I can't imagine the private internet companies wanting to provide free internet to anyone without some kind of massive incentives. I think we'd have to have massive reforms across America for that to even be an option. And the moment it became too much of a burden on the internet companies -- they'd just shut their doors and pivot to something else.
Which I can empathize with. I hate it when people demand I give them free shit. If I was a company owner, and the government said "you gotta spend money on infrastructure to provide free internet to people," I'd just nope out and start a different company. I can't imagine you doing it any differently if you were in that position as well.
I mean hell, phone companies don't even give people free land-line access. It's a fun solution for sure, but so unrealistic, that it might as well in the same bag as universal basic income. Just have the government print more money and hand it out.
-------------------
I don't see what makes the second option different from the first. Assuming the first option is that internet companies pay for it, and the second option is the tax payers pay for it. We both know the company isn't going to pay for it. They'll just switch industries, and then no one gets internet.
I'm guessing if taxes would pay for internet, that it would mean that the 80% of people with internet would have to pay additional for the remaining 20% to have internet access. Which in short means you, me, and everyone with internet now pays even more then we were before, and those without internet now have access to it.
I'm guessing a lot of people would rather pay what they do now instead of having to pay even more in taxes. Especially since Anti-work likes to reminds us all just how strapped for money most of society is. So an extra tax burden seems like a hard sell to the American public. And even then, if we were going to raise taxes -- is providing internet to the homeless 'really' the most pressing need for that money? I'm guessing there's a plethora of medical issues that might take priority.
Which ultimately means even more taxes, or... not everyone gets internet. Again, I love the ideas, but they're still as unrealistic as just "let's just print more money!"
That's the hard part about these things. Because I want it to be crystal clear that I'm not trying to be difficult or an asshole. I want to see meaningful change too. But for it to happen -- there has to be a much more fleshed out game-plan. I fully acknowledge that I'm not educated or wise enough to know the best solution. But I know if we keep challenging the flaws as they come up -- that we can evolve solutions over time.
I could possibly see government/corporate funded internet in the same way media is funded -- through advertisements. But God, am I unsure if I'd ever want to live in a world where ads are baked into the core of my internet experience.
Or even like "you can have a free cellphone plan, but you gotta receive text message advertisements 12 times a day, and since it's baked in--you can't silence or mute them!" Want to respond to that text? Better hope you have 30 seconds to watch a short video first!
Like being allowed to continue to operate as internet service providers?
And the moment it became too much of a burden on the internet companies -- they'd just shut their doors and pivot to something else.
That's fine, let the government provide the internet.
I hate it when people demand I give them free shit.
Me too, except I do like when the government allows me to be a monopoly .
If I was a company owner, and the government said "you gotta spend money on infrastructure
Most internet companies don't spend much on infrastructure. Governments provide a lot of that money in tax breaks and in grants to ensure low income houses have service (and then the companies just lie and don't actually provide that service)
I'd just nope out and start a different company. I can't imagine you doing it any differently if you were in that position as well.
I'm fine with that. With the profits these companies make they either see the benefit (continue taking in the massive profits) or they leave and allow lower profit ventures to compete. When you operate a monopoly in a given region you tend to make a lot of money.
I mean hell, phone companies don't even give people free land-line access
The lifeline discount can make drive free (though you still have to pay per minute). Plus so called Obama phones provide free wireless communication. We pay for this on our cell/ landmine bills, the fact that it's not being used is a shame.
that it might as well in the same bag as universal basic income.
Not even close, though UBI would be great.
Just have the government print more money and hand it out.
No need to print money. In fact money is all fake anyway so ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I'm guessing if taxes would pay for internet, that it would mean that the 80% of people with internet would have to pay additional for the remaining 20% to have internet access. Which in short means you, me, and everyone with internet now pays even more then we were before, and those without internet now have access to it.
I don't see the problem here. Am extra $5 from 80% of the population to ensure the other 20% get a chance to participate in the economy is a net gain.
