3 thoughts on “Do we really want to make the broadband sector more like the postal service?”

  1. Posted 09/11/2015 at 15:25 | Permalink

    I think the problem is that so many things these days are going fully digital – even our currency if bankers have it their way – that our society wouldn’t properly function without at least some type of internet access. By providing broadband to everyone, the government should be able to save money by rolling out digital-only access without being discriminatory. Of course people might still choose to live without a broadband connection, just as some never have landlines or even a fixed address. But that would be their choice. If broadband was just about games and social media then I would agree.

  2. Posted 09/11/2015 at 18:19 | Permalink

    First bring in the land line universal phone, which is primarily the actual monopoly that will give the public access to the cheapest form of electricity. Without being able to afford the electricity, which the internet used to the tune of an increase in climate change over 10 percent increase, the entire idea is a utopia economic myth. Electricity and both fossil and green manufacturing of fossil fuel driven production are required before a national utility pricing of broadband access to the internet can even begin to be considered. Otherwise having a phone that has access fees to Canada Bell Canada Act through the open radio micro waves payed for by investors and the for only Canadians as a public, who have universal access rights, under the Bell monopoly grandfathered in clause,not British people, will cut your corporations and Royalties off, ending the use of charity by your government. Historically, Britain only wanted access to Canada, as a country for their business and political communication to flow through that land and on to China.

    Without justice for the Canadians who are no longer under the parliament of Britain, those Lords of the Spiritual and Temporal, who permitted all this passing on to the public to fund their selected private, who too took too much from their public, under their privilege of charity for the rich, for far too long. The fact that these Lords of the Spiritual would privilege their own life style, and even in Cambridge, use disabled children from foreign lands to bring in revenue for educational funding, is indicative of a lack of moral reasoning.

    The economic interests of international education economic plan should not have turned children into exchange products of trade. The result of this political abuse of public interests has resulted in child commodification revenue, what the government did not want to fund under public finance, as some of their members wanted charitable schools for their own segregation of social networks. When the richest is the world, claim entitlements as charitable services for their own interests, the variable methodological design of the economic research of all those think tanks need real peer evaluation.

    Standards of iea must assure that when a variable is used, it actually is a reliable variable to define what the research is measuring. When they invent their own index, with a classification of tautological subjective claims that the person believes makes up the variable based on subjective arbitrary values, they act on what in scientific research is called social bias. Social bias must be controlled for, other wise the study is a waste of time. And unfortunately most of the economic research in international education makes all the research not worth much. Public policy design created under this social biased economic assumptions from their tautological definition of specific studies, only represents the specific simple numbers, and cannot be generalized, because the social bias is predictable and the study mimics what is already known to be the problem of the social structure in the first place.

    When the social bias was not controlled for, and an economic interest in the collective micro behaviors of the public, were assumed to be other than related directly to the birth position of the child, within their local society, the real needs of those children are not considered as factors that public finance needs to address first, in order to understand that each individual experience of the economic world is based on a child’s birth position into a social class within their local community. Particular individuals place and space will also vary individually based on the child’s own stratified relationship within that local social economic structure, and that local communities stratified social-economic relationship to the larger state, and the then that state’s relationship to that larger nation.

    Assumptions made by economists about any individual child’s economic relationship to education under international education and standardized tests, forgot about reliable variables of needing to control for social bias and the actually differences of the economic lived life of the child and their access to resources. The economic thing tanks recommended and actual use of public finance is indicative of their beliefs and uncontrolled social bias in their own studies as resulting in the enhancing of inequalities of opportunity for a child.

    Had they had more education is social stratification and classification probability indexes for creating the real probability controlled indexes for measuring the relative place of the child within their social structure, they might have realized that a child position is based on their birth position in a social strata where parental income and education define their child’s access to the quality of services that they will access in a democracy that will enhance or not their privileged life to be mobile both up and down. When charity is for the rich to tax plan and have access to their own membership goods and services offered directly to them, democratic principles under public finance are eroded and children are discriminated against.

    Charitable self self government under democracy public finance changes the meaning of public to be a violation of our person, property and voting rights as though the meaning of public is private.

  3. Posted 11/11/2015 at 13:20 | Permalink

    Seems odd they announce this at a time they are emphasising the need to reduce public spending and the debacle over benefit cuts. All the hassle over the latter and then this which seems to me may well add to total public spending.

Comments are closed.