Why doesn't the government provide cell phone service?

[Cooky]

Uncle Sam has indeed offered subsidized phone service since Reagan. It started with him, but people began calling them "Obamaphones."
But, I agree a deed phone service would be good, and not just for low income like worth Lifeline phones.

So the government already has the satellites and towers in place. Perfect.

 

[Cooky]

Why do people who never drive interstate have to subsidize the "freeway" system?
Tom

What do you mean?

 

[columbus]

What do you mean?

How hard is this to understand?
The government collects taxes and spends the money on huge ribbons of pavement, whether the taxpayer wants them or not. Taxpayers have no choice.
Personally, I would rather see the interstate turned into toll roads. Take the financial burden off of the taxpayer who doesn't use them.
But somehow, solid capitalists become hardcore socialists when the subject is taxpayer supported roads for them to drive on.
Tom

 

[Stanyon]

How hard is this to understand?
The government collects taxes and spends the money on huge ribbons of pavement, whether the taxpayer wants them or not. Taxpayers have no choice.
Personally, I would rather see the interstate turned into toll roads. Take the financial burden off of the taxpayer who doesn't use them.
But somehow, solid capitalists become hardcore socialists when the subject is taxpayer supported roads for them to drive on.
Tom

How many taxpayers do you estimate do not use roads?

 

[Stanyon]

"
Vermont Senator and US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders pledged to put a stop to the "greed" of telcos and cable operators with a wide-ranging "High-Speed Internet for All" plan backed by billions in grants designed to expand access to broadband services and reduced pricing.

Sanders, who pledged to accomplish this by the end of his first term as president, wants to take that big step further by using "existing antitrust authority to break up internet service provider and cable monopolies."

Sanders would also put forth a plan to classify broadband ISPs as common carriers under "Title II" and reinstate network neutrality regulations that were recently rolled back at the FCC under the Trump administration. He'd also attempt to have Congress codify those rules into law to prevent more see-sawing of the FCC rules. In another jab at the FCC, Sanders would also seek to conduct a "national broadband census" that creates a more comprehensive and accurate assessment of broadband access maps, speeds and prices" from Bernie Sanders Threatens to Break Up Broadband Market With 'High-Speed Internet for All' Plan | Light Reading

What are the trade offs to this? You know there has to be a few. We already have companies selling your information, even monitoring people and sharing your information with governmental agencies. I am pretty sure this would just open the door for increased front door intrusion and surveillance without the middleman but hey, it's cheaper!

 

[columbus]

How many taxpayers do you estimate do not use roads?

I don't know.
How many people don't use healthcare? Smaller number than don't use highways. Do you think that that fact justifies Universal Health Care? More people need health care than highways. Does that mean the government should provide it, he way government provides highways?

If not, why not?
Tom

 

[Heyo]

What are the trade offs to this? You know there has to be a few. We already have companies selling your information, even monitoring people and sharing your information with governmental agencies. I am pretty sure this would just open the door for increased front door intrusion and surveillance without the middleman but hey, it's cheaper!

As you say, the companies are already selling our data, so nothing would change there. What would change is that, in a market with a very high entrance threshold and non competition agreements, a true competitor would force prices near the Nash equilibrium. You know, the ideal of a free market.

 

[columbus]

True. That would be the incentive for many to keep private providers like Sprint, Verizon, etc. That way nobody has a monopoly, not even the government.

What makes you think private providers are keeping your information away from the NSA?
They're private, for profit, entities who will do whatever serves their bottom line.
Tom

 

[Cooky]

What makes you think private providers are keeping your information away from the NSA?
They're private, for profit, entities who will do whatever serves their bottom line.
Tom

My only objective is reducing costs, and serving the middle class.

 

[Brickjectivity]

But the internet is rapidly rendering both the libraries and post offices roadkill by the side of the information superhighway.
It's already taken out the evening news broadcast and print media.
Tom

Yes the internet has replaced most correspondence.

The post office remains the official authority on mailing addresses. If someone doesn't have an address with the post office they don't have anything. If you have an address with them then you are a real person in the US, and without one you are almost a person.

 

[columbus]

My only objective is reducing costs, and serving the middle class.

Require operators of personal vehicles to pay their own way.
Spend public funds on more accessible alternatives, like internet and rail and other proven technology like that.
Tom

 

[columbus]

I guess I just feel like I'm ready to stab the cell phone companies in their backs, because they're acting like they own me.

Plus, $53 billion dollars in profits..?

