What We Need Now is 'Universal Basic Internet' (techcrunch.com) 169
Yes, economist Tyler Cowen and former world chess champion Garry Kasparov (now the chairman of the nonprofit Renew Democracy Initiative) co-authored an opinion piece this week arguing that Covid-19 "is illustrating that some aspects of a Universal Basic Income may be more necessary and more workable than previously thought. But there is one big piece missing: The economic output required to pay for such policies."
Their suggestion is to boost "abilities to succeed with major projects" and "to invest ambitiously in innovation." And TechCrunch recently hinted at one very specific suggestion. "If policymakers want to do more than just keep the floor from falling out and start laying the groundwork for an actual recovery, then they ought to be discussing a different UBI as well: Universal Basic Internet." The government has delegated providing access to internet to the private sector for far too long. Only the "more prosperous" have been able to enjoy the full benefits of high-speed internet...
[T]he math makes clear that closing the digital divide will generate a digital dividend. There's no easy to way to measure the impact of broadband access on the economy, but several studies indicate that this is exactly the sort of investment we should make in a time of crisis: some have estimated that doubling broadband speeds adds around 0.3% to GDP growth; others forecast that every broadband-related job generates between 2.5 and 4.0 additional jobs; and, yet another study determined that a 10 percentage point increase in broadband access could increase GDP per capita by $13,036. Simply put, there's a high ROI — return on internet — associated with increasing broadband access.
The article points out that somewhere between 23% and 28% of Americans currently don't have broadband internet access. And it also suggests "trainers to increase digital literacy around the nation.
"This approach to closing the digital divide will go a long way in helping the nation recover from the COVID collapse."
Their suggestion is to boost "abilities to succeed with major projects" and "to invest ambitiously in innovation." And TechCrunch recently hinted at one very specific suggestion. "If policymakers want to do more than just keep the floor from falling out and start laying the groundwork for an actual recovery, then they ought to be discussing a different UBI as well: Universal Basic Internet." The government has delegated providing access to internet to the private sector for far too long. Only the "more prosperous" have been able to enjoy the full benefits of high-speed internet...
[T]he math makes clear that closing the digital divide will generate a digital dividend. There's no easy to way to measure the impact of broadband access on the economy, but several studies indicate that this is exactly the sort of investment we should make in a time of crisis: some have estimated that doubling broadband speeds adds around 0.3% to GDP growth; others forecast that every broadband-related job generates between 2.5 and 4.0 additional jobs; and, yet another study determined that a 10 percentage point increase in broadband access could increase GDP per capita by $13,036. Simply put, there's a high ROI — return on internet — associated with increasing broadband access.
The article points out that somewhere between 23% and 28% of Americans currently don't have broadband internet access. And it also suggests "trainers to increase digital literacy around the nation.
"This approach to closing the digital divide will go a long way in helping the nation recover from the COVID collapse."
Who is paying you for the pro-socialist headlines? (Score:2, Insightful)
It is absurdly blatant at this point. We are sick of the communist propaganda to flood our minds with these concepts. Seriously, we came here for tech news.
Re:Who is paying you for the pro-socialist headlin (Score:4, Interesting)
Communism works if everyone buys into it - look at the Mennonites and Amish. They have successfully run communist communes for hundreds of years. The Soviet Union tried to force communism using a dictatorship that forced communist values. They also promoted atheism. I am descended from Mennonites and I pretty much don't believe in God, but I would do the Mennonite mission in a heartbeat - if someone needs to build a barn, I'd help them build it. This is how I was raised - commie be damned, asking $500 to help is not the Mennonite way - I help you, and when I need to build a barn, you help me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Voluntary is not communism. If people can't flee, it's dictatorship.
Re: (Score:2)
According to Marx, you need to impose socialism for a while to show people that voluntarily helping is ideal. When it becomes voluntary, that's when communism emerges, and the government becomes unnecessary. The trouble is, it doesn't work because people are lazy/greedy/arseholes/etc.
Re:Who is paying you for the pro-socialist headlin (Score:4, Insightful)
More to the point, people have competing priorities and needs.
