Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
The killer app was stereoscopic pictures of women showing their ankles.
The thing about electricity is that people couldn't see that it would service more than just lights. But there were a few people out there (like Edison's lab and Tesla) that could see innumerable uses awaiting. The people just couldn't comprehend it or were rightfully dubious. I mean, traveling scam artists were well known to people at the time (probably even far before) just look at what Mark Twain was writing a decade before.
If we follow through with this analogy the solution is simple, you merely need to tell us about and convince us that the "inalienable right to broadband" will indeed herald a new era of empowerment--or at least will be easily worth the cost it's going to take getting an infrastructure up that will cover the nation. Unless you have some WAN technology I don't know about or are accepting the issues of broadband over power, I think it's hard to convince someone that a traditional infrastructure covering--say--all of the Ozarks is going to be worth a whole lot more than the few towns and cities in it that are already covered. And you'd be out of your mind to ask a taxpayer in the farmlands to subsidize via tax dollars some infrastructure their not going to gain anything from.
My work here is dung.
Let market forces decide who gets it. Forcing buildouts to the far corners of rural America will just inflate everyone else's prices.
...but this is not Soviet Russia.
In Soviet Russia, broadband comes to you
I have a serious problem with the government spending my tax dollars on rural broadband lines, and then still enabling the dumb cable companies to monopolize and charge whatever they want for internet service.
If we are paying for the infrastructure, we should own it, and we should be able to share it. Sure, there will be costs. But let's share the costs then, not pretend some capitalist market magic will make us all happy with great service, healthy competition, and constant innovation. I have horrible service, only one company to choose from, and my DVR is a piece of shit. It freezes for 5 seconds then goes through every button I pressed all at once.
Man, am I proud to be an American.
Forcing buildouts to the far corners of rural America will just inflate everyone else's prices.
Sadly you are doubtless going to be modded troll, but really, what's wrong with this? If you want to live out in the rural sticks then you should be prepared to pay the cost of doing so. It will cost you more money in taxes, more money for running water (pump and septic system upkeep), your roads will be less maintained, you may not have access to cable and will have to rely on satellite, you'll pay more for energy (having oil or propane delivered vs. natural gas out of a permanent connection), more in gas money to get places, blah, blah, blah.
This notion of subsidizing lifestyles is really annoying. If you want cheap fast broadband move to civilization. If you want clean air and open spaces move to the country.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
A step in the right direction.
1 - Right to broadband.
2 - Human right to broadband.
3 - Human right to porn.
4 - Human right to 3D multi-sensorial porn.
5 - Ascension of mankind to a new state of consciousness and peace with the universe.
If electricity hadn't become ubiquitous, we'd have a lot less carbon being emitted today from power plants.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
You need not go back to electricity; phones will do. We have already decided that communications are something we need to deliver to everyone, and the internet is the new communications medium.
Arguably, the government should stop promoting television and radio, and should put the effort into figuring out how to make the emergency notification network work on the internet... railroading connections and returning "DISASTER IN PROGRESS" errors, whatever. Then we could [eventually] reclaim all spectrum used by broadcast media for a more noble use: bidirectional communications permitting collaboration between humans. It's not like the shitty ol' push media can't be distributed via internet.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Electricity is not a right. It will get cut off if you don't pay the bill.
If electricity is a right like free speech then at some point maybe we'll get to cut off free speech because it's a right just like electricity. Forget to pay your free speech bill and off it goes.
We have inalienable rights endowed by a creator. In other words, not given to us by men and as such cannot be taken away by men.
We must be pretty well off in this country when we can start calling commodities and the inventions of men "rights."
"Materialism" is not a right. You do not have a right to stuff. Free speech, the right to bear arms, a common trait of all things that are actually rights is that they do not cost money. They are intangible.
You do not have a right to tangible things. They cost money. All you can do is help lower costs so you can afford them.
Work Safe Porn
Let market forces decide who gets it. Forcing buildouts to the far corners of rural America will just inflate everyone else's prices.
Differentiate between the right to get broadband and the right to get broadband cheaply. The former makes sense, and the latter is just uneconomic; an unjustified subsidy of rural areas by urban citizens.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Part of the problem here is that the language of "right" doesn't really capture what we ought to be capturing here. Webster's defines a right as "something to which one has a just claim." And that is the right way to look at things like employment discrimination, etc.
But when we start talking about universal access to services like broadband, healthcare, electric, I think it's much better to speak of it in terms of what's best for society. Simply put, our society as a whole is better off with a healthy work-force. Businesses will have more predictable costs, and the playing field between large and small companies, as well as government, will be leveled substantially, promoting innovation. Likewise, it promotes economic development for everyone to have electricity, not to mention public health--it's no accident that regular bathing became much more popular once everyone had a water heater. And, in a democracy, isn't the publics access to information equally vital? Isn't the ability for all members of society to communicate on a somewhat equal footing a useful social function? In other words, let's not talk about this as a moral question, but as a pragmatic one.
