jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | Publicly funded broadband is unfair to taxpayers Even if the majority of taxpayers are fine paying for municipal broadband, what about those who aren't? Say I don't even want broadband, or I'm fine with my current service provided by a private company. I shouldn't have to subsidize my neighbor's fiber connection.
Municipal broadband is fine only if general tax revenues aren't used to fund it. Any bill to that effect is a good idea. There's a reason government only provides goods and services that multiple firms can't provide--and broadband clearly doesn't qualify. |
|
djeremy
join:2004-07-12
San Francisco, CA | Interesting. I only walk and never use roads so I'd like to not pay for the building or maintenance of new roads. I shouldn't have to subsidize the roads my neighbors use. That could easily be and is, in some ares, run by private companies.
That argument doesn't hold up. |
|
Reviews:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·ViaTalk
1 edit | reply to jaminus
Before I had children should my tax dollars be used to fund public schools they serve no purpose for me. But then they don't really serve a purpose for children in them except to regurgitate some answers to a test so the school can get Federal funding. God forbid should that teach them properly so the can think for themselves and figure out the answers. But that's another story.
My children are going to go to private schools does this mean I don't have to pay taxes to fund public schools do I even get a break on taxes no. How is that fair.
If TW and Embarq provided reliable and adequate service the citizens wouldn't be asking for help from the Goverment. Either provide service people want or get out of the way.
|
|
 DarkLogixPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | ya if the city wants to then let them
just because the big ISP's feel like being lazy doesn't mean a city should be bared from rolling their own ISP
and if tax money is needed well they wanted it so live with it |
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | reply to djeremy
Roads are non-excludable and land is too scarce to lay multiple competing roads next to each other. We all pay for roads because 1) there can't be market entry feasibly and 2) charging people for how often they use roads would be quite complicated and expensive.
Not so with broadband. Charging those who use it, and knowing who is connected and who isn't, is easy. Also, everybody uses roads (or, at least, everybody needs roads to exist to survive) whereas lots of people (more than a third of all Americans) not only don't have broadband, but don't even want it, according to a 2008 Pew Research report. |
|
|
|
jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | reply to DarkLogix
General tax revenues should not be put toward municipal broadband since lots of taxpayers almost certainly don't care for broadband, even if 60 or 70 percent of them do. Broadband is simply not the same as roads, water, or police, which virtually everybody uses at some point or another. Muni broadband should only be funded by those who actually use it. Keep in mind that ISPs can't force people to subscribe at gunpoint, but your municipality can jail you if you don't pay property taxes.
If you think big ISPs are evil (and some of them certainly can be) then don't subscribe to their services. Go without broadband, or switch to a better ISP, or move somewhere where you can get an ISP that suits you. Hell, draft a business plan and start your own ISP. If your town has high broadband rates, then somebody must be making a heck of a profit--you should be able to draft a business plan and borrow money (either with a loan or venture capital) and start a WISP. People do it all the time especially in rural areas. |
|
| reply to djeremy
Re: Publicly funded broadband is NOT paid by TAXPAYERS I've never seen one of the these systems paid with taxpayer money. This is the industry's TV talking point. Community Broadband systems are paid with the revenues generated from the system. To build them, the communities go out and borrow the money from the muni bond market (which is good for the muni bond market as well), but at much lower rates than the private sector rates. (TWC of course could just lend money to itself) This taxpayer argument is what we're hearing here in NC from Time Warner Cable who does not want to use any of its sweet monopoly profits to upgrade its old plant. Instead Greensboro watched as they tried to just cap bandwidth use. (WOW) All the communities we know have first asked the incumbents if they'll build these networks - and they all say "NO." So the communities, driven by the need to respond to their constituents economic and social needs, are willing to build fiber infrastructures and that in turn typically drives incumbents have to upgrade theirs. Go figure. Higher capacity pipes into taxpayers' homes so they can get ready access to medical and educational services (job retraining - big issue here in NC), telecommute, monitor the safety of their homes, cut their energy use, take jobs located overseas but stay in the U.S. Crap.:) |
|
DarkLogixPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | reply to jaminus
Re: Publicly funded broadband is unfair to taxpayers its their chioce
if you don't like the way the town operates move |
|
djeremy
join:2004-07-12
San Francisco, CA | reply to dcurrey
I completely agree and maybe my comment didn't get that point across.
I'm all for muni broadband when private entities don't provide adequate service. |
|
DarkLogixPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | reply to jaminus
If getting venture capital is so easy tell me how? |
|
| reply to jaminus
said by jaminus:General tax revenues should not be put toward municipal broadband since lots of taxpayers almost certainly don't care for broadband, even if 60 or 70 percent of them do. Broadband is simply not the same as roads, water, or police, which virtually everybody uses at some point or another. Muni broadband should only be funded by those who actually use it. Keep in mind that ISPs can't force people to subscribe at gunpoint, but your municipality can jail you if you don't pay property taxes. At some point, many people did not care for public roads, water, electricity, gas infrastructure, things that are utilities and we take for granted today.
