Why isn't Internet free for everyone yet?

[gturner]

So in your utopia, nobody has a job and nobody has any money. Admittedly, we're getting there, but people don't seem to like it very much.

[Deks]

gturner wrote:

---

So in your utopia, nobody has a job and nobody has any money. Admittedly, we're getting there, but people don't seem to like it very much.

Utopia is a misconception that doesn't exist.
It implies 'perfection' (which again doesn't exist) and stagnation.
You may think it's 'perfect' because it radically differs from what we have right now, but its not.
We are transitioning into an 'emergent society' and will end up eventually in a resource based economy (its not 'perfect' or 'utopia' by any stretch of the word... just a lot better than what we have now).

The only reason people might not be satisfied with automation NOW is because we still live in a system where money is used as means of survival (let alone doing anything else) and they were brainwashed by Hollywood to perceive technology as something bad that will turn on us and destroy us (this is the single most ludicrous thing I've ever heard in my life - Arthur C. Clarke also mentioned something along the same lines).

Within our current (capitalist) environment, we require jobs in order to live - without them, you are as good as dead.
Point is, it doesn't have to be like that.
We can free humans from this stupid idiocy for work (we had the ability to automate a great deal of things a century ago and need humans for few operational purposes and maintenance).
We can focus on creative tasks and actual problem solving.
Unleash technology for betterment of mankind (instead of to its detriment like it has been done).

Eliminate money from the equation, provide every person on the planet with relevant general education, and access abundance, and you will see a radically different attitude.
Also, with a global population which is exposed to relevant general education (critical thinking and the tendency to question everything and be problem solvers), the prospect for being used or manipulated dissipates, as does a moronic tendency for 'people in positions of power' or 'governments' - and in turn you can effectively have an entire global population being comprised of 'renaissance men and women'.

Projecting failed systems of the past into something new is a manifestation of fear - nothing more.
Opposition will occur once Capitalism crashes.
Its up to us to choose something better that will benefit everyone (and not just the select few).

[scotthm]

Deks wrote:

---

Eliminate money from the equation...

This won't help anything. People will still want to live better than their neighbors and be able to purchase the favors of others. You can't change human nature by changing an economy.

---------------

[gturner]

Deks wrote:

---

The only reason people might not be satisfied with automation NOW is because we still live in a system where money is used as means of survival (let alone doing anything else) and they were brainwashed by Hollywood to perceive technology as something bad that will turn on us and destroy us (this is the single most ludicrous thing I've ever heard in my life - Arthur C. Clarke also mentioned something along the same lines).

Within our current (capitalist) environment, we require jobs in order to live - without them, you are as good as dead.
Point is, it doesn't have to be like that.

We can free humans from this stupid idiocy for work (we had the ability to automate a great deal of things a century ago and need humans for few operational purposes and maintenance).

Hrm... So who stocks the shelves at your grocery store, and why would they bother if they get resources whether they work or not? Who builds your house, and again, why would they bother? Who wires it up, and who repairs the powerlines after an ice storm? Who hauls your trash away? Who spends their day behind the desk at a hotel and who cleans your room when you leave? Who does all the things to support your existence and who builds and maintains all of the automation that's producing the raw materials?

Secondly, since you're nothing but a drain on the system, not paying or contributing anything, wouldn't it make more sense to divert all the resources going to you to someone who's a bit more productive?

Eliminate money from the equation, provide every person on the planet with relevant general education, and access abundance, and you will see a radically different attitude.

Money is a place holder that sends the market (ie people) signals about the value of various products and services so they can allocate time and resources productively, as opposed to some communist countries where nobody had toilet paper or feminine hygience products and factories sometimes paid their employees with crates of dildos.

What you describe is more of a cargo cult. Nobody builds anything and they just sit around waiting for magical stuff to arrive.

Projecting failed systems of the past into something new is a manifestation of fear - nothing more.
Opposition will occur once Capitalism crashes.
Its up to us to choose something better that will benefit everyone (and not just the select few).

Hrm... Here's a question. Do you know what the "capital" in capitalism is, and why it works?

[Deks]

scotthm wrote:

---

This won't help anything. People will still want to live better than their neighbors and be able to purchase the favors of others. You can't change human nature by changing an economy.

