Schwartz 2018 And Smith 2017 Highlight The Problems People F

Schwartz 2018 And Smith 2017 Highlight The Problems People Face In

Schwartz (2018) and Smith (2017) highlight the problems people face in the rural areas of the United States in accessing faster internet speeds. From the two articles, it is clear that there is an unequal distribution of high-speed internet in the United States. According to Assignment Help Service (2015, pg. 2), egalitarianism's purpose is to establish a certain framework of socio-political organization in theory and policy that would abolish socioeconomic disparities. Smith (2017) states that the FCC reports that about 19 million individuals lack high-speed internet.

Most of these individuals live in rural and sparsely populated areas where cable or phone companies are unwilling to serve. The companies argue that the high costs involved make it unprofitable due to the lack of a dense customer base. Human equality, as explained by Afolayan (2015, pg. 4), stems from the natural observation that all individuals share the characteristic of being human and, therefore, possess inherent worth. In this context, the government has a responsibility to ensure that residents of Mississippi and similar rural areas have access to high-speed internet, just as their counterparts in more privileged urban settings do.

Furthermore, equality is a core principle of egalitarianism. It holds that duties and advantages should be fairly distributed among community members. Consequently, the government has a duty to promote equitable resource distribution among its citizens. Smith (2017) notes that while the government recognizes the digital divide, various circumstantial obstacles hinder efforts to bridge this gap. On the other hand, organizations feel compelled to serve their consumers but face conflicts between their obligations to consumers and shareholders. Consumers also have a role in electing leaders who advocate for equitable resource allocation.

Smith (2017) details opposition from consumer organizations against mergers like that of AT&T and BellSouth, citing concerns over increased prices, job losses, and reduced service options. The philosophical school of utilitarianism, articulated by Jeremy Bentham, aims to maximize overall utility or pleasure for the greatest number (Renouard, 2011, pg. 2). This perspective emphasizes the consequences of actions over their intentions, often influencing policies geared toward economic development. Schwartz (2018) states that government legislation such as "House Bill 129" aims to prevent local governments from providing internet services, allegedly to protect the interests of private companies.

Supporters argue that such legislation sustains employment and economic growth. For example, Steve Brewer, a spokesman for CenturyLink, claims that the bill regulates how municipalities operate communication businesses, preventing their competition with private firms (Schwartz, 2018). While governments are tasked with equitable resource distribution, they also seek to create a conducive environment for business activities to flourish. Conversely, corporations, motivated by profit maximization, must also cater to consumer needs, which sometimes conflict with shareholder interests.

Managing these conflicting demands presents a significant challenge for firms, particularly in sectors like broadband provision. According to Clark et al. (2016, pg. 2), management should act in the best interest of shareholders, utilizing shareholder-provided capital appropriately. Internet providers such as AT&T aim to expand services into rural and underserved areas but encounter financial constraints, as detailed by Smith (2017). Additionally, they must appease shareholders who expect profitable returns, which may limit efforts to serve less profitable markets.

From a normative stakeholder perspective, corporate executives are seen as agents of all stakeholders, with a duty to safeguard stakeholder rights and concerns while making decisions (Clark et al., 2016, pg. 2). This principle supports honoring commitments such as the promise to deliver high-speed internet, which, according to Schwartz (2018), was not fulfilled in many cases. Regulatory bodies like the FCC can revoke licenses, impose fines, or mandate the extension of service commitments to ensure compliance, reflecting the importance placed on stakeholder interests.

Nevertheless, there exists a tension between the social obligation to provide equitable services and the fiscal benefits gained through tax advantages. For instance, Schwartz (2018) reports that some companies like AT&T and Embarq benefited from tax savings, costing the government an estimated $31 million annually, which raises concerns over public accountability and fairness.

Paper For Above instruction

The issue of broadband access inequality in rural America exemplifies the complex interplay of social justice, economic interests, and policy decisions. While the moral imperative of egalitarianism calls for equal access to essential services such as high-speed internet, practical obstacles and economic considerations often impede these efforts. The contrast between the principles of egalitarianism and utilitarianism highlights the challenges faced by policymakers and corporations in balancing individual rights with societal benefits.

Gaps in internet infrastructure are rooted in economic realities faced by service providers. Companies like AT&T and Verizon cite high deployment costs and limited profitability as barriers to expanding service into less dense rural areas (Smith, 2017). This economic rationale aligns with utilitarian principles favoring policies that maximize overall societal utility, which often results in neglecting minority or less profitable communities. Consequently, rural residents experience significant disparities in digital access, affecting their educational, economic, and social opportunities.

The government's role in mediating these conflicting interests is crucial. Laws like "House Bill 129" exemplify efforts to regulate local initiatives that could bypass corporate control, aiming to foster a competitive environment that benefits consumers and promotes infrastructure development (Schwartz, 2018). However, critics argue that such legislation may stifle local innovation and perpetuate the digital divide, raising questions about the balance between regulatory oversight and free enterprise.

From a corporate responsibility standpoint, firms are expected to act ethically towards all stakeholders, including consumers and the broader society. The contractual obligations to provide promised services and the ethical obligation to serve underprivileged communities challenge firms to align their profit motives with social justice goals. Ethical frameworks such as stakeholder theory advocate for decision-making that considers the welfare of all affected parties, suggesting that corporations should pursue strategies that close the digital divide rather than widen it (Clark et al., 2016).

The debate extends beyond economics and ethics into a legal and policy realm. Regulations aimed at ensuring equitable access, such as subsidies or universal service obligations, are designed to address disparities but often face resistance due to budgetary and political constraints. The FCC's authority to regulate broadband deployment emphasizes the government's responsibility to uphold the principle of equal opportunity, supporting the view that access to high-speed internet is a basic human right in the digital age (Schwartz, 2018).

Ultimately, bridging the rural broadband gap requires coordinated efforts among government agencies, private sector entities, and civil society. Policy interventions should aim to incentivize investment in underserved areas through subsidies, tax incentives, and public-private partnerships (OECD, 2020). Ethical considerations must also shape the development of regulations that prioritize equitable access, recognizing the importance of digital inclusion for societal progress. Moving forward, a balanced approach that respects economic realities while promoting social justice is essential for fostering a more equitable digital future.

References

• Afolayan, A. (2015). Egalitarianism. Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics.
• Clark, C. E., Steckler, E. L., & Newell, S. (2016). Managing contradiction: Stockholder and stakeholder views the firm as a paradoxical opportunity. Business and Society Review, 121(1), 1-23.
• Dowsett, S. (2014, October 24). Why Spain's Poor Fear Goldman Sachs. Reuters.
• OECD. (2020). Bridging the Digital Divide: Policy Solutions for Rural Areas. OECD Publishing.
• Renouard, C. (2011). Corporate social responsibility, utilitarianism, and the capabilities approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1), 85-97.
• Smyth, G. (2017, December 7). Many Rural AT&T Customers Still Lack High-Speed Internet Despite Merger Promise. HuffPost.
• Schwartz, J. (2018, September 7). Cities, consumers lose municipal broadband fight. INDY Week.
• United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (2017). 2017 Internet Access Report.
• Assignment Help Service. (2015). Socioeconomic Disparities and the Digital Divide. Pg. 2.
• Smith, G. (2017, December 7). Many Rural AT&T Customers Still Lack High-Speed Internet Despite Merger Promise. HuffPost.