The Rocky Mountain News posted my letter in response to this news article about how or if government should force one group of people to buy broadband internet access for another group of people.
Jeff Smith writes that CU law professor Phil Weiser “would like to see public rather than industry funds used to stimulate broadband deployment, arguing that such services are for the general good of society” (March 10). This is journalistic smoke and mirrors.Extending broadband access to rural and remote areas is not a choice between”public” and “industry” funding. Since “the public” both pays taxes and funds industry when buying products, it pays either way. The choice is between voluntary trade and coercion.
Aesop’s fable of the City Mouse and Country Mouse is about trade-offs. If government should force City Mouse to buy broadband internet for Country Mouse, must Country Mouse buy City Mouse therapeutic getaways to the countryside?
If broadband access is for “the general good of society” what isn’t? Since a smelly, dirty, and immobile populace is surely “bad for society,” how about tax subsidies for soap, deodorant, and shoes?
Incidentally, both Phil Weiser and I graduated from Swarthmore College.
One could argue that certain goods are “public goods,” but fast communication and access to information is not one of them. The Wikipedia entry on public goods includes articles skeptical of the concept.
