Should Internet access be free?

[Mistame]

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.

There's nothing wrong with having an optimistic view, regardless of how unrealistic it actually is.

[Elim Garak]

There's nothing wrong with having an optimistic view, regardless of how unrealistic it actually is.

It's quite realistic. The view that all people will just relax on the ground and watch flies fuck all day - that is unrealistic.

[Mistame]

It's quite realistic. The view that all people will just relax on the ground and watch flies fuck all day - that is unrealistic.

Ah, to be young and own such rosey glasses.

[Kuntantee]

There's a striking difference here - pricing of electricity and water is relevant because the actual goods are limited. Eliminating the price increases consumption greatly. I actually think there's a pretty good argument that municipalities should provide some basic quantity of essential water as a freebie to their citizens and simply charge a higher rate for higher quantities, shooting for a wash in total cost.

A similar approach would make sense to me for WiFi - cap or throttle data above some threshold for luxuries (i.e. movies, TV), but provide sufficient bandwidth for the things that are basically necessary parts of functioning in a modern society (i.e. email, employment paperwork, taxes).

When writing that, I focused too much on Turkey. We're not getting free anything around here. Yes, a state may provide water (with limited liter per month) and Internet access (with limited bandwidth and quote). For that matter, a state could also provide electricity with a limit on wattage per month too. Although, it's perhaps better to charge money for water as well as electricity indeed. It depends on how wealthy your state is, and how corruption free it is. I know for a fact that it won't happen here because of how widespread the corruption is and general economy of the country.

In essence, it's obviously possible but not for your average country.

[Allybeboba]

Deregulation led to them being able to merge more and form relative monopolies in the first place, which meant they could acquire existing infrastructure to move into an area rather than build their own newer and better infrastructure to try to out compete the established company. In this case deregulation is exactly the opposite of what's needed to create competition, and one should never just assume that deregulation is the natural friend of open and competitive markets. Like with anything else, it's about specifics, and sometimes regulation is necessary to preserve the basic integrity of some system or another. Other countries have better internet service than we do and it's largely because of better regulations.

Electricity is also regulated by a whole host of rules that pertain to electricity being classed as a public utility, which doesn't allow for direct comparison, especially when talking about deregulation in the vaguest manner possible.

Here in Texas we have our electricity deregulated for a decade and a half. Prices went up at first but they went down soon after.
Electricity costs about 20% lower for Texas residents since we deregulated electricity and broke up the monopolies.
The same could be done for ISPs.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

There should be a base level (Like DSL quality) that is "free" yes.

Dam near everything requires you to have Internet (and a Cell/Smartphone).

Like Healthcare should this should also be provided universal and paided via tax's.

Who pays for it though?

Oh, right. The working people who can buy their own internet access.

Yay poor people and their "rights" to everything entitlements.

[Kokolums]

Santa monica has blazing fast free wifi access. Sometimes i sit in the bar down by the beach on my laptop with a cold beer and ive got a movie on or something.

[Agnar]

What's next, free cell service and Iphone's/Androids for all. Maybe free cars too? I mean it all sounds cool at first until you realize that nothing is actually "free".

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

What's next, free cell service and Iphone's/Androids for all. Maybe free cars too? I mean it all sounds cool at first until you realize that nothing is actually "free".

It's hard to explain that to people who don't work or don't want to work, who are looking for the government to be their mommy and daddy even when they are well passed 20 years old.

[Jtbrig7390]

Who pays for it though?

Oh, right. The working people who can buy their own internet access.

Yay poor people and their "rights" to everything entitlements.

Everyone who pay's tax's pay's for it including those poor people. Giving everyone easier access to getting jobs and info isn't a bad thing.

- - - Updated - - -

What's next, free cell service and Iphone's/Androids for all. Maybe free cars too? I mean it all sounds cool at first until you realize that nothing is actually "free".

You do realize there is already a free Cell Phone service right? It gives 300-800mins a month and the same amount in texts. These things would help people get on there feet to get a job or find a better job.

How about stepping outside ur bubble for once.

[Allybeboba]

Monopoly busting is pretty much the opposite of deregulation.

