Does this make me a socialist?

[MadEmperor]

If anyone asked me what political party I belong to, I suppose I'd say I'm a Registered Republican and a libertarian with a small l.

That said, I have one stance on a issue I thought i'd discuss on here.


I've been reading alot of about communication industries, like the cable companies and Verizon. I read about how ISP were given 200 Billion Dollars of tax payer dollars to bring the United State up to Broadband standards which were agreed upon to 15mb up and down. What did the Industry do? They kept the $$ and redefined broadband to 128kb down :mad:

I also read about how local governments try to setup their own broadband and they are sued and generally blocked by businesses.

These same companies will then get millions of tax payer dollars to build a network. Then, these companies take advantage of the consumer and this is what we get for subsidizing their business.


CLIFFS:

I think that either Government should either:

A) Stop all subsidizing of business that are part of infostructure and later become a monopoly.
B) Government (the people) should be allowed to OWN and Control all Infostructure that requires massive investment by the people.


This issue obviously is not about just the internet. This would also be roads, sewers, cable companies, trains ect ect


Opinions?

[dannno]

The government doesn't need to own the internet, but I have no problem with local communities expanding internet access to all within their community.

[noxagol]

or C) Do nothing and let the business survive or fail on its own merits and not use taxpayer money for anything other than defense of rights.

[Fox McCloud]

actually, you probably just don't have all the information on the scenario. Believe it or not, there is a Free Market solution...and sadly, it's probably one we'll never see (just like competing currencies).

Basically this is what happened (short version):

-preliminary to AT&T formed in the late 1800's; they had a temporary monopoly on the telephone patent, thus there was only 1 company, and the rates they offered.
-17 years later, the patents expired, and many small telco's started popping up.
-quite a few years later AT&T's head guy lobbied the government to eliminate competition, because, he argued that phone service was a "natural monopoly".
-The Government passed legislation and gave AT&T a monopoly on the entire US phone-service (with exceptions of a few small, local telephone companies, and Sprint [now Embarq]).

Because of these actions AT&T could do whatever they wanted; there was little to no competition for rates, the need for Internet service, etc.

Today, the situation isn't even better, as all telco's have geographical monopolies (not at as large as AT&T obviously, but still, they have geographic monopolies), which means that in certain regions, you get good rates and good service (only because of benevolence though, and not competition), but in most areas, you don't. After all, how often have you seen 2 telephone companies in the same area?

To solve the problem, we have to abolish the FCC, eliminate any and all telco subsidies, and de-regulate the heck out of the telecommunications industry.

I think the telco industry is a prime example (and one of the biggest as well) of the failure of government in the market place, and yet it's blamed, ultimately on the 'Free Market'.

The Net neutrality debate is in the same vein of things....ultimately, we're screwed if net neutrality is a go or not, mostly because the government blocks competition; it's really quite sad.

http://mises.org/story/2139

[MadEmperor]

actually, you probably just don't have all the information on the scenario. Believe it or not, there is a Free Market solution...and sadly, it's probably one we'll never see (just like competing currencies).

Basically this is what happened (short version):

-preliminary to AT&T formed in the late 1800's; they had a temporary monopoly on the telephone patent, thus there was only 1 company, and the rates they offered.
-17 years later, the patents expired, and many small telco's started popping up.
-quite a few years later AT&T's head guy lobbied the government to eliminate competition, because, he argued that phone service was a "natural monopoly".
-The Government passed legislation and gave AT&T a monopoly on the entire US phone-service (with exceptions of a few small, local telephone companies, and Sprint [now Embarq]).

Because of these actions AT&T could do whatever they wanted; there was little to no competition for rates, the need for Internet service, etc.

Today, the situation isn't even better, as all telco's have geographical monopolies (not at as large as AT&T obviously, but still, they have geographic monopolies), which means that in certain regions, you get good rates and good service (only because of benevolence though, and not competition), but in most areas, you don't. After all, how often have you seen 2 telephone companies in the same area?

To solve the problem, we have to abolish the FCC, eliminate any and all telco subsidies, and de-regulate the heck out of the telecommunications industry.

I think the telco industry is a prime example (and one of the biggest as well) of the failure of government in the market place, and yet it's blamed, ultimately on the 'Free Market'.

The Net neutrality debate is in the same vein of things....ultimately, we're screwed if net neutrality is a go or not, mostly because the government blocks competition; it's really quite sad.

http://mises.org/story/2139

Few Questions.

If you get rid of the FCC, how would you keep people from using the same freqs? Wouldn't it be really bad if companies just decided arbitrarily to use a freq?

I agree with removing subsidies... but isn't it a bit late?
Could a company afford to come in to an area and compete with the local industry? Also, there is the issue of laying the lines.....

You also mentioned regulation... Could you explain what regulation is in place, and what the benefits of removing it would be?

I'm upset that there is almost ZERO compeition on phone/internet and the companies are taking our tax dollars and shitting on us.

-
What is your stance on allowing the local gov make their own ISP? (Many have tried, and they have been blocked by private companies.. WTF?!?!)

[dr. hfn]

The governemnt should never use taxpayer money for the internet. No welfare to people or corporations. No welfare period of any kind.

[MadEmperor]

The governemnt should never use taxpayer money for the internet. No welfare to people or corporations. No welfare period of any kind.

Well, it's not welfare if they charge rates that fully cover their costs. Then they are acting as a non-profit company, that is owned by the people. =P

[noxagol]

Well, it's not welfare if they charge rates that fully cover their costs. Then they are acting as a non-profit company, that is owned by the people. =P

Still a bad idea.

[MadEmperor]

Still a bad idea.

How so?

If it's so expensive to start up in an area, maybe even if the market was completely free and there was no gov involvment there would only be 1 company in each area.... hence a bad monopoly situation.

However, it that one company was run by the city, then at least you could have a say in matters by voting for represenatives that can change things.

Where as if 1 private company has a city, what you can you do? There is no competition so you deal with it or go without (not a valid option in this era)

[noxagol]

How so?

If it's so expensive to start up in an area, maybe even if the market was completely free and there was no gov involvment there would only be 1 company in each area.... hence a bad monopoly situation.

However, it that one company was run by the city, then at least you could have a say in matters by voting for represenatives that can change things.

Where as if 1 private company has a city, what you can you do? There is no competition so you deal with it or go without (not a valid option in this era)

Except, if they raise rates too high then it will be attractive to competitors. Thus, their incentive is to retain low rates so that it is not attractive to competitors.

If you have the government do it, it will cost 10 times as much and be 10 times crappier because they don't have to satisfy the customers since they get their profits by force. Plus, what of those that do not wish to support the internet? Are they to be forced to have their money go towards something they do not want it to go to?

Also, I bet the government causes the prices to be as high as they are for set up. All you're doing is digging a trench and laying some wire, its not rocket science. I bet a lot of the cost is caused by permits, licensing, regulations, and other government creations.

Get the government out and it will end all the problems.

[Meiun]

what's needed here is a fundamental understanding of property rights.

In a true free market the best system would win. Those who took advantage of would be first held accountable under property right laws; and second, they'd be hurting their bottom line because a free market would let information flow as to who is and isn't a bad company for a certain service.

Given the current conditions, where property rights are not understood and followed, the one option left is petitioning the government through a vocal minority followed by voting to elect appropriate change agents.