Why isn't Internet free for everyone yet?

[Deks]

Alidar Jarok wrote:

---

Bandwidth is a limited resource. McDonald's isn't charging you for the internet, but that doesn't mean it's free (they pay for your use). Basically, cost is a way of rationing it because, otherwise, we would run out of bandwidth. And, while ground lines are getting cheaper, we're pretty close to hitting a ceiling when it comes to airborne internet (e.g., the kind on your smart phone). We're literally running out of usable radiation. So rather than things constantly improving, we may have hit a peak of unlimited internet that will be scaled back to the point where we can look to right now as the golden age of internet usage.

My apologies, but that is the biggest load of garbage.
There is more than enough bandwidth to go around.
ISP's don't upgrade their networks, nor are they using the best possible technology we can muster.
In fact... big ISP's are actually trying to acquire as many frequencies as possible in order to prevent competition (which is only good for possibly lowering prices in a Capitalist environment - but it doesn't promote technological progress - cooperation does).

Cost efficiency has NOTHING to do with resources or technological ability/efficiency because companies use things that are 'economically viable' (translation - cheap enough for them, so they can overcharge the consumer).
They also use cheap means of production - even though we had superior materials and technology at our disposal for quite some time to do all of it in a timely manner, efficiently, with little to NO damage to the environment.

Capitalism isn't interested in efficiency... its the opposite.
Because, if we are actually designing things to be durable, upgradeable, and easily recycle-able with best technology and efficiency known to man (in a sustainable capacity) - then profits would plummet.

Bottom line is: we have more than enough resources and technology to make internet hundreds of times faster, wireless, near 100% reliable, and accessible to the ENTIRE global population (several times over no less) - that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Resources and technology aren't the problem... they never are... money on the other hand (and the idiotic notion of 'cost' and 'value'), is.

[Alidar Jarok]

^ I think you're reading more into my post than what is there. I didn't say we have an efficient system or that there wouldn't be more bandwidth if the system was upgraded. Just that it is still a limited resource (which can be improved, but still has a limit until they do so) and that it either needs a mechanism for rationing or that investment needs to be made to expand it.

Except for networks that smart phones use, that does have a fairly hard and fast limit.

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

Why isnt the internet free for Americans, comsidering that our tax dollars paid to develop the damn thing?

Well our parents' and grandparents' tax dollars, but same diff.

Even then, it would be tax supported more than free.

[STR]

Dream wrote:

---

Is the main problem we don't have free internet for everyone GREED?

No, the problem is that the internet was and is INSANELY expensive to build and maintain. It probably costs close to fifty billion a year just to keep the core of the internet up and running just for the United States. That's the backbone and local connections. It doesn't include what websites like Google pay to service their websites or what user terminals like PCs and smart phones cost.

[Temis the Vorta]

Yeah I came back to add that point, that even if the government provided "free" internet, we're paying for it through our taxes, so why even bother? Better to let people decide individually how much they are willing to pay for whatever they want to use, or even if they want to use it. Why should someone who doesnt use the internet, and yes they still exist, be forced to pay taxes to provide it free to others?

[Shaytan]

I don't understand, my internet is Free.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

As much as we like to think the Internet is essential, it is not. It's not a right, like health care is.

[Alidar Jarok]

It's extraordinarily important for the modern world, so it may be beneficial for it to become a government provided service (much like the postal service), but it still costs money to provide.

[Mr Silver]

A person could always become their own provider, although it's incredibly complicated on the legal front to be your own ISP, but it's not something that the public are prevented from doing. The costs of setting up your own service have the potential to be so great, that it makes more economic sense just to pay the corporations like BT, Comcast, AOL, etc.

Do I think Internet should be available free across wide areas? Yes and no, I imagine the only way to fund such a project would be an increase in government tax (only slight, but still an increase) or the diversion of funding from an important sector such as healthcare or education for the endeavour.

I think many people don't realise the sheer amount of hardware, cabling and regular maintenance required to provide high speed internet access across even rural areas.

[MacLeod]

Deks wrote:

---

My apologies, but that is the biggest load of garbage.
There is more than enough bandwidth to go around.
ISP's don't upgrade their networks, nor are they using the best possible technology we can muster.
In fact... big ISP's are actually trying to acquire as many frequencies as possible in order to prevent competition (which is only good for possibly lowering prices in a Capitalist environment - but it doesn't promote technological progress - cooperation does).