If I live in a City, I need my water to be clean, reliable energy, access to food and shelter services, as well a fast response team.
If I live in the Country, I need the ability to use my land to produce items for my survival. I don't have many neighbors so I don't need a police, and if there is a problem with some of my services, I usually have resources in my land for additional options. (such as drilling a deeper well for water)
We need a government to say Yes and No, or give a measured response to the conflicting needs. In the city, I may not be able to cut down that tree, that is blocking my view. However in the country that is fine. But also in the country you may be told not to dump pollutants as they will end up in the cities water supply (and not yours)
Re: (Score:3)
Lost me at "impose". Go pound sand commie!
Re:Who is paying you for the pro-socialist headlin (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It works for the Amish and Mennonites for the same reasons and shared motivation, but they aren't without issues obviously. And they do use force to a degree even it is mostly passive... shunning is basically communal passive aggression. And that happens whenever someone doesn't en
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Any competently written survey of economic systems notes that communism is the normal state of affairs among humans - in families, tribes, traditional villages, kibbutzim, small voluntary associations of people, churches even -- with resources distributed by need from from those that have. Communism is always voluntary. It is in economic associations between strangers that this does not exist.
The "communist" states that used to exist never claimed to have "achieved communism" - it was always a (claimed) as
Re: (Score:2)
Even within these communities, many have seen a trend toward g
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And look at all the high tech stuff coming from the Amish community. All that stuff that you probably can't live without.
Sheesh.
Re: (Score:3)
The Amish live a life style they wished for and hardly do any harm (unless you define harm as taking up a bit of living space on this planet). Let them be.
For the rest: I call straw man. A high-tech society isn't diminished by its level of egalitarianism. It may even be a more egalitarian society is capable of reaching higher levels of technology. What good is technological advancement if 99.9% of the population isn't able to use it because they both can't afford it and their levels of education are so stun
What good is technological advancement if 99.9% .. (Score:3, Informative)
Go stuff yourself bolshevik.
their levels of education are so stunted they can't understand it?
This is EXACTLY what our local dictator use to say. Up until we shot him. He always thought he was the high priest among peasants.
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of the time that " uber-specialised drug that only 0,1% of the population needs" is first developed in a university as private industry is more interested in profitable stuff like Viagra.
Seems to me what works best is a mixture of socialism and capitalism, which also seems like the basic state of affairs in more primitive societies. Basically a mixture of sharing and trading.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to totally twist my words 180 degrees. Bravo!
You need an educated population with enough money in their pockets FIRST... BEFORE you can let them benefit the fruits of high technology. So to make a more egalitarian society you provide good education as a government and make sure most people get payed a livable wage at least, preferably more.Then you get a population that can actually benefit from those technological advancements instead of only the elite.
You probably think the dark ages were a 20th centu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And look at all the high tech stuff coming from the Amish community. All that stuff that you probably can't live without.
Sheesh.
Personally, I'm pretty critical of many aspects of the Amish lifestyle and culture, but you have to give them credit where credit is due. If you want a quality piece of furniture going to the Amish is the only way to go. Even high-end manufactured furniture is made from cheap ass particle board and staples. If you want a roof put on that won't break your budget—-the Mennonites will do it in half the time any other crew will get it done. Need a garage/barn built? The Amish will get it done in a day and
Re: (Score:2)
Most Amish are not anti-technology. However they are Anti-Comfort and Leisure.
Amish Farmers will often use tractors. But will replace the Tire Wheels with Metal ones, and not get the soft seats. It is more about a simple live, vs an easy one.
I live next to a Mennonite community (they are more technological apt, allowing cars, and newer technology, just as it is used practically) They have huge modern solar panels next to their business, they have some of them doing Web Design and Computer Programming.
Als
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely no one would have a problem with that. However, that is not communism, at least not Marxist communism.
Any system that is voluntary is OK with me. What I will not accept or tolerate is being *forced" to "share" with the force of law. That is part and parcel of red "revolution" - and it always, inevitably, ends with totalitarian governments, which are inevitably corrupt, because the concept cannot accept the concept of sharing voluntarily.