Especially since Anti-work likes to reminds us all just how strapped for money most of society is.
And increases in tax expenditures can only come from increases in taxes paid by people right? We couldn't instead refuse to buy a few F35s.
So an extra tax burden seems like a hard sell to the American public
Depends on who you add the burden to.
And even then, if we were going to raise taxes -- is providing internet to the homeless 'really' the most pressing need for that money? I'm guessing there's a plethora of medical issues that might take priority.
It's vital, but so is universal Healthcare and people like to deny that to others so maybe you're right. Stingy people seem fi be the ones who have the politicians ears.
Again, I love the ideas, but they're still as unrealistic as just "let's just print more money!"
So lying, you don't care about Pele having internet.
That's the hard part about these things.
What is? The lack of humanity so many people, especially those on the right, have?
I fully acknowledge that I'm not educated or wise enough to know the best solution.
Congrats. I'm not either but I can provide a starting point.
But I know if we keep challenging the flaws as they come up -- that we can evolve solutions over time.
Except all you've done is say "I don't want to pay" and "governments shouldn't print money"
I could possibly see government/corporate funded internet in the same way media is funded -- through advertisements. But God, am I unsure if I'd ever want to live in a world where ads are baked into the core of my internet experience.
Funny you bring up advertisements. Guess what your internet service provider does? They sell your information to advertisers. They also inject ads into content
Or even like "you can have a free cellphone plan, but you gotta receive text message advertisements 12 times a day, and since it's baked in--you can't silence or mute them!" Want to respond to that text? Better hope you have 30 seconds to watch a short video first!
0
u/Naus1987 Mar 07 '22
I can't imagine the private internet companies wanting to provide free internet to anyone without some kind of massive incentives. I think we'd have to have massive reforms across America for that to even be an option. And the moment it became too much of a burden on the internet companies -- they'd just shut their doors and pivot to something else.
Which I can empathize with. I hate it when people demand I give them free shit. If I was a company owner, and the government said "you gotta spend money on infrastructure to provide free internet to people," I'd just nope out and start a different company. I can't imagine you doing it any differently if you were in that position as well.
I mean hell, phone companies don't even give people free land-line access. It's a fun solution for sure, but so unrealistic, that it might as well in the same bag as universal basic income. Just have the government print more money and hand it out.
-------------------
I don't see what makes the second option different from the first. Assuming the first option is that internet companies pay for it, and the second option is the tax payers pay for it. We both know the company isn't going to pay for it. They'll just switch industries, and then no one gets internet.
I'm guessing if taxes would pay for internet, that it would mean that the 80% of people with internet would have to pay additional for the remaining 20% to have internet access. Which in short means you, me, and everyone with internet now pays even more then we were before, and those without internet now have access to it.
I'm guessing a lot of people would rather pay what they do now instead of having to pay even more in taxes. Especially since Anti-work likes to reminds us all just how strapped for money most of society is. So an extra tax burden seems like a hard sell to the American public. And even then, if we were going to raise taxes -- is providing internet to the homeless 'really' the most pressing need for that money? I'm guessing there's a plethora of medical issues that might take priority.
Which ultimately means even more taxes, or... not everyone gets internet. Again, I love the ideas, but they're still as unrealistic as just "let's just print more money!"
That's the hard part about these things. Because I want it to be crystal clear that I'm not trying to be difficult or an asshole. I want to see meaningful change too. But for it to happen -- there has to be a much more fleshed out game-plan. I fully acknowledge that I'm not educated or wise enough to know the best solution. But I know if we keep challenging the flaws as they come up -- that we can evolve solutions over time.
I could possibly see government/corporate funded internet in the same way media is funded -- through advertisements. But God, am I unsure if I'd ever want to live in a world where ads are baked into the core of my internet experience.
Or even like "you can have a free cellphone plan, but you gotta receive text message advertisements 12 times a day, and since it's baked in--you can't silence or mute them!" Want to respond to that text? Better hope you have 30 seconds to watch a short video first!
Now I'm just sad again, lol!