What is the address of the cave you live in ? Oh, there is no road to it and no address since mail does not get delivered there. My bad.
--
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries. |
|
 neowulf
join:2000-10-20
Port Orange, FL | reply to jaminus
Don't be too sure about not charging people for how much they drive. There are already a few pilot programs in the US testing out per-mile driving tax and so far each state that has been testing them has been moving forward with bills in their respected states.
It really is not that complicated or expensive. The programs have also been quite promising to the people who would like to see this sort of driving tax. The only real block to it at this point is the whole requiring each driver to have a GPS unit. Once that hurdle is overcome it will only be a matter of time before you are paying yet another tax. At this point nothing is safe from being taxed. |
|
neowulf
join:2000-10-20
Port Orange, FL | reply to DarkLogix
I think that is what a lot of people don't understand. The guy is from Arlington, VA. He obviously has a few choices for which company serves him, so why would he want his city to put in a network. That is fair from his point of view.
Where the mistake happens is this guy doesn't think of the little towns that this story is related to. Wilson, in which neither provider of the area wanted to put in the necessary network that the city asked for so they could service the town and be taken out of the dark ages.
Obviously the people of Wilson had a vote and since neither provider of the area was going to do anything about it, they would do it them selves. It was not like one day the city just went up and said you know what we are just going to do this without hearing what the people of our community have to say.
Maybe they only did get a vote of 60-70% in favor putting in the network. But that is a democracy for you. Majority rule, more people wanted what was voted on then against it. There is no way you can make everyone happy with a vote, and there is no way you will make anyone happy paying another tax.
So I see no problem with a city putting in a network if they can't even get a private company to do it, charge their cost, and do not use it as a way to profit, or use it to provide funding to other projects. Which you do not need a new bill for. Cities are already under such laws. They can't use sewer taxes for anything other then sewer related projects.
I would take taxes and at least the choice of broadband, then no taxes and dialup. But it will take the guy from Arlington, VA living out in a area without any options to see that. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to dcurrey
Municipal broadband will end up like our schools systems because municipal broadband will be a government controlled, tax funded monopoly that will drive out private enterprise. Not to mention government monopolies do not play by the same rules on competition. They can drive out competitors and at the same time have no incentive to improve service to the customer. To me it just more government trying to take over private enterprise. |
|
| reply to jaminus
Why not? Tax money is already used for other public items that you may or may not use (schools, road, libraries, etc). |
|
| reply to neowulf
Dark Ages? Really? Two companies providing up to 10meg service for residential is hardly the dark ages. |
|
| reply to Scatcatpdx
Exactly my point! Where does it end??? I would love to live in Wilson and get 10/10, however the capitalistic side of me says it's not right. You do have mom & pop ISP's that will be run out of business if gov't continues to put in broadband. I don't like the fact that they are operate the power and gas. Talk about a monopoly! This will be the way it ends up with broadband. |
|
 jhboricuaExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN | reply to jaminus
said by jaminus:I shouldn't have to subsidize my neighbor's fiber connection. Then move. You already subsidize the neighbor kid's school even if you have none of your own. Or the neighbors use of the police/fire departments even if you never do, etc, etc. In the grand scheme of things, its pretty much a moot point considering all the other services you're already subsidizing even if you don't use them. |
|
| reply to Go Tarheels
said by Go Tarheels:I would love to live in Wilson and get 10/10, however the capitalistic side of me says it's not right. And that is the issue, isn't it.
a) Rape and pilege, because you can.
b) An honest living, honest pay for service rendered.
Both of these are 'capitalistic', no?
Isn't our country in enough trouble from a)?
I'm all for the b) business model. Growth should be comming from increased services rendered. Not smoke and mirrors, lies and deceit. Fiber is cheeper, not more expensive.
said by Go Tarheels:You do have mom & pop ISP's that will be run out of business... "mom & pop ISP's".. [gulp] WHAT? You can't be serious. |
|
| reply to jaminus
And I don't wan't my taxes to pay for religious organizations, or paying for overpriced Defense Department toys, or to subsidize corporation that offshore our jobs. I have never needed the Fire Department to put out a fire in my home so why should I continue funding them? I am out of school and have no kids so why should my taxes go to pay for somebody elses childs education?
It is because this is a society and we all agree to do certain things to benefit the community in which we live. If you don't like living in a society then you can always dig a hole in a hillside and live there. Imagine your glee with no running water, heat, electricity, television, or internet!
You don't get to decide where your taxes go ala carte. Live with it. |
|
