Live data from Hacker News

Nationalize the internet

dailydot.com

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: Nationalize the internet

#52
First of all, the way that people on both sides of the political spectrum decry the federal and government as authoritarian and at the same time want to give it more power, is literally Orwellian. Doublethink, to be precise.

Second, this article argues that the government should have a try at running the internet since the private sector ostensibly failed. The irony is that the situation today is exactly a product of government mismanagement. A vital infrastructure is underdeveloped, overpriced and operated by a duopoly - where exactly was the US Government when this happened? Where was the antitrust authority? Where was a liberal President of eight years, a man deified by the likes of the Daily Dot, who took on health insurance companies? Did the Congress deign to investigate this issue? And did the voters "vote them out" for failing to do that, as the author suggests?

Of course not. People tend to have a job, a life and a hobby - they can only care about a limited set of issues. And an increase in broadband pricing or a change in ISP product set is not one of those. They can get riled up, short term, but probably won't be able to sustain pressure, as is the case with the second amendment or healthcare. This is why the government officials have for so long neglected this issue, and this why the nationalized internet bureaucracy will have the same relationship with third party contractors (that ISPs will become) as FCC does.

I am not an expert on broadband legislation, but it seems like a better solution would be encouraging investment into small scale ISPs. A federal legislation that ensures backbone access, major tax cuts for investors, a lot of red tape for ISPs trying to get above city-wide coverage, things like that. If you have 2-3 ISPs per town and tens of those in a large city the net neutrality issue goes away.

edit:spelling

Re: Nationalize the internet

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People seem to make proposals to increase government power and control while thinking optimistically of how the best possible government could use that power, rather than thinking about how a much worse government could abuse that power. Even when the current government is one you like, you should always