Just because there are 100 things that people are forced to pay for despite not using, that doesn't mean that a bunch of whining cell phone-addicted crybabies should get to force them to pay for one more arbitrary thing just because said babies don't want to pay their fair share. Cell phone internet use does not fit under and of the definitions of public goods that should be provided-for through threat of imprisonment and the fact that you think it should is mind boggling.
Does that help you think about it?
Not at all.
What differentiates between those things that should be paid for at the municipal level vs. things paid for by individuals?
And BTW, your reasoning in your last post was that light users would subsidize heavy users, and therefore, public access was not good. I pointed out that your objection applied to many public services. That is the only reason I made the point.
So what sorts of things should be paid for at the municipal level and not at the individual level? Certainly not things with varying demand, as you said before. That reason doesn't fit the facts, given that many municipal services have varying demand.
So what sorts of things should be paid for at the municipal level and not at the individual level? Certainly not things with varying demand, as you said before. That reason doesn't fit the facts, given that many municipal services have varying demand.
Public goods. Goods that, when utilized by most of society, provide some benefit to all members of society AND would not otherwise be provided by private actors. If half the block didn't pay for private trash collection, that would be a problem. Roads, at least until recent technology, were very hard to pay for on a per user basis. These days, however, many roads are privately funded and operated. Your example of wooden homes vs brick ones made no sense - private insurance pays for those risks, as it should.
Immunizations are another good example.
The situation of someone having so little going on in their life that they MUST stream dozens of movies per month to their cell phone is quite far from even the most generous stretch from that definition.
Private companies are willing and able to provide a level of usage that allows all possible productive uses for a reasonable price. For someone who wants a crazy amount of data transfer, those same private companies are happy to sell it to him. There's no reason YOUR saintly grandmother should be paying for that societal outcast to stream movies.
Somehow our society has slipped into believing that when the government provides things, they become free. Quite the contrary, they become MUCH more expensive to provide generally, so there must be GREAT justification to take that leap.
Thank god no serious politician (as if there really was such a thing) is considering what we're discussing in this inane discussion.
Public goods. Goods that, when utilized by most of society, provide some benefit to all members of society AND would not otherwise be provided by private actors. If half the block didn't pay for private trash collection, that would be a problem. Roads, at least until recent technology, were very hard to pay for on a per user basis. These days, however, many roads are privately funded and operated. Your example of wooden homes vs brick ones made no sense - private insurance pays for those risks, as it should.
Immunizations are another good example.
Good stuff. (BTW, I was thinking of municipal fire departments, not insurance).
I wonder how police meet your definition? There are many private security companies, and so security is otherwise provided by private actors. Seemingly, therefore, you don't think that municipalities should provide police, but that people should privately contract for police services
You mention immunizations, which are NOT generally paid for by governments. And yet, healthcare, when used by most of society, certainly provides benefit to all members of society. While infectious diseases are an obvious example, there are many societal ills caused by lack of good health, such as lower economic activity due to sick workers.
Clean drinking water is provided by many private actors. It is widely available in every corner grocery store. Nevertheless, we pay for it at the municipal level. Do you think that we should not?
We have public schools paid for mostly at the municipal level. Nevertheless, many private schools exist, so they too are NOT an example of a service that would not be provided by private actors. Is elementary and secondary education not something that we should pay for with tax money?
ISTM that your criteria do not match what we actually do, at least in many cases. I think that there's got to be more to it than that.
Does economic efficiency figure in? As in "it is cheaper overall when paid for with public funds"?
How about general societal benefits, as in "We are all better off if we have an educated populace"?
Somehow, your reasoning doesn't seem compelling, but maybe with more ingredients added, the real distinctions will become clear.
This is only the beginning. Eventually all 3G connections will be throttled.
I am SO happy I kept my unlimited Sprint data plan, especially now that it looks as if Sprint will get the iPhone at long last. 2GB is such miserly amount.
Quote:
Why aren't people going to their states attorney generals offices and filing complaints?
