Google Fiber deal not in best interest of NC public

Published January 29, 2015

by Dawson Gage, Wilmington freelance writer, published in News and Observer, January 28, 2015.

The announcement of a deal with Google to bring ultra-fast Internet to the Triangle is being hailed like rain in the desert. Amid an economy that, flashes of optimism aside, remains in stagnation, we imagine that the super-fast Internet will super-charge our businesses, our schools, our very lives.

High-speed Internet doesn’t really improve the speed or, more importantly, the quality of how most of us do business –most of us don’t work for Netflix or engage in high-speed financial speculation. It also doesn’t make children learn faster or better – I somehow doubt that more HD streaming video will solve our education problems.

I rejoiced when my family first got broadband Internet when I was about 13, but I doubt it has made any of our lives richer or more productive. The usefulness of computers, for the most part, has little enough to do with how fast they are. No one wants delivery vans and school buses that go 20,000 mph.

In light of this, a massive dose of skepticism is appropriate. The upshot of the Google deal is that an enormously valuable piece of public infrastructure, which ought to be owned in common by the public, is handed over lock, stock and barrel to a private company based in California. This same company was deeply involved in the illegal, secret surveillance of all our Internet usage by the NSA. Its entire business model is founded on the premise that Google has the right to meticulously monitor and record every morsel of data that passes within its reach.

Do we in North Carolina share this premise?

Moreover, the law passed by the General Assembly to make public municipal Internet services illegal (save for that of Wilson, which was grandfathered in) is itself testament to the fact that public alternatives are feasible and sustainable. Indeed, at the time of that bill’s passage, the town of Chapel Hill was already laying its own high-speed fiber, which now presumably will be annexed by Google.

At the time of the law’s passage in 2011, its proponents argued that municipal or other government involvement in providing Internet service was “an interference in the free market.” Last time I checked, lobbying the government to outlaw an entire sector of potential competition was not much of a “free-market” approach. What erstwhile advocates of “free market” principles in the realm of infrastructure actually believe in is a doctrine of private ownership as an unchallenged system.

Why not simply contract Google – or even better, some of the many competent North Carolina businesses – to build a high-speed fiber network, which would then be owned by the public? Would any of us wish to drive on privately owned toll roads? Those who stand to benefit and, yes, profit from such ventures as the Google plan would prefer we did not ask such questions.

And do we not imagine that Google views owning our Internet infrastructure as a fantastic bonanza of the data on which it feeds? Google Fiber is a business venture, not an act of philanthropy.

Appeals to the virtues of the market are hollow in the cases of government-anointed monopolies like Google or, for that matter, Duke Energy. In the era of Gov. Pat McCrory, I understand that many of those in power see the private ownership of public infrastructure as a beau-ideal, part of the natural order. But North Carolinians should be aware that more public, open and democratic alternatives are possible.

Dawson Gage of Wilmington is an IT worker, freelance writer and aspiring law student.

January 29, 2015 at 11:34 am
Richard Bunce says:

The State a few years back opened up the cable/internet market to any service provider. Gone are the days of government regulated monopolies... at least in this business. That is a very good thing. As for government competing with the private sector on a level playing field... the author is ignoring the many advantages the government has in competition in services and the long history of failed government services due to the systemic issue with it... the employees have no incentive to provide good service when their revenue is derived not from attracting voluntary customers but from the use of the coercive power of government. The author will have a long list of politically inspired regulations for such a government provided internet service to meet. Just keep the market open and allow everyone who wants to compete for business to compete. No government action required.

January 29, 2015 at 1:25 pm
Norm Kelly says:

Here, Here!

January 29, 2015 at 2:11 pm
Norm Kelly says:

Government is NOT SUPPOSED to compete with private business. Government MIGHT regulate business, but it is NOT a competitor. When government gets involved in a market, competition is eliminated. By default, government can NOT allow competition. Witness the ABC system. Witness gambling - only state-sponsored gambling is allowed, and all competition is stamped out by government. Witness government monopoly schools. First, I refer to it this way by suggestion of Chris Fitzsimmon. Second, witness how government monopoly school establishment responds whenever competition to public school is even mentioned, let alone tried.

How exactly would government ownership of high-speed fiber improve anything related to Internet service? What part of government is trained, educated, equipped to provide this service? How does having even more government employees to run this 'business' improve the economy, increase employment, increase the tax base?

If Google wants to get into the high-speed fiber Internet business, this puts my mind at ease that the Town of Cary will finally give up on the idea of creating their own network. And what the author misses is that Google will not be a monopoly, as would a government owned/operated network. Currently AT&T offers fiber Internet service, TimeWarner offers what they call high-speed Internet but I'd never use again, and Century Link offers fiber Internet service. So there is no concern for Google being a monopoly; they become another player in the existing market.

Would any of us wish to ride on privately owned toll roads? Exactly how would this differ from government owned toll roads? What would be the downside to having some private company own, operate, maintain a toll road? Once again, if there were private toll roads and government owned toll roads, it would give drivers a choice. Since when did choice become a bad thing? Doesn't competition and choice actually improve any market? Trick question. Libs will get it wrong in droves. Conservatives, business people, and right-wing nuts will get this one right. Cuz the answer is that YES competition absolutely improves a market. If my only choice for shopping for bookshelves is at WalMart, then they can set the price to whatever they want and set the quality as low or high as they want. I would have no choice but to buy what WalMart had available. However, I actually can choose to buy my bookshelf at Target, WalMart, the local wood shop, or have it custom built in my home by a craftsman. This gives me choice. I can decide how much I want to pay, what material I want to have in my home, and which retailer I choose to give my money to. When government gets involved in a market, and removes ALL choice, then I am stuck with whatever quality & level of service they choose to provide, regardless of how much they charge me!

The other challenge the author appears to have with Google being ANOTHER provider is the fact that Google's plan is to make PROFIT! God Forbid! Again, when did this word, profit, become a bad word? I know that libs at every level of government, and many in the private sector, despise 'profit'. There are multitudes of libs across the nation that expect if the profit motive is taken out of every aspect of life, everything would improve. Can you present examples? I can present examples that prove you wrong, so can you present examples that prove you right? (again trick question cuz libs will get it wrong!) How is the DMV working out for you? How about socialized medicine? Has it improved the market, is the price coming down? Taxing INCOME on medical device manufacturers (instead of profits like every other business in the nation) will improve innovation HOW? Once we allow government to tax one business on INCOME, expect libs to expand this idea to other industries, eventually taxing income on all businesses. If you think companies are moving out of our country now, just wait til you see the flight when all INCOME is taxed for every business. And let's not forget it's libs that have suggested a complete take-over of the oil/gas industry so the PROFIT motive is removed, and thereby improve supply and reduce cost to the public. Like that would ever happen! Without profit motive, there is no reason to be in business. Leaving only governments to run any business. How does this work in socialist European countries? Answer: quite poorly! Libs won't admit this, but sometimes truth hurts. It usually hurts libs, which makes it even more fun!

Why would anyone believe that government owned Internet service would be MORE OPEN than what we have now? Lack of competition would make this impossible. Look at places like China, Korea. Government owns, operates, controls Internet service. Is it more open, accessible than what we have here, operated by private business with profit motive? I know porn is a bad thing, and it's a shame that it's so prevalent on the Internet. But if government owns the network, controls the network, they would have the ability to control access to porn sights. Once they decide porn sights are bad and get blocked, what would be next? Don't even think for an instant that government wouldn't expand what they block, just like they are expanding every other aspect of socialism in the country. Would you be allowed to shop for cigarettes on the government operated network? What about buying products across state lines? What if our benevolent NC state government decided that furniture is built & sold within our borders, so they want to prevent citizens from shopping for furniture from ANY out of state website? How would YOU prevent THEM from blocking YOUR shopping at a Tennessee website for the furniture YOU want to buy at the price YOU want to pay? Once they own it, and you've given them permission to operate & control it, how do you go about forcing them to open it up to use as you choose to use it? So far, libs haven't gotten cigarettes to be illegal. So far shopping across state lines for furniture isn't illegal. But what happens when government is allowed to control things like this?

Everything about this post by the author is exactly the opposite of what's right, what's RIGHT, and what's best for citizens of NC. Or anywhere else for that matter. Because of the way Google believes any data that travels on or near their network, or anyone who chooses to use a Google service, actually belongs to Google and not the owner makes it reason enough to never trust them with my Internet service. But this is a choice I have. I intentionally choose NOT to use Google Internet service. I will continue to make that choice in the future. What I do not ever want to happen is for my choice to be removed from me forcefully, the way socialized medicine has done, by having government interfere in my choices. Government NEVER provides additional choice, regardless of what the community organizer says. He is clueless on free-market concepts. Just as government has removed choice in the health insurance market, government would remove choice in the Internet service market. There is no alternative when government gets involved, competition is forced out of the market. It's true that part of this is because the private businesses must continue to make a profit and the government entity never has to show profit. But this also means that government involvement in any market eliminates competition, not adds to competition. Removes choice for the customer rather than provides another choice. Libs need to show examples of where & when government has gotten involved in a market and it's resulted in MORE CHOICE for customers; better service for customers; better pricing for customers. And at the same time, improved the economy either locally or state-wide or nationally.

Instead of whining about free-market and profit, how about you provide examples of how socialism HELPS anyone! Use Internet service as your first example if you wish. But your editorial says nothing about why you believe your way of interfering in the market would be good for anyone. You prove your dislike of profit. But you don't prove your point of why government would be a better choice or even how it would ADD choice.