Re: Who is paying you for the pro-socialist headli (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So much like capitalism. How many natives died for capitalistic America? Indians in India, Chinese in China (19th century) etc. Capitalism also has a history of using force to get resources
Re: (Score:2)
"Any system that is voluntary is OK with me. What I will not accept or tolerate is being *forced" to "share" with the force of law."
In a virtual world with virtually unlimited space and resources that's a reasonable viewpoint. Here in the real world where there's only so much stuff, and some of it is necessary for life, it's ludicrous.
If you're not forced to share, you won't live in a successful society, where success is partially measured by stability in the face of external forces. That is to say, you'll
Re: (Score:2)
This is ludicrous, how do you get this? I note no explanation.
Re: (Score:2)
Communes, yes. Communism has worked fine on a small scale. But that doesn't matter, because we are not talking about full-blown communism here: We are talking about *partial* government provision of a *specific* service. History is much more favorable to that particular idea. It's how most roads are provided and maintained. Depending on your country, it's also common for a post office, power grid, sewage, storm drains and healthcare.
Re: (Score:2)
It works in small scale because the people in that small scale are our social circle, and we're pack animals at our core. We like to work in groups of 5-20 people. Anything larger and the groups start to fall apart. And we conform, aid and support these people because we need them for support, we need their approval to survive (or at least we did) and we need to be able to rely on them. It also makes us feel good if we are held in esteem by the people who we consider our social circle.
As soon as someone is
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the point. There is no value to be had here in talking about how bad communism is, because the proposal under discussion bears only a very superficial resemblance to communism. Doing so is nothing but a misrepresentation, a distraction.
Re: (Score:2)
Communism works as soon as people prefer working to having money.
Unfortunately, people are lazy, selfish assholes. And even though the general idea of "everyone give according to his abilities and takes according to his needs" sounds sensible, you'll immediately run into someone thinking "Hey, why bother giving?"
Re: (Score:2)
It's been my observation with my staff (15 out of 20 are working from home) that they are anything but lazy, and the loss of productivity is causing some degree of emotional distress.
Re: (Score:3)
The Amish and Mennonites aren't communists. You can't ascribe that term to them just because they happen to be close knit communities where everyone gets along with one another. There is a lot of extra baggage tied up in the communist ideology that you simple dont see there. For one, both the Amish and Mennonites respect personal property. Communists do not. Sure, you can have the clothes on your back. but anything of any real value belongs to "the state". Second, anything done that requires a good deal of
Re: (Score:3)
It works if everyone buys into it and the community is small enough to enforce this buy-in through social pressure. If you are a member of a Mennonite community, and you fail to show up to Joe's barn raising, word will spread, and you will regret it.
As soon as the community passes the size where everybody knows everyone else, this begins to break down. Sure, good folk will still help each other - heck, I was out helping my neighbor yesterday. But if you don't - heck,
Re: (Score:2)
I am descended from Mennonites and I pretty much don't believe in God, but I would do the Mennonite mission in a heartbeat
What makes you think that leaving out the key component would work?
Re: (Score:2)
Cases where Communism and Socialism works is when the Government/Community are working for the people. When it goes wrong, is the same system where the people are working for the leader or the government.
This is actually true for all of the economic models.
If you have a King, who cares for its people, and sees his title as burden on him, to help his country. The country usually does well. If the King thinks he is above the Law, or what he says is mandated by God to be correct, then the country usually is
Re: (Score:2)
"As it usually goes, people vote for the politician who promises them most from the public purse"
That isn't isn't really true.
Most people know that the Public Purse isn't free, but coming from their taxes. (I know the likes of Fox news makes it seem that these liberals are too stupid to know this, but that isn't the case)
It is more of the case Voters will vote for services that would benefit them the most, vs services that benefit someone else.
If my life isn't affected by the US Military, then I am good fo
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a class thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Only the "more prosperous" have been able to enjoy the full benefits of high-speed internet...
This is nonsense. I live in the poorest part of town and have about 250 Mbps fiber. Plenty of wealthy people are stuck at under 10.
Re:It's not a class thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Because it's a combination of population density and affluence...
