What would you think of public option internet?

[Zordon]

So you have the option to pay the tax or not?

Yes, either a tax or fee. If you don't use the service than you won't be charged. I see no harm in this.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Yes, either a tax or fee. If you don't use the service than you won't be charged. I see no harm in this.

So, once again, why are we involving the government? What's the point?

 

[Zordon]

So, once again, why are we involving the government? What's the point?

provide a lower cost option for those who want it. believe it or not there are people out there that would sacrifice a little quality for cost savings. think of the generic brands at the grocery store. you can either buy it or continue purchasing your name brand items. in fact, your name brand internet might come a little a cheaper now that there is a generic brand competitor keeping a lower price floor in the market.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

provide a lower cost option for those who want it. believe it or not there are people out there that would sacrifice a little quality for cost savings. think of the generic brands at the grocery store. you can either buy it or continue purchasing your name brand items. in fact, your name brand internet might come a little a cheaper now that there is a generic brand competitor keeping a lower price floor in the market.

And how are you providing that "lower cost option"?

Generic food brands are still produced by private companies; consequently, the free market is still setting the price for food. In the case of a "public option Internet", you're talking about artificially affecting the cost of Internet access via government involvement. That most certainly affects resource distribution.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Since someone floated the highway system as an analogy, let's consider it:

Usage of public highways is regulated in a way that Internet usage isn't. To use public highways legally, you have to be a licensed driver. You must abide by certain speed limits. And your car must meet certain inspection requirements.

Furthermore, everyone pays for the highway system through their taxes regardless of whether or not they drive.

 

[Zordon]

And how are you providing that "lower cost option"?

Generic food brands are still produced by private companies; consequently, the free market is still setting the price for food. In the case of a "public option Internet", you're talking about artificially affecting the cost of Internet access via government involvement. That most certainly affects resource distribution.

The tax or monthly fee would pay for the cost. I only brought up the generic food brand example to help you feel more comfortable about the thought of some competition from an "outsider". In fact, that has helped lower costs and increase quality in Europe. We've been losing ground for a decade now. Harvard did a study and we were only ranked 16th in the world when it comes to speed and broadband connections. Believe it or not, we've been surpassed by many western European countries even though we invented the internet. How so? By their governments "artificially" creating competition and forcing these billion dollar companies to innovate and lower prices. It is completely normal to find people in london or geneva paying $10 a month for internet that is much faster than ours.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

The tax or monthly fee would pay for the cost. I only brought up the generic food brand example to help you feel more comfortable about the thought of some competition from an "outsider".

Generic food brands are not outsiders. They're provided by private companies.

In fact, that has helped lower costs and increase quality in Europe. We've been losing ground for a decade now. Harvard did a study and we were only ranked 16th in the world when it comes to speed and broadband connections. Believe it or not, we've been surpassed by many western European countries even though we invented the internet. How so? By their governments "artificially" creating competition and forcing these billion dollar companies to innovate and lower prices. It is completely normal to find people in london or geneva paying $10 a month for internet that is much faster than ours.

That's not why Europe has faster Internet connection. There are two primary reasons:

1) Their geography is more conducive to faster speeds.

2) Because they did not come upon the Internet until later, their infrastructure is often built using newer technologies whereas ours has to be updated.

However, I would be interested in reading a study that cites "governments artificially creating competition" as a reason for faster Internet connections. Do you have a specific quote from the study?

 

[Zordon]

Generic food brands are not outsiders. They're provided by private companies.

That's not why Europe has faster Internet connection. There are two primary reasons:

1) Their geography is more conducive to faster speeds.

How so? 75% of this country is flat plains. The geography doesn't seem like it would be much of an issue.

2) Because they did not come upon the Internet until later, their infrastructure is often built using newer technologies whereas our has to be updated.

Which leads me to my next question, why haven't they been updated? When the technology and industry started here and we are the richest country in the world, it is no excuse for us not to have the most up to date fiber optics network..agree? Well that is what happens when the market is in a chokehold by 4-5 conglomerates who have no incentive to invest in relevant R&D.

