NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Broadband "Bailout"?
There is unfortunately an even more insidious potential aspect. There are large numbers of legislators in both parties (quite possibly a strong majority) who might jump at the chance to score political points by building all sorts of content control restrictions into such monies. And since companies would most likely not be *forced* to accept the funds, the claim could be made that the resulting restrictions on users, applications, search engines, and everybody else are purely voluntary. This funding could be seen as an ideal wedge by those parties who keep calling for someone to "control" Internet content. --Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator - - - On 12/30 16:39, Barry Gold wrote: > > > This is just plain stupid. > > When we built the Interstate Highway System, we didn't give it to > private companies to manage for their profit. We made them open to > everybody. If the government is going to pay for building out broadband > infrastructure, then the government should own it and set policy for it. > > Note: I'm not necessarily advocating that it should be free like our > "Freeways". Many of those were wonderful when first opened, but > inevitable traffic growth has filled them to and beyond capacity so that > they turn into parking lots for several hours of every day. > > So it probably makes sense to charge for using the Interstate Broadband > System (or whatever we call it), and those charges should be enough to > allow upgrading it periodically (like every 18 months...) to handle the > traffic growth. But allowing private companies to manage it for their > own profit... > > Just plain insane. We have seen again and again. If you let the likes > of Time Warner and Comcast set policies for the network, they will set > policies that favor their highest profit offerings (video on demand, > etc.) rather than those that let people use the internet to its fullest. > > Even if we let the private companies build the network (after all, they > have the expertise and the US Government by and large doesn't), the > policies should be set by the government. > > Another reason to have the networks owned by (or at least controlled by) > the government is that if the government decides that certain speech is > objectionable and tries to ban it from "their" network, the courts will > probably find it in violation of the First Amendment. But if a private > company decides that some speech is more equal than other speech, there > is no appeal. The first amendment doesn't apply to private action. > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [DDN] Free Press Proposes Broadband Infrastructure Bailout of >> $44Billion --- More Taxes to Give Wealthy Companies that Failedto Build >> Out Their Networks >> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:51:28 -0800 >> From: Bruce Kushnick <bruce@newnetworks.com> >> Reply-To: The Digital Divide Network discussion group >> <digitaldivide@digitaldivide.net> >> To: 'The Digital Divide Network discussion group' >> <digitaldivide@digitaldivide.net> >> >> Teletruth News Analysis, December 22, 2008 >> >> Free Press Proposes Broadband Infrastructure Bailout of $44 Billion --- >> (More Taxes to Give Wealthy Companies that Failed to Build Out Their >> Networks.) >> >> To read the rest of this story >> http://www.newnetworks.com/Freepressbroadband.htm >> >> There has been a call for âstimulus packagesâ to help with our current >> economic crisis and new infrastructure initiatives, such as the >> upgrading of >> roads and bridges, are on the top of the list. There are also a number of >> groups who care about broadband infrastructure and want their billions as >> well. The arguments â more jobs, better productivity, etc, may be well >> intentioned, but the unasked question is: Who should pay for it and who >> should built it? >> While we agree that America needs to have a national broadband >> infrastructure initiative, we are against the current plans by many, >> including Free Press, who wants to raise taxes and give a $44 billion >> dollar >> bailout to the very companies who are responsible for Americaâs broadband >> infrastructure crisis. There are multiple reasons why weâre against this. >>