Is Broadband a Utility? A Right? A Luxury? > A Right!

reply to Brownbay

Re: A Right!

reply to ylen131

reply to JRW2

You might be able to argue that phone is a luxury, but it's considered a utility by Government in that is has be available just about anywhere in the U.S.

I think the crux of the debate is how necessary is it to put broadband in the level of importance that the Government should deem it necessary to have it just about everywhere. Corporations depend on it so in that arena the vote is yes.

reply to ylen131
Agreed. To anyone who has studies the concept of "rights", there is absolutely no way in hell that broadband could ever possibly in 3 million years be considered one. At least in the Lockeian sense of rights that this country was founded on.

And I definately dont agree with broadband being made a utility. There is too much enterprise involved. Around the country we are seeing great enhancements in speed and quality. There are a few people that cant afford it. If you cant afford $15/month for SBC DSL, then I doubt:
A: you can afford and extremely basic but modern $500 computer setup
B: that having internet access is going to benefit you in any way. Its not like the burger flipper is going to get an online doctorate. Liberals and their crazy ideals.

reply to ylen131
And here's an idea:

why not make the infrastructure semi public- ie a municipality could sign a contract with a private company to foot the bill for building a fiber network in the city (this way the taxpayer wouldnt have to foot the bill, which would be one of my many major objections). The private company would not provide service itself, but would only be allowed to sell bandwidth and interconnect/ rackspace rights. For example, it could sell bandwidth on a size/distance metric, ie "one cent per megabite kilometer" or similar, on all traffic in the network. Other companies could come in and serve as ISPs, connecting the fiber network to the outside internet, providing a DNS server, customer service, etc. Different companies could provide VoIP and IPTV services.

The key is that there wouldnt be a conflict of interest between the people managing the network and those providing service on the network. The network would be contractually obligated to let anyone compete, and would likewise be contractually obligated to keep their prices at a certain rate (ie "3% a year" or "with inflation"). They would make these concessions in order to get access to the neighborhood- only the city really has the authority to be thrashing up roads and laying lines from house to house, the city could give the authority carefully to the company that was paying for all the infrastructure.

I think that would be a great setup and a great compromise between being able to bridge the problems imposed with building a network and making sure service on it is fair.

reply to charlie hp
Actually, in suburban America, aka quite alot of America, the burger flipper will get that degree. Afterall, he's a college kid at the moment.

And as for your ideas on the cheapness of broadband... That is the LOWEST possible price for broadband in the country, where in places like Korea its the norm. Please give the percentage of individual households in the country who have the option of paying $15 for broadband. Then, when/if you do find them, and they change your mind about what you've posted, please compare those figures to other nations. Then, post them here. Oh wait, you'd find your argument has been proven fallacious and most American households, I'd say upwards of 24/25 or more CAN'T get broadband service for the $15 per month you're advertising.

reply to charlie hp
So I suppose no one has ever gotten themselves out of a situation by hard work and knowledge?

The internet gives people a chance to even the playing field and get information only people with a decent amount of money have. It is possible for the burger flipper using the Internet as a tool to get a better job, or learn a skill. I used to pack boxes, and now I am a developer for a very lucrative SEO firm. I learned myself using the Internet.

So before you spout off about liberals, I am proof it does happen. I don't appreciate your comment.

As far as broadband, I do believe currently it is a luxury, but I do think people should try to make it as widespread as the telephone. It would advance things quicker as a society if we all accepted the Internet as part of our daily lives.
I know for me it's a utility, I need it and it's absolutely critical to my daily routine.

reply to ylen131

reply to SRFireside
You can also argue that a house is a luxury if you use the thought process that you currently are using. We have 10,000 homeless people in my city. Just because you can live with out something doesn't charictorize it as a luxury. Everything materalistic thing you posess would be a luxury with that arguement. A luxury would be something that you can do with-out, but get your goal completed. So a internet connection might be a luxury for somepeople, but those who are using mission critical applications, it is anything but a luxury.

reply to MIABye
pepole can survive with out anything but air, food and water. Look on your streets at the homeless people, think of the natives back when they didn't have anything. Think before you post. Back up what you say. just because you can live with out it doesn't charictorize it as a luxury.

reply to broadband guru
Why don't we just call it a PITA and leave it at that?

reply to carlinniss

To some extent, yes...if he meant he learned something of himself by way of using the internet...but I don't think that was the main part of this post...
--
Join the Theuth.com Distributed Computing Team!»distributed.theuth.com/deep_thought.htm

reply to ylen131

reply to charlie hp
This is not unlike what some CLECs were proposing after the Telecom Act of '96 started to get bogged down--the ILECs would be just wholesale facility providers, and all retail would be through separate retail enterprises--and the ILECs would have to treat all other retailers the same as they treated their affiliate.

As a proposal, it was a non-starter following the FCC's turn away from forcing competition following Reed Hundt's replacement by William Kennard in the Chairmanship. It had (and still has) good arguments in favor, but is doomed in the current environment where the whining Baby Bells claim that any lack of a monopoly on their part is a "disincentive to investment".

Philosophically, this proposal is sort of like saying that a motor vehicle transport system is a vital need--so the governmental units will use private industries to build backbone (roads) and the actual "transport" will be done by others using more-or-less standardized transport vehicles....

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!

reply to ylen131

said by "ylen13":

---

luxury, person can survive with out it.

---

reply to IamZed

quote:

---

You could live without an education, too.

---

reply to Shadow01