However, I would be interested in reading a study that cites "governments artificially creating competition" as a reason for faster Internet connections. Do you have a specific quote from the study?

I will look for it, I read it in an email my friend sent to me a few months ago. Here is the study from Harvard. Sorry it is a pdf file. It shows our rankings and also discusses how government intervention (whether thru infrastructure development or regulations) led to the increased quality for many European and Asian countries.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/...n_Center_Broadband_Final_Report_15Feb2010.pdf

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Which leads me to my next question, why haven't they been updated? When the technology and industry started here and we are the richest country in the world, it is no excuse for us not to have the most up to date fiber optics network..agree? Well that is what happens when the market is in a chokehold by 4-5 conglomerates who have no incentive to invest in relevant R&D.

Herein lies the truth of the matter. You do want government involvement in the free market.

So I spent a little time delving into the Berkman study, and it's been rebutted on numerous occasions by numerous economists. For instance, one Canadian paper had this to say:

In fact, Europe as a whole trails the United States severely in the deployment of next-generation broadband infrastructures. This performance gap is far less ambiguous, far more dramatic, far more accurately measured and far more meaningful than most of the measures of penetration rates, speeds, prices, Wi-Fi hotspots, etc. that are doing the rounds. Yet North America's broadband cognoscenti often look upon European regulation with admiring eyes.


International comparisons almost always suffer from limited data and limited comparability, particularly comparisons of prices and speeds. This is why great humility and caution are required in drawing policy conclusions from such comparative data. Regulation curtails economic freedom, which is why a very high standard of evidence is required to justify regulation. It would be quite a novelty if further regulation of broadband services were imposed on the basis of selective international comparisons with countries that by many other measures are doing less well.

It seems to me that the US system fosters more innovation than European system -- even if our infrastructure is a little dated in certain places.



The article also points out several other problems with the Berkman study:


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/comm...hind-is-actually-ahead/article4309985/?page=1

 

[arglebargle]

Thanks to the private sector, there are currently more people with Internet access than there ever have been at any point in the past, and the quality of the Internet experience continues to improve.

Yet, for some inexplicable, some people want to involve the government.

Head scratcher.

Well, the internet did not spring from the head of some genius entrepeneur like some digital venus. It, like modern computing or the move into outer space, etc, came from hundreds of millions of tax dollars spent on building the basic concepts and infrastructure. Government money, university mainframes in this case. Only after they pioneered the methods to make it work reasonably did it become commercially viable.

I'd like to see basic infrastructure done by the government and then business let loose to do its thing.

Their are some big problems with the present situation: Monopolistic control over internet access favors some big companies that have no particular need to innovate, or even deliver what they've promised. Swaths of the country have still this problem. You have internet providers that also produce and sell content. This means if you have competing content, you will find it more difficult to get it out. The internet providers also tend to oversell and overpromise their service.

Just look at cable TV. Our particular obsession with football suffers (sorta) if you have Time Warner or a few other providers. No NFL Network. And it is not like they couldn't do ala carte choice for your TV; they don't want to. Their archaic business model allows them to control things, instead of giving it to you.


As for the US Highway system , it's not like the system really interferes that much with business. There are a set of rules, mostly based on safety and maintenance, and anyone can go into business using that highway.

Anyway, there are a number of reasons that some Joe on the street in Croatia or Hungary can get better, cheaper internet service than is available to me in our area.

Also, it just occured to me that the Post Office IS in the Constitution, showing an early interest in the importance of communications throughout the young nation. You could make a case that the internet is just the modern, souped up version.

Urp, too late, starting to ramble, must fall over.

 

[Zordon]

Herein lies the truth of the matter. You do want government involvement in the free market.

Are you asking me what I want or telling me?

