Digital Divide vs. Welfare State

A Recent DailyTech article highlighting the plans of Intel, Dell and others to bridge the Digital Divide through their Every Citizen Online (ECO) project drew some very interesting comments pro and con (but mostly con).

Welfare State

Opined one commentator, "Computers, the Internet, and broadband are not rights. They're luxuries, and I don't like my tax dollars being used to provide luxuries to other people. Nowhere does the Constitution say that every citizen is entitled to be able to watch YouTube videos."

Opined another, "I hate welfare, redistribution of wealth, entitlement programs....everything the government takes money from me and spends on someone else who is too lazy or stupid to get for themselves."

And yet another, "If people in outlying areas want broadband, then they should have to pay for it themselves."

Answered a pro, "I'm sure there were people who thought that rural electrification and telephone service were luxuries in the first part of the 20th Century. Fortunately their views did not prevail, and I hope your attitude toward the internet and broadband meet the same fate."

And here's the crux: if the remote and rural areas were to pay for broadband service at the rate it will initially cost to provide this to them, the Digital Divide will never be bridged, since that single household in northern Montana cannot fork over the $2 Million it'll cost to pull fiber to their village.

Yet, that village may sprout and grow to something quite fantastic would it get online and join the rest of the world (should it want to, that is) both in terms of commerce and services.

In fact, this village, based on increased population and tax revenue alone may over time pay back the $2 Million a few times over to a government that may make (or subsidize) such an infrastructure investment.

The Constitution

True, our Constitution does not prescribe computer ownership and broadband access as a divine, every-citizen right. Neither, however, did it prescribe universal telephone access, which in the end was in fact provided by a Ma Bell that by law was guaranteed to make a modest profit, no matter what it spent, and to that degree was indeed subsidized when it had to pull dial tone across fifty miles of wasteland to reach remote customers.

I'm all for everyone working for a living and paying their way, but there is a mountain of difference between calling your local cable company and ask them to hook you up, and paying for 50 miles of fiber in order to join the 21st century.

The jury, as usual, is still out.