---------------

Human nature doesn't exist.
Human behavior on the other hand is a different story (and that can be changed - if it couldn't, we'd still be living in caves).
What you are talking about are wants - those are a mere byproduct of society you live in - and capitalism distorts values on a massive scale encouraging consumerism which is wasteful (planned obsolescence and cyclical consumption) for the sake of profits which also damages the very planet we depend on to live - coupled with a broken educational system which doesn't promote critical thinking, problem solving or sustainability - nor does it provide people with RELEVANT general education (because if it did, they wouldn't be prone to being manipulated, used - and they would be able to govern themselves, effectively eliminating governments in the process).
We have the ability to produce abundance for every person on the planet to such a degree where they can live 2 to 3x better than the richest person on the planet today.
People often forget that money provides nothing more than access to something.
Creating a system based on access abundance (usership, instead of ownership) is possible - and no, not everyone would want to use a villa, a mansion, a car, yacht or even a penthouse (so please don't project).
To top it off, is it efficient or viable for everyone to 'own' 1 of everything? No. And its unnecessary because not everyone wants the same things in the first place.

Hrm... So who stocks the shelves at your grocery store, and why would they bother if they get resources whether they work or not? Who builds your house, and again, why would they bother? Who wires it up, and who repairs the powerlines after an ice storm? Who hauls your trash away? Who spends their day behind the desk at a hotel and who cleans your room when you leave? Who does all the things to support your existence and who builds and maintains all of the automation that's producing the raw materials?

Secondly, since you're nothing but a drain on the system, not paying or contributing anything, wouldn't it make more sense to divert all the resources going to you to someone who's a bit more productive?

First off, were you NOT paying attention when I mentioned automation?
Robotic arms have been invented in 1958 and we have robotic 'servants' TODAY.
However, since not everything is fully automated, some degree of physical labor until full automation can be brought in might be required (but not nearly as much as you might think) - and I need not remind you that there are numerous people who do various things because they WANT to.
Money is not the only motivation, and the purpose is to maximize automation wherever possible and remove humans from these aspects because they SLOW THINGS DOWN (machines do the same jobs hundreds/thousands of times faster, more efficient while not requiring sleep, breaks, pensions or health plans - among other things).

Second... 80% of the global population are in the service industry contributing nothing to society in the process.
The world economy is based on mere movement of money (that's how money is made today).

Money is a place holder that sends the market (ie people) signals about the value of various products and services so they can allocate time and resources productively, as opposed to some communist countries where nobody had toilet paper or feminine hygience products and factories sometimes paid their employees with crates of dildos.

What you describe is more of a cargo cult. Nobody builds anything and they just sit around waiting for magical stuff to arrive.

Those kinds of notions are vestiges of outdated/limited thinking that doesn't take into account our technological development or automation.
Money stopped representing resources a century ago when we had the ability produce abundance via technology (which is what humans have been doing since the industrial revolution).
Informing yourself of our history and technological breakthroughs over the past 120 years alone would be prudent.

Hrm... Here's a question. Do you know what the "capital" in capitalism is, and why it works?

The very same system that resulted in 1% of the global population controlling 40% of the worlds resources today?
The system in which 50% of the global population lives on less than $2 per day?
The system that produces artificial scarcity and results in close to 1.3 billion people who are currently starving, even though humanity has been producing enough to feed 10 billion annually for over 30 years?
The system that causes 15 million children deaths every year?
The system which doesn't tend to human needs and keeps basic necessities of life from you just so you would be subservient to the system and generate profit for someone else (slavery)?
The system that says we have an energy crisis even though we could have globally transitioned to geothermal and wind for baseload production by 1929 (at the latest) along with Tesla's wifi power transfer technology (which he made/demonstrated in 1891)?
The system that gives an illusion of a democracy even though it never existed?
The system that uses war as an excuse to attack other cultures for the purpose of obtaining their resources, killing people in the process, creating propaganda and intolerance - and also heavily profiteers from the said conflicts heavily?

Oh yes... I can see how the system 'works'.

[scotthm]

Deks wrote:

---

Human nature doesn't exist.

No, of course not. It's just an amazing coincidence that throughout the various cultures of Earth people laugh when they're happy and cry when they're sad.

---------------

[gturner]

And they all nod their heads up and down for yes and side-to-side for no. Purely random chance. Purely.

