5 ms·

There is a cost to providing Internet access in rural areas. Should this cost be borne by the people who choose to live in those places, or by everybody else?

There is a cost to providing Internet access in rural areas. Should this cost be borne by the people who choose to live in those places, or by everybody else? Has there ever been a time when making everybody pay for an individual's mistakes -- whether the mistake is getting pregnant at 15 or buying AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities -- has been the right thing to do?

scott_s 17y ago
Making everyone pay makes sense when doing nothing ends up costing society more.
enra 17y ago
You have a point there, so the cost is shared by the people who live in rural areas (by paying relative higher rates for less bandwidth) and by the service provider, and therefore by all customers. Also there has been some discussions about how goverment could invest to the infrastructure and take some of the costs. Anyway I think this is good since it can actually save some money in the long run. We already have many goverment services that you can use over the internet which saves taxpayers' money and makes everyone's life more productive.
grhino 17y ago
Can a nation thrive with all citizens living in urban areas? The internet is becoming the main way to disseminate information. I'd rather folks in rural areas have access to broadband. Libraries and broadband access are important to providing education opportunities and to spread culture and ideas throughout a nation, and I'm willing to subsidize that for people living in rural areas.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  Serious question, not being facetious: > ... I'm willing to subsidize that for people living in rural areas. I'm not willing to do that. What are you willing to do to me for refusing? Arrest me? Shoot me?
  - scott_s 17y ago
    Tax you.
    - lionhearted 17y ago
      > Tax you. The philosophical question is, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to do things for other people they don't believe in?" "Tax you" does not answer that question. If you request or demand someone contribute (in this case, broadband internet in rural areas), and they refuse to do so, are you willing to arrest or harm them?
      - LogicHoleFlaw 17y ago
        "Tax you" is exactly the answer to that question. Taxes are not optional and there are penalties for refusing to pay them. That's how governments work.
        lionhearted 17y ago
        > "Tax you" is exactly the answer to that question. Taxes are not optional and there are penalties for refusing to pay them. That's how governments work. You've simply stated that there is a currently enforced law. The same argument could be any law throughout history: Mandatory religious worship. Conscription. Even slavery. Take ancient Sparta or Rome - "Slavery is not optional and there are penalties for refusing to work. That's how governments work" - that would have been a true statement, but doesn't get at whether that's right or wrong. It just states that there is a law that is enforced. But this question is important - "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to do things for other people they don't believe in?" The easy way is to refuse to directly answer this question. In this dialog, it comes down to, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?" I'm not speaking universally about all law here, I'm wondering if you or anyone is willing to imprison or harm another human being for refusing to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet. Yes? No?
        17y ago

scott_s 17y ago

Making everyone pay makes sense when doing nothing ends up costing society more.

enra 17y ago

You have a point there, so the cost is shared by the people who live in rural areas (by paying relative higher rates for less bandwidth) and by the service provider, and therefore by all customers. Also there has been some discussions about how goverment could invest to the infrastructure and take some of the costs. Anyway I think this is good since it can actually save some money in the long run. We already have many goverment services that you can use over the internet which saves taxpayers' money and makes everyone's life more productive.

grhino 17y ago

Can a nation thrive with all citizens living in urban areas? The internet is becoming the main way to disseminate information. I'd rather folks in rural areas have access to broadband. Libraries and broadband access are important to providing education opportunities and to spread culture and ideas throughout a nation, and I'm willing to subsidize that for people living in rural areas.

lionhearted 17y ago
Serious question, not being facetious: > ... I'm willing to subsidize that for people living in rural areas. I'm not willing to do that. What are you willing to do to me for refusing? Arrest me? Shoot me?
- scott_s 17y ago
  Tax you.
  - lionhearted 17y ago
    > Tax you. The philosophical question is, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to do things for other people they don't believe in?" "Tax you" does not answer that question. If you request or demand someone contribute (in this case, broadband internet in rural areas), and they refuse to do so, are you willing to arrest or harm them?
    - LogicHoleFlaw 17y ago
      "Tax you" is exactly the answer to that question. Taxes are not optional and there are penalties for refusing to pay them. That's how governments work.
      - lionhearted 17y ago
        > "Tax you" is exactly the answer to that question. Taxes are not optional and there are penalties for refusing to pay them. That's how governments work. You've simply stated that there is a currently enforced law. The same argument could be any law throughout history: Mandatory religious worship. Conscription. Even slavery. Take ancient Sparta or Rome - "Slavery is not optional and there are penalties for refusing to work. That's how governments work" - that would have been a true statement, but doesn't get at whether that's right or wrong. It just states that there is a law that is enforced. But this question is important - "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to do things for other people they don't believe in?" The easy way is to refuse to directly answer this question. In this dialog, it comes down to, "Are you willing to imprison or harm someone who refuses to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet?" I'm not speaking universally about all law here, I'm wondering if you or anyone is willing to imprison or harm another human being for refusing to subsidize a rural area's broadband internet. Yes? No?
        17y ago