Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The way I see it we're talking about two different things; you're talking about the quantitative difference between say 90-92% of people have access if they want it. Whereas I'm talking about the qualitative difference between even a large percentage of the population having some degree of access and 100% of competent adults having at least a minimal level of access.

Obama is not the only politician pushing for universal access, if local governments could act with confidence that moving basic tasks like title transactions, judicial proceedings, public records, etc. to a completely electronic format would not create a vast set of support issues coming from the 8% or so of people who have no access; they could streamline operations and save taxpayer money. The point I'm trying to get at is that Universal Broadband may be one of those rare government initiatives that does pay for itself. And as an infrastructure investment, it makes for a better environment for any company reliant on the internet.



> The way I see it we're talking about two different things; you're talking about the quantitative difference between say 90-92% of people have access if they want it.

No, I'm not. There are many biz that work if only 10% of the population has broadband, as long as it's the right 10%.

> Whereas I'm talking about the qualitative difference between even a large percentage of the population having some degree of access and 100% of competent adults having at least a minimal level of access.

You're assuming that the 10% who don't have broadband access would be a significant difference to an interesting fraction of biz. That's unlikely. Heck - it's unlikely that the 30% who have access but choose not to particpate would make a difference. (If someone is unwilling to spend $30/month on broadband, how much money do you think that they'll spend if they had broadband for less?)

> Obama is not the only politician pushing for universal access

That's not exactly an argument that suggests confidence. After all, these are the same folks who thought that 0 down mortgages were a good idea.

> if local governments could act with confidence that moving basic tasks like title transactions, judicial proceedings, public records, etc. to a completely electronic format would not create a vast set of support issues coming from the 8% or so of people who have no access; they could streamline operations and save taxpayer money.

You're significantly overstating the number of transactions.

I use such services about once/year but that's only because I'm somewhat of a nut about verifying that my property tax was properly credited - the vast majority of people don't bother. Not many people have "judicial" proceedings to observe and most of them are served by lawyers. As far as the rest, how often do you check that your house/car title is correct? (I've never checked either one.)

Yearly car registration payment is about the only common transaction that can be done online but it only costs about $1-3 to do by USPS. (Shipping stickers costs about the same but the reasons for having such stickers are not affected by on-line payment.) Even if payment costs were free online, that "savings" doesn't buy much infrastructure. It can be done by dial-up and a significant number of people already do it online, so the generous assumption is that at most 30% of the population could be moved to use on-line registration and they don't have that many cars.

And then there's the "I didn't get the e-mail telling me to renew my license" problem....




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: