Free internet?

A recent class discussion prompted me to consider the notion of 'free' internet service, which leads directly to the question: what services should be provided by our government?

The idea of 'free' is really a misnomer here, in my opinion; speaking literally, absolutely nothing is 'free.' If you have a fire in your house, you call 911, and a group of highly trained and well-paid professionals, with vehicles and equipment valued in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, comes rushing immediately to help. All of this is, for you in an immediate sense, free. Only not really. Actually, you are paying for that service in your property taxes, or the property taxes paid by your landlord from your rent. Of course you're not paying for it by yourself--it's a group effort.

Our government is based on the idea of a commonwealth, which means that we cumulatively use our common wealth to pay for certain products and services that we all then have access to when we need them. If someone breaks into my house, I don't have to cut a check for the cop who comes to investigate because his salary is provided by the commonwealth. We all cooperatively pay for fire-fighters, law enforcement, our court system, roads, schools, ect. So the question is, should internet service be included in this list?

I'm not entirely convinced one way or another, but I do think there are some interesting arguments to be made. For instance, one of the reasons for providing (and requiring) universal public education is as a social 'leveling' tool--to allow those who are not born with much wealth or advantage the opportunity to acquire more of these things.

These days, one might argue convincingly that lacking access to the internet could impose a financial disadvantage nearly as great as lacking access to a decent education. The modern marketplace is always online; how can you expect to find a good job if you don't know how to use a computer?

So I think the argument being made for 'free' (that is, sponsored by our tax dollars) internet is that it might provide more people with more equal access to the opportunities that abound in our nation. That strikes me as a good idea.

The only remaining question, then, is whether the benefits would outweigh the costs. How much this would cost, I do not know.