Comments on: Should you have a right to broadband?
CNET News.com's Charles Cooper says a movement to enshrine your access to a broadband connection is fast gaining momentum.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Police to put drunk drivers' names on Twitter
December 26, 2009 2:17 PM PST
- Kindle is most gifted Amazon item, ever
December 26, 2009 11:19 AM PST
- Microsoft, Intel to cede tablet market to Apple?
December 26, 2009 10:04 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
"rights of way" available for pennies on the dollar. I said that for less than two Billion an investor could own a minimum of 48 states "last mile" access, with some fibre optic regional and national interconnect thrown in.
In my mind the growth of the Internet, and the need for Broadband would lead to an even better than normally expected venture capital ROI, and in a shorter time frame.
It has happened, and continues to happen, although the discounts are gone; now the discounts are a "premium."
The cable companies are only going to get their "just desserts" in the sense that their political contributions and abiltiy to restrict access to their infrastructure, well beyond the original "payout" considered when many cable monopolies were granted, has infuriated many who aren't influenced by being part of the regulatory or political process; ordinary people who see that Korea has 50% more Broadband penetration, and it costs the consumer less. Same with many of the countries now ahead of the US on the rankings list of Broadband penetration. No surprise that the US Braodband pricing is at a premium compared to others; competition is what creates pricing economy, and we lack competition in the Boradband marketplace.
When will we see the light and force "open access" for competitors, leading to better service offerings at lower prices?
I hope the politicians and regulators get wise before they wake up after the elections looking for a job.
Carpe Diem!
Barry Dennis
Columbia, maryland
"rights of way" available for pennies on the dollar. I said that for less than two Billion an investor could own a minimum of 48 states "last mile" access, with some fibre optic regional and national interconnect thrown in.
In my mind the growth of the Internet, and the need for Broadband would lead to an even better than normally expected venture capital ROI, and in a shorter time frame.
It has happened, and continues to happen, although the discounts are gone; now the discounts are a "premium."
The cable companies are only going to get their "just desserts" in the sense that their political contributions and abiltiy to restrict access to their infrastructure, well beyond the original "payout" considered when many cable monopolies were granted, has infuriated many who aren't influenced by being part of the regulatory or political process; ordinary people who see that Korea has 50% more Broadband penetration, and it costs the consumer less. Same with many of the countries now ahead of the US on the rankings list of Broadband penetration. No surprise that the US Braodband pricing is at a premium compared to others; competition is what creates pricing economy, and we lack competition in the Boradband marketplace.
When will we see the light and force "open access" for competitors, leading to better service offerings at lower prices?
I hope the politicians and regulators get wise before they wake up after the elections looking for a job.
Carpe Diem!
Barry Dennis
Columbia, maryland
I was never given, free of charge, the right to receive a newspaper, listen to radio broadcasts, or watch the news on broadcast or cable television.
All of these are privileges. I paid to own a TV. I subscribe to the newspaper. I bought my radio.
Yes, there are free newspapers, and free television broadcasts. Private enterprises are certainly free to provide their content free of charge, and subsidize it via advertising or whatever other means.
But I would never propose that government be required to provide every citizen with his/her own TV, radio or free subscription to a newspaper. That's not the job of government.
In this scenario, we the taxpayers would be footing the bill for everyone. Those who have the means to afford broadband in the first place would be paying their share and more, to cover those who can't afford it.
If a group of citizens decides they want to privately form a non-profit organization that will provide this service to needy citizens, I think it's a great idea.
But making it a RIGHT? Forcing the government to pay for everyone to have broadband, thereby forcing most of us to pay (through taxes) for our own connection, plus extra for someone else's? (And even more extra to cover the fact that the government now becomes an additional-- and likely very expensive-- middleman)?
This doesn't sound like the way we normally do things in this country. It's a form of communism, which as we've seen, ultimately fails.
So I'm going to have to say no, we shouldn't make broadband Internet access a right.
And to those who do want to see this happen, you all should unite and form a non-profit group to provide broadband to the poor privately. That way you can give your own money, or hold fundraisers instead of forcing every citizen to contribute.
I am saying that the government should enter any market that
isn't currently served by existing services.
The cable/dsl companies have had plenty of time to reach all
areas. The fact that they haven't is an indication that there is not
enough competition for them. A little from the government
might be enough to get them off their butts. In the mean time
people in rural areas can be served and new businesses created,
if the government acts.
I was never given, free of charge, the right to receive a newspaper, listen to radio broadcasts, or watch the news on broadcast or cable television.
All of these are privileges. I paid to own a TV. I subscribe to the newspaper. I bought my radio.
Yes, there are free newspapers, and free television broadcasts. Private enterprises are certainly free to provide their content free of charge, and subsidize it via advertising or whatever other means.
But I would never propose that government be required to provide every citizen with his/her own TV, radio or free subscription to a newspaper. That's not the job of government.
In this scenario, we the taxpayers would be footing the bill for everyone. Those who have the means to afford broadband in the first place would be paying their share and more, to cover those who can't afford it.
If a group of citizens decides they want to privately form a non-profit organization that will provide this service to needy citizens, I think it's a great idea.
But making it a RIGHT? Forcing the government to pay for everyone to have broadband, thereby forcing most of us to pay (through taxes) for our own connection, plus extra for someone else's? (And even more extra to cover the fact that the government now becomes an additional-- and likely very expensive-- middleman)?
