Argument: It would provide an efficient service for everyone

A single, universal provider of broadband would allow the government to rationalize the management and development of the service. Multiple private service-providers ultimately end up causing three serious problems. The first two are straightforward, that private firms competing in the same area waste money creating multiple distribution channels that are unnecessary for the number of consumers, and that when they opt not to compete they end up dividing up territory into effective utility monopolies. The third problem is especially salient to the state when it is attempting to provide for everyone: many areas are too sparsely populated or economically underdeveloped that private firms are unwilling to invest in them; these areas are entirely dependent on state intervention to allow them to get broadband access. Thus for example, in the United States 19 million people in the United States still have no broadband access. [1] Much like electrical and water utilities, a single provider can create the most efficient outcome for consumers, and when that provider is the state it can guarantee affordable prices and commit to not price-gouging as private firms are wont to do. [2] Broadband should be treated as a utility, and the state has always proven to be the best purveyor of public utilities.

[1] Elgan, M. “Should Wireless Carriers be Nationalized?”. Huffington Post. 10 October 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-elgan/wireless-carriers-nationalized_b_1955633.html

[2] Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Public Utility." Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. 2013 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/482523/public-utility

Candidate 1: "The state can work more effectively through the private sector

If the state is worried about provision of broadband in areas too sparsely populated or disadvantaged, they can provide subsidies to private firms to develop the areas that are not profitable without needing to develop full government-operated companies. Just because the state is not providing the service does not mean that there cannot be compulsory to provide access to everywhere, many countries post offices for example are obliged to deliver to every address. [1] Government employees tend to be overpaid and underworked, leading to chronic inefficiencies that would be absent in a private firm, even one backed with government money.

Furthermore, the cost to the state is prohibitively expensive to go it alone, because state contracts have a marked tendency to go over budget, ultimately harming the taxpayers. These overruns are a standard part of government projects, but they can be ruinous to large scale information technology projects. Indeed, one-third of all IT projects end with premature cancellation as the direct result of overruns. [2] The future of countries’ economic prosperity cannot be entrusted to an organization that will stack the odds toward failure. This policy does not make sense when it is an area in which the private sector is willing to make substantial contributions to the cost. The only way to guarantee a decent level of service and an appropriate level of cost is to allow the private sector to take the lead, and to supplement it with incentives to build more and better systems. In the United States encouraging private investment in broadbrand infrastructure has led to a total of $1.2trillion ploughed into broadband access while Europe’s more state investment approach is falling behind. [3]

[1] United States Postal Service, “Postal Facts”, 2012, http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-facts/welcome.htm Royal Mail Group, “Universal Service Obligation”, http://www.royalmailgroup.com/regulation/how-were-regulated/universal-service-obligation"
Candidate 2: "The state is rarely an efficient service provider. Conventionally, it provides a shoddy service when it faces no competition, and when it charges low prices it is usually at the expense of the infrastructure and quality of service. When free of market forces, the state is even more likely to rest on its position of monopoly and provide insufficient service. But even with a state service, prices cannot be guaranteed to be kept low, but rather states can well overcharge and exploit their privileged position."
Candidate 3: "States can develop new power-grids without needing to furnish all citizens with broadband in order to avail of the smart grid. The cost of developing these technologies and implementing them across the board are woefully high, and the inefficient nature of government services means they would only be more costly to the taxpayer. A better solution would be to liberalize the energy markets in order to encourage private firms to invest in the development of the smart grid."
Candidate 4: "It would give undue power to the government over access to the internet

Monopoly, or near-monopoly, power over broadband is far too great a tool to give to governments. States have a long history of abusing rules to curtail access to information and to limit freedom of speech. Domination of broadband effectively gives the state complete control of what information citizens can or cannot consume online. ISPs function generally under the principle of Net Neutrality, in which they are expected to allow the free transit of information online. If they are the sole gatekeepers of knowledge, people may well be kept from information deemed against the public interest. It is harder for opponents of government regulations to voice their opinions online when they have no viable alternative to the state-controlled network. The internet is a place of almost limitless expression and it has empowered more people to take action to change their societies. That great tool of the people must be protected from any and all threats, and most particularly the state that could so profit from the curtailment of internet freedom."
Candidate 5: "Internet access is not a fundamental right. It is a useful enabler of rights. But that is not reason to guarantee it to all, any more than states owed every citizen access to a printing press a few centuries ago. Even were it a right, internet access could be provided far more efficiently and effectively through the private, rather than the public, sector."
Candidate 6: "Broadband is a necessary evolution of internet technology that firms would be wise to avail of if they wish to remain competitive. But it is this very desirability that makes the provision of broadband a lucrative business in which many firms participate. Business on a large scale is rarely organised in diffuse patterns, but clustered in major population centres. Economic development can be furnished by the private sector investing in broadband where there is a market. Growth will not be slowed just because some farmers in Nebraska have slower internet. Singapore is an aberrant example, as it is so small and its population so dense that it would be impossible to compare its provision of broadband access to most other countries."
Candidate 7: "State intervention would crowd out private firms

The imposition of a powerful state firm dominating the broadband market would serve to reduce the ability of private providers to compete. The greater resources of the state would be able to give it the power to dictate the market, making it less attractive to private investment. Creating a monopolistic provider would be very dangerous considering that this is a sector upon which much of future national development relies. [1] Crowding out private firms will make them less inclined to invest in new technologies, while the state provider is unlikely to fill the gap, as traditionally state utilities rely upon their power of incumbency and size rather than seeking novel services. An example of this is Eircom which, when it was the state utility, provided broadband of a lower quality and at higher price than most private providers. The end result of state dominance and reduction of private competitors is a loss of innovation, a loss of price competition, and an erosion of customer service.

[1] Atkinson, R. “The Role of Competition in a National Broadband Policy”. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 7. 2009, http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jtelhtel7&amp;div=4&amp;g_sent=1&amp;collection=journals"

The state is rarely an efficient service provider. Conventionally, it provides a shoddy service when it faces no competition, and when it charges low prices it is usually at the expense of the infrastructure and quality of service. When free of market forces, the state is even more likely to rest on its position of monopoly and provide insufficient service. But even with a state service, prices cannot be guaranteed to be kept low, but rather states can well overcharge and exploit their privileged position.