100 poor customers paying $10/month is better than 5 rich customers paying $100 a month, unless those poor customers can't afford the service at all. Poor areas tend to be far more densely populated than affluent ones.
The wealthy are more likely to afford to have their own fibre laid wherever they might be located. You can get 10gbps fibre laid to the middle of nowhere if you can afford to pay for it.
Who really loses out are rural communities who are neither densely populated nor affluent. There is very little incentive for a commercial service provider to bother with such communities at all.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a combination of monopolies and that network system that vanished into ethanol fumes.
Re: (Score:2)
As you say, geographical location as well as services offered by one or more ISP are what dictates broadband availability, but let's not forget...
The first question we should be asking is what do mean by "broadband" internet access? All you need to do is change the speed required to be defined as "broadband" until you get the percentage numbers that you need for your argument.
Re:It's not a class thing (Score:4, Informative)
The first question we should be asking is what do mean by "broadband" internet access? All you need to do is change the speed required to be defined as "broadband" until you get the percentage numbers that you need for your argument.
Broadband is defined as 25Mbs/3Mbs for a wired connection, or 10Mbs for mobile. The FCC believe that 93% of the country gets broadband by that definition based on filings by telecoms providers, but experimental evidence indicates that 50% of the country do.
This suggests that your suggestion of "change the speed required to fit your argument" isn't even needed, when you can happily just fudge the underlying facts.
Re: (Score:2)
I only have 15Mbps here and I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything critical. The only thing that's slow is games downloads/updates because of the size, but otherwise I can watch Netflix and YouTube without any problem. The argument here is about "Internet as a right" so 1080p is more than sufficient.
More basic than water? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US, if you fail to pay for your water, then they shut it off. Water is something actually is a basic need for life. How is having internet service more important than having water, which is not a guarantied right?
I'd imagine they would make you pay for breathing air if they could figure out a way to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Perri-air is working on that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He is talking about inaction's being restricted.
There is very clearly a difference.
Medicine: If a doctor refuses to do doctor stuff any longer, and because of this there is a shortage of doctoring being done, is the doctor guilty of depriving someone their right to healthcare?
Water: If a local government neglects to do proper management and fucks up the water supply, are the government officials guilty of depriving someone of their right to clean wat
Re: (Score:2)
This is idiotic, for both of you.
Random private individuals are not being tasked with providing anyone with Internet.
Utilities are - these are businesses that are incorporated under specific laws and receive benefits from the government (most especially benefits from their legal status) and in return take on specific obligations to society.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy: the state is responsible of guaranteeing that rights are upheld in its jurisdiction, so the state needs to bear the burden to make it happen.
As example, in some countries the right of healtcare is protected by law. This means that if someone needs healtcare but cannot afford it, the state will have to either provide the service itself, or pay the bill if the healtcare service is provided by a private.
Re: (Score:2)
What if there is literally no one qualified to provide said health care? Is the government going to force someone to become qualified and supply the service at the point of a gun?
Re: (Score:2)
That said, it is hard to find a job without a computer and internet. At least being able to use it at the local library or something.
Re: (Score:2)
When you have a well on your property then water is free for you. Some governments will try to make you pay tax for it or force you to uphold their water laws. Of course some countries have working welfare systems where everyone gets water in the end and only the people who have money don't get it for free. Of course this sucks when you try to hoard money bills into paper mountains based on a thinking where you deserve the same welfare as any other "poor" old person and that welfare is straight unfair to ri
Re: More basic than water? (Score:2)
Well water is not free but typically lower cost. You just pay for it in bulk. I paid about $16000 over the last 20 years for the well and related equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the US, if you fail to pay for your water, then they shut it off. Water is something actually is a basic need for life. How is having internet service more important than having water, which is not a guarantied right? I'd imagine they would make you pay for breathing air if they could figure out a way to do it.
You should at least read the summary instead of stopping at the title.
The phrase "Universal Basic Internet" was apparently coined by Techcrunch as a cutesy and too-clever-by-half, but still not clever enough, riff on "Universal Basic Income" but is a fundamentally incorrect phrase because it most definitely isn't what Kasparov and Tyler are discussing. The phrase "Universal Broadband Access" is what is actually being discussed. And if Techcrunch had been smarter they would have realized that this accurate c
This is a political question (Score:2)
I know the capacity to automate supply chains, a lot of construction, and much of the service sector already exists, but no one wants to move on such a political stinker, and it is political: Self driving trucks would require changes to interstate infrastructure and laws for instance and would lose jobs. If things like universal internet are in place for retraining, along with safety nets so displaced workers have a future other than homelessness, all that changes and software engineers can begin their tran
IPv6 (Score:3)
How about guaranteeing IPv6 availability for all too, so that users have a proper two-way internet connection making them an actual part of the internet, and not a second class connection stuck behind some CGN gateway.
Re: (Score:2)
Why stop at IPv6, though? We should keep it in sync with our CPUs. Everyone should demand IPv64!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can be tracked already via several means, even if you move your device to a totally different connection. ipv6 wont change that.
Most ISPs provide dynamic assignments, so your ipv6 address will change periodically anyway, and only your isp (and the government) knows which addresses are assigned to which customer.
For those who don't want to be tracked, the usual methods including vpns, proxies and tor still work with ipv6.
Multiple users behind a single ipv4 address cant be tracked directly by ip by site o
Re: (Score:2)
You have this completely the wrong way round.
Shared routers provide no protection whatsoever from your own government...
The ISP is required to log everything, which is extremely costly for the ISP, and then provide this information to the government on demand. So the government knows who is responsible in any case.
On the other hand, those who provide sites you might want to access don't have access to this information - so they will just blacklist the shared address, making accessing services more difficult
Re: (Score:2)
Well the parent post was talking specifically about china, so yes china.
But also the UK:
https://www.bbc.com/news/techn... [bbc.com]
And i would imagine other countries have similar laws.
As pointed out in the bbc article, address sharing is a big problem for law enforcement and they are not going to just accept that you can't identify a single user and have a pool of several hundred suspects.
Already many public wifi points require you to provide personal details such as a phone number in order to connect, then they can
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they can, but they don't have to. It's a feature of your device and you still can have this feature with IP6. One can then already identify you based on other information than the IP address. So is the MAC address of your hardware a 48-bit number and (mostly) unique to your device. It is already used to identify you and works much better than an IP address. Of course there are devices that have yet another feature, which randomises the MAC address for the very sake of protecting your identity. In short
But first things first... (Score:2)
End to phone spoofing, unsolicited calls.
End to email spoofing, spam.
End to junk mail.
Instant landslide for candidates offering this as their platform.
first world problems (Score:2)
I, like most people, am working from home and for my work stuff the low speed I generally get, like 200 Mbps is fine, because my home network can reach those speeds. Even my cell phone achieves that speed over wireless. The only issue that I am limited in the data I can use over the 4g network, and latency, and th
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on your work setup and job function, latency could be a problem...
Also your phone may achieve 200mbps over 4g when there isn't much congestion, but if you add lots more users in the local area that rate will significantly decrease and unlike with wired connections, there's nothing that can be done to increase the last mile capacity.
Wait a minute! (Score:2, Funny)
I don't care about high-speed internet. I want a PONY! And some ice cream! And I want it NOW!
I know - suppose *everything was free*! Anybody could have anything they want at any time. Why hasn't someone thought of this before?
Re: (Score:2)
Here's three ponies with ice cream. [wixmp.com] Share and enjoy!(TM)
Train them all to be programers. How hard can it b (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's take all the poor people and train them to be programmers!
OK. Above was rather liberally paraphrased. Original source was Joe Biden. In December 2019, Biden told coal miners that they should learn to code after he shuts down all those dirty, low paying coal mines. His genius intuition led him to the realization that programmers make a lot of money. Ergo, coal miners would actually benefit if coal mining jobs went away, because then (former) coal miners would have enough free time to learn to be a coder. How hard can it really be?
So, why bring up Joe's rediculous proposition? It's funny but, more importantly, it's a great example of an argument based on a really dumb premise. The very same dumb premise used in the universal basic Internet proposition. High paying tech jobs pay a lot because they are hard and the demand for qualified people far outstrips supply. Moreover, these jobs are typically filled by highly educated upper-middle class folks people living in well served neighborhoods.
So .... No, spending money to create a universal (i.e. free) basic/broadband Internet will not pay for itself. Right? We already have an abundance of unfilled tech jobs. Creating a lot more such jobs increases demand for qualified people but doesn't increase supply. Moreover, Internet, broadband or otherwise, will not help poor communities with failing schools. Yay, let's give the poor, hungry kids a laptop and free broadband access! They can use the laptops to learn AND swat away those pesky bullets! If they get hungry, let them eat the images of yummy food that they can find all over "the web".
If the goal is to help disadvantaged folks move up the socioeconomic ladder, then spend money on ensuring that poor kids have something to eat, a safe place to live, and a good education. Without these basics, broadband Internet access won't do a darn thing to improve their lives.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Train them all to be programers. How hard can (Score:2)
Doh! I feel a Python-C religious war brew'n. Glad java "programmers" weren't insulted. :)
Re: (Score:2)
And here I am, proud of myself like the dog that hunted down the ball, when I createa powershell script to access a REST API successfully :D.
Re: (Score:2)
Insulting java programmers is like insulting bass players. Not only is it too easy, but most of all they wouldn't get it.
Re: (Score:2)
Java is what you drink before doing actual work in a real language such as Javascript, PHP or Visual Basic.
Re: (Score:2)
His genius intuition led him to the realization that programmers make a lot of money. Ergo, coal miners would actually benefit if coal mining jobs went away,
You've got cause and effect the wrong way round.
Coal. Jobs. Are. Going. Away.
The glory days of 900,000 young men heading into dangerous mines to die at 40 of black lung if they survived that long are long past. This is not a partisan thing. Coal mining jobs have been on the decline since 1920 through various administrations and the two major parties s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actual miners playing fake mining in VR... mind blown.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So do you understand that programming jobs are for those with 110+ IQ? Average people literally can't do it. And do you realize that half of all people are below average? What are they supposed to do? Go die face down in a ditch somewhere? Wait, don't answer that one.
It's funny that when we tell journalists (your people) whose jobs have been obsoleted by technology to learn to code, it's a hate crime. But you tell us to learn to code and you get cheers. Fucked up double standard, that is. But we all saw th
Re: (Score:2)
So do you understand that programming jobs are for those with 110+ IQ? Average people literally can't do it. And do you realize that half of all people are below average?
Do you realise you're a fuckwit who didn't bother reading my post before angrily posting.
Also you're a known liar (citation: https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]), so it's not surprising you are trying to misrepresent my posts.
what are they supposed to do? Go die face down in a ditch somewhere?
and lying about coal jobs returning will help that
Re: (Score:2)
What was the lie?
I already told you. We both know that so stop feigning ignorance. Since last time you simply dropped off the thread and hid, I won't bother retyping, I'll just link to the bit where I pointed out your false claims about someone:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Unless you post a link to support your claim about that poster then you are a liar. You have had multiple chances to set the record straight ut instead you hid for a while then came back around.
You did not address any of the points i
Re: (Score:2)
rediculous
Classic.
Trainers to increase digital literacy? (Score:2)
It's a veritable festival of stupidity (Score:2, Flamebait)
Fuck UBI, and fuck this pipe-dream mentality that totally ignores reality. There will be no 'UBI', GET OVER IT. Stop trying to destroy our society.
Basic Utility Yes. And Shut Off Like One. (Score:3)
In times of widespread community issues (pandemics, harsh winters, etc) local government should be able to require service to stay on despite account status until the peak problem timeframe is over.
Having "guaranteed" anything is just socialism, which worked out great for Venezuela.
One Big Piece Missing... (Score:2)
Howsabout "no"? (Score:2)
As admirable as it is to want at least a basic modicum of EVERYTHING for EVERYONE, at the end of the day, it doesn't happen unless people get paid.
Well, unless you're ready to embrace the concept of SLAVERY again.
Ask yourself, are YOU willing to do YOUR job, for the rest of your natural life, FOR FREE?