I'm not sure whether to touch that whole comment with a stick or not. It would be like trying to explain broadband frequency hopping to a hunter-gatherer. I can do it, but it would be a lot of work and time, and time is money.

[Deks]

[QUOTE=scotthm;6898298]

Deks wrote:

---

No, of course not. It's just an amazing coincidence that throughout the various cultures of Earth people laugh when they're happy and cry when they're sad.

---------------

Emotions?
Really?
That's your 'explanation' behind 'human nature'?

Humans are capable of wide range of emotions (a biological trait) - but we are NOT intricately 'pre-programmed' to be (for example) greedy, selfish and competitive - those are learned behaviors that stem from our environment.

Also, emotions are nothing more than a series of reactions to external stimulus (do NOT mistake this for 'instincts' though as those don't exist in humans either - motor functions and reaction to external stimulus is NOT 'instinct'). Our behavior (which stems from the environment) dictates which emotions will manifest (if they will at all) and how will they manifest.

Different cultures exhibit different reactions at stimulus - if 'human nature' existed, they would exhibit them in exactly the same manner - but see... they DON'T - some even don't exhibit or feel emotions in situations where others would.

If a human is for example a homophobe... or essentially intolerant of others... do you really think that having growing up in an environment that fosters those kinds of behaviors has 'nothing' to do with it?
Even though we have direct evidence (arrived at through the scientific method) that supports that?
Furthermore, how about those who grew more tolerant after being educated?
That's some poor 'human nature' if it basically crumbles and changes in the face of relevant education.

If you were taken at birth and left with the Amazon head hunters... you would grow up to adopt the values, notions and behavior of that culture and would also speak their language - especially if you were never exposed to anything else.

You think an Eskimo dreams of a mansion, fast cars or similar notions?
An Eskimo has 0 knowledge of what any of those things are - they don't even have a frame of reference.

[gturner]

Deks wrote:

---

Emotions?
Really?
That's your 'explanation' behind 'human nature'?

Humans are capable of wide range of emotions (a biological trait) - but we are NOT intricately 'pre-programmed' to be (for example) greedy, selfish and competitive - those are learned behaviors that stem from our environment.

I might as well wade in.

Human nature definitely exists. It's genetic (clue - cats don't build amusement parks and monkeys don't build banana farms) and many of the same patterns appear in all societies and cultures.

For example, all humans build tools to build tools, something never observed in other species, even species that use tools. All humans shake their heads up and down for yes and side-to-side for no, even though that should be a random and arbitrary behavior, and even though head shaking isn't logically connected to the truth or falsity of a proposition, nor to desires. Laughing and crying could likewise be flipped around, but aren't.

All human societies display vengeance, jealousy, compassion, greed, ostracism, etc, and these some of these social emotions were hardwired into the brain by grafting perceptions to our existing circuits that respond to physical pain, parenting, etc.

Most police calls are the result of innate behaviors (vengeance, jealousy, rape, gang warfare, murder, theft, looting, rioting) which are often beneficial to members of primitive hunter-gatherer tribes, but cause severe problems in modern society. We haven't had a society that encourages or rewards those behaviors in centuries, in many cases for thousands of years, yet the behaviors beneficial to cave men are still stubbornly with us, waiting to be triggered in the right circumstance.

People who've never stolen anything in their lives will line up to loot big-screen TV's during a riot (two innate behaviors), and people will honk horns, bang pots, and get out of their cars to form a packed mob that screams at a large predator threatening a human, even if they've never seen a large predator attack anyone before. Monkeys do the same thing, minus the car horns.


All humans have innate social behaviors, tuned for tribe sized groups that were sometimes competitors with other tribes, sometimes attacked by predators, and always hunting.. From these come our intuitive sense of fairness, sharing, mutual exchanges, suspicion of strangers, hierarchies, and really odd behaviors like lynching and hanging dismembered bodies in trees (one of the few ways to send a message to large cats and other predators).

Fairness and sharing have recently been traced to the need to maintain a strong tribal hunting party, because well-fed hunters make the entire group more successful in subsequent hunts. Like many of our social behaviors, it breaks down when the group size passes about 150 people, which is wear more advanced behaviors like profit have to step in, otherwise the free-rider problem becomes unworkable. Hundreds of attempts at utopian socialism over a century and a half have slammed into the wall of group size.

