Should Internet access be free?

[Elim Garak]

If no one's working, nothing's getting done.

What does it have to do with wealth and jobs? One can work without a job or monetary reward.

[Allybeboba]

People always wanting something for nothing.

[Spectral]

So, everyone should have free internet, a free computer, free clothes, free phone, free transportation, free shelter, free food, free power, free water, free food........

Yeah, that actually sounds like a decent enough society to me. I wouldn't want to allocate it on a "here's your Government Clothes" basis, but giving people some baseline level of cash required to acquire basic goods seems like an OK starting point.

What, do we lack the resources to do so?

- - - Updated - - -

People always wanting something for nothing.

Which people? In my case, I'd almost certainly be a net donor to any policy implemented to provide common WiFi. I pay a shitload of taxes and I'd likely continue to purchase private internet (assuming such a scheme only had minimum bandwidth for free and better connections were private). I don't think it's a good idea because I'm some lazy asshole sitting here thinking, "hurrrrrr, gimme free things!". I just think it's actually a pretty good idea even if it costs me a couple bucks.

[Sky High]

No, simply treat it as the public utility it is.

[boobytits]

Hell yes I believe so too!

[Allybeboba]

Which people? In my case, I'd almost certainly be a net donor to any policy implemented to provide common WiFi. I pay a shitload of taxes and I'd likely continue to purchase private internet (assuming such a scheme only had minimum bandwidth for free and better connections were private). I don't think it's a good idea because I'm some lazy asshole sitting here thinking, "hurrrrrr, gimme free things!". I just think it's actually a pretty good idea even if it costs me a couple bucks.

It wouldn't be "free" then. It would have an indirect cost. Similar to how roads and such aren't "free".

[Spectral]

It wouldn't be "free" then. It would have an indirect cost. Similar to how roads and such aren't "free".

Feel free to mentally substitute "free to end-users" for the word "free".

[Spectral]

I'd rather policy just be designed in a way to make it broadly accessible and affordable with government filling in the gaps as necessary. We really don't need to class everything as a right.

Moreover, we shouldn't class things as rights when they fall into the category of "thing someone else has to buy for you". It creates some very odd obligations. Like, the right to free press means that you are free to go print what you like, not that the government literally has to provide everyone with a printing press.

- - - Updated - - -

No fucking shit?

I still don't get why people try to say, "it's not really free cuz taxes!"

We know that. Thanks.

I think it's the same impulse that leads people to repeat other borderline retarded catch phrases as though they're real gotchas:

The United States is a republic, not a democracy

Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences

Her body, her choice

Oh, shit, thanks Guy Who Repeats Memes, I had never considered these excellent refutations!

[ComputerNerd]

There are fundamental costs.
I agree there should be a cheap option for some baseline standard, perhaps even covered in taxes etc.

[Deleted]

Should it be free? Yes

The problem is that the US (and Canada) have a huge infrastructure challenge that most other first world countries don't. And that's huge (talking tens of thousands of square miles) areas of sparsely populated rural territory. We are spread out across a mind bogglingly massive area that is crazy expensive to keep up to date, and if we start talking about internet being a right, we can't tack 'as long as you are in a large city' to that and pretend it's okay.

Ultimately it would be a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project to get and keep it maintained, and even though there's a pretty good case to be made for it being enough of a boost to the economy to pay for itself, I think it would take a braver and more forward thinking government than we've seen for a while to be able to pull it off.

Finland is in same situation, just in smaller scale. Before making it free, it should become available everywhere. And that is not going to be cheap thing to do.

[Allybeboba]

I mean, I feel like it shouldn't need to be said at this point that when people talk about "free" stuff regarding rights and services that obviously can't really be free, they mean there's no direct cost to the individual on the basis of services rendered, and it is paid for indirectly through taxes.

The real issue with Internet in the US is how a few corporations are regulating our bandwidth. We pay very high prices for what is comparable low speeds in other developed parts of the world. That is because their internet providers compete with each other.

The ISPs need to be deregulated similar to how the electric companies were deregulated. Maybe then we can get some good prices with decent speeds.

[Manabomb]

Absolutely not. Nothing is free, so you are really asking is should the US use tax dollars to provide free WiFi? No! If you want WiFi in your home get a job and pay for it.

You realize they are making money off selling your private information without your consent now, right? They wouldn't be using US tax dollars, they would be using the ridiculous profits they reap from you to pay for the internet costs.

