3 ms·
This approach (legislation) to resource distribution is often the wrong one. It’s better to simply make the item in question become a commodity, so much so that
by keiferski 6y ago
This approach (legislation) to resource distribution is often the wrong one. It’s better to simply make the item in question become a commodity, so much so that it’s universally accessible to even the poorest members of society.
Think of something like paper. Originally it was exceptionally expensive and only available to the wealthy or particular tradesmen. Scraps of already-used paper were reused because the material was so valuable.
Today, paper is basically free. In fact, we’ve gone to far in the opposite direction: people waste paper constantly and it’s an environmental problem.
If, in the early stages of paper, we had said “We need to mandate paper for everyone,” I’m skeptical that it would have been commodified. It seems to me that whatever method we use to make internet access easier and cheaper, it probably isn’t going to come from ISPs.
- jl6 6y agoIt’s hard to commodify resolution of the last-mile issues which create a large portion of the cost of providing universal Internet access. E.g. there’s no technology for mass-producing local roadworks.
- throwaway2245 6y agoUtilities including household internet are natural monopolies. Early paper isn't a natural monopoly. As such, the arguments for legislation is about as different as they can get. Paper as an industry will likely have a healthy competitive market without significant intervention; household internet not likely. Nobody is proposing to legislate that paper should be provided free to everyone, it's not at all comparable.