territories who weren't being served by private companies.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
I can see taking a similar angle to the original phone services - i.e. providing incentives for corporations to extend service availability to normally unprofitable (due to capital costs) areas. So allow tax write-downs, or whatever to get broadban availability to rural areas, apartment buldings, and other places that may not have access right now.
But actually stepping in and making it a public utility seems like a poor plan to me. Not only has private enterprize done a good job overall with broadband access, they are much better equipped to evaluate and keep up with rapidly changing demands and technologies. As emand for braoadband has increased, companies have started offering cheaper, 'slow-broadband' for customers who need always-on connections, but not 3mbps access speeds. There's simply not much of a case to make that private enterprize has done a poor job providing access, as far as I can see.
This is a case where the slow decision-making of beaurocracy would cripple a government initiative, not to mention that the market is too well-developed to nationalize at this point; it's simply unwarranted by any of the conditions of the market.
But actually stepping in and making it a public utility seems like a poor plan to me. Not only has private enterprize done a good job overall with broadband access, they are much better equipped to evaluate and keep up with rapidly changing demands and technologies. As emand for braoadband has increased, companies have started offering cheaper, 'slow-broadband' for customers who need always-on connections, but not 3mbps access speeds. There's simply not much of a case to make that private enterprize has done a poor job providing access, as far as I can see.
This is a case where the slow decision-making of beaurocracy would cripple a government initiative, not to mention that the market is too well-developed to nationalize at this point; it's simply unwarranted by any of the conditions of the market.
It's not a free market in communications. Usually you have one cable or dsl provider serving an area. If those companies are slow at bringing broadband and improving service, and the local government can do better, they should. They are ultimately responsible to their constituents. I frankly don't care if I pay the government or the cable company for my broadband.
For comparison I will offer you electric service. During the crisis, PG&E, a private company, was losing money and rasing rates because it sold off it's generation capacity to out of state companies. LADWP, L.A. city run company, on the other hand was making money selling excess capacity and was largely uneffected. So the local run company was serving its customers better and cheaper than the private company. I would much rather get my service from LADWP than PGE.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
But cable, dsl and even satelite providers all have the option of extending broadband service; so you aren't 'really' locked in to one provider; they all have incentives to expand service because if they get you first, they are likely to keep you.
I would support incentives to companies to expand to under-serviced areas, but I don't think the market has done a bad job of pushing broadband availability so far.
Well, my two options are cable company which tries to bundle broadband with cable TV, and phone company which bundles broadband with a phone line. Not really indicative of a competitive landscape to me, where you crosshop the same service from different providers. And this is Silicon Valley, the center of technology for the US. If my city wanted to offer pure broadband service without cable TV or phone bundling, that's what I would get, because that's what I want. If a private player offered that, that's what I'd get, but they don't. It's good to have the phone companies and cable companies worried about local governments filling the void that they haven't filled. Keeps them from becoming complacent.
kranky
Elite Member
You think you hate what your choices are now, wait until the government tries it. If the government set up a broadband service, only one of two things will happen.
1. Private companies won't try to compete because the government can change the rules in their own favor whenever they want. You'll end up with a lousy service at a high cost, with no alternatives.
2. Private companies find a way to offer broadband cheaper. The government service will lack customers, but they won't care (nor will they have to, since profit isn't a consideration). Increasing amounts of tax dollars will continue to be spent subsidizing an ever-more-expensive agency, but no one will dare end it because "the children need it". You'll end up paying for it anyway even though you use a different service.
Our city had their own cable service years ago. In a very short time, it became a dinosaur, with every cable company in the surrounding areas offering more channels for less cost. The city couldn't reduce their costs because they already had a giant bureaucracy in place and they surely weren't going to throw their buddies out of work. It took about 10 years for the city to give in to public pressure and let a private company handle it.
That is implicit collusion. That's crappy regulation. Too bad.
Thing is, if your town did that, not only would you end up paying for the infrastructure out of general tax revenues, and then pay monthly fees for access, but you would likely end up paying compensation (through your taxes) for the implicit expropriation of the existing provider's business. That could end up costing the average citizen more in the long run even than taking the phone bundle and never using the phone. It's a crappy situation, and you should complain to the FCC or whoever is in charge of that kind of thing. Write to your city counsellor.
It's not the optimal solution, but we need to see what countries like South Korea are doing to promote technologies, because we are behind them in broadband and wireless. That's terrible. US entrepreneurs go to Korea to see what the next big thing in wireless or broadband service is to bring it to the US. We have lost our edge in this area. Wonder why Samsung makes such great cellphones? Because they are years ahead of us over there. Our players are still fighting turf battles instead of ramping up services.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
Because I'm an enigma, wrapped in a mystery? 😛
It probably has something to do with my perception of the level of success of public education, coupled with the difference between an 'important' and an 'essential' service, and philosophical convictions on the matter of educational opportunities. With defense it's a matter of believing 3000 years of military history in which publicly organized militaries have always defeated mercenary ones 😉
But three :Q's from you is better than I expected for this one😀
Dissipate
Diamond Member
What is your perception of the level of success of public education? I do not know about your "utopian" nation called Canada, but here in the U.S. I have seen nothing but massive failure. Furthermore, subjective evaluations of what is important and what is essential does not justify coercion. In this case, there are many people who now believe that free wireless Internet access in a city is "essential." Where do the "essentials" end and the non-essentials begin? Your list is no better than the next guy's, no matter how many philosophical ponderings you try to throw in for good measure.
