Should the Government Bring You High-Speed Internet?

[scotrace]

In many cities in the United States (and probably elsewhere), city governments are getting into the telecom business in one fashion or another. Some are providing cable TV, telephone and high-speed internet service. Others are doing just one or two of these. There are many ways cities can get into such a business, at varying levels of tax dollar investment: via fiber optic cable, or perhaps combined with coax and/or wireless (WI-FI), or any of these as a stand-alone technology.

Does your city offer internet or other, similar telecommunications services? Do they charge you for it or is it free?

Finally, do you think it is right for the government to be involved in this business sector? If not, how does it differ from a government entity providing electricity, natural gas or water?

 

[Solid Citizen]

NOooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The most feared words in the English language:

"I'm from the government & I'm here to help" :eusa_doh:

Ronald Reagan

SC

 

[ITG]

My concern with this is them being able to have a way to get in and track people (almost like listening in on phone conversations). I wouldn't want the gov't involved in any aspect for that one reason.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I have mixed feelings about this -- on the one hand, I totally agree with ITG's point about privacy issues, but on the other, I don't doubt that the feds can find a way to eavesdrop and data mine no matter who owns the lines.

So, I don't know which I'd prefer. No matter how poor the service might be under a government-provided system, it couldn't possibly stink as much as Verizon (which was a much better company when it was just plain old New England Telephone.)

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Internet is evil. Phone companies are evil. I've gotten rid of telephones in my house. I'm now as off the grid as is realistic. (i have internet at work which i use for email, BBC, and FLounge).

There is no way the government should be wasting money to provide free internet access - just like they should not provide any other non-essential services for free. Internet is a non-essential service.

If the government was acting just as another business, and making no profit or loss, why not? I have no problem with nationalised companies. Anyone in Britain can tell you that things got a damn site worse when Maggie privatised all those services. Just ask all those people (can't remember which county) who have their water cut off because they can't pay the ludicrous amounts that the company demands in the summer. Never happened when the water was National.

Now, were a local government to provide decent subsidised health care (essential service) i'd applaud.

bk

p.s. i didn't vote, because the No. is not for the reason i give. I do not agree that "government should not invade and compete in the private sector", and i do not think that "such services (internet) are the responsibility of government".

 

[Twitch]

Geez Baron getting a little paranoid there!

Sounds silly to imagine the government involved in supplying communications. I am a bit weary of people seeing the govenrment as an entity that they perceive as a provider of something for free. I've always noticed these most vocal about what they ought to get for free are the ones contributing the least to society anyhow.

 

[Pilgrim]

IMO the government should not be in the telecom business, BUT the fad of deregulation that started under Reagan has gone much too far. Deregulation has not worked well in most industries. The Net Neutrality discussion is very important and needs our support - carriers should NOT be allowed to give preferred treatment and bandwith to specific parties.

 

[Viola]

"Free" just means it "comes out of my paycheck whether or not I'm actually using it." I like to choose where my money goes.

Besides, I at least use the Internet a lot; what about the poor (old! hahaha!) shmucks who don't know an ISP from the Notorious B.I.G.? They should pay for my Internet access?

I'm not gonna be the one to tell some computer-illiterate blue collar guy who's working two jobs to support his family that people too lazy to take their butts down to the public library need to be able to access their blogs. I don't have that kind of chutzpah.

Also, I am filled with horror at my local city government being responsible for it. It'd be just one more thing they siphon money off of and screw up. These are the geniuses who buy trash trucks too big to fit down neighborhood streets, who want to go against state law to ban handguns because they don't like them, who are continually under FBI investigation.

I think that in the wake of Katrina the last thing city governments should be worrying about is Internet. Its one more cheap issue to avoid dealing with crumbling economies, high crime rates, etc.

 

[Lady Day]

'Private' businesses (corporate investors) will NEVER let the gov'ment get involved in something like this. The internet now represents a vital business and networking tool. Its a necessity. But so are a lot of things the gov'ment has no control in and prices and such have flown off the chain. Water, and electric, and entertainment and health care. . . wait, what was my point?

Oh yeah, do we really thing the gov'ment will make things better?


LD

 

[scotrace]

Who has or is?

Philadelphia, New Orleans, San Francisco, Boston just signed a deal...

I don't think they're free.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

NO!...thank you!

I've had pretty much all of the government intrusion into the private sector marketplace that I can handle for one lifetime. I've also had enough of the taxes extorted to pay for all that intrusion! There is NO free lunch!

Hey...here's an idea; let's use the Internet to communicate with one another about REDUCING government intrusion into our private lives!! It is a modern-day Committee of Correspondence! :eusa_clap

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h675.html

-dixon cannon

 

[Paisley]

Back when long distance telephone was regulated by govt., long distance cost about $.50 per minute. Now, if you're paying more than $.10 per minute, you're getting ripped off.

I just wish they'd lower the taxes on local phone service. I pay $28 per month for the most basic local phone service. Half of that is tax--I've added it up before. If I didn't use dial-up internet at home, it might be cheaper for me to use a cell phone and cancel the land line phone service.

 

[Viola]

Philadelphia, New Orleans, San Francisco, Boston just signed a deal...

I don't think they're free.

All comparisons of Philadelphia and New Orleans make me shudder, because its just so horribly perfect.

 

[Lady Day]

I think they are free, but youll get ads and such. If you want monthy ad free wi-fi, it will be somewhere like $15 per month and you sign in.

Color me yucky, but Im not into that deal.


LD

 

[Baron Kurtz]

cancel the land line phone service.

Now you're talking! The last phone i had, i got the most basic of the basic packages. The price crept up and crept up and crept up - then i started getting mail from the buggers: "why don't you have DSL? Is something wrong? We're here to help". marketing and mail are the most incidiously evil things i know. I hate it. Why won't these people just leave me alone.

Then i cut off my phone and moved. They got real ratty when i wouldn't give them my new address.

rant over. It's one of those days, i'm afraid.

bk

 

[Feraud]

I think that in the wake of Katrina the last thing city governments should be worrying about is Internet. Its one more cheap issue to avoid dealing with crumbling economies, high crime rates, etc.

Thank you!

The more our government is looking toward business interests the less it is doing what it should do. They should be representing the people.
Of course, if you are going to argue the government is representing their people, in the form of backing oil, pharmeceutical businesses, etc., then my point is moot.

 

[Mad Molly]

What YOU said!

The most feared words in the English language:

"I'm from the government & I'm here to help" :eusa_doh:

Ronald Reagan

SC

Tempting yes, but if the government is controlling it...it's not "free".

Not just in an abstract sense. A financial one, too. Since, you know, it's our money they're playing with and all.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Nope

If the government was really able to provide reliable and fast internet service at a reasonable cost,...well, I would consider it. But all the misappropriation of funds and just plain stupidity I have seen in my life from that sector, makes me vote a resounding:
NO!

 

[Lincsong]

Back when long distance telephone was regulated by govt., long distance cost about $.50 per minute. Now, if you're paying more than $.10 per minute, you're getting ripped off.

I just wish they'd lower the taxes on local phone service. I pay $28 per month for the most basic local phone service. Half of that is tax--I've added it up before. If I didn't use dial-up internet at home, it might be cheaper for me to use a cell phone and cancel the land line phone service.

You are so right. 1/2 the phone bill is taxes so that "poor, low income" people can use the phone. :rage: This is just more socialized nonsense coming from the biggest leech cities in America.:rage: :rage: :rage:

 

[scotrace]

Devil's Advocate

The argument one normally hears in favor of such a plan is that the poor, very rural and minorities are underserved with information technology and are missing the opportunities of connectivity that the internet offers. An entire class of people left behind in the greatest information revolution since the printing press, because they are unable to plug into it.









.