This doesn't sound like the way we normally do things in this country. It's a form of communism, which as we've seen, ultimately fails.
So I'm going to have to say no, we shouldn't make broadband Internet access a right.
And to those who do want to see this happen, you all should unite and form a non-profit group to provide broadband to the poor privately. That way you can give your own money, or hold fundraisers instead of forcing every citizen to contribute.
I am saying that the government should enter any market that
isn't currently served by existing services.
The cable/dsl companies have had plenty of time to reach all
areas. The fact that they haven't is an indication that there is not
enough competition for them. A little from the government
might be enough to get them off their butts. In the mean time
people in rural areas can be served and new businesses created,
if the government acts.
I also must add a comment about comparing US internet or broadband access to that in Japan or Korea. Here it is: You MUST keep in mind that the vast majority of people in those countries live VERY close together. It is much more cost-effective to connect people who live in apartment complexes. (We don't see that so clearly in the US because, except in the central parts of a few large cities, apartment dwellers are often too poor to afford internet access.) Also, Japan and Korea are small enough that they can blanket the whole country with wireless, subsidizing the few inefficient rural areas with the many efficient urban areas. Here are the numbers, with population in millions and area in 1000 square kilometers:
Country Pop. Area Area/Pop.
Japan 127 378 3.0
S.Korea 48 98 2.0
U.S. 296 9631 33.
A similar point could be made with area/GDP. So, clearly, at least in the US, you can expect to have the right to freedom of religion everywhere, but don't expect the "right" of internet access everywhere, at least not anytime soon. Comparisons to other countries must be made with care to avoid comparing apples to oranges, and the same can be said for city-to-city comparisons.
generally considered a right except in extreme cases (e.g.,
homes on mountains)"
>> Sorry, David, but by no stretch of the definition or of the
imagination could ever get access to a phone as any sort of
'right'. We don't need more 'ammunition' for the loose cannon
social reformers who try to claim that everyone is entitled to a
TV.
BUt you did identify a key point - population density does make
a tremendous difference in costs of internet access. Japan,
however, already has extensive gigabit ethernet service and not
many Japanese would want the much slower wireless
performance in any permanent facility. Mobile operations,
however, could well benefit from a wireless blanket, even if it is
slow.
I also must add a comment about comparing US internet or broadband access to that in Japan or Korea. Here it is: You MUST keep in mind that the vast majority of people in those countries live VERY close together. It is much more cost-effective to connect people who live in apartment complexes. (We don't see that so clearly in the US because, except in the central parts of a few large cities, apartment dwellers are often too poor to afford internet access.) Also, Japan and Korea are small enough that they can blanket the whole country with wireless, subsidizing the few inefficient rural areas with the many efficient urban areas. Here are the numbers, with population in millions and area in 1000 square kilometers:
Country Pop. Area Area/Pop.
Japan 127 378 3.0
S.Korea 48 98 2.0
U.S. 296 9631 33.
A similar point could be made with area/GDP. So, clearly, at least in the US, you can expect to have the right to freedom of religion everywhere, but don't expect the "right" of internet access everywhere, at least not anytime soon. Comparisons to other countries must be made with care to avoid comparing apples to oranges, and the same can be said for city-to-city comparisons.
generally considered a right except in extreme cases (e.g.,
homes on mountains)"
>> Sorry, David, but by no stretch of the definition or of the
imagination could ever get access to a phone as any sort of
'right'. We don't need more 'ammunition' for the loose cannon
social reformers who try to claim that everyone is entitled to a
TV.
BUt you did identify a key point - population density does make
a tremendous difference in costs of internet access. Japan,
however, already has extensive gigabit ethernet service and not
many Japanese would want the much slower wireless
performance in any permanent facility. Mobile operations,
however, could well benefit from a wireless blanket, even if it is
slow.
Notice what the #1 achievement in engineering is? Universal electrical service. Yes, it is more expensive to provide rural service than urban but once the basic power grid was put in the additional cost is minimal.
The same sort of thinking went into the deployment of phone service. And now it should go into deployment of broadband.
can opt out? Isn't it painfully obvious that everything government
does is at the point of a gun. I mean, if I don't want to participate
in this broadband stuff I can't just not pay the taxes. I will go to
jail. So for those of you who want "free" broadband for all, I just
have one question. Why should I, as a free citizen, be threatened
with jail or worse to participate in paying extra taxes for
broadband that I may not want? How violent a person would want
such a thing.
Notice what the #1 achievement in engineering is? Universal electrical service. Yes, it is more expensive to provide rural service than urban but once the basic power grid was put in the additional cost is minimal.
The same sort of thinking went into the deployment of phone service. And now it should go into deployment of broadband.
can opt out? Isn't it painfully obvious that everything government
does is at the point of a gun. I mean, if I don't want to participate
in this broadband stuff I can't just not pay the taxes. I will go to
jail. So for those of you who want "free" broadband for all, I just
have one question. Why should I, as a free citizen, be threatened
with jail or worse to participate in paying extra taxes for
broadband that I may not want? How violent a person would want
such a thing.
- People, this was going to cost money
- by robertgknight March 16, 2006 8:44 PM PST
- I can't believe those who write as if the author meant that Broadband be free. Where I live in the country, to get wireless broadband would cost hundreds of dollars start-up costs in equipment and installation alone, whereas those a mile away get it for only monthly charges. That is what is not fair and it is that descrpancy I believe the author is referring too.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 2 pages (114 Comments)