4 ms·

> If you're really trying to help the poor at the (presumably managable) expense of everyone else, then subsidize the subscriptions of the poor households by ex

by rwl 12y ago

> If you're really trying to help the poor at the (presumably managable) expense of everyone else, then subsidize the subscriptions of the poor households by explicitly taxing. Isn't this exactly what local governments are doing? It's just that the tax falls on the (shareholders of) broadband companies, who are presumably not, for the most part, local residents. The reason this is more politically feasible is not that it isn't a tax, but that the tax is not being levied on voters. Or does the name matter that much?

nardi 12y ago
The problem is that taxing entrants into the cable market creates a very high barrier to entry. The tax is not being levied directly on voters, but indirectly, by creating a monopoly that provides poor service, when they could instead have competition providing great service.
- rwl 12y ago
  > The tax is not being levied directly on voters, but indirectly, by creating a monopoly that provides poor service, when they could instead have competition providing great service. But isn't the point here precisely that without the tax or other barriers to entry, "they" would not have great service? Some might -- but it seems likely that far fewer would get it than with build-out requirements and so on in place. I think the government has an obligation to avoid leaving those people behind in this case.
jessriedel 12y ago
Well, yes and no. An explicit tax on the company by the local government would still be better than a build-out requirement, since this would at least be transparent. But even if you want to transfer money from someone to the poor, and (perhaps unethically) you want to take it from someone who's not a voter, it still makes no sense to pick on this particular company. Why not tax any of the other non-voting companies that service a locality? Say, the tax on coca-cola?
- rwl 12y ago
  > An explicit tax on the company by the local government would still be better than a build-out requirement, since this would at least be transparent. I guess I don't quite see how it's more transparent. What information would it provide, and to whom, that the current system obscures? And is the issue whether we call it a "tax" vs. "build-out requirement", or is the issue what is being taxed (land use vs. revenue from local customers vs. ...)? I can't picture what such a tax would look like, how it would really differ from the status quo, and why it would result in better service -- walk me through it. > But even if you want to transfer money from someone to the poor, and (perhaps unethically) you want to take it from someone who's not a voter, it still makes no sense to pick on this particular company. Why not tax any of the other non-voting companies that service a locality? Say, the tax on coca-cola? Well, I take it that there are some relevant differences here, as qq66 pointed out. Internet access is infrastructure, and increasingly, it is essential; access to Coca-Cola is not. I think the government has some obligation to avoid creating a disparity between haves and have-nots for infrastructure like this. It's not the only consideration, but that is one reason build-out requirements are appropriate for broadband companies, while not for soda vendors. Also, this infrastructure often has to be built on public land. It's the government's job to make sure that land is managed well for an indefinite period into the future, presumably well beyond the life of whatever cable is being laid down. This is why it's appropriate for the government to demand more oversight of these companies in general, whether that comes in the form of build-out requirements, a fund for cleanup fees, or whatever. A story I've seen again and again is public land rights being granted to a private company, which subsequently damages the land and then tries to stick the public with the bill. The government has an obligation to protect public interest in the land and avoid that kind of situation. Again, it has no such obligation with respect to many other businesses: Coca-Cola doesn't need land rights to sell bottles in private stores, so that kind of oversight is not appropriate.
  - jessriedel 12y ago
    > I guess I don't quite see how it's more transparent. What information would it provide, and to whom, that the current system obscures? And is the issue whether we call it a "tax" vs. "build-out requirement", or is the issue what is being taxed (land use vs. revenue from local customers vs. ...)? The transparency issue is that a build-out requirement isn't denominated in dollars. (There are other economic efficiency arguments, such as if the poor people would rather have the money than the cable connection, but I'm addressing your question on transparency.) A cable company has much more expertise than a local government for what the long-run costs and potential profits are for a build-out requirement, and moreover they have a much higher incentives to apply their expertise to the local situation than a politician. If you institute a build-out rule, it does so without knowing the size of the costs; they are simply imposed silently. Any future public debate about revising the rule is enfeebled. > I can't picture what such a tax would look like, how it would really differ from the status quo, and why it would result in better service -- walk me through it. The company is charged $X per year to use public rights of way. The government hands this money to the poor people who can choose to buy cable connections or not. (If they don't, this is a sign that they have something better to use the money on.) If the government doesn't trust the poor people to use the money responsibly, then the government directly subsidizes their cable connection fees instead. > Well, I take it that there are some relevant differences here, as qq66 pointed out. Internet access is infrastructure, and increasingly, it is essential; access to Coca-Cola is not. I think the government has some obligation to avoid creating a disparity between haves and have-nots for infrastructure like this. It's not the only consideration, but that is one reason build-out requirements are appropriate for broadband companies, while not for soda vendors. You missed the point. I wasn't saying that we should have build-out requirements for soda, I was saying that if we use a tax instead, then we can take the subsidizing resources from anyone rather than just a company in the field whose customers we wish to help. This would allows us much greater flexibility in getting those resources in a non-distortive way. > whether that comes in the form of build-out requirements, a fund for cleanup fees, or whatever. A fund for cleanup fees is completely different idea, and indeed is generally economically sensible. (Clean up fees are about correctly pricing externalities. Build out requirements are about getting one group of people to subsidize another.) > A story I've seen again and again is public land rights being granted to a private company, which subsequently damages the land and then tries to stick the public with the bill. This has nothing to do with the topic. I've seen people litter all the time in public spaces. Should I institute the loud-car ban because some people have littered in the past?

