Broadband Rights & the Killer App of 1900

newscloud writes "Tech writer Glenn Fleishman compares the arguments against affordable, high speed, broadband Internet access in each home to arguments made against providing for common access to electricity in 1900 e.g. '...electric light is not a necessity for every member of the community. It is not the business of any one to see that I use electricity, or gas, or oil in my house, or even that I use any form of artificial light at all.' Says Fleishman, 'Electricity should go to people who had money, not hooked up willy-nilly to everyone ... Like electricity, the notion of whether broadband is an inherent right and necessity of every citizen is up for grabs in the US. Sweden and Finland have already answered the question: It's a birthright.'"

Comments

It's even simpler than that.

[fyngyrz]

Government should do big services and big infrastructure when (a) that infrastructure will benefit the country significantly, (b) it can't be done fairly or generally or cost-wise by private entities.

This is why it legitimately builds roads; educates the citizens; guards the borders; (very poorly) regulates the airwaves; maintained the post roads; regulates the monetary standards.

This is why it *should* ensure that the individuals in the population are healthy; have electrical power; have heat; have water; have powerful and uniform networking available; have access to a portion of the RF spectrum for broadcasting. And other, similar things.

As usual, sometimes government does what it should, sometimes it doesn't. There's no question that were it to do all the things it should, the nation would be a creative and productive powerhouse. But getting around the vested interests in embedded private concerns is a political nightmare. Look at Leiberman blocking the health care bill right now -- the man is a complete tool of the insurance companies, and it is insurance companies that are the *problem* -- their very existence is a conflict of interest.

And as for money... you know, if we weren't spending trillions of dollars bombing and chasing Afghani goat herders and poppy growers from one valley to another, trying to impose a political system on Iraqis who have absolutely no interest in it, and otherwise pushing our way of life on other people, we'd have a lot more money to work with. The legitimate military interest of our government is to guard our borders. To the extent that requires an out of border presence - a deep water navy, the ability to respond at a distance to an attacker - we should have that capability. What we don't need is to be making war on others just to keep the MI/C in shekels.