What makes you think people aren't, and what leads you to believe that politician have enough balls to press the issue? Many are probably in the pocket of the providers.
Good stuff. (BTW, I was thinking of municipal fire departments, not insurance).
I wonder how police meet your definition? There are many private security companies, and so security is otherwise provided by private actors. Seemingly, therefore, you don't think that municipalities should provide police, but that people should privately contract for police services
Police do not supply security, they do not attempt to prevent crime or guard individuals, nor should they. Police provide the general law and order, apprehend people who have already committed crimes, and have a monopoly on the use of deadly force. Private security does those things in societies that are nearly anarchy. Are you Russian? Iraqi? Mexican?
Quote:
You mention immunizations, which are NOT generally paid for by governments. And yet, healthcare, when used by most of society, certainly provides benefit to all members of society. While infectious diseases are an obvious example, there are many societal ills caused by lack of good health, such as lower economic activity due to sick workers.
Clean drinking water is provided by many private actors. It is widely available in every corner grocery store. Nevertheless, we pay for it at the municipal level. Do you think that we should not?
Terrible examples. Try getting a shower from Coke. I don't even know why I'm bothering. Immunizations are highly subsidized by the government because it is not profitable to provide them for a private company. People will not pay enough for a flu shot to make it worth the development. You just don't have your facts and you're trying to argue as if you do.
Quote:
We have public schools paid for mostly at the municipal level. Nevertheless, many private schools exist, so they too are NOT an example of a service that would not be provided by private actors. Is elementary and secondary education not something that we should pay for with tax money?
Another terrible example. The private market would not provide education for all at a price that would include all, which is why the government transfers money from the upper-income half of society to the lower-income half to provide it.
Quote:
Does economic efficiency figure in? As in "it is cheaper overall when paid for with public funds"?
Not when politicians do their job. The government only screws up things they try to provide, and is TERRIBLE at providing any service efficiently. Unfortunately politicians are often as clueless are you are, and try to "fix" problems in the market by introducing government compulsion. The result is inevitably terrible.
Quote:
How about general societal benefits, as in "We are all better off if we have an educated populace"?
Yes
Quote:
Somehow, your reasoning doesn't seem compelling, but maybe with more ingredients added, the real distinctions will become clear.
Yeah... you're clueless. Keep on praying for the day when the government provides cell phone coverage. As if oligopolies weren't bad enough, you want the worst case. Shudder... I'm done giving you a free econ 101 class.
Police do not supply security, they do not attempt to prevent crime or guard individuals, nor should they. Police provide the general law and order, apprehend people who have already committed crimes, and have a monopoly on the use of deadly force. Private security does those things in societies that are nearly anarchy. Are you Russian? Iraqi? Mexican?
Terrible examples. Try getting a shower from Coke. I don't even know why I'm bothering. Immunizations are highly subsidized by the government because it is not profitable to provide them for a private company. People will not pay enough for a flu shot to make it worth the development. You just don't have your facts and you're trying to argue as if you do.
Another terrible example. The private market would not provide education for all at a price that would include all, which is why the government transfers money from the upper-income half of society to the lower-income half to provide it.
Not when politicians do their job. The government only screws up things they try to provide, and is TERRIBLE at providing any service efficiently. Unfortunately politicians are often as clueless are you are, and try to "fix" problems in the market by introducing government compulsion. The result is inevitably terrible.
Yes
Yeah... you're clueless. Keep on praying for the day when the government provides cell phone coverage. As if oligopolies weren't bad enough, you want the worst case. Shudder...
Mostly good points. This is not a topic I have studied in any depth.
BTW, I never said I was in favor of public WIFI. Mostly I wonder why it was proposed as a municipal service a few years ago, was tried by communities here and there, ans why it was dropped (was it?) in many of those places.
A few weeks ago I got together with one of my Mother's cousins, an elderly folk-music/civil rights type of pre-hippie. He surprised me with a statement that the government s]was the very best provider of many services. It was a viewpoint that I had not heard.
