Pretty sure you die with no water at all for a few days.
Your water example is more like if the business just tells every employee to bring their own mobile phone data plan to work and use that, not "no" internet access..
Either way, I don't have a problem with governments getting into the internet business, as long as they don't use anyone's tax money to pay for it (so no subsidies, just user fees from the people getting the service) and don't privilege themselves over others who may want to compete (so no "only the government can run fiber here" nonsense).
It's when people start deciding the government must use their ability to force people to become a monopoly provider that I object. People will claim this and that is a "natural" monopoly, but if that's true, then there should be no need to create a monopoly for the buddies of the politicians, I mean, the most competitive bidder, I mean, the government bureaucrats, legally, just let it happen "naturally" while competing against all comers.
Which is worse? No Internet, or no water? (Score:4, Interesting)
But no Internet access? For many companies that would mean great difficulty in doing the normal work.
Internet access has become a necessary public utility.
Re:Which is worse? No Internet, or no water? (Score:2)
Pretty sure you die with no water at all for a few days.
Your water example is more like if the business just tells every employee to bring their own mobile phone data plan to work and use that, not "no" internet access..
Either way, I don't have a problem with governments getting into the internet business, as long as they don't use anyone's tax money to pay for it (so no subsidies, just user fees from the people getting the service) and don't privilege themselves over others who may want to compete (so no "only the government can run fiber here" nonsense).
It's when people start deciding the government must use their ability to force people to become a monopoly provider that I object. People will claim this and that is a "natural" monopoly, but if that's true, then there should be no need to create a monopoly for the buddies of the politicians, I mean, the most competitive bidder, I mean, the government bureaucrats, legally, just let it happen "naturally" while competing against all comers.