Censored Internet Getting Closer and Closer>

[guerilla]

(which is another reason "the free market" isn't going to save the world here... I have one option for broadband Internet where I live. One).

Do you believe that other people should have to pay for you to have options, or that it is your responsibility to live somewhere that has competition in these services?

Not to mention the fact that since the lawsuit was filed, Comcast has taken to limiting access in terms of a GB cap every month.

Don't you limit cap on your hosting plans? Do you not allow certain content on your servers?

 

[Fatbat]

$16 whole dollars.

Now that's gangsta.

 

[subigo]

Do you believe that other people should have to pay for you to have options, or that it is your responsibility to live somewhere that has competition in these services?

Don't you limit cap on your hosting plans? Don't you not allow certain content on your servers?

Internet access isn't a cheeseburger from Burger King or a new pair of shoes. To a large majority of Americans it has become a necessity. I look at broadband Internet in the same way I look at city utility services. In most places there is one choice, no free market at all, and if that one choice decides to cut you off there is nothing you can do about it.

Having regulations on area monopolies in no way equals "other people having to pay for me to have options". And if everyone in the country had to "live somewhere that has competition in these services," we would all be crowded into a few cities and suburbs. And I by no means live in the country, we have close to 250k people in my city.

The difference between my hosting company and Comcast is choice. You don't like my plans? Find one of the other million hosts out there. You are free to do this because the Internet is open and available to you, for now. You can't do that with broadband Internet. In fact, let's say you only had one choice for Internet, now let's say that one choice decided the ONLY hosting site you were allowed to access was theirs or a provider they had a contract with. That's what you are arguing for.

 

[kblessinggr]

In fact, let's say you only had one choice for Internet, now let's say that one choice decided the ONLY hosting site you were allowed to access was theirs or a provider they had a contract with. That's what you are arguing for.

Lets not get you started bout Mediacom eh.

 

[guerilla]

Internet access isn't a cheeseburger from Burger King or a new pair of shoes.

No one claimed it was, and no one claimed the market was only capable of delivering shoes and cheeseburgers.

To a large majority of Americans it has become a necessity.

We could say the same thing about television. Or football. Or books. The internet for most people is for shopping and entertainment.

Necessity is not equal to a right if it means someone else has to provide it for you because then you would have to violate their rights to satisfy it.

I look at broadband Internet in the same way I look at city utility services. In most places there is one choice, no free market at all, and if that one choice decides to cut you off there is nothing you can do about it.

Good timing, because I just watched a lecture on competition last night that dealt with public utilities, and most public utilities were monopoly rights purchased from local government in return for payola, with 20+ year contracts, and eventually evolved into the fallacious "natural monopoly" argument. If you're interested, I can PM you a link. It blew my mind.

Having regulations on area monopolies in no way equals "other people having to pay for me to have options".

Absolutely it does. Once you choose to regulate monopolies, you cement that monopoly. Competition comes from deregulation. Without competition, everyone pays too much for too little. And the lobbying group with the most power, is the monopoly because their profits are assured.

And if everyone in the country had to "live somewhere that has competition in these services," we would all be crowded into a few cities and suburbs. And I by no means live in the country, we have close to 250k people in my city.

If your city is big enough to have multiple providers, why doesn't it? That's the real question to ask.

The difference between my hosting company and Comcast is choice. You don't like my plans? Find one of the other million hosts out there. You are free to do this because the Internet is open and available to you, for now.

Actually, you're able to do this because of competition.

But turn it around. Let's say you were the only hosting company. Do you believe it would be reasonable that you could not have caps, premium pricing, particular terms of service etc and that the public should be able to vote on how you serve them, at what cost etc?

Would you stay in business if that was the case?

In fact, let's say you only had one choice for Internet, now let's say that one choice decided the ONLY hosting site you were allowed to access was theirs or a provider they had a contract with. That's what you are arguing for.

Not at all. I am arguing for competition. I am arguing against monopoly. I am not using lack of competition as an excuse to raise barriers to entry. I'm saying existing barriers should be brought down. Creating regulation by the government only raises the cost for new entrants, and creates cozy relationships between bureaucrats and corporations.

The evidence is everywhere that no government cannot effectively regulate in the public interest. The tried it with telecom and only when they deregulated was there an explosion in info tech (I believe you grew up during this time, so you might not even know what it was like under regulation). If your horse is dead, stop beating it. Find another way.