High speed Internet is infrastructure. Maybe it's not a "right". But if you don't have it available to all of our population and all of your competitors do, then watch out!
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
This notion of subsidizing lifestyles is really annoying. If you want cheap fast broadband move to civilization. If you want clean air and open spaces move to the country.
I'd expand on that and say that the notion of anti-subsidizing lifestyles is equally annoying. Adding taxes to 'unpopular' activities or products has the same effect of subsidizing the popular lifestyle.
If a tax were levied that placed a $1000 burdon on anyone who drives a red car, it is effectively a subsidy on the non-red car population. In this case, the non-red car population ends up $1000 ahead of the red car population.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Yep. Wasn't that long ago one of my uncle's decided to give in to my aunt's request that he arrange for their house to have electricity, so he paid the electric company to run copper from the valley all the way up to the top of the mountain on which he lived --- and immediately after that, all the land along that lonely mountain road was bought up by people who promptly hooked into the wire which he had paid for --- didn't get a kickback from the electric company or anything (it wasn't even a co-operative unfortunately), just lots of neighbors which he didn't really want.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Uhh, What you have described is exactly what we have now with private health insurance. Unelected officials determining what care you get (check). Freedom of choice constrained (try to go to an out of network doctor. Being forced to purchase insurance, the insurance is paid for by your employer whether you want it or not. Want to get out of it and take the extra cash? Sorry, the employer's rates are contingent upon all employees being enrolled. The same cost for one kid or eight? Once again we have that now.
I know your hatred for Obama is blinding you but could you please try to put some thought into what you write before you spew such easily refutable garbage.
Who said it has to be free? In Finland, for example, you have the right to have access to an Internet connection in your home. No one said it needed to be free.
Dilbert RSS feed
The reason why the health reform as proposed by the Dems lacks popular is because, it does not go far enough. No chance to escape from whatever your employer dishes out in the name of health care. No recourse if your employer decides suddenly to drop health coverage from the compensation. Have to just bear it if your "contribution" is increased, your copay is increase and your doctor is dropped from the list of preferred providers.
No relief to the employers either. They are competing with Europe and Japan and their competitors do not have to pay for health care. If GM did not have to pay 2000$ per vehicle to provide for health care for its 1 million employees and retirees between 1990 and 2004, it could have competed effectively with the imports.
Already there is public option in so many areas where the private sector refuses to serve. National Flood Insurance Program to insure homes that can not get private insurance. Postal service to serve mail and parcels to places where FedEx and UPS wont go. The examples are endless.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This is actually a big issue when talking about 'Rights' across national borders.
The US has historically stuck to negative rights (ie rights of non-interference). The virtue has been that the burden such rights impose upon others is limited (ie the government just has to not go out of its way to impinge upon your 1st amendment rights).
Internationally, a lot of 'rights' talk is based in some way on (or related to) the human rights movement and positive rights (the right to something which must be provided by someone). Such rights inherently impose an obligation upon some party which is far greater than an obligation to NOT do something. This works, to an extent, in European nations because they have 'big government' traditions.
If you are serious about bringing positive rights to the US, you need to have a serious plan for changing the consensus view in the US for the role of the state in the day to day lives of the citizenry.
I'd expand on that and say that the notion of anti-subsidizing lifestyles is equally annoying. Adding taxes to 'unpopular' activities or products has the same effect of subsidizing the popular lifestyle.
I'd concur with that. Vice taxes in particular annoy the hell out of me.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Uhh, What you have described is exactly what we have now with private health insurance.
Not quite, as I currently have the choice to buy a high-deductible policy or even to go without insurance altogether. I won't have either of those choices under the bills currently under consideration in the Congress.
Want to get out of it and take the extra cash? Sorry, the employer's rates are contingent upon all employees being enrolled.
That's up to your employer, not the government. My employer will pay me the money they put into health insurance if I ask them to do so. Of course I'll then be paying taxes on it, but that's the government's fault, not theirs.
I know your hatred for Obama is blinding you
Who said anything about Obama? I don't hate him or anybody. I think he'll make an awesome President -- just as soon as we get rid of Nancy Pelosi.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Fact is, US healthcare is more expensive than healthcare just about anywhere else on the planet, including countries where doctors-salaries are higher than they are in the USA. Fact is, despite this you score badly, not only on longevity, but also on stuff like 5-year survival-rate of various cancers, risk of dying in labour, etc.
And how is that relevant to the bills currently pending before Congress? They do nothing to address the underlying structure of our health care system. In fact they take everything that's wrong with it and codify it into law.