So I'm wonder about the whys and wherefores of providing bandwidth as a service, and how it would differ from other public services.
I am SO happy I kept my unlimited Sprint data plan, especially now that it looks as if Sprint will get the iPhone at long last. 2GB is such miserly amount.
A~nd that will be throttled to 2GB at max speed and then anything after is dial-up. So why are you happy?
A~nd that will be throttled to 2GB at max speed and then anything after is dial-up. So why are you happy?
Ouch! I pictured "throttling" as maybe 50 or at least 30 k/sec. Dial-up...that would be painful. Perhaps it should slide downward on a scale? Ratcheting down in speed as data climbs?
Ouch! I pictured "throttling" as maybe 50 or at least 30 k/sec. Dial-up...that would be painful. Perhaps it should slide downward on a scale? Ratcheting down in speed as data climbs?
Haha... well we don't know yet what Sprint will do, Tallest is just conjecturing. It's probably true though that they will throttle eventually. Physics demands it (assuming they don't just bleed customers at a high rate, thereby preventing their network from seeing more usage). Certainly not back to the speed of a dial-up connection though, and probably not right at 2GB either.
What happen to the days of verizon mocking AT&T for havin a incompetent network before the vz iPhone?
Chumps..A so called "superior" network shouldn't have a bandwidth problem..
Given my AT&T speeds are about 3x that of Verizon's "3G" I really didn't need this news as an excuse to stay with AT&T. Was sort of eyeing T-Mobile but if AT&T buys them out what's the point.
Comments
I don't think I'm overcomplicating it. It is simple.
The telcos should not sell more data plans than they can service. It is not a bad thing for a customer to use a service that they paid for.
Those are my main points, and they are simple.
Ma bell has done this for decades. There has never been a telco service in the us that can serve 100% of all customers at the same time
There is no network in the world public or private that can do this
Clearly you aren't a deep thinker.
Just because there are 100 things that people are forced to pay for despite not using, that doesn't mean that a bunch of whining cell phone-addicted crybabies should get to force them to pay for one more arbitrary thing just because said babies don't want to pay their fair share. Cell phone internet use does not fit under and of the definitions of public goods that should be provided-for through threat of imprisonment and the fact that you think it should is mind boggling.
Does that help you think about it?
Not at all.
What differentiates between those things that should be paid for at the municipal level vs. things paid for by individuals?
And BTW, your reasoning in your last post was that light users would subsidize heavy users, and therefore, public access was not good. I pointed out that your objection applied to many public services. That is the only reason I made the point.
So what sorts of things should be paid for at the municipal level and not at the individual level? Certainly not things with varying demand, as you said before. That reason doesn't fit the facts, given that many municipal services have varying demand.
So what sorts of things should be paid for at the municipal level and not at the individual level? Certainly not things with varying demand, as you said before. That reason doesn't fit the facts, given that many municipal services have varying demand.
Public goods. Goods that, when utilized by most of society, provide some benefit to all members of society AND would not otherwise be provided by private actors. If half the block didn't pay for private trash collection, that would be a problem. Roads, at least until recent technology, were very hard to pay for on a per user basis. These days, however, many roads are privately funded and operated. Your example of wooden homes vs brick ones made no sense - private insurance pays for those risks, as it should.
Immunizations are another good example.
The situation of someone having so little going on in their life that they MUST stream dozens of movies per month to their cell phone is quite far from even the most generous stretch from that definition.
Private companies are willing and able to provide a level of usage that allows all possible productive uses for a reasonable price. For someone who wants a crazy amount of data transfer, those same private companies are happy to sell it to him. There's no reason YOUR saintly grandmother should be paying for that societal outcast to stream movies.
Somehow our society has slipped into believing that when the government provides things, they become free. Quite the contrary, they become MUCH more expensive to provide generally, so there must be GREAT justification to take that leap.
Thank god no serious politician (as if there really was such a thing) is considering what we're discussing in this inane discussion.