How Wireless Carriers Make Their Money - mindWireless

I thought you were a capitalist?
It's what capitalists do! Make money.
Tom

 

[Cooky]

I thought you were a capitalist?
It's what capitalists do! Make money.
Tom

I have no problem with Capitalism and Socialism living side by side... I'm all about options... Variety is the spice of life, and it's fun to watch competitions.

...I'm just curious to see what would happen.

 

[Revoltingest]

After spending a pretty hefty amount of money on my cell phone bill, I was just wondering why nobody ever suggests that the government creates it's own cellular service, where instead of profits, the government option would merely base prices on what is necessary to maintain the service.

What's your opinion on an optional public cellular service provider, in competition with privatized providers?

If government designed cel phones, there would be political
considerations resulting in not the best design......

 

[Revoltingest]

Eventually, government would improve & simplify it....

 

[columbus]

I guess I just feel like I'm ready to stab the cell phone companies in their backs, because they're acting like they own me.

To be clear, I don't want to stab Samsung or Apple in the back...

What?
What's the difference?
Big corporations who own you. What difference does it make which one?
Tom

 

[Valjean]

After spending a pretty hefty amount of money on my cell phone bill, I was just wondering why nobody ever suggests that the government creates it's own cellular service, where instead of profits, the government option would merely base prices on what is necessary to maintain the service.

What's your opinion on an optional public cellular service provider, in competition with privatized providers?

Socialism!!!

Do you think our current government is going to stab business in the back like that?
Pandering to big business and smoothing impediments to corporate profits is what government does. Corporations fund candidates promising free trade, deregulation and low taxes, and the elected candidates deliver. Free trade and small government is the order of the day.

Our elected officials work for the corporations that provide their jobs. They're not going to compete with them.

...I mean, if it's our government, then it should do whatever we tell it to do, right..?

If it were a democracy you'd be right, but behind the democratic trappings is an oligarchy. Government is not responsive to the wishes and preferences of the people it pretends to represent.
I've referenced Gilens and Page's Princeton study several times on RF. Did you see it? They found virtually no relationship between policy outcomes and the desires of less advantaged groups.

 

[Valjean]

I guess I just feel like I'm ready to stab the cell phone companies in their backs, because they're acting like they own me.

Plus, $53 billion dollars in profits..?

If you think cell-phone providers are extortionate, you haven't looked at the medical, pharmaceutical or education industries. They used to be affordable.

The thing about subsidies, is that it costs money. With a government cell phone service, the customers would pay the bill, ergo minus the extra billions spent for someone else's profits.

...Of course people could still choose their private cell provider if that's what they want.

Regulated corporations? Ceilings on corporate profits? Isn't the duty of corporations to maximize profits by any means possible?
The current corporate ethos is: stockholders and quarterly profits first, and public service only if it doesn't affect the bottom line. Public benefit at the price of profit is considered unethical.
Pharma chief defends 400% drug price rise as a ‘moral requirement’ | Financial Times

 

[Cooky]

Socialism!!!

Do you think our current government is going to stab business in the back like that?
Pandering to big business and smoothing impediments to corporate profits is what government does. Corporations fund candidates promising free trade, deregulation and low taxes, and the elected candidates deliver. Free trade and small government is the order of the day.

Our elected officials work for the corporations that provide their jobs. They're not going to compete with them.
If it were a democracy you'd be right, but behind the democratic trappings is an oligarchy. Government is not responsive to the wishes and preferences of the people it pretends to represent.
I've referenced Gilens and Page's Princeton study several times on RF. Did you see it? They found virtually no relationship between policy outcomes and the desires of less advantaged groups.

That's why I like Trump. Nobody owns Trump because he's a real-estate guy. Real-estate people are independent from corporations, unlike the Bush's, who have several generations in the oil industry.

...Now if we could just 'clear the swamp' of all the other politicians with their tie-downs, the world would be a better place.

 

[Cooky]

Regulated corporations? Ceilings on corporate profits? Isn't the duty of corporations to maximize profits by any means possible?
The current corporate ethos is: stockholders and quarterly profits first, and public service only if it doesn't affect the bottom line. Public benefit at the price of profit is considered unethical.
Pharma chief defends 400% drug price rise as a ‘moral requirement’ | Financial Times

I think you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting any sort of regulations or ceilings on corporations at all... Just on the government.

...The government is just a program, and we are the programmers. In fact, I would even be for firing the majority of government workers and replacing them with computer programs, or "algorithms".