And before you tell me this isn't a "sustainable model", other corporations seem to be doing just fine off of it. Namely the ones ISPs called out to the FCC for "monopolizing the private data market", which is cute coming from the non-competition agreement guys.

[Allybeboba]

So, everyone should have free internet, a free computer, free clothes, free phone, free transportation, free shelter, free food, free power, free water, free food........

Some people actually think so, yes.

[Alvito]

Kind of hard to "win" when you don't have access to the same resources others do.

- - - Updated - - -



Are cars a resource used for things such as education?

- - - Updated - - -



Are subsidies a foreign concept to you people who keep posting nonsense like this?

- - - Updated - - -



Are subsidies a foreign concept to you people who keep posting nonsense like this?

- - - Updated - - -



Already is for many low income people.

- - - Updated - - -



I recently just got a new job and the entire process of applying, interviewing, submitting a background check and filling out my I-9 form was 100% done online. So again how are people going to improve their lives if they don't have access to the same resources everyone else does?

- - - Updated - - -



Because libraries are totally open 24/7 right? Oh wait...

Oh no, you can't get online when you have one of those 3 am internet emergencies. Good news if you have your own phone of computer their wifi is still up and you can use it or maybe we should give everybody computers and phones too.

[PhantasmagoriaX]

Elon Musk is way ahead of you. Well, I don't know if it will be free.


SpaceX wants to launch 4,425 satellites into space to bring super-fast internet to the world


Elon Musk's SpaceX wants to launch thousands of satellites into space with the aim of providing super-fast global internet coverage, according to a regulatory filing.

SpaceX – the company on a mission to colonize Mars – outlined plans to put 4,425 satellites into space in a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) filing from earlier this week.

That's three times the 1,419 satellites that are currently in space, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a not-for-profit group made up of scientists across the world.

Billionaire Musk – who is also the chief executive of electric car company Tesla – first announced plans for the project in 2015, with an estimated cost of around $10 billion. The FCC filing did not outline the financials of the project.

Im concered about my latency on WoW if this were to happen cause we all know satellite is horrible for gaming.

But going back to OP, yes i think a certain bandwith limit should be free cause seriously, you can not apply for jobs with out it. But If I want higher speeds or whatever then I should pay for it.

[Spectral]

I think classing it as a right or not is ultimately a rather nitpicky semantic argument best left to philosophy classrooms, as the obligations that spring out of existing rights are more the product of the wording of the laws that give rise to that right rather than the mere classification as such.

That's probably basically correct. I mean, these things are all constructs - "natural rights" is a pretty incoherent concept.

[Sky High]

Deregulation is what leads to monopolies....

No, no, no, it leads to the free market stepping in and leading to competition! Because reasons!

[Mistame]

What does it have to do with wealth and jobs? One can work without a job or monetary reward.

Few people are going to be willing to work without compensation. If the choice is between working and not working and the "reward" is the same (none), people will virtually always choose the latter.

Various forms of public transportation are free. I also specifically said the roads they DON'T use.

I mean, there's free transportation for the elderly and disabled, etc, but buses, etc, typically have a fee. In regards to roads they "don't use", that's a pretty inane argument.

Your second argument could be extended to this topic. We're paying for the access to the publicly available internet, whether we use it or not. Maybe one day you won't be able to afford private internet.

It's really not comparable. I don't pay my water bill in the off chance I may shower. I pay for the water I use.

That's my point, should we get rid of homeless shelters and food kitchens?

Shelters and food kitchens are typically run by private charities (churches, more often than not).

And you're just absolutely wrong. A single mother with 5 kids that can't afford her water bill, will likely be living in some kind of government housing complex where the water is paid for.

Sure, if your default assumption is that a single mother with 5 kids is a welfare queen. My point was that if she is paying for water service and does not pay her bill, the city (or whoever provides water) has no obligation to give her "free" water.

[Allybeboba]

The reason our internet service sucks is because existing ISPs literally own the cables in the ground and it's prohibitively expensive for anyone else to enter the market, leaving them free to act as a cartel and carve up regions of little to no competition. Deregulation will just let them further put the screws to the consumer, not encourage more competition.

Electricity was the same way. A few companies own those cables. They companies lease them out the other companies now.

[Elim Garak]

Few people are going to be willing to work without compensation.

Enough people will be willing to do the work they like and want to be doing, and satisfaction will be their compensation, because without wealth there's no need for monetary compensation.