Unless the answer is an unequivocal YES, forget about even the concept.
Then ask yourself, "How do you deal with non-compliance?" in this scheme?
Universal basic food, sex, status, etc. (Score:2)
Why stop with internet? There is no limit to the things we want universally, so it would require insane resources to quench all these thirsts. So just embrace the resource limit, call it "money", then let each person work out their own priorities. Picking internet over better roads or medicine or ... is condescending.
âoeUniversal Basic Postâ aka âoeUSP (Score:2)
It is truly amazing to see the stupidity on display here about equating basic internet service with communism. Internet is a fundamental necessity for the masses to operate today. The necessity of the internet is not to different from the necessity of the postal system to bring America together post-independence. There are huge swaths of the US that cannot bridge the digital divide because of market failure and bad government policy. Wholesale internet should absolutely be socialized because this national i
I have a better idea... (Score:2)
how about universal food and housing, first ?
Grateful Dead Econ 101 (Score:2)
How is this different (Score:2)
Than requiring that a landline be provided to every home? We do that in the US. Works pretty well. Now, if you have cell service you may not use the landline, but it's there. Subsidized for the poor, too.
Timing. (Score:2)
In the past when public roads were built and plans to raise everybody up were possible; today it's all fascism/corporatism and survival of the socially "fittest" who are rewarded by god for being the most selfish, ruthless, less empathetic; aka lucky or "chosen."
Nah, just end all monopolies.. (Score:2)
If there is a thing that the "free market" actually work well is internet.
I'm on a 200 MBPS fiber internet in freaking brazil because either the government didn't allowed monopolies to happen or most likely was just too incompetent to enforce monopolies.
The start of broadband here was basically just the telephone company with its DSL service that was basically a scam. 256KBPS, 100MB cap, extra 10 dollars per 100MB you went over the cap and no way to measure how much you went over the cap.
But then a cable tv
The problem ... (Score:2)
... is a lack of basic understanding of what money is.
Money is just a medium of exchange. What we need are the goods and services. Just giving people "money" (numbers) does not generate goods and services.
The pandemic actually does teach economic lessons well. When you increase demand, reduce supply, or both (see, for example, toilet paper) then prices go up, or if you force prices to stay the same with laws or social pressure, then you have shortages.
Because prices and money are just window dressing; t
First-world problem (Score:2)
And we aren't the first country to do it, even the third world misprioritizes this shit. People are starving, living in the dark, and domestic violence is a problem: let's give them laptops and internet from a billion-dollar satellite program. Nevermind solving that world hunger issue, they need Tasty videos to really make their gut growl!
I do not understand this need or the drive behind it. What the fuck is really driving people about this idea? Stakes they own? Feed and hydrate some people, keep the
Re: (Score:2)
And after eviscerating the profit motive by undercutting private telecoms, new tech will get much slower. You will be in a state where some politician looks to you for approval for "bringing Internet", when that is a moving, improving target year after year.
Anyone can pull out troops and take the status quo, but future improvements? They have to be developed first before some politician can take it and hand it out.
Like medicine, they portray it as a static target, when it's fast improvements you want.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on where you are. Phone services really deteriorated in rural areas around here once they privatized the telco.
The reason for this is that private and public services have fundamentally different motivations for what they do. For a private service, providing goods or services is the necessary evil to achieve profit. For a public service, the service itself is the goal because they need to provide something. So servicing rural areas is not really profitable, it's way more interesting to provide high
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You understand that there are things that are free and paid for by taxes, like schools and roads, right? Ok now see if you can follow this: we're talking about adding basic internet to that list of things. Good idea? Bad idea? Who knows. What's not in dispute here is that we can afford it, it's a drop in the bucket compared to $3T in stimulus.
Drop in the bucket? Hardly. When dealing with paying for anything on a national scale the numbers become unimaginably high pretty quickly. You may also want to look up recurring vs non-recurring costs.
That aside, when it comes to taxes: understand that taxes aren't just out of nowhere. Americans already pay 30-40% of their paycheck into taxes. More socialist countries often pay an even higher percentage. As you raise taxes to pay for everything "free", eventually the percentage of your paycheck that y