This boogey man status that the government has attained the last few years is very perplexing to me. I mean half the people who don't want any government involvment in the free market do not realize that they are in fact using government programs on a daily basis. From student loans to veterans benefits, social security, medicare, even the internet like arglebargle so astutely pointed out was created by government agencies like NASA and DOE. Do I want government intervention in the free market? Damn straight, if it benefits the consumer.

So I spent a little time delving into the Berkman study, and it's been rebutted on numerous occasions by numerous economists. For instance, one Canadian paper had this to say:




It seems to me that the US system fosters more innovation than European system -- even if our infrastructure is a little dated in certain places.



The article also points out several other problems with the Berkman study:


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/comm...hind-is-actually-ahead/article4309985/?page=1

No offense to the brethren up north, but I think I'll take a non-partisan in-depth study from Harvard over a blog post from a Canadian professor. He spent most of his time delving into the misguided penetration rates listed in the study (which he might have a point) and included a small paragraph at the end abut the actual quality of internet between the US and Europe. If you think that is debatable, you're wrong friend.

 

[Rackat]

Put the government in charge of the Sahara and in 5 years there willl be no sand left.

Let's get government less involved, not more.

 

[Wimbo]

Wimbo, where in the constitution did it mention creating NASA?

It doesn't, specifically. NASA was a Congressional reaction to the Soviet space program which successfully put a rocket into Space (Sputnik). It was considered to be paramount to national security of the USA - if the Soviets could launch a rocket into space, then they could attach a warhead to that rocket & be able to strike the USA in a matter of minutes. So NASA was created to "provide for the common defense".

Regardless, making Internet access controlled by the government really doesn't make sense. There are numerous ways to get cheap and even free Internet access already. The only thing that would be accomplished is yet another Federal hole would be created in which to throw money that the Government does not have. The product of this spending would be a service that surely would be lesser than what the private sector offers. Which brings another point... if the private sector already provides a service that is widely available and inexpensive... why would the Federal Government need to spend money on it? And please don't say that another tax would pay for it... the Federal Government already spends over $50K per capita per year. The Government needs to curb that spending, not find new things they can take control of that cost more money.

 

[Galian Beast]

It doesn't, specifically. NASA was a Congressional reaction to the Soviet space program which successfully put a rocket into Space (Sputnik). It was considered to be paramount to national security of the USA - if the Soviets could launch a rocket into space, then they could attach a warhead to that rocket & be able to strike the USA in a matter of minutes. So NASA was created to "provide for the common defense".

Regardless, making Internet access controlled by the government really doesn't make sense. There are numerous ways to get cheap and even free Internet access already. The only thing that would be accomplished is yet another Federal hole would be created in which to throw money that the Government does not have. The product of this spending would be a service that surely would be lesser than what the private sector offers. Which brings another point... if the private sector already provides a service that is widely available and inexpensive... why would the Federal Government need to spend money on it? And please don't say that another tax would pay for it... the Federal Government already spends over $50K per capita per year. The Government needs to curb that spending, not find new things they can take control of that cost more money.

What do you think Government is? Government is the people. When you create a system collectively such as this, you can not only have a more wide spread system, with greater availability, but you can also produce it cheaper.

Like I said before, I would still have a private or semi private company in charge of the system. I would still allow people to opt out if they have their own internet service.

Another advantage to this would be the fact that you would have internet regardless of where you were.

This has new commerce advantages as well as educational advantages.

This would also change how we communicate. There would be no more need to have phone services as we currently have them. Communication would be similar to VOIP. That is the future anyways, but with the private sector that isn't coming as soon.

With internet access available everywhere, a lot of technology upgrades can be made.

 

[Wimbo]

What do you think Government is? Government is the people. When you create a system collectively such as this, you can not only have a more wide spread system, with greater availability, but you can also produce it cheaper.

Like I said before, I would still have a private or semi private company in charge of the system. I would still allow people to opt out if they have their own internet service.

Another advantage to this would be the fact that you would have internet regardless of where you were.

This has new commerce advantages as well as educational advantages.