Again, electricity is not a direct comparison to internet, because it's regulated with a different set of rules

It's not helpful to talk about regulation and deregulation without specifics. Deregulation isn't some sort of panacea to your cost woes. Regulation (or the removal thereof) is a tool to be applied in specific and targeted ways to protect the integrity of the market. It isn't as simple as "Deregulation good. Regulation bad," and therefore simply vaguely alluding to how deregulation saved the day without any details as to how or why that is the case (if it even is the case) is useless for the conversation.

Yet the deregulation of electricity in Texas, and other states, is exactly what it was designed to do, bust up monopolies. The strange thing is some states it has cause state's power prices to drop, such as Texas and Ohio. But in California prices rose.
The thing is, each state has it's own regulations of being "unregulated". They are not totally "unregulated". They more or less forced the monopoly power companies lease the power lines to other companies.

For instance, before deregulation I had no choice but to choose Houston Lighting & Power for my electricity provider. They could charge me whatever they wanted. A few years later we had a plethora of companies to choose from that were all chomping at the bit offering me their best deal. Fortunately, I have solar now so I don't have to worry about that for the most part.
That same thing could happen with ISPs. Offering better deals. Except cheaper and faster internet speeds. We pay too damn much compared to Europe and Asia for our ISP for what we get.

[Taso]

As much as " I think free internet" is nice and that is rare of me to say. The problem with it is that we pay for it still through taxes which in a way we do anyhow because the government takes a certain percentage. I'd rather it be a fundamental right then free because here in USA no document or law states that the government gave u.s citizens the right to have the internet. That means either left or right can take it away if need be. Now that's scary. Secondly what about bandwidth? How can we have population of 300million+ people and share the bandwidth? Theirs bound to be trouble somewhere.

[Allybeboba]

I haven't mentioned it before because I'm having a hard time confirming whether it's the case or not, but I'm pretty sure in the past I've read that one of the big differences between Texas and everywhere else is how they handle ownership of the actual infrastructure and that companies either can't own the infrastructure or aren't allowed to bar access to the infrastructure, which makes it fundamentally different than elsewhere in the country. That would also be an example of regulation, not deregulation.

The actual lines themselves are still "regulated". Lines are owned by the main companies. They still have to maintain them and such. Repair them after storms etc.
Texas isn't the only state as I mentioned earlier. I don't even know if we were the first. California may have been the first and we followed suit.

[flam]

Everyone who pay's tax's pay's for it including those poor people. Giving everyone easier access to getting jobs and info isn't a bad thing.

- - - Updated - - -

You do realize that those poor people who do pay taxes during the year get it all back at the end of the year... right? RIGHT?!

[Allybeboba]

You do realize that those poor people who do pay taxes during the year get it all back at the end of the year... right? RIGHT?!

And more...

[matt4pack]

I wouldn't have a problem with basic free internet being provided but it should be heavily censored in contrast to paid internet.

[Jtbrig7390]

You do realize that those poor people who do pay taxes during the year get it all back at the end of the year... right? RIGHT?!

You do realize that....

A) Not all poor people get all there tax's back, Some get less and it all depends how much they made that year.

and

B) There is a reason they get there tax's back in the first place.

[Thetruth1400]

Should Internet access be free?

Ok we live in a age where you can get free internet from your local starbucks for free but why do we still pay ISPs for internet access?

It's not free, it's paid for by the company. Starbucks offers free wifi, meaning you, the customer doesn't pay, not that it's free.

Should Internet access be a right like the right to visit a library or the right to have the police show up at your door free of charge.

Again, they're not free, they're paid for with taxes.


If water, food, electricity aren't free, then no, internet shouldn't be either. All three of those are infinitely more important then someone being able to get on Facebook.

[cuafpr]

no, power and water are much more of a necessatiy and those are not free, so why should the net be free?

[kail]

What's next, free cell service and Iphone's/Androids for all. Maybe free cars too? I mean it all sounds cool at first until you realize that nothing is actually "free".

There are free cell phones for low income. The service is very limited, doesn't include data and probably has crap coverage. It's there for those who can't afford it while majority, like me, pay for better/unlimited service. Free internet could be 1-2 mbps, crap latency, and so on, majority can still enjoy the better services if we want to pay the premium.

No, nothing is "free", it's just easier to say than subsidized. Enjoying a public park isn't free but I doubt you would correct others if they said so.