4 ms·
Semantics is important here. Most of these projects aren't community owned, they are socialised: taxpayers are compelled to fund them. It may seem like a small
by duncan_bayne 9y ago
Semantics is important here. Most of these projects aren't community owned, they are socialised: taxpayers are compelled to fund them.
It may seem like a small difference, but it's not - there are moral, economic and engineering consequences to forcing people to subsidise your broadband use.
Imagine if people referred to State-owned factories in Soviet Russia as "community owned". That would immediately, and correctly, be criticised as propaganda.
- rayiner 9y agoMost of these systems are not socialized. They're from municipally-owned utilities that recover their expenses from ratepayers, not tax dollars.
- duncan_bayne 9y agoWhy do you consider rates as distinct from other forms of compulsory taxation? It may be that rates where you are are a different thing to rates in Victoria (where I live). Here, rates are: * compulsory * "progressive", based on land value, not value of services provided * go towards services that may not be used by the ratepayer specifically, for example municipal swimming pools, not just say rubbish collection or road maintenance
- rayiner 9y ago“Rate payers” is U.S. regulatory jargon for “user fees charges for use of regulated services.” Typically, electric, water, or sewer. In the US, the cost of these services is not paid for with tax dollars, but recovered from fees charged to those who use those services.
- duncan_bayne 9y agoAh, right! So actually there is a large difference - rates in the US are opt-in? So if I chose not to participate in a municipal broadband system, I wouldn't have to pay for it?
- rayiner 9y agoRight.
- duncan_bayne 9y agoThank you for the clarification! I've been consistently downvoted on this issue in the past, and always assumed it was an expression of disagreement, rather than being due to an error on my part.
- ams6110 9y agoAnd if they don't recover their expenses? It's like transit systems. Ostensibly the user (fare-payers) are funding the system. But the true costs far exceed the amount collected, so in reality they are subsidized by the taxpayers.
- duncan_bayne 9y agoIn other words, the worst of both worlds. Taxpayer funded - so people are forced to pay for systems - and then 'user pays', so you pay a _second_ time to use a system that you've already paid once for. Neat :(
- s73ver_ 9y agoSemantics is important here. Which is why things like your completely incorrect statement are even worse.
- duncan_bayne 9y agoNo need for the aggressive tone. It turns out that "rates" in the US are very different to "rates" in Australia, where I live. See the conversation above.