That's what I am arguing for.

 

[bobsoap]

"make sure the car you build is safe"

"make sure the drug you make doesn't have any long-term side effects"

is very different from this one;

"make sure your customers have free access to all information, and not just to the one you've selected for them"

The first two are, "make a good product". The last one is, "you must provide something."

I once again agree with the points you make, except that I wouldn't say that information is a positive obligation. I think the "do no harm" principle applies to information as well. The freedom of information is an extension of the freedom of speech; it's a basic right that should be protected, just like safety.

 

[bobsoap]

No we are making very different arguments. You are saying that the reason for not getting the Govt involved is because it is corrupt. I am saying that first off the act of getting involved is what makes the Govt corrupt and second it does not matter if the Govt is corrupt or not. We have very different reasoning behind not wanting the Govt involved. While we agree on the end point in this particular case the philosophical reasoning behind our reasons are light years apart.

Thanks for clarifying, I see your point now.

The quote above very clearly shows that you are not sure which is the better choice and only fall on the side of the Govt staying out of it because of the corruption.

That was a rhetorical question. What I meant was that I do believe the government should protect the people's rights - not by regulating businesses to an extent that enables corruption, but by ensuring that businesses respect civil rights. The US is well beyond that point though, as you pointed out, which causes this dilemma.

Even if there were absolutely no corruption at all I do not believe the Govt especially the federal Govt should be involved in regulating business at all.

There is a fine line between protecting a right and regulating a business, that's for sure, and it has been crossed a long time ago. What you're saying is that a government will always cross that line if it has the chance to. The "chance" being its ability to impose rules onto markets and businesses. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

That's where I disagree - I believe the alternative (not allowing government to impose rules at all) is too much of an extreme and would be unfavorable for everyone involved. Instead, right at the beginning, it should be set in stone to what extent a government can get involved in things. It may look utopistic in our lifetime, but I believe it's generally not impossible.

 

[subigo]

No one claimed it was, and no one claimed the market was only capable of delivering shoes and cheeseburgers.

We could say the same thing about television. Or football. Or books. The internet for most people is for shopping and entertainment.

Necessity is not equal to a right if it means someone else has to provide it for you because then you would have to violate their rights to satisfy it.

Good timing, because I just watched a lecture on competition last night that dealt with public utilities, and most public utilities were monopoly rights purchased from local government in return for payola, with 20+ year contracts, and eventually evolved into the fallacious "natural monopoly" argument. If you're interested, I can PM you a link. It blew my mind.

Absolutely it does. Once you choose to regulate monopolies, you cement that monopoly. Competition comes from deregulation. Without competition, everyone pays too much for too little. And the lobbying group with the most power, is the monopoly because their profits are assured.

If your city is big enough to have multiple providers, why doesn't it? That's the real question to ask.

Actually, you're able to do this because of competition.

But turn it around. Let's say you were the only hosting company. Do you believe it would be reasonable that you could not have caps, premium pricing, particular terms of service etc and that the public should be able to vote on how you serve them, at what cost etc?

Would you stay in business if that was the case?

Not at all. I am arguing for competition. I am arguing against monopoly. I am not using lack of competition as an excuse to raise barriers to entry. I'm saying existing barriers should be brought down. Creating regulation by the government only raises the cost for new entrants, and creates cozy relationships between bureaucrats and corporations.

The evidence is everywhere that no government cannot effectively regulate in the public interest. The tried it with telecom and only when they deregulated was there an explosion in info tech (I believe you grew up during this time, so you might not even know what it was like under regulation). If your horse is dead, stop beating it. Find another way.

That's what I am arguing for.

I just don't think you give the Internet enough credit here. It's not like television, football, or books at all. It's a major part of the U.S. economy and if it disappeared tomorrow millions of people would be out of a job. I shouldn't have to say that on an affiliate marketing forum though.

The reason my area only has one choice is the same reason hundreds of other communities only have one choice. It's not cheap to build a new infrastructure and the profits just aren't there. The only way new companies get into the market around here is by buying out the current provider. In the past 12 years our broadband provider has changed names 4 times. AT&T does offer a DSL solution to some people in the area, but even after a decade of them being around very few people can get the service.

In a free market, anyone can come along with a good idea and enough money and become a competitor. But that's not possible when it comes to ISP broadband providers. Which is my entire point.

