Why should I have to pay for someone else's high speed broadband?

shoestring said:
Hi Brendan
I suppose its swings and roundabouts was my point.
Click to expand...

And I have no problem with swings and roundabouts. Some things will be dearer for rural dwellers and some will be cheaper.

But my problem is in paying for high speed broadband. It's not an essential like roads, water or electricity as there are alternatives.
 
I am not sure what you mean by discount?

I am happy to pay for my broadband connection in full and to contribute to the profits of UPC.

I am happy to subsidise the roads in rural Ireland to a certain extent, as some of them are subsidising my water.

I am just not happy to subsidise high speed broadband so that they can watch netflix.

Brendan
 
An Urban dweller should benefit from "Economies of Scale" that derive from population density and the consequent savings when providing services or facilities.

This is a fact of life.................
 
I already pay a premium for my electricity due to my address. Same for my internets.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I am happy to pay for my broadband connection in full and to contribute to the profits of UPC.
Click to expand...
From what I read in the article, though, what, if any, payment will be expected has not been decided on
While the infrastructure might be put in place "free of charge" (paid for via taxes/by the taxpayer), I can't see the provision of the service being always provided free of charge.

However, I'm not sure if your quite emotive question of "why should I pay for others" is really the issue at hand. I wonder if the question should rather be, or first be, should everyone be entitled to have access to high-speed broadband. Just because one of the things people do use high-speed broadband for is watching Netflix, doesn't make it the only possible use. I'm sure programmer types would be able to offer more information on the kinds of things that high-speed is necessary for.

Generally speaking, isn't it a good thing that rural areas don't become depopulated? Farmers need access to the internet, too and while they might not spend a huge amount of time transacting business online, perhaps they have family members who would stay around if they could telecommute.

So I think really the question is whether or not access to high-speed broadband should be considered to be a basic human right.
 
Janet said:
So I think really the question is whether or not access to high-speed broadband should be considered to be a basic human right.
Click to expand...

That is a very good question indeed.

And it seems clear to me that it is not a human right to have high-speed broadband access delivered to your door wherever you live.

Brendan
 
While it is not a basic human right in the manner of food, shelter, water, education it is a basic need in a modern society.

Its availability nationwide would enhance the acumen of many rural businesses and the ability of individuals conduct day to day transactions more efficiently and effectively. If in addition it lends variety to enjoyment of leisure time why not ?

For the benefit of the all, this will be paid for through taxes both rural and urban , as are schools, colleges, clinics, hospitals etc. We share the cost and reap the benefits
 
education it is a basic need in a modern society
Click to expand...

Broadband @ 20MB available from Satellite suppliers in rural areas which is more that adequate for this.
 
monagt said:
Broadband @ 20MB available from Satellite suppliers in rural areas which is more that adequate for this.
Click to expand...

The first line of my post should have had a comma after education. Then 'it' would mean that high speed connection would be a basic need in modern society.

Are you inferring in your comment that 20MB is adequate for education purposes. ? But why should education sector not have the highest and best available ? High speed should not be the prerogative of business and industry should it ? Or am I misreading you ?
 
I'm undecided about to what extent I would consider access to high-speed internet a right although if I was forced to choose today, I'd be more inclined to say it is than not. I thought I'd do a bit more reading as I vaguely remember reading something about internet access being one of the items on a list determining levels of poverty and came across a wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access, which others might find interesting to read. It makes the distinction between basic human rights and basic civil rights, which I wasn't really aware of or had thought about before.
 

YES to your first question, Gaming and Streaming require faster connections.

Fast connections to colleges, schools and businesses which are usually located in an urban location may be justified but BB as a "right" to every dwelling, probably not.

If users in rural or ribbon development require faster speed then they should pay the associated costs, the day of subsidies are gone..........the state is broke.
 
I'm beginning to think this discussion is moot, as it has apparently emerged today that the government have announced this "plan" (itself a rehash of previous successive unfulfilled plans) before ever costing it.

So until the government actually commits a specific budget to the project, it won't be worth even debating.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
And it seems clear to me that it is not a human right to have high-speed broadband access delivered to your door wherever you live.

Brendan
Click to expand...

Neither is having a Blue and Yellow bus passing at the head of the road every 10 minutes, but every tax payer in the country is still subsidising Dublin Bus.

Sure one bus a day would be enough for you. Thats what they get in rural Ireland, if they are very lucky
 
Are the buses and trains in rural Ireland profitable?

Anyway, I don't think that the comparison is appropriate. It makes sense for the whole community to promote public transport over private transport. So I have no objection to reasonable subsidies.

There is no big benefit to society in providing high speed broadband in every nook and cranny of the country.

Brendan
 
Society includes the denizens of rural and small-town Ireland. In general, good access to the online world is as beneficial to them as to the residents of Dublin.

I imagine there were similar rants against the extension of the telephone system.
 
Padraigb said:
Society includes the denizens of rural and small-town Ireland. In general, good access to the online world is as beneficial to them as to the residents of Dublin.
Click to expand...

The corollary here is of course that universal access to broadband allows the State save serious money in bringing its own operations online.

Padraigb said:
I imagine there were similar rants against the extension of the telephone system.
Click to expand...

Quite.
 
Neither is having a Blue and Yellow bus passing at the head of the road every 10 minutes, but every tax payer in the country is still subsidising Dublin Bus.
Click to expand...

Its all about population density and economies of scale.

If they buses were not there, the consequences would be:

More private cars on road -> congestion -> business traffic delayed -> cost to businesses and customers + emergency services affected
Maybe congestion charges in city centers.
 
If Dublin takes water from the Shannon then I assume everyone will have to pay for this.

My property tax came in at c€1400 this year and that's down 15% on last year. I don't have much of an income but my savings are being constantly eroded by all these costs despite having a frugal lifestyle. Enough is enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register