Public goods. Goods that, when utilized by most of society, provide some benefit to all members of society AND would not otherwise be provided by private actors. If half the block didn't pay for private trash collection, that would be a problem. Roads, at least until recent technology, were very hard to pay for on a per user basis. These days, however, many roads are privately funded and operated. Your example of wooden homes vs brick ones made no sense - private insurance pays for those risks, as it should.
Immunizations are another good example.
Good stuff. (BTW, I was thinking of municipal fire departments, not insurance).
I wonder how police meet your definition? There are many private security companies, and so security is otherwise provided by private actors. Seemingly, therefore, you don't think that municipalities should provide police, but that people should privately contract for police services
You mention immunizations, which are NOT generally paid for by governments. And yet, healthcare, when used by most of society, certainly provides benefit to all members of society. While infectious diseases are an obvious example, there are many societal ills caused by lack of good health, such as lower economic activity due to sick workers.
Clean drinking water is provided by many private actors. It is widely available in every corner grocery store. Nevertheless, we pay for it at the municipal level. Do you think that we should not?
We have public schools paid for mostly at the municipal level. Nevertheless, many private schools exist, so they too are NOT an example of a service that would not be provided by private actors. Is elementary and secondary education not something that we should pay for with tax money?
ISTM that your criteria do not match what we actually do, at least in many cases. I think that there's got to be more to it than that.
Does economic efficiency figure in? As in "it is cheaper overall when paid for with public funds"?
How about general societal benefits, as in "We are all better off if we have an educated populace"?
Somehow, your reasoning doesn't seem compelling, but maybe with more ingredients added, the real distinctions will become clear.
I am SO happy I kept my unlimited Sprint data plan, especially now that it looks as if Sprint will get the iPhone at long last. 2GB is such miserly amount.
Why aren't people going to their states attorney generals offices and filing complaints?
What makes you think people aren't, and what leads you to believe that politician have enough balls to press the issue? Many are probably in the pocket of the providers.
Good stuff. (BTW, I was thinking of municipal fire departments, not insurance).
I wonder how police meet your definition? There are many private security companies, and so security is otherwise provided by private actors. Seemingly, therefore, you don't think that municipalities should provide police, but that people should privately contract for police services
Police do not supply security, they do not attempt to prevent crime or guard individuals, nor should they. Police provide the general law and order, apprehend people who have already committed crimes, and have a monopoly on the use of deadly force. Private security does those things in societies that are nearly anarchy. Are you Russian? Iraqi? Mexican?
You mention immunizations, which are NOT generally paid for by governments. And yet, healthcare, when used by most of society, certainly provides benefit to all members of society. While infectious diseases are an obvious example, there are many societal ills caused by lack of good health, such as lower economic activity due to sick workers.
Clean drinking water is provided by many private actors. It is widely available in every corner grocery store. Nevertheless, we pay for it at the municipal level. Do you think that we should not?
Terrible examples. Try getting a shower from Coke. I don't even know why I'm bothering. Immunizations are highly subsidized by the government because it is not profitable to provide them for a private company. People will not pay enough for a flu shot to make it worth the development. You just don't have your facts and you're trying to argue as if you do.
We have public schools paid for mostly at the municipal level. Nevertheless, many private schools exist, so they too are NOT an example of a service that would not be provided by private actors. Is elementary and secondary education not something that we should pay for with tax money?
Another terrible example. The private market would not provide education for all at a price that would include all, which is why the government transfers money from the upper-income half of society to the lower-income half to provide it.
Does economic efficiency figure in? As in "it is cheaper overall when paid for with public funds"?
Not when politicians do their job. The government only screws up things they try to provide, and is TERRIBLE at providing any service efficiently. Unfortunately politicians are often as clueless are you are, and try to "fix" problems in the market by introducing government compulsion. The result is inevitably terrible.
How about general societal benefits, as in "We are all better off if we have an educated populace"?
Yes
Somehow, your reasoning doesn't seem compelling, but maybe with more ingredients added, the real distinctions will become clear.