Did you know that in a large portion of the States it's illegal, or at least regulated to a point, where public ISP networks can't be built? I hope you've seen this map before: Community Broadband Preemption Map | municipal networks & community broadband

Our city has been trying to offer broadband services for a very long time, but can't do it themselves. That's why they went apeshit over the Google Fiber project and they had commercials, flyers, radio ads, etc... running for months: Google Fiber for Springfield, MO Project

So my argument is that there is no choice for the majority of people. If you have ten providers available to you, awesome, but you aren't in the majority. And because of the current State regulations and no profitable motive for new infrastructure, we are not going to get a choice any time soon.

So my question is this. Fine, don't "regulate" the Internet and allow broadband providers to only offer 30 sites to you, with no open option, cool. Say that happens. What will you, as Joe Public do? Where is the alternative? How are you going to offer something better when the largest telecommunication companies in the world don't see a profit in it now?

 

[ARVolund]

Internet access isn't a cheeseburger from Burger King or a new pair of shoes. To a large majority of Americans it has become a necessity. I look at broadband Internet in the same way I look at city utility services. In most places there is one choice, no free market at all, and if that one choice decides to cut you off there is nothing you can do about it.

Having regulations on area monopolies in no way equals "other people having to pay for me to have options". And if everyone in the country had to "live somewhere that has competition in these services," we would all be crowded into a few cities and suburbs. And I by no means live in the country, we have close to 250k people in my city.

The difference between my hosting company and Comcast is choice. You don't like my plans? Find one of the other million hosts out there. You are free to do this because the Internet is open and available to you, for now. You can't do that with broadband Internet. In fact, let's say you only had one choice for Internet, now let's say that one choice decided the ONLY hosting site you were allowed to access was theirs or a provider they had a contract with. That's what you are arguing for.

The only reason you have a monopoly is because the Govt is involved. They sold you down the river for their piece of silver and could care less how much it cost you.

To say that there should be Govt regulations on industries that have a Govt installed monopoly to hopefully fix the problems caused by the Govt in the first place is ludicrous. How about instead we just have competition?

Fuck this is something that has been going on for a long time. The Govt causes the problem in the first place and then comes back and ads more laws on the book that just end up making the problems worse. Would it not make more sense to remove the laws that created the problem in the first place?

 

[Carlsbadd]

Great thread and great idea's shared here.

What is worrisome to me is that the head of the FCC is a political appointee and not responsible to voters. So if you get some crackpot with idea's of censorship or some other nonsense it's slowly starts to creep into control over content.

That's the monster under the bed for me.

 

[kblessinggr]

I wonder how long before someone claims that an ISP throttling or rejecting their site (Especially if they don't pay some kind of premium down the road) is a violation of their 1st amendment right.

Far as the TV + Internet comparison, you can't communicate and express yourself in front of a TV alone, needs the internet for that.

 

[ARVolund]

I just don't think you give the Internet enough credit here. It's not like television, football, or books at all. It's a major part of the U.S. economy and if it disappeared tomorrow millions of people would be out of a job. I shouldn't have to say that on an affiliate marketing forum though.

The reason my area only has one choice is the same reason hundreds of other communities only have one choice. It's not cheap to build a new infrastructure and the profits just aren't there. The only way new companies get into the market around here is by buying out the current provider. In the past 12 years our broadband provider has changed names 4 times. AT&T does offer a DSL solution to some people in the area, but even after a decade of them being around very few people can get the service.

In a free market, anyone can come along with a good idea and enough money and become a competitor. But that's not possible when it comes to ISP broadband providers. Which is my entire point.

Did you know that in a large portion of the States it's illegal, or at least regulated to a point, where public ISP networks can't be built? I hope you've seen this map before: Community Broadband Preemption Map | municipal networks & community broadband

Our city has been trying to offer broadband services for a very long time, but can't do it themselves. That's why they went apeshit over the Google Fiber project and they had commercials, flyers, radio ads, etc... running for months: Google Fiber for Springfield, MO Project

So my argument is that there is no choice for the majority of people. If you have ten providers available to you, awesome, but you aren't in the majority. And because of the current State regulations and no profitable motive for new infrastructure, we are not going to get a choice any time soon.

So my question is this. Fine, don't "regulate" the Internet and allow broadband providers to only offer 30 sites to you, with no open option, cool. Say that happens. What will you, as Joe Public do? Where is the alternative? How are you going to offer something better when the largest telecommunication companies in the world don't see a profit in it now?