This would also change how we communicate. There would be no more need to have phone services as we currently have them. Communication would be similar to VOIP. That is the future anyways, but with the private sector that isn't coming as soon.

With internet access available everywhere, a lot of technology upgrades can be made.

But... the system already exists. Adding another layer of manageability over the top of it only creates expense, not savings. We are a free, capitalist society. Giving control of something as ubiquitous as the Internet to the Government would only serve to move us to a more socialist regime, which history has shown to be a bad option for the people. Plus, suggesting that government control of the internet would somehow make it more ubiquitous is not very well thought out, in my opinion. Like I said before, it is already possible to get very cheap and even free internet access... I really can't see what you are trying to accomplish here.

 

[Yeagermeister]

Ok, the internet becomes available to everyone by way of a tax. What happens when someone doesn't have a computer? Since they are taxed for it does the government then have to supply them with a computer?

 

[a_minimalist]

how has this thread not been shut down? I've had posts deleted for lesser reasons.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Their are some big problems with the present situation: Monopolistic control over internet access favors some big companies that have no particular need to innovate, or even deliver what they've promised.

One problem with this argument: When it comes to innovation and implementation of new technologies, America is among world leaders and, in most cases, is well ahead of Europe. This holds true in telecommunications, health care, and many different fields.

In fact, are you familiar with the European Paradox? It holds that, despite having having some of the world's best scientific institutions and minds, Europe lags in the development of marketable innovations.

This is because the European system is designed to ensure that everyone receives the same or comparable service whereas the American system fosters innovation through fewer regulations and allowing companies more freedom over resource usage.

 

[Trendnet]

One problem with this argument: When it comes to innovation and implementation of new technologies, America is among world leaders and, in most cases, is well ahead of Europe. This holds true in telecommunications, health care, and many different fields.

In fact, are you familiar with the European Paradox? It holds that, despite having having some of the world's best scientific institutions and minds, Europe lags in the development of marketable innovations.

This is because the European system is designed to ensure that everyone receives the same or comparable service whereas the American system fosters innovation through fewer regulations and allowing companies more freedom over resource usage.

Interesting to note, that despite the claim that America is innovative with new technologies we are ranked 28th overall in internet speeds.

Heck, we even lag behind Communist Russia!

We also pay more for our slower speeds too, but that must be the cost we pay for this high innovation.

 

[NorthTexan95]

Bringing the internet to end users is a very complicated process. Throw in the various mediums (cable copper, copper pair, fiber, wireless, etc) and each has their own complexity. We have major companies that would have to shut down entire divisions if the government took it over.

There isn't one company that can handle this for the entire country. It's just too big of a task. Also, remember that what you are proposing is what we used to have with the phone company. We had one company for the nation and the service and pricing was horrible. So they broke it up into regional companies and then those broke down/combined in various flavors. The point is if you had one company for the entire nation, from the example of phone system, service would be horrible ... pricing would be worse ... and it would eventually be broken up by the courts.

Rather than having the government provide service directly to end users, why not have them provide a the backbone which various service providers can use? Then local services providers could just tap into this backbone and save themselves a lot of infrastrure cost. All they would have to do is provide service from the backbone to the end user. This has some pluses but I'm not sure how much this be much benefit.

It's sounds like a great idea to offer cheaper internet to everyone - it's a noble goal. However, there are very complicated issues involved - technologically and legally.

I prefer what we have now: various companies using various technologies in competition to provide service. Competition leads to innovation which leads to better service and better pricing.

Because my home is kinda off the main road I have only one option for high speed internet - cable. It's not the cheapest but it's been solid and for that I'm greatful. However, I'm the IT director for my company and for the office I have several choices. I can choose from various prices and various packages. I can choose to have two different companies for redunency. I can change if I don't like the service I am provided from one company.

The more I think about it the more I abhor the idea of one company (or governmetn) controling the internet. I'd rather provide some kind of government subsidy to those who need less expensive internet (but I abhor that idea as well).