Yeah... you're clueless. Keep on praying for the day when the government provides cell phone coverage. As if oligopolies weren't bad enough, you want the worst case. Shudder... I'm done giving you a free econ 101 class.
Police do not supply security, they do not attempt to prevent crime or guard individuals, nor should they. Police provide the general law and order, apprehend people who have already committed crimes, and have a monopoly on the use of deadly force. Private security does those things in societies that are nearly anarchy. Are you Russian? Iraqi? Mexican?
Terrible examples. Try getting a shower from Coke. I don't even know why I'm bothering. Immunizations are highly subsidized by the government because it is not profitable to provide them for a private company. People will not pay enough for a flu shot to make it worth the development. You just don't have your facts and you're trying to argue as if you do.
Another terrible example. The private market would not provide education for all at a price that would include all, which is why the government transfers money from the upper-income half of society to the lower-income half to provide it.
Not when politicians do their job. The government only screws up things they try to provide, and is TERRIBLE at providing any service efficiently. Unfortunately politicians are often as clueless are you are, and try to "fix" problems in the market by introducing government compulsion. The result is inevitably terrible.
Yes
Yeah... you're clueless. Keep on praying for the day when the government provides cell phone coverage. As if oligopolies weren't bad enough, you want the worst case. Shudder...
Mostly good points. This is not a topic I have studied in any depth.
BTW, I never said I was in favor of public WIFI. Mostly I wonder why it was proposed as a municipal service a few years ago, was tried by communities here and there, ans why it was dropped (was it?) in many of those places.
A few weeks ago I got together with one of my Mother's cousins, an elderly folk-music/civil rights type of pre-hippie. He surprised me with a statement that the government s]was the very best provider of many services. It was a viewpoint that I had not heard.
So I'm wonder about the whys and wherefores of providing bandwidth as a service, and how it would differ from other public services.
Not at all. You still have unlimited data - it's just that once you exceed a certain figure, your access slows down.
Sounds reasonable to me.
And I have an unlimited data plan from VZ that I tether to.
They probably only had to do this because of that few yahoos bittorrenting BluRays over their data plan.
I am SO happy I kept my unlimited Sprint data plan, especially now that it looks as if Sprint will get the iPhone at long last. 2GB is such miserly amount.
A~nd that will be throttled to 2GB at max speed and then anything after is dial-up. So why are you happy?
A~nd that will be throttled to 2GB at max speed and then anything after is dial-up. So why are you happy?
Ouch! I pictured "throttling" as maybe 50 or at least 30 k/sec. Dial-up...that would be painful. Perhaps it should slide downward on a scale? Ratcheting down in speed as data climbs?
Ouch! I pictured "throttling" as maybe 50 or at least 30 k/sec. Dial-up...that would be painful. Perhaps it should slide downward on a scale? Ratcheting down in speed as data climbs?
Haha... well we don't know yet what Sprint will do, Tallest is just conjecturing. It's probably true though that they will throttle eventually. Physics demands it (assuming they don't just bleed customers at a high rate, thereby preventing their network from seeing more usage). Certainly not back to the speed of a dial-up connection though, and probably not right at 2GB either.
That's fine, because when my bill gets too high, I just send them less money, because the bill was excessive.
Great idea. And then when your account is canceled, we won't have to see any more of your inane posts.
What happen to the days of verizon mocking AT&T for havin a incompetent network before the vz iPhone?
Chumps..A so called "superior" network shouldn't have a bandwidth problem..
I think you're confusing "superior" with "infinite".
I think you're confusing "superior" with "infinite".
Lots of people make that mistake for some reason.
What happen to the days of verizon mocking AT&T for havin a incompetent network before the vz iPhone?
Chumps..A so called "superior" network shouldn't have a bandwidth problem..
Given my AT&T speeds are about 3x that of Verizon's "3G" I really didn't need this news as an excuse to stay with AT&T. Was sort of eyeing T-Mobile but if AT&T buys them out what's the point.