Your argument just proves my point. Most of the problems you listed are caused by Govt intervention.

As far as alternatives go there are plenty if the Govt stays out of it. I live in a rural area and when I say rural I mean like in there is not a single traffic light in the whole county. The phone company owns the cable company so there was no incentive at all for them to upgrade their crappy DSL. A company from MO. ran an add in the local paper at the beginning of the year to see if anyone was interested in a better broadband. When they had enough commitments (and they only needed 15) they put a transmitter up on one of the local cell towers and came around and put up a receiver on my roof. Now I get twice the bandwidth I had before for less money. Now six months later you hear the phone company talking about upgrading their service.

The technology is there for other companies to compete with your local monopolies if the Govt just gets out of the way. Nothing is better than competition.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

As much as I hate to have the government involved in business, there is a need for regulation in some cases. The profit motive is essential for innovation but it has its drawbacks as well. The Internet is a utility so it needs to be handled differently.

Businesses exist to maximize profit only. If Comcast (or whoever) thinks that they can get a higher ROI by limiting infrastructure to more highly populated areas, then they will do so. However, that would have unintended consequences for the country as a whole. People that live outside of high population centers are just as capable of innovation, but without access to the Internet they may be constrained with what they can do.

The argument that many would give is that nothing prohibits a new company starting up to serve those customers, but that's not true. If the reason Comcast doesn't build the infrastructure is because it isn't profitable enough for them (even with their cheaper materials due to volume, existing knowledge base, etc) how can we expect a start-up to be able to finance it? Comcast could afford to lose money in some areas while making obscene profits in another to offset those losses. But a start-up company would not have that option. If the barriers to entry are too high (financial, not regulatory) then the demand will go unmet. In the case of something as important as the Internet, regulations might be appropriate. We can't simply expect everyone to move to a big city, because that too, would have unintended consequences.

Your argument just proves my point. Most of the problems you listed are caused by Govt intervention.

As far as alternatives go there are plenty if the Govt stays out of it. I live in a rural area and when I say rural I mean like in there is not a single traffic light in the whole county. The phone company owns the cable company so there was no incentive at all for them to upgrade their crappy DSL. A company from MO. ran an add in the local paper at the beginning of the year to see if anyone was interested in a better broadband. When they had enough commitments (and they only needed 15) they put a transmitter up on one of the local cell towers and came around and put up a receiver on my roof. Now I get twice the bandwidth I had before for less money. Now six months later you hear the phone company talking about upgrading their service.

The technology is there for other companies to compete with your local monopolies if the Govt just gets out of the way. Nothing is better than competition.

That's great that you finally have something approaching broadband, but a lot of us have had it for 10+ years. Do you really think it's good for the population to have to wait 10+ years before something becomes affordable enough to take advantage of? We're not talking about an HDTV here, the Internet is the most powerful educational, and business tool ever created - it needs to be made available to all for the benefit of future innovation. Who knows what you could have done if you had broadband back in the late 90's like me.

 

[guerilla]

That's great that you finally have something approaching broadband, but a lot of us have had it for 10+ years. Do you really think it's good for the population to have to wait 10+ years before something becomes affordable enough to take advantage of?

How can you make it cheaper if it is not cheap enough to deliver it immediately?

As far as being good or not, that's not really the question. If we're going to make ends justify the means arguments, let's dump people over 65 into incinerators and stop paying them pensions.

The issue isn't whether or not it would be good, sure it would be good. It would be good if everyone got free food and designer clothes. It would be good if everyone got a free education, free medicine and free transportation. It would be good if everyone had a meaningful job and loads of time for entertainment.

But we don't live in Utopia. We live in a world of scarce resources. We have to pick and choose, and giving some people internet access, means someone else has to pay for it. It isn't free.

So the question on that approach is the same question for every thread where people talk about free stuff from government. Is it morally correct to take from some people to give to others?

And to make an economic argument, by subverting the market process of competition and innovation, which drives down prices over time, there is a good chance that the broadband industry falls even further behind, because there will be no entrepreneurs attracted to innovate it, and to inject capital into developing new structures.

If people want internet that works the way the post office does, then by all means, make it a public utility.

 

[ARVolund]

As much as I hate to have the government involved in business, there is a need for regulation in some cases. The profit motive is essential for innovation but it has its drawbacks as well. The Internet is a utility so it needs to be handled differently.