Also, emotions are nothing more than a series of reactions to external stimulus (do NOT mistake this for 'instincts' though as those don't exist in humans either - motor functions and reaction to external stimulus is NOT 'instinct'). Our behavior (which stems from the environment) dictates which emotions will manifest (if they will at all) and how will they manifest.

When an actor bawls like a baby for a scene, thinking of the dog that was run over when he was six, the only external stimulus is his smoking hot co-star in a night gown. Human's think, and thoughts can produce emotions.

Different cultures exhibit different reactions at stimulus - if 'human nature' existed, they would exhibit them in exactly the same manner - but see... they DON'T - some even don't exhibit or feel emotions in situations where others would.

Then how come people all over the world can watch each others' movies and understand exactly what's going on internally to the characters? When we watch wildlife documentaries we have no idea what the gazelle is actually thinking and feeling, or the lion, or how it feels to be either. Yet everyone understands characters written by Homer, Aristophanes, Shakespeare, the Brontes, Kurosawa, and Chuck Lorre.

If a human is for example a homophobe... or essentially intolerant of others... do you really think that having growing up in an environment that fosters those kinds of behaviors has 'nothing' to do with it?
Even though we have direct evidence (arrived at through the scientific method) that supports that?
Furthermore, how about those who grew more tolerant after being educated?
That's some poor 'human nature' if it basically crumbles and changes in the face of relevant education.

That's simple in-group/out-group familiarity. Hunter-gatherer's go through the same process in learning to trust adopted or captured members of other tribes. It's also a fluid system that can run the other way, such as during a civil war when people who used to be "one of us" become "one of them." It's not retraining human behavior, is taking easy advantage of its immutable existence.

Homer's Illiad is full of in-group/out-group dynamics, along with rage, jealousy, greed, pride, arrogance, vengeance, courage, shame, and fear. Thousands of years later, and thousands of miles away, we still read it because, like Shakespeare, he described innate human behaviors and emotions in a way that an audience of humans, all humans, can well understand.

If it weren't for our innate behavioral and emotional wiring, we'd react to something as old and alien as the Iliad with perplexed astonishment, like a person trying out a computer operating system with a horrible user-interface built on a completely different an unfamiliar paradigm, where we play with it like a Rubik's cube until we give up in frustration. Our reaction to the Iliad would be "WTF? That doesn't make sense. Why doesn't Achilles play jumping jacks with Hector? Why isn't Agamemnon talking about casual Fridays? Why doesn't Paris do a stand-up comedy routine while juggling sea turtles?

If you were taken at birth and left with the Amazon head hunters... you would grow up to adopt the values, notions and behavior of that culture and would also speak their language - especially if you were never exposed to anything else.

And you'd greedily hunt, then share the game with your hunting party, try to catch the eye of the chief's daughter, fly into a rage when someone steals your favorite clay pot and hunt them down and beat them to a pulp. Then you'd get married, have kids, and teach them how to hunt, and someday be in charge of trade negotiations with the neighboring tribe. If you wrote a good poem about your life with the tribe, the translation might hit the New York Times' bestseller list.

You think an Eskimo dreams of a mansion, fast cars or similar notions?

An Eskimo has 0 knowledge of what any of those things are - they don't even have a frame of reference.

Yes they do. Sarah Palin's husband is an eskimo, as are NHL hockey players, singers, painters, sculptors, and a film producer who was at Cannes. Some of them hop on a snowmobile and go bear hunting with a Remington, and some prefer a pickup truck. Many of them work in the oil and gas industry.

If the cultural differences were so vast, I don't think the US would've had a Kaw Senate Majority Leader and US Vice President who grew up on a reservation, spoke Kansan as his first language, French as his second language, and English as his third. I don't think we'd have had Indians and immigrants serving as military commanders from the Revolutionary war on.

Just as an example, in WW-II a Cherokee who'd grown up in a log cabin commanded many of our aircraft carrier task forces, including the one that attacked Okinawa and sank the Yamato, and later commanded the US 7th fleet, with 225 warships and 70,000 men. He retired a full admiral, and became chief of the Cherokee and Sioux nations.

Cherokee values and Navy values must not be all that different or the admiral and his captains wouldn't have understood each other's thinking, or the Cherokee and Sioux couldn't have figured out what the chief was talking about when he told them about his fast carrier air-support strategies for ground troops in Korea, which the Army called "Cherokee strikes."