Publically organized militaries defeated publically financed mercenaries, while this may be true, I do not see how it relates to privately provided defense in a 100% private society.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
The military relates quite well - it illustrates the low level of commitment that soldiers motivated only by payment have when faced with high probability for death or dismemberment. Do you remember the supposed strength of the Iraqi military before Desert Storm? On paper it shouldn't have been nearly such a cakewalk.
My perception of public education in Canada is actually pretty good. We acheive high levels of literacy, respectable (though not fantastic) aggregate math and science scores, and our top students easily acheive acceptances to the best performance-only schools in the USA and Europe, as well as (obviously) Canadian ones. We have a relatively large number of students with post-secondary education, and a pretty good system, involving both public and private colleges, for auxilliary education and training, which turn citizens who decide they have left school to early, or those whose skills no longer make them as marketable as they once were, into highly productive members of society (often in ever-transient service trades).
I would give public education, as supplemented by some post-secondary private colleges maybe a B or B+ in Canada. There's lots of improvements to be made, but I don't see any fundamental flaws.
From the little I know of American inner-city schools, I might have a different opinion of public education in the States, but frankly I can't see how a user-pay philosophy would provide those students with any education at all, so all I would predict is even more snuffing-out of potential than is already suffered.
The argument from liberty isn't relevent to the argument from outcomes, and it's been rehashed ad nauseum, so I don't see much point in doing it again here; suffice to say that in the case of education, I see a disconnect between the rights of adult citizens to liberty, and the rights and needs of developing citizens who are not yet full participants in the economy.
Having attended public schools from elementary through university, I've only seen massive success 😉
But I won't deny some schools have problems--problems that will only be made worse I will argue that the biggest contributor to a student's success in school is their parents' attitude toward learning.
Countries like Korea and the Philippines have high literacy rates and produce many with post baccalaureate degrees not because of education spending, but rather because of the cultural value placed on education.
Many parents in America don't place the same value on education at the peril of their children. With privatized education, those same parents would probably want to use the money they'd spend on education for other purposes.
That publically organized militaries have historically defeated publically financed mercenaries is a pretty weak argument for having a national army in this age of an all-volunteer force.
As I've been left out of these discussions in the past, which of these two are you suggesting that America contract out its national defense or are you suggesting that defense should be done absent of government intervention--that is, groups of people collectively purchase their own security?
Broadband internet
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
But they are not mercenary; they are indentured. Most enter not for money but at least partly from a sense of national duty (after all, enlisted men aren't paid particularly well).
Dissipate subscribes to a school of libertarian economics called anarcho-capitalism. Here's an overview, sans commentary but admittedly from an opponent of the school:
In essence, Anarcho-Capitalism springs from a series of beliefs about the nature of human behaviour to conclude that any economic activity not conducted solely between willing, budget-constrained agents is inherently irrational, and therefore leads to sub-optimal outcomes. It also places a very high value on individual liberty; in fact any limitations on liberty are considered extremely destructive to human well-being. An important corollary here is that nearly all human activity can be considered economic.
Government turns out to be the worst offender under A-C. Because government has the power to compel payment of taxes, and other activities, from citizens, it can be considered a non-rational agent in the economy. Government does not 'earn' its income, and worse, holds the power to print money, generating inflation taxes on the economy (if they double the money supply, then spend 'their' half, inflation in the economy halves the value of the original money, essentially stealing that value from the people who were holding cash as a store of value).
This pseudo-limitless source of income is one reason why the government is incapable of acting rationally, and tends to be the 'culprit' when government engages in frivolous spending. Another problem is that government can only ever take its 'best guess' at the preferences of the people, whereas individuals making private decisions can each determine exactly what to purchase, given their budget constraints. Thus beaurocracy is seen not as having the potential to streamline processes, and standardize (with positive outcomes) such universal goods as primary education, legal systems, etc, but rather as a crippling dose of irrationality, incapable of ever comprehending the preferences of citizens, and therefore incapable of providing an optimal solution. The argument for beaurocracy 'from efficiency of standardization' is met with an argument from irrationality, and the inability of beaurocracy to respond swiftly to changing market conditions and preferences (this was why I didn't support a beaurocratic solution to internet access, above; if nothing else, the market isn't nearly static enough).
Finally, along with government's poorly formulated budget constraint, and information processing deficiencies, it's power is considered illegitimate, regardless of the historical/constitutional source of that power. Democracy is considered the tyranny of the majority, whereby you may have your rights trampled and your assets or freedom coerced from you at any time, based on the preferences of others. Constitutional protections of minority and personal liberties are considered woefully inadequate in preventing this effect. [/overview]
What Dissipate is suggesting is definitely the second alternative, that individuals contract for their own defense, though they would be free to engage in collective action in order to do so. The key would be no coercion of resources or participation (and he has a point - try telling the IRS you don't want to pay the portion of your taxes spent on military, because you are confident in your own private arsenal).
There have been a couple of threads on this, public education, etc. (thus Dissipate's apparent shock that I would advocate a free-market solution to internet access 😉) Some of the arguments have been pretty good, and Dissipate has linked to a mountain of A-C literature. A few of the sources are pretty good, too (some of them are not much more than hand-waving though, which is true of literature in all schools of thought).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
