JasonD
@comcast.net
 from:
TKJunkMail 
| Oh yeah....
I'd like 100MB/s too, but not the gov't oversight/direction that goes with it. Hasn't it already been established that markets left to their own devices, will produce the best possible outcomes?
Unless you want to pay 60~70~80% of your income in taxes for that 'free' health care, cheap fast broadband, and other 'govt provided' services whether you want them or not. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by JasonD :
I'd like 100MB/s too, but not the gov't oversight/direction that goes with it. Hasn't it already been established that markets left to their own devices, will produce the best possible outcomes?
Unless you want to pay 60~70~80% of your income in taxes for that 'free' health care, cheap fast broadband, and other 'govt provided' services whether you want them or not.
Please a program to make sure everyone had broadband that was 100% government funde would cost approximately $500 per person. Even at minimum wage that's 3% if paid all in one year. And that could be spread out of 10 years since it would take at least the long to do it. And no one is suggesting it be 100% government funded.
As far as health care give me a break. First of all why do people get universal health care and FREE mixed-up. My state provides universal health care for kids. It's not FREE. Cheap yes, but not 100% free. Secondly you forget to take into account ancillary benefits of people being able to go to the doctor when they are sick which ake up for most of the costs. |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
 ·Sprint Broadband D..
| reply to JasonD
said by JasonD :
I'd like 100MB/s too, but not the gov't oversight/direction that goes with it. Hasn't it already been established that markets left to their own devices, will produce the best possible outcomes?
Where? What markets, when left to their own devices, have produced the best possible results? Please name some.
Even Adam "Invisible Hand" Smith knew that government regulation was needed in capitalistic systems, to mitigate the worst instincts of the participants, IE: greed. Which generally is a precursor to mind-roasting stupidity on a grand scale.
Take the credit markets, and the failing hedge funds, for starters. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
1 edit | reply to JasonD
Yeah.... how's that working out for you?
Considering a vast majority of people have 1 choice of a true provider (cable, FTTx, or DSL) and these companies do not really compete with each other when they are in the same market I am going to venture to guess your answer is "It's not". Unless of course you have a vested interest in the market not working in the consumer's favor and working more in the corp's favor.
EDIT: In addition, I would like to see the government handouts to the current incompetent incumbents redirected to a national system. No reason to raise taxes, just redirect it from them. |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to JasonD
said by JasonD :
I'd like 100MB/s too, but not the gov't oversight/direction that goes with it. Hasn't it already been established that markets left to their own devices, will produce the best possible outcomes?
No such thing has ever been established. What's clear from the last 200 years of theoretical and practical economics (roughly Adam Smith to the present) is that free markets work best when there are many sellers, many buyers, minimal transaction costs, and minimal differences in bargaining power. However, this situation is hardly ever found in the real world. And the more the situation differs from that ideal model, the worse the consequences of laissez-faire. There is also a need for state intervention to protect workers and consumers beyond the classical model.
In the case of internet, almost everywhere in USA, one company has a monopoly on each means of getting the connection to the residence - one company has a monopoly on the coaxial, another on the phone lines. This "last mile" is a classic example of a scenario where a regulated public utility is the correct solution. Then many companies could compete to be the one that provides service to the "last mile" public monopoly for each customer. Only then could we finally have the benefit of markets in broadband. |
|
jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
 ·surpasshosting
 ·ViaTalk
| reply to BF69
forty-twelve, elenty-six.
See, I can pull numbers out of my arse too, just like they did in the study you're thinking of. The $500 is a ridiculous figure, and if the government bureaucrats are involved, it's probably off by a few orders of magnitude. |
|
factchecker
@archdiocese-no.org
| reply to JasonD
said by JasonD :
I'd like 100MB/s too, but not the gov't oversight/direction that goes with it. Hasn't it already been established that markets left to their own devices, will produce the best possible outcomes? That statement would be true if the free market worked with respect to internet access.
Until a carrier neutral network exists, where any company can offer services exists, your mythical market forces won't be at work with respect to internet access. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| reply to JasonD
said by JasonD :
Hasn't it already been established that markets left to their own devices, will produce the best possible outcomes? Uh, no. No economic theory says that is the case 100% of time. Look up the terms "market failure" and "tragedy of the commons" and get back to us. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to jester121
said by jester121 :forty-twelve, elenty-six. See, I can pull numbers out of my arse too, just like they did in the study you're thinking of. The $500 is a ridiculous figure, and if the government bureaucrats are involved, it's probably off by a few orders of magnitude. That would be more than our GDP dummy. There are 300 MILLION people in the US. So just getting $1 from everyone is $300 MILLION. So do the math again. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25 :EDIT: In addition, I would like to see the government handouts to the current incompetent incumbents redirected to a national system. No reason to raise taxes, just redirect it from them. Exactly. BILLIONS in USF money is being handed out to the telcos and no one is using it for what it's for. Requiring them to use it to provide broadband ot rural areas is not raising atxes nor is it being unfair to the telcos. Those people in rural areas pay into the USF too and they should get SOMETHING for all the money they've paid into it over the years. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | reply to jester121
Verizon has quoted $1000 to pass (make available) 1 customer, and $1000 for installation. These probably have gone down a little bit. Government manadated would bring much larger economies of scale and reduce prices further. |
|