Getting back to economic behaviors, why do lions defend a kill if they're not greedy? Why won't they share with hyenas and vultures? Why do human hunters do the same, having a precedence of who they'll share with, never sharing with lions and vultures, and trading food for status in the tribe?

Why, under Soviet communism where free-trade, market capitalism, and material want weren't supposed to exist, did a worker have to haggle with a coworker over the black-market price of a bottle of vodka? They hadn't had a market ecnomy in generations, yet it stubbornly refused to die, even among people who'd never grown up with it and were taught from childhood that it was inefficient, evil, and wrong.

[darkshadow0001]

Dream wrote:

---

I just recently dumped my ISP and went with a free ISP in my state. My old ISP has been overcharging me for years, so it felt like a heavy weight has been lifted from my shoulders.

I know that Internet is free in certain places like McDonalds and Libraries, but it still needs to be paid if you are at home for nearly everyone.

Is the main problem we don't have free internet for everyone GREED? It seems like it would be so nice if every computer already came with free internet. ISPs will still need to be around for those that download massive amounts of data every month, but I think casual internet usage with a little downloading shouldn't need to be paid. Is this simply too expensive for the government to provide?

There used to be some free Internet services back in the day. NetZero used to offer a free service and I used to use a free service called Juno. I'm sure there were others, but those are all I can remember. I think a lot of it has to do with greed, once people realize they can make money with this.

[scotthm]

Deks wrote:

---

Emotions?
Really?
That's your 'explanation' behind 'human nature'?

Merely a simple example. I don't have gturner's enthusiasm for rebutting you.

---------------

[Deks]

gturner

Blaming bad behaviour on 'human nature' (or even genetics) is a tiresome cop-out that has been repeated over and over again by those who keep perpetuating the ridiculous myth in question (yourself included).

Humanity lived most of its time in scarcity-like environment (due to population explosion which was AFTER the hunter-gatherer times). Our ability to find technological solutions to scarcity (abundance) is fairly new... but very little has changed on a social level.
Oh and, in case you hadn't noticed, humans who received relevant general education (I'm not talking about industrialized academic education) are not prone to competitive behavior, selfishness, or greed.
How does your 'human nature' explain notions of people volunteering their free time, ideas an energy to help others expecting nothing in return and getting nothing in return?
How do you explain the premise that when I repair people's computers and assist them in certain educational aspects (and generally help other people because I like doing it) I don't ask for compensation of any kind (in fact I refuse it outright)?

If all humans were greedy and selfish by 'nature' (followed something that couldn't be changed), then I certainly wouldn't be doing anything of the above without asking for anything in return, nor would millions around the globe volunteer for nothing.

As I said... if human behavior couldn't be changed, we'd still be living in caves.
"Human nature" is quite simple, a fallacy.

[Deks]

darkshadow0001 wrote:

---

There used to be some free Internet services back in the day. NetZero used to offer a free service and I used to use a free service called Juno. I'm sure there were others, but those are all I can remember. I think a lot of it has to do with greed, once people realize they can make money with this.

Croatian T-com held a monopoly in the country for many years and overcharged the population while offering very poor services.
To this day, a lot of the country is on that same network because competitors didn't start arriving until the last 10 years or so, and expansion of their own networks was a painfully slow process.
A lot of people moved away from T-com as soon as they got the chance and are paying much lower prices (for same/similar or better services).

But greed and money are indeed the primary factors involved here and why internet isn't free for everyone (nor will it be under any monetary system).
If you try to connect to wifi hotspots, you will notice that viewing certain pages is impossible without paying, and whenever you go into a coffee shop, you for example pay for the drinks you order and can use the wifi while there which is touted as 'free' but they still offer a very limited service.
Libraries are a different story though.

[publiusr]

I have no problem with a single payer internet than I do with single payer public highways. I consider it part of civilization, like libraries and what not

Similar
http://buythissatellite.org/

[Alidar Jarok]

darkshadow0001 wrote:

---

There used to be some free Internet services back in the day. NetZero used to offer a free service and I used to use a free service called Juno. I'm sure there were others, but those are all I can remember. I think a lot of it has to do with greed, once people realize they can make money with this.

Or it could be that they appeared right at the end of the dotcom bubble and didn't have a sustainable business model. I used to use Juno. It was horribly slow and filled with pop up ads.