What if Internet Access Was a Government Provided Service Like Electricity of Gas. or at The Very Least, Like Sewage?

jonathonsunshine on 14/08/2015 - 18:28
Last edited 14/08/2015 - 18:50

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/wireless-garbage-in-wire…

One key sentence in this article, "what happens when one telco takes over service provisions and NYC residents start leaving their providers in droves?"

I don't know, it just made me wonder what the world would be like if instead or the US Defence Force allowing access to the ARPANET by universities and then later the general public, they had just kept it in-house.

By in-house I mean, internet was a service controlled by the government the same way phone services were before Telstra privatisation.

Internet

Comments

  • nocure on 14/08/2015 - 18:35
    +1

    internet was a service controlled by the government.

    Then we would all be in the Sewage.

    • jonathonsunshine on 14/08/2015 - 18:41

      Oh fudge, I accidentally "reported" your comment instead of replied…

      But comment was, "anything more insightful?"

  • nocure on 14/08/2015 - 18:42
    +1

    anything more insightful.

    Not really, but looking forward to the discussion.

    • jonathonsunshine on 14/08/2015 - 18:47
      +1

      Same, its amazing in hindsight how many came late to the party. Microsoft with IE vs Netscape, "big film and tv" vs bit torrent. Considering the internet was a creation of the US government in the first place.

      • cameldownunder on 14/08/2015 - 20:20

        You sure? I thought it was from the guys at the CERN in Geneva, to provide Text transfer between scientists instead of the single databases.

      • Baysew on 15/08/2015 - 10:43
        +1

        Malcolm Turnbull is credited with inventing the internet in Australia.

        (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18owzYfvIcE0)

  • StewBalls on 14/08/2015 - 19:04

    Like Sewage

    Pretty much sums up my current internet connection…I'm hoping for a boost when NBN eventually rolls out in my area, but I'm not optimistic! :'(

  • lgacb08 on 14/08/2015 - 21:27

    are you sure electricity and gas are government provided? I think only water and sewage are.

    • subywagon on 14/08/2015 - 21:50

      water isn't even government provided where I am… and it's stuffed too.

      • altomic on 14/08/2015 - 22:36

        my local govt decided to create a separate entity for water management.
        rather than having a water component attached to the rates everyone one gets 2 accounts.

        govt rationale was that creating a separate entity would save tax payers money.

        what a load of sh!t. everyone is up in arms over it as it has added several hundred $$ a quarter to everyones costs.

        local government says it would cost too much to put things back the way they were.

        • kima on 15/08/2015 - 00:58

          yeah in other words they would lose too much of those extra $$ they are now charging you

        • subywagon on 15/08/2015 - 11:27

          We probably live in the same area by the sounds of it…

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 15/08/2015 - 04:43

      "… are you sure electricity and gas are government provided?"

      Neither gas nor electricity are 'government provided' services in Australia; that's why you can choose from various different (private) companies, and they compete with each other for your $$$. So I'm not sure what the OP is actually asking… the question seems to be based on an entirely false premise/misunderstanding of the facts.

      An actual example of a 'government contracted' essential service in Australia is rubbish collection (in suburbia). 'Consumers' have no choice on who they go with for this, as there's only one option in any given suburb; the company the local council/government has contracted to do it.

      Getting back to the OPs question, I believe that if internet access was a government-provided service, it would be shite; due to a lack of competition. As Dave1111 points out below (I've added the word 'not' to the quote, which I'm sure Davo accidentally forgot to include, and removed an erroneous apostrophe but I'm pretty sure it's what Davo was intending to say):

      "The government is not exactly known for its efficiency."

      The fact is, no company that has a monopoly will maintain a 'competitive level' of efficiency/pricing/etc.; because they don't have to/there is no incentive/need to; because they're not actually competing with anyone.

      The types of things that should IMHO be left in government hands are things that were never intended to be money-making endeavors; such as the management of state-forests/national parks, law-enforcement, national security (i.e. the Army/Navy/Airforce), the running of prisons, the welfare system, suburban rubbish collection, arguably public transport (at least in Australia given our low population density), et al. The way these things are run/how much money is poured into them should essentially be decided by the voters/public opinion; and will then not be based on consideration of 'profit' (because no profit is anticipated), but rather on 'public expectations of what constitutes acceptable standards'.

      Other things, like the provision of electricity/gas, food production/distribution, petrol sales and internet services should defo' remain privatised; to facilitate healthy competition/competitive pricing/services.

  • iridiumstem on 14/08/2015 - 22:55
    +1

    How well a government or a private company would do will be depending on many things that we cannot really say for certain.

    That said I don't necessarily see either ways would be better than the other. There are government owned companies that worked well and there are private companies that failed.

  • Davo1111 on 15/08/2015 - 03:07

    Well, essentially everything is controlled by the government.

    Anyway, not sure it would be any better… or worse. The government is exactly known for it's efficiency.

    • GnarlyKnuckles on 15/08/2015 - 05:07

      "… essentially everything is controlled by the government."

      This is absolutely false. The importation/production of recreational drugs is currently not controlled by the government (it's 'controlled' by criminals, and they operate/charge based largely on supply-and-demand), the price charged for post-graduate education is not controlled by the government (they used to regulate it to a degree, but it's now largely out of their hands), the purchase of goods from OS via the internet is defo' not 'controlled by government' (they don't even charge GST on such purchases if they're under $1000, let alone actually check what is in any of the envelopes sent from HK et al. marked 'gift'/'gadget'/etc.), the availability and nature of digital content (obtained via the internet) depicting porn and/or hard-core violence is not 'controlled by the government', and I could go on and on.

      I'm not saying that anything I've alluded to above is 'wrong' or 'right', or that attempts should be made to change the current situation; I'm just saying that it's demonstrably false to claim that in Australia 'essentially everything is controlled by the government'. Clearly, it's not.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join