RSS
Twitter
Arguing Against Government Support For Broadband
from the why? dept
Business Week has a good article arguing against government subsidies for broadband access. It is a popular topic in Washington DC these days - and people talk about the necessity of getting broadband into every home. This article steps back and asks "why?". While I'm a big fan of broadband, I think I agree. The more the government gets involved, the more screwed up things are likely to become. Obviously, things are pretty screwed up now, but these are technology and business model problems that are likely to be worked out (and probably have already started to be worked out). Once the government starts regulating things, it's only likely to hinder new technology developments in broadband.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
If you ate a truckload of vegetables... you'd die.
Can't seem to get over the quotes like "Why in the world should all taxpayers subsidize those who purchase one particular telecommunications service? ... Or people who raise homing pigeons? "
Or "Broadband is not a matter of health and safety" which implies that the gov should only subsidy things that *are* a matter of health or safety.
But who built the highway system? Did we wait for private companies to kludge together a national highway system? I think there are plenty of examples of 'government subsidies' that are controversially-beneficial.
While I'm also highly skeptical of using taxes to prop up big businesses, I can understand the reasoning behind why public broadband might be beneficial. And I don't think that article addressed any actual issues other than to question the motive behind 'public broadband' and take an extreme position against it. Please, journalists of the world, think a little harder! At least attempt to see the other side's arguments.....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: If you ate a truckload of vegetables... you'd
See, this is exactly the reason the internet is so needed for life on this planet, if you have done your homework you know that "journalists of the world, think a little harder" and "journalists, relevancies please"...are light years away from one another. As far as political muddling-what else could users of the web have expected? We need to explain these things by WOM-(word of mouth) just as we do on everything else.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment