3 ms·
The end result of gigabit internet access for everyone is a real "public good" that likely couldn't have been created otherwise and it should certainly be subsi
by jobu 14y ago
The end result of gigabit internet access for everyone is a real "public good" that likely couldn't have been created otherwise and it should certainly be subsidized. If other cable or telecom services were willing and capable of putting out a comparable service I would be in favor of subsidizing them in this manner as well.
Honestly I think some of the stimulus money we spent on roads and bridges would have been better spent on high-speed internet access to underserved areas.
- seagreen 14y ago"Public good" has a fairly technical meaning that doesn't fit here. Wikipedia's article on it is pretty good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Basically public goods have to be non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Internet access is neither (you can both kick people off and there's a marginal cost to hooking new people up). The article on rivalry[1] mentions that it's possible internet infrastructure is non-rivalrous if there's unused capacity, so once someone's hooked up actual internet use might be a club good. If you don't want to imply the other stuff about rivalry and exclusivity you could say that gigabit internet access for everyone would have positive externalities (which it certainly would) and leave it at that. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)