Businesses exist to maximize profit only. If Comcast (or whoever) thinks that they can get a higher ROI by limiting infrastructure to more highly populated areas, then they will do so. However, that would have unintended consequences for the country as a whole. People that live outside of high population centers are just as capable of innovation, but without access to the Internet they may be constrained with what they can do.

The argument that many would give is that nothing prohibits a new company starting up to serve those customers, but that's not true. If the reason Comcast doesn't build the infrastructure is because it isn't profitable enough for them (even with their cheaper materials due to volume, existing knowledge base, etc) how can we expect a start-up to be able to finance it? Comcast could afford to lose money in some areas while making obscene profits in another to offset those losses. But a start-up company would not have that option. If the barriers to entry are too high (financial, not regulatory) then the demand will go unmet. In the case of something as important as the Internet, regulations might be appropriate. We can't simply expect everyone to move to a big city, because that too, would have unintended consequences.



That's great that you finally have something approaching broadband, but a lot of us have had it for 10+ years. Do you really think it's good for the population to have to wait 10+ years before something becomes affordable enough to take advantage of? We're not talking about an HDTV here, the Internet is the most powerful educational, and business tool ever created - it needs to be made available to all for the benefit of future innovation. Who knows what you could have done if you had broadband back in the late 90's like me.

Well you missed the point of my example, the cost of building the infrastructure was low enough that they only needed 15 people to sign up for it to be worth doing. That is a pretty low number and something that could be reached in a more densely populated area where the existing company started treating their customer like crap. Infrastructure costs are why a most developing countries have skipped right over landlines to cellphone technology. The cost is much lower so they can service areas that they would not be able to spend money to lay lines.

As I said earlier in my earlier post, we do not agree. Private competition is always better than the Govt being involved. It does not matter what the service or product is, having the Govt mandate that some people should get something at the expense of others is evil and wrong.

I used to live where I had a nice fat pipe with Cox but I decided living out here was worth the trade off. That is the kind of decisions that people make every day. Hell I know people that live farther out than I do that do not even have access to water and have to truck it in. They could live somewhere else but choose not to do so because they like where they live. Saying that the internet is something that everyone has to have is incorrect at best. I know quite a few people without it, they just do not see the need, I even know some that do not even own a computer.

There are also plenty of people that live in areas without electricity because there are no lines where they are at. Again they have made a decision on what is important to them. Protecting people from having to make those kinds of decisions is not the role of the Govt. I could stand to lose a few pound because I do not exercise enough. How is the Govt going to protect from that decision?

You are making the same argument that was made for the health care law that was just signed into law. The argument that people that want something should be able to take from people who have something. Where are you going to draw the line? Everyone has something that they think they need or thinks everyone needs or should have once you start down that path as we already have more and more things will be included until nobody has anything.

You worry about Govt corruption but you make arguments for actions that do nothing but increase Govt corruption. The only way to cut down on the amount of Govt corruption is to cut down on the amount of Govt in our lives which is of course the opposite of what you are proposing and what is goign on around us today.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

I believe the alternative (not allowing government to impose rules at all) is too much of an extreme and would be unfavorable for everyone involved. Instead, right at the beginning, it should be set in stone to what extent a government can get involved in things. It may look utopistic in our lifetime, but I believe it's generally not impossible.

We already have that. It's called the Constitution. Only some crackpots in government don't respect it. They will need to be removed at all costs.

 

[popeye]

Internet access isn't a cheeseburger from Burger King or a new pair of shoes. To a large majority of Americans it has become a necessity. I look at broadband Internet in the same way I look at city utility services. In most places there is one choice, no free market at all, and if that one choice decides to cut you off there is nothing you can do about it.

Having regulations on area monopolies in no way equals "other people having to pay for me to have options". And if everyone in the country had to "live somewhere that has competition in these services," we would all be crowded into a few cities and suburbs. And I by no means live in the country, we have close to 250k people in my city.

The difference between my hosting company and Comcast is choice. You don't like my plans? Find one of the other million hosts out there. You are free to do this because the Internet is open and available to you, for now. You can't do that with broadband Internet. In fact, let's say you only had one choice for Internet, now let's say that one choice decided the ONLY hosting site you were allowed to access was theirs or a provider they had a contract with. That's what you are arguing for.

How is posting nonsense all day on Huffpost and WF a necessity?? Water, Gas and Electricity are the only necessitys that you need to survive.