Demonstrably, mind you, not according to some theory. You -actually- end up paying more, and getting less.
Again, how is that relevant to the bills currently pending before Congress? They do nothing to address costs.
Yes, I realize this doesn't match your map, so thus
You didn't answer a single one of my points. Will I lose the choice I currently have to purchase a high-deductible policy or go without health insurance? Yes, I will. Will my insurance company be forced to charge me the same rate as they charge a chain smoker? Yes, they will.
Pointing out that the current system sucks != justification for why I should support the current legislative proposals. When will you people understand that?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Funny you should mention the competitive disadvantage US companies have because they have to pay American employees' healthcare, because it's actually even worse than that! Many US companies pay for all their employees' healthcare regardless of where they live.
I live in Australia but work for a major US software company, which laughably gives me the best of both worlds but must be a tremendous drain on my company's bottom line. Here's the situation...
Australia has universal healthcare. The system works like this:
- Healthcare is free or very cheap via the universal public healthcare system.
- This universal system is funded by a surcharge on top of your standard income tax, but only if you make a moderate to high amount of money. Poorer people don't pay a cent, and still benefit from the system. Wealthy people pay essentially 1 or 1.5% extra income tax which isn't a huge deal in the scheme of things.
- However, you can avoid some or all of the surcharge if you take out private health insurance. The existence of a public/universal health care system does not mean there is no private option, and indeed Australia has a thriving private health insurance industry. Thus, those that can afford private healthcare are encouraged to purchase it, because it reduces the drain on government money, and also means you don't have to pay the healthcare-related surcharge on your taxes.
Australian employers therefore do not, and have never, paid for healthcare. Healthcare is NOT tied to your employer, even if you have private insurance (you pick a company and buy that insurance yourself, just like car insurance or house insurance). And if you don't have private insurance ... the public system will still cover you.
However, the American company I work for, apparently because it is too complicated to set up different HR regimes for each country, pays for private health insurance for me and my whole family, even though that is virtually unheard of for companies in Australia to do. So basically - my company pays for a (expensive high level) health plan for me, I enjoy the coverage of that plan ... AND I make a saving in my taxes because I'm avoiding the surcharge for the public system (because I am covered by a private fund and not draining the public one).
Great for me! But wow, that must cost my company a lot to do that everywhere in the world, when really they only need to do it for their American employees ... lol.
I understand that most of the population on /. is not rural, but your blatant stereotypical prejudices are amazing!
"rural sticks?"
"move to civilization?"
I live in what you would call the "sticks". Do you think we live in shacks, don't wear shoes, and cook over the fireplace?
I am lucky enough to not be one of those that "have to rely on satellite" , in fact I have the choice of DSL, Cable, and fiber to my house (I chose the fiber drop), I know that I am the exception, but let me straighten out a few other things...
Taxes are higher because I live out in the sticks? Really? I don't have to pay taxes / fees for any municipal offices or services, just county, and the last time a major tax hike was instituted, the entire incumbent county council was booted from office.
I pay LESS for water than when i lived in "civilization"- I only have to pay for the power on my well pump. The septic system is well balanced and is basically no maintenance.
Roads are maintained by the county, they get the same round robin updates as the rest of the county, except with less traffic, they are not as damaged.
There are competing LP distribution companies to keep LP costs in check, but we use energy star electrical appliances, so I can't comment on any cost/benefift analysis on LP/NG.
OK maybe it costs more in gas... nope .. S.C. has some of the lowest prices of gas in the country, and gas is usually 5-10c cheaper near my house than in the city.
So let me sum up:
If you want clean air and open spaces and LOWER COST OF LIVING move to the country.
When this Country was created and you wanted to share your views and exercise your freedom of Speech you went to the town square and spoke. This was what free speech was all about.
Where is the town square in the 21st Century?
Where do we share our views?
Why Its right here at shashdot. Yes its on the Internet.
Now we pay the ISP's for Speech. Thats not the Free we should be talking about. The ISP's want to block traffic they do not like, traffic that does not make them cold cash, we have to watch this closely.
The founding fathers could not have invisioned that speech would stray into the gigahertz bands. But if they had, Some of that bandwidth would have been by law given to the people. Other parts reserved for the public good, like the military and fire/police etc. Come to think of it, a working radio infrastructure would also be useful to the fire/police.
We should have the right to own the infrastructure. We should have the right to put a radio router on our roof. And share the connectivity. We are talking 300 megabit channels, in the GigH. frequency ranges. How many places do you go where there is not a house with in 5 miles. Its like a Gun, you have to buy it and buy ammo. The same is true for a radio router, You have to buy it and feed it electricity. But we should have the right. Not be ignored by the FCC for the good of the duopoly's/monopoly's.
