drmike
100% Tier-1 Gogent
It dawned on me earlier today in reading and reflecting the place that internet access increasingly has in our lives. Realized it prior, but just a little more clearly today.
I grew up before computers were common in homes and we knew nothing of tablets or smartphones. In those days the public library was a godsend. If you wanted information, there were libraries for research, newspapers for the daily drip of infotainment, television and radio for a bit of the same with more emphasis on entertainment.
To communicate you picked up the phone and called someone you knew already.
Data wasn't free or flowing very well. Interactions and new relationships weren't easily formed, perhaps it all insulated us to small tight knit communities and everything was more centered around town squares and civic obligations. We were outside a good bit. Exercise and leisure outside of the home was more common. We spent far less screen time on average and our only interactive tether that was paid out of pocket was the telephone.
All this leads to a question: Should universal internet access be a human right?
The libraries of old were funded by foundations and contributions from all over. This included some being funded entirely by localities. Libraries were fairly open places anyone could spend time within freely. They tend to still be open in this way.
The information was there if you would spend the time and were willing to learn. We saw the value and return as a society in maintaining libraries (although in some places such fell into disrepair and became political hot potato).
Today, the library has been diminished in importance. People live online. Government forms are increasingly digital-only. Taxes, done online. Looking for a job, yep, look online and apply online. Want to communicate, much of it online, unless you like leaving voicemail messages (and even the phone is VOIP). Plenty of education examples being done online - whole schools and curriculums. Social interaction, for many it's online too.
As the economic side of this internet plays, access is a gated government franchise racket in most places. Companies pay off localities or counties in the US to be the incumbent, meaning they get solo access and rights to beat rate payers locally out of money for providing services (even when the services fail to perform, even when rates are not competitive, etc.). The monopoly or in case of a telephone and cable option for internet, duopoly provide little innovation, competition or even means to access. I for instance lingered under sub par cable company for years while they failed to upgrade infrastructure, slow throughput and high packet loss. Corporate pay to access internet access is a giant disaster throughout the United States.
Some will say that cellular / wireless infrastructure is alternative solution and competition, yet in the States, such is super expensive per gigabyte of data transferred.
Many among the general population look at the cost of internet access as a luxury item that doesn't fit within their budget by choice or as a result of literal shortage of funds on a continued basis. These people will have a difficult time functioning, be limited to infotainment options for information, be grossly misinformed, have to travel to get access, pay to get forms, etc. It's a very tangible, and problematic outcome unless these people are seniors facing end of life.
It all feeds into this core concept that bounces around mentally - Should universal internet access be a human right? (Mind you, I realize the abusive single provider and government lockdown / control under such a system if left unchecked.)
I grew up before computers were common in homes and we knew nothing of tablets or smartphones. In those days the public library was a godsend. If you wanted information, there were libraries for research, newspapers for the daily drip of infotainment, television and radio for a bit of the same with more emphasis on entertainment.
To communicate you picked up the phone and called someone you knew already.
Data wasn't free or flowing very well. Interactions and new relationships weren't easily formed, perhaps it all insulated us to small tight knit communities and everything was more centered around town squares and civic obligations. We were outside a good bit. Exercise and leisure outside of the home was more common. We spent far less screen time on average and our only interactive tether that was paid out of pocket was the telephone.
All this leads to a question: Should universal internet access be a human right?
The libraries of old were funded by foundations and contributions from all over. This included some being funded entirely by localities. Libraries were fairly open places anyone could spend time within freely. They tend to still be open in this way.
The information was there if you would spend the time and were willing to learn. We saw the value and return as a society in maintaining libraries (although in some places such fell into disrepair and became political hot potato).
Today, the library has been diminished in importance. People live online. Government forms are increasingly digital-only. Taxes, done online. Looking for a job, yep, look online and apply online. Want to communicate, much of it online, unless you like leaving voicemail messages (and even the phone is VOIP). Plenty of education examples being done online - whole schools and curriculums. Social interaction, for many it's online too.
As the economic side of this internet plays, access is a gated government franchise racket in most places. Companies pay off localities or counties in the US to be the incumbent, meaning they get solo access and rights to beat rate payers locally out of money for providing services (even when the services fail to perform, even when rates are not competitive, etc.). The monopoly or in case of a telephone and cable option for internet, duopoly provide little innovation, competition or even means to access. I for instance lingered under sub par cable company for years while they failed to upgrade infrastructure, slow throughput and high packet loss. Corporate pay to access internet access is a giant disaster throughout the United States.
Some will say that cellular / wireless infrastructure is alternative solution and competition, yet in the States, such is super expensive per gigabyte of data transferred.
Many among the general population look at the cost of internet access as a luxury item that doesn't fit within their budget by choice or as a result of literal shortage of funds on a continued basis. These people will have a difficult time functioning, be limited to infotainment options for information, be grossly misinformed, have to travel to get access, pay to get forms, etc. It's a very tangible, and problematic outcome unless these people are seniors facing end of life.
It all feeds into this core concept that bounces around mentally - Should universal internet access be a human right? (Mind you, I realize the abusive single provider and government lockdown / control under such a system if left unchecked.)