by rwl 12y ago

nardi 12y ago

The problem is that taxing entrants into the cable market creates a very high barrier to entry. The tax is not being levied directly on voters, but indirectly, by creating a monopoly that provides poor service, when they could instead have competition providing great service.

rwl 12y ago
> The tax is not being levied directly on voters, but indirectly, by creating a monopoly that provides poor service, when they could instead have competition providing great service. But isn't the point here precisely that without the tax or other barriers to entry, "they" would not have great service? Some might -- but it seems likely that far fewer would get it than with build-out requirements and so on in place. I think the government has an obligation to avoid leaving those people behind in this case.

jessriedel 12y ago

Well, yes and no. An explicit tax on the company by the local government would still be better than a build-out requirement, since this would at least be transparent. But even if you want to transfer money from someone to the poor, and (perhaps unethically) you want to take it from someone who's not a voter, it still makes no sense to pick on this particular company. Why not tax any of the other non-voting companies that service a locality? Say, the tax on coca-cola?

rwl 12y ago
> An explicit tax on the company by the local government would still be better than a build-out requirement, since this would at least be transparent. I guess I don't quite see how it's more transparent. What information would it provide, and to whom, that the current system obscures? And is the issue whether we call it a "tax" vs. "build-out requirement", or is the issue what is being taxed (land use vs. revenue from local customers vs. ...)? I can't picture what such a tax would look like, how it would really differ from the status quo, and why it would result in better service -- walk me through it. > But even if you want to transfer money from someone to the poor, and (perhaps unethically) you want to take it from someone who's not a voter, it still makes no sense to pick on this particular company. Why not tax any of the other non-voting companies that service a locality? Say, the tax on coca-cola? Well, I take it that there are some relevant differences here, as qq66 pointed out. Internet access is infrastructure, and increasingly, it is essential; access to Coca-Cola is not. I think the government has some obligation to avoid creating a disparity between haves and have-nots for infrastructure like this. It's not the only consideration, but that is one reason build-out requirements are appropriate for broadband companies, while not for soda vendors. Also, this infrastructure often has to be built on public land. It's the government's job to make sure that land is managed well for an indefinite period into the future, presumably well beyond the life of whatever cable is being laid down. This is why it's appropriate for the government to demand more oversight of these companies in general, whether that comes in the form of build-out requirements, a fund for cleanup fees, or whatever. A story I've seen again and again is public land rights being granted to a private company, which subsequently damages the land and then tries to stick the public with the bill. The government has an obligation to protect public interest in the land and avoid that kind of situation. Again, it has no such obligation with respect to many other businesses: Coca-Cola doesn't need land rights to sell bottles in private stores, so that kind of oversight is not appropriate.
- jessriedel 12y ago
  > I guess I don't quite see how it's more transparent. What information would it provide, and to whom, that the current system obscures? And is the issue whether we call it a "tax" vs. "build-out requirement", or is the issue what is being taxed (land use vs. revenue from local customers vs. ...)? The transparency issue is that a build-out requirement isn't denominated in dollars. (There are other economic efficiency arguments, such as if the poor people would rather have the money than the cable connection, but I'm addressing your question on transparency.) A cable company has much more expertise than a local government for what the long-run costs and potential profits are for a build-out requirement, and moreover they have a much higher incentives to apply their expertise to the local situation than a politician. If you institute a build-out rule, it does so without knowing the size of the costs; they are simply imposed silently. Any future public debate about revising the rule is enfeebled. > I can't picture what such a tax would look like, how it would really differ from the status quo, and why it would result in better service -- walk me through it. The company is charged $X per year to use public rights of way. The government hands this money to the poor people who can choose to buy cable connections or not. (If they don't, this is a sign that they have something better to use the money on.) If the government doesn't trust the poor people to use the money responsibly, then the government directly subsidizes their cable connection fees instead. > Well, I take it that there are some relevant differences here, as qq66 pointed out. Internet access is infrastructure, and increasingly, it is essential; access to Coca-Cola is not. I think the government has some obligation to avoid creating a disparity between haves and have-nots for infrastructure like this. It's not the only consideration, but that is one reason build-out requirements are appropriate for broadband companies, while not for soda vendors. You missed the point. I wasn't saying that we should have build-out requirements for soda, I was saying that if we use a tax instead, then we can take the subsidizing resources from anyone rather than just a company in the field whose customers we wish to help. This would allows us much greater flexibility in getting those resources in a non-distortive way. > whether that comes in the form of build-out requirements, a fund for cleanup fees, or whatever. A fund for cleanup fees is completely different idea, and indeed is generally economically sensible. (Clean up fees are about correctly pricing externalities. Build out requirements are about getting one group of people to subsidize another.) > A story I've seen again and again is public land rights being granted to a private company, which subsequently damages the land and then tries to stick the public with the bill. This has nothing to do with the topic. I've seen people litter all the time in public spaces. Should I institute the loud-car ban because some people have littered in the past?