A radio last milewould give ISP's a level playing field And There could then be 100s not 1 or 2 ISP's to provide backbone connections. It might even be better if the backbone was public as well. Its infrastructure like the Highways. It can make or break this country.
"vast frozen wastelands"? Really?
You must be confused. We are talking about Northern Europe, not the North Pole. While it does get a little bit chilly and snowy in the Northern Finland during the winter, it's very much habitable.
Most of Finnish population outside the main capital area and the other few big "cities" (more like towns, really...) is quite well spread around the countryside. Yet we don't see the idea of providing fast internet access for everyone as an impossible task. Stop crying that it's impossible and that your problems are somehow unique in this world and try to do something about it.
Presumably though, when you're older and less indestructible, you'll want to enroll in health insurance though, right? The way insurance functions is that young healthy people are effectively subsidizing those less healthy, and then when those people eventually need that care, the new crop of young healthy insurance payers are effectively subsidizing their care. Keeping your money now to "spend on whores instead" short circuits that system, and puts you in the position of burdening everyone else by never having payed your share earlier.
Unless of course you intend to never have insurance, and just die as soon as you get a little older and can't afford medical care. In that case, go for it.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
While true in some economically depressed areas, there are quite a few areas in the States where people choose to live to "get away from it all" (noise, pollution, crime, etc.) that are "out in the sticks" but not economically depressed. These seem to be the people who make the most noise about wanting broadband, paved roads, no critters eating their vegetable gardens, rapid emergency response, schools that teach advanced topics and not just agricultural subjects, etc. That is, they want all of the conveniences of city life while living in the country and they want the other rate payers to subsidize their lifestyle choice to make it happen.
I won't argue the merits of government intervention to provide additional services for disadvantaged areas. I will argue against blindly building out broadband given the above. Also, there are options such as satellite services that don't require any build out and are available regardless of location.
BTW, I live in an area (Colorado near Denver) where this debate keeps coming up. People keep moving out into what were once small farming communities to "get away from it all" but then make all sorts of noise because they still want some of the things that they didn't realize that they were also "getting away from." And, of course, they want the other rate payers to help them pay for it.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Not quite.
I lived on a street once, down in Florida, that had a dozen houses. It was across the street from a new subdivision. Our street did NOT have cable service, either TV or Internet. The subdivision did. I lived on the corner, and the main junction box was across the street from me, MAYBE 40 feet from my house. The cable company refused to run cable to our house, saying that most people on our street already had satellite dishes, it wasn't profitable. No, I couldn't pay for it, they just refused to do it at all. They can do that.
The electric companies CANNOT REFUSE to run you power. They can bill you the tariffed rate, which was set by the gov't, but if you are willing to pay it is ILLEGAL for them to refuse to run the lines. Ditto with telephone service or any tariffed variation like a T-1 line.
That is the difference we're talking about.
http://www.google.com/search?q=tariffed+service
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
And if there's any reason left in the world, you will fail.
Declaring something a "positive right" means you are declaring a "right" to a portion of someone else's life.
No. Just no.
Stupid, sexy Flanders.
Vice taxes don't deter vices. They just cause more problems down the line. So now a particular subset of the population not only is addicted, but also is poor and perhaps driven to crime. Taxes are simply a means of revenue in this case, since the demand is inelastic due to addiction.
They are an insidious way to implement a tax hike as well.
Vice taxes cause the government to be dependant on the 'vice' activity, and thus the government has a vested interest in keeping that line of revenue open. It is why I oppose the 'Legalize it, Tax it' mantra that gets spread around regarding a certain product. I prefer to simply stop at the first goal.
What happens when your 'vice' is ended? Too often, vice taxes are used to fund activities unrelated to the ending of the vice, and therefore, if that revenue stream ends, then the government finds that it is now overbudget, and must either run a debt or raise taxes on everyone.
It is a convenient way to disguise a planned general tax hike and make it more palatable by targeting it at an 'unliked' minority. Then, either the minority continues to exist and pay extra taxes, or it ceases to exist, and the government is now overbudget.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Do you intend to die as soon as you cease to be young and healthy? That condition is not going to last forever, and "I'll just stay in perfect health all my life" is a pretty stupid plan.
Health insurance is a for-profit industry. If the only people who subscribe to their services are making claims, where do you think the money to pay the claims comes from?
As for car insurance, the payouts for a healthcare insurer are inevitable, they aren't for a car insurance company. That's one of the reasons I hate the idea of "healthcare insurance". Most people don't make major claims against their car insurance company. Those that do are comparatively rare. In healthcare, as long as you have a plan, you can consistently be expected to make more claims against it as you grow older. Even if you live a healthy lifestyle, the likelyhood of needing care go up as you age, plain and simple.
If you really want nothing to do with that system, fine, but I suspect that as you get older, you'd be regretting having no healthcare option other than to pay for everything out of pocket.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.