Current Affairs The General Election

[tsubaki]

Gotcha. I see what you mean, as in, it doesnt cost anything to connect to the leccy or water, but in reality, it has never cost me anything to connect to the internet. But I pay a bill for all 3.

And as an aside, developers usually pay towards new infrastructure, roads, drains, etc, on new builds anyrate.

They do. With regards to the first point though, there is a lot of taxpayer support for the utilities already and there is probably going to be rather more in the future - I don't think the state has necessarily got as much back out of this as it should in the past, and I'd like for it to improve in this respect.

 

[OnlyBlueWillDo]

Ranked 34th in the world for broadband, BT are sitting on their arses watching the cash roll in not giving a flying.

 

[Alan Whittle]

@davek
1.If " the public purse handed free internet access to us"; It wouldn't be free, someone else would pay.
2.Any owner wants to be able to control what they own. They may be completely relaxed and not bother but, as the Internet is the main driver of influence and hence power, why wouldn't they?
3. It was you that suggested they would hand access to our lives to foreign powers.
4. In your opinion I have half a point or no point or don't make sense. Stick to the issues mate.
For clarity; rolling out broadband where required, as fast as possible through government grants, incentives etc; great.
Any form of government control; Bad in my opinion. I've made it as simple as I can for you and I'm not @rsed if you disagree.

 

[roydo]

They do. With regards to the first point though, there is a lot of taxpayer support for the utilities already and there is probably going to be rather more in the future - I don't think the state has necessarily got as much back out of this as it should in the past, and I'd like for it to improve in this respect.

Well, "The state" gets loads back. Tax, NI, for one. Then the heavy lifting is at worse, shared with the companies, and if stuff goes tits up, the blame can be put on BT or Severn Trent or whoever.

 

[catcherintherye]

@davek
1.If " the public purse handed free internet access to us"; It wouldn't be free, someone else would pay.
2.Any owner wants to be able to control what they own. They may be completely relaxed and not bother but, as the Internet is the main driver of influence and hence power, why wouldn't they?
3. It was you that suggested they would hand access to our lives to foreign powers.
4. In your opinion I have half a point or no point or don't make sense. Stick to the issues mate.
For clarity; rolling out broadband where required, as fast as possible through government grants, incentives etc; great.
Any form of government control; Bad in my opinion. I've made it as simple as I can for you and I'm not @rsed if you disagree.

You make fair points Alan, but why would the internet belonging to shareholders (and increasingly in the hands of a smaller number of large shareholders who own many of the internet companies) be a better arbiter than the state? It would seem to me there are problems to both?

 

[davek]

@davek
1.If " the public purse handed free internet access to us"; It wouldn't be free, someone else would pay.
2.Any owner wants to be able to control what they own. They may be completely relaxed and not bother but, as the Internet is the main driver of influence and hence power, why wouldn't they?
3. It was you that suggested they would hand access to our lives to foreign powers.
4. In your opinion I have half a point or no point or don't make sense. Stick to the issues mate.
For clarity; rolling out broadband where required, as fast as possible through government grants, incentives etc; great.
Any form of government control; Bad in my opinion. I've made it as simple as I can for you and I'm not @rsed if you disagree.

You fail to show any link between public provision and control over content.

I'm sorry, you just dont.

 

[zzr45]

More to the point, have these increased taxes on Facebook, Google, Amazon etc that will pay for it actually been explained?

Because whenever I’ve paid for advertising on FB, my money has been paid to a company in Ireland. VAT etc has been paid over there. Now I know the simple answer to how it’s done, but have Labour actually explained how they are going to do it?

 

[davek]

You make fair points Alan, but why would the internet belonging to shareholders (and increasingly in the hands of a smaller number of large shareholders who own many of the internet companies) be a better arbiter than the state? It would seem to me there are problems to both?

...except one would be free.

What Alan is arguing in favour of here, ultimately, IMO, is the profit motive. EVERTHING must be commodified to have an intrinsic value...apparently.

 

[nsno-chris]

I’d like to find Corbyns magic money tree

it sounds amazing

 

[Alan Whittle]

You make fair points Alan, but why would the internet belonging to shareholders (and increasingly in the hands of a smaller number of large shareholders who own many of the internet companies) be a better arbiter than the state? It would seem to me there are problems to both?

Agreed. Better regulatory framework for the current ownership arrangements are necessary together with much heftier penalties for infractions. I'm just uncomfortable with any kind of state ownership ( of whatever political hue) such that the Internet ends up as a tool of the state rather than an enabler for individual citizens.
Labours policy statement (at least as I understood it) rolled out broadband to everyone quickly at the public cost; infrastructure investment; Good, in exchange for state ownership ( and hence control, influence and more power; Bad imo.

 

[ToffeeTim]

Nationalisation of a country's broadband is not something anyone should support.

Not to mention the delusional economics behind the whole idea or the disaster it could be for some unfortunate pension holders.

 

[roydo]

You make fair points Alan, but why would the internet belonging to shareholders (and increasingly in the hands of a smaller number of large shareholders who own many of the internet companies) be a better arbiter than the state? It would seem to me there are problems to both?

Well the issue isnt owning the internet, cos no one actually does. Its controlling the delivery and support of access to it. I would prefer that to be in the hands of shareholders who have skin in the game if they fail, rather than a government of any hue who will be so tempted to use their control at some future point in time.

Also, like most, I have a collective distrust of politicians. It does not take a genius to make the connection, (sic) to having a collective customer base of millions of users as a convenient cash cow for some future fund raising.

 

[Alan Whittle]

...except one would be free.

What Alan is arguing in favour of here, ultimately, IMO, is the profit motive. EVERTHING must be commodified to have an intrinsic value...apparently.

No mate, you misunderstand me. I'm happy for state intervention in getting it done and having it free ( for those that can't afford it). I just don't want government ownership. The internet should be unfettered. Governments would do well to ensure that it is.

 

[catcherintherye]

...except one would be free.

What Alan is arguing in favour of here, ultimately, IMO, is the profit motive. EVERTHING must be commodified to have an intrinsic value...apparently.

I think the concerns are more geared towards control of information which I do understand. I'm just not sure we can trust private shareholders anymore.

If I was jesting I'd say workers co-operatives would be the way to go. But I've read a lot about it being communistic in policy today, and as Lenin said, Soviet power and electricity to all of Russia was communism!

 

[Alan Whittle]

You fail to show any link between public provision and control over content.

I'm sorry, you just dont.

I'm not trying to, merely hypothesising that it would be bad if there were any. Do you not think so?