I don't want government taxing me and sticking their ignorant noses in the Internet so that some hippy in Missouri can troll Wickedfire at 7mpbs.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

As far as being good or not, that's not really the question. If we're going to make ends justify the means arguments, let's dump people over 65 into incinerators and stop paying them pensions.

I'm not referring to it being good for the customers that receive it, I'm saying it would be good for society if everyone has access to broadband because we would have a more educated society with better access to more things, and an avenue for the more entrepreneurs to create businesses that they otherwise wouldn't be able to create.

Think of the Internet as infrastructure, like roads and bridges and you'll see what I mean. Do you really think government shouldn't have built roads and bridges? If it were left up to companies to decide where the roads would be built, we'd only have logging roads where a lot of our highways are now. Once that infrastructure was put in place, it allowed more businesses to flourish as a result of that initial investment in infrastructure.

It would be good if everyone got free food and designer clothes. It would be good if everyone got a free education, free medicine and free transportation. It would be good if everyone had a meaningful job and loads of time for entertainment.

Nowhere in my post did I say the Internet should be free, so I don't understand the analogy.

If people want internet that works the way the post office does, then by all means, make it a public utility.

You mean how I can mail a letter anywhere in this country for 44 cents?

Well you missed the point of my example, the cost of building the infrastructure was low enough that they only needed 15 people to sign up for it to be worth doing.

I get that, but my point was that it took over 10 years for that to be the case. Do you really think they would have only needed 15 people to make the initial investment worth it 10 years ago? Meanwhile, the rest of us were able to start businesses online and create jobs that those without access couldn't do. See my road analogy above.

As I said earlier in my earlier post, we do not agree. Private competition is always better than the Govt being involved. It does not matter what the service or product is

This would be true in a perfect world, but unfortunately the profit motive means some will not stop until they own everything. If you want a silly, but somewhat accurate analogy - play a game of Monopoly long enough and you'll see the end result of unregulated capitalism. When the other guy owns everything and you're stuck paying rents you are completely at his mercy. You will never be able to compete because you can never match his resources, and he can squeeze you out of anything by losing money to make sure you don't make any. The only thing that keeps that from happening now is government regulations. Unfortunately, most of our government regulations have unintended consequences, but a complete lack of regulations does to - don't kid yourself.

You are making the same argument that was made for the health care law that was just signed into law. The argument that people that want something should be able to take from people who have something. Where are you going to draw the line? Everyone has something that they think they need or thinks everyone needs or should have once you start down that path as we already have more and more things will be included until nobody has anything.

No I'm not. But since you mentioned health care, don't forget that universal health care or not - hospitals are required to treat people that come into the emergency rooms. If somebody doesn't have health care they generally don't go for routine screenings and check-ups so they don't go to the hospital until they are very sick and at that point the treatment is very expensive. Since the hospitals still have to treat them guess what - the costs are still passed on to consumers. But this thread isn't about health care so I digress.

You worry about Govt corruption but you make arguments for actions that do nothing but increase Govt corruption. The only way to cut down on the amount of Govt corruption is to cut down on the amount of Govt in our lives which is of course the opposite of what you are proposing and what is goign on around us today.

You simply want to trade government corruption for business corruption. The difference being that we can vote our corrupt government officials out of office.

I think the free market is a great idea, but with zero regulation it wouldn't remain free for long.

 

[Andrew Scherer]

I don't want government taxing me and sticking their ignorant noses in the Internet so that some hippy in Missouri can troll Wickedfire at 7mpbs.

oh snap loool

 

[Andrew Scherer]

I'm not referring to it being good for the customers that receive it, I'm saying it would be good for society if everyone has access to broadband because we would have a more educated society with better access to more things, and an avenue for the more entrepreneurs to create businesses that they otherwise wouldn't be able to create.

I think in this case people would pay for it, it would be profitable and companies would deliver.

Think of the Internet as infrastructure, like roads and bridges and you'll see what I mean. Do you really think government shouldn't have built roads and bridges? If it were left up to companies to decide where the roads would be built, we'd only have logging roads where a lot of our highways are now. Once that infrastructure was put in place, it allowed more businesses to flourish as a result of that initial investment in infrastructure.

At the little town I'm staying in Mexico if a neighborhood wants a street in front of their house they all pitch it and pay for it.

There are also tolls along the highways to pay for road use, how much of that goes to upkeep and how much of it goes into pockets is anyone's guess.