An idea expressed in several earlier posts is that clumsy government policies that undermine and displace the efforts of citizens degrade society. The post Mama's Rules showed how this type of behavior has destroyed forests as well as forest management culture. The post Creating Chaos discussed how development aid destroys local initiative and culture. The central defect of such efforts is to respond to social need by replacing existing institutions with government institutions, rather than aiding those existing institutions. The result is degraded societies less able to advance themselves. They are less willing to engage in productive activities where there is risk of failure or government takeover, so society stagnates. Consider this example.

if a significant percentage of the population lacks access to information services that could provide a significant foundation for other forms of innovation, who is going to bridge the gap, and how? If the delivery of information services is strictly the business of private companies, incumbent providers, that provide service only where a clear market opportunity exists, and only to a market that will pay top dollar for service, how will services be delivered to under served populations.

There is no gap, there is poverty. If society determines that broadband information services are so fundamental to life for even the poorest then give them "bandwidth stamps" along with their food stamps. The dumbest thing governments can do is to go into the information service business, wrecking the existing services, just as it would be dumb for government to go into the farming business due to the existence of poor and hungry people. Support of existing businesses so that they can offer goods and services to a larger portion of society makes far more sense as it strengthens society rather than weakening it.

... if services are provided by subscription only, and different providers offer services in different areas, to what extent will that constrain economic development and innovation, compared to free and open wireless access in public places?

This is the wrong question, far too narrow to capture a useful dynamic of society. First, the service providers are examples of economic development and innovation, a fact that seems to be completely overlooked. And as noted above this isn't a problem to be solved. The problem is that service is too expensive for many, and the solution, if careful analysis shows it to be worth solving, is to assist poor individuals so that they can participate in society too.

The idea of providing "free and convenient" broadband access is a harmful illusion. Nothing is free, this is merely a hustle to nationalize an industry and pay for it out of tax revenues. In the end it won't even be convenient, since government provision of consumer services is the road to corruption and poor service (think post office or DMV).

... as long as policymakers and others see networks as a business, not a public good, we will be struggling for what should be fundamental and universal access to information services.

Networks ARE a business, of course, not a public good. The public good is access to networks. Farming is a business, but access to food is a public good. Confusing public goods with the businesses that produce those goods is a classic example of the muddle minded nonsense that has degraded society in so many areas. Where farming is nationalized people starve in their millions. No one will die from poor data services but the costs will skyrocket as service degrades if nationalized because it's a stupid way to structure a business.

Subsidize people to allow them to access networks if the case can be made that this is a sensible use of public funds that will enhance society and so be worth the cost. This will allow businesses to expand and innovate, resulting in lowered costs over time.

Networks and data services are too important to society to wreck them with hare-brained government intervention schemes that undermine and displace vibrant and innovative industries. Though roll-out is slower than we would like it is faster and surer than if it was a government institution when viewed over time. We know how these things work since we've made this mistake before. If our impatience is too great to allow evolution to proceed at its natural pace then intervene in ways that don't wreck the system. Subsidize access for poor people rather than taking over the industry.

This isn't rocket science. The ideas are easy and obvious. So why do authoritarians wish to take over the networks rather than just help poor people gain access? What's their motive? They want to spite network operators. Helping poor people to access networks would increase the value of the networks as well as profits from operations. The issue isn't the best way to achieve a social good, it's how to harm someone envied by the authoritarians.

Information and communication networks are far too important to society to allow them to be captured and degraded by authoritarian bureaucrats. Networks are not free, they are expensive at present no matter how they are funded. The feedback of individual users managing their own use of these services to maximize value received for costs incurred is precisely the best way to engage the whole social mind in management. A case can be made that it is a benefit to society to increase the number of users by subsidizing access for those too poor to otherwise participate, but the case to take over networks as the means to achieve this cannot be made. It's a dumb way to achieve greater inclusion that will reduce the quantity and quality of service for all and harm society as a whole.

One day networks may be too cheap to meter. The cost of gathering feedback data through individual billing may exceed the cost of the service and no longer support a business model. Maybe. But I doubt it since the scope for enhanced service as well as the motivation to innovate is very large. Ever higher speeds and capacity as well as value added services provide scope for continued innovation for a long time to come, and users will be happy to benefit from those new capabilities in ways we can't currently predict. The street finds its uses. Let the SF authors continue to speculate on that. Though the specifics may be phantasy at this point since we can't predict the future we can reasonably anticipate the broad structure of that future enough to be able to make this decision now. We would hamstring our own future if we allowed innovation to be stifled by authoritarian bureaucrats taking over networks just to spite their ideological opponents. Let them indulge their perversions another way that is less harmful to society.

UPDATE:

Lynne Kiesling makes a related argument in response to a similar piece by Larry Lessig.

I don't buy it. First of all, has he never heard of crowding out (and the huge literature on it)? Second, and this is the more subtle point that I think he's looking for in his opposition but happy not to find, municipal/private competition can lead to governments picking technology winners and/or shifting the balance in the dynamic quest for platform dominance.

A better approach would be for governments to strive to be technology neutral, focus on defining the objectives, and work (interjurisdictionally, if necessary) to reduce the transaction costs and other features of the institutional landscape that prevent robust, private competition from occurring.