Cost efficiency has NOTHING to do with resources or technological ability/efficiency because companies use things that are 'economically viable' (translation - cheap enough for them, so they can overcharge the consumer).
They also use cheap means of production - even though we had superior materials and technology at our disposal for quite some time to do all of it in a timely manner, efficiently, with little to NO damage to the environment.

Capitalism isn't interested in efficiency... its the opposite.
Because, if we are actually designing things to be durable, upgradeable, and easily recycle-able with best technology and efficiency known to man (in a sustainable capacity) - then profits would plummet.

Bottom line is: we have more than enough resources and technology to make internet hundreds of times faster, wireless, near 100% reliable, and accessible to the ENTIRE global population (several times over no less) - that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Resources and technology aren't the problem... they never are... money on the other hand (and the idiotic notion of 'cost' and 'value'), is.

I think you'll find some ISP's do upgrade the network. i.e in the UK, BT who own and operate the bulk of the telephone network are in the process of upgrading the network to support faster speeds. (True they are one of many ISP's in the country)

[Deks]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

As much as we like to think the Internet is essential, it is not. It's not a right, like health care is.

Health care is a right?
A lot of countries on this planet give you access to health care if you can AFFORD it - otherwise you have to steer clear of it unless you want to be charged ludicrous prices (to that end, how many people were admitted in US into the ER and 'saved from death' only to find themselves with a medical bill they cannot hope to pay off... ever?).

Here's what I would constitute as 'rights':
Free and unrestricted access to basic necessities:
Clean air, clean water, food, shelter/housing, electricity, transport, education, health care, and basic technological amenities (a decent computer system and internet) - all of those (and most wants) can be provided in abundance several times over for every person on this planet.

Internet is a huge part of global communications today.
So yes, I could easily classify it as 'essential'.
But not in a business or profit based sense.
More to the point that there's an immense potential in its usage for extremely high levels of automation (in terms of economy), coordination, sharing ideas, etc. (of which the latter is used rather well).

Oh and Alidar Jarok... my apologies if I was a bit insulting - wasn't my intention. I should have structured the first sentence a bit better, however, it was correct in a sense that the bandwidth issue is a technical problem which we can easily overcome with proper maintenance and upgrades - but even without them, they ARE artificially limiting users not because they lack the space, but because they figured they can cap numerous services due to a lack of competition and charge you hefty price tags.

[JarodRussell]

Alidar Jarok wrote:

---

It's extraordinarily important for the modern world, so it may be beneficial for it to become a government provided service (much like the postal service), but it still costs money to provide.

Like in China?

Deks wrote:

---

Here's what I would constitute as 'rights':
Free and unrestricted access to basic necessities:
Clean air, clean water, food, shelter/housing, electricity, transport, education, health care, and basic technological amenities (a decent computer system and internet) - all of those (and most wants) can be provided in abundance several times over for every person on this planet.

Is there actually ANY place on earth where that's the case?

[Trekker4747]

Biggest reason why it's not "free" is because, well, nothing is really free. But most things at least are very cheap when it comes to getting it.

Compare cell phones with land-line phones. Cell phones still tend to be more expensive than a basic land-line phone because cell-phones actually use up a resource. Land-line phones don't. On a land-line phone there's something of a physical connection between the caller and the callee. (Even if that physical connection is a bit more muddy than it was in the past.)

You're not really "using anything up." You being on the phone doesn't prevent someone else from being on the phone and the infrastructure for the system is fairly easily and cheaply built and maintained.

Cell phones, however, actually use something up. Air waves, bandwith, capacity of towers and servers, etc. etc. One person on a cell phone means one less person somewhere that can be on the same system. Now, sure, the system has greater capacity than it has in the past but it still is limited. Cable internet is the same way, you've probably noticed "down times" when a lot of people in the same system are on-line.

Internet isn't "free" because it takes a lot of money to maintain the system and the system can only handle so much at once. Were it free the internet would be useless because it wouldn't be able to handle the demand.

Cable TV isn't free because it takes systems and equipment for it to exist. Satellites have to be used/maintained, dishes, personel, wiring, equipment. It's much different than a basic TV station where a signal is sent out and anyone in the area with the right equipment can simply just pick it up out of the air. What infrastructure there is is maintained by ad revenue.

Someday we may get there. Someday the expense of building and maintaining the infrastructure for the internet will be much cheaper, someday that infrastructure will be vast enough to accommodate high demand. And that day may be soon but it'd require investment and some sort of supplement to the costs which would mean more advertising on the internet. Because no matter what it won't be so cheap to run/maintain that it can be handed out without any income whatsoever.

Cell Phones may get there someday as well, prices on them have already came down pretty good over the years but they still tend to be high especially with internet.

But we'd need a much larger infrastructure and even then some other way for the companies to make money, meaning something being charged or ad revenue.

[Alidar Jarok]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Like in China?

I am unfamiliar with the services provided in China. Although I do understand it to be night and day between big cities and rural areas - not that this is different from the United States, where quite a few places still don't have access to high speed internet.

[Deks]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Is there actually ANY place on earth where that's the case?

In the manner I described, I don't think so (I could be wrong though) - because, even though we had the ability to produce abundance since 100 years ago in material needs, energy and most wants (along with highly sophisticated technology), and money back then became irrelevant (didn't represent resources anymore), living in a monetary (debt) based economy (which includes socialism, communism and fascism btw) overrides that - because profits come first (not human beings) and those rely on (artificially induced) scarcity and outdated (not to mention inefficient) technology to function.

[Deks]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

Biggest reason why it's not "free" is because, well, nothing is really free. But most things at least are very cheap when it comes to getting it.

Compare cell phones with land-line phones. Cell phones still tend to be more expensive than a basic land-line phone because cell-phones actually use up a resource. Land-line phones don't. On a land-line phone there's something of a physical connection between the caller and the callee. (Even if that physical connection is a bit more muddy than it was in the past.)

You're not really "using anything up." You being on the phone doesn't prevent someone else from being on the phone and the infrastructure for the system is fairly easily and cheaply built and maintained.

Cell phones, however, actually use something up. Air waves, bandwith, capacity of towers and servers, etc. etc. One person on a cell phone means one less person somewhere that can be on the same system. Now, sure, the system has greater capacity than it has in the past but it still is limited. Cable internet is the same way, you've probably noticed "down times" when a lot of people in the same system are on-line.

Internet isn't "free" because it takes a lot of money to maintain the system and the system can only handle so much at once. Were it free the internet would be useless because it wouldn't be able to handle the demand.

Cable TV isn't free because it takes systems and equipment for it to exist. Satellites have to be used/maintained, dishes, personel, wiring, equipment. It's much different than a basic TV station where a signal is sent out and anyone in the area with the right equipment can simply just pick it up out of the air. What infrastructure there is is maintained by ad revenue.

Someday we may get there. Someday the expense of building and maintaining the infrastructure for the internet will be much cheaper, someday that infrastructure will be vast enough to accommodate high demand. And that day may be soon but it'd require investment and some sort of supplement to the costs which would mean more advertising on the internet. Because no matter what it won't be so cheap to run/maintain that it can be handed out without any income whatsoever.

Cell Phones may get there someday as well, prices on them have already came down pretty good over the years but they still tend to be high especially with internet.

But we'd need a much larger infrastructure and even then some other way for the companies to make money, meaning something being charged or ad revenue.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.
People focus on 'money' or 'how much it costs', yet it has nothing to do with actual resources or out technological ability to, for example (and I'm just naming 1 thing out of many), provide bandwidth in abundance to everyone today (which is more than possible).
Instead of using outdated technology in towers and materials that limit bandwidth, efficiency, not to mention upgrade-ability, we should be using best/superior synthetic (man made) materials that we can produce in abundance, along with best possible technology and efficiency (which is simply NOT done within Capitalism) - not to mention recycle (instead of extracting new resources) everything.

You may see some companies upgrading here and there, but they are still using (mostly) outdated technology and effectively provide 'revisions' instead of actual 'innovations' or 'technological evolution'.
Instead of using humans to do the work, use robots/machines (which can be done btw).
75% of the global population can re put out of work tomorrow by robots/computers.
No one is 'irreplaceable' for that matter because there are millions of sophisticated algorithms running on servers right now learning everything we do in record time - which is something humans cannot compare with.
Money is an obstacle - a nuisance that has to be grinded into dust (which only persisted for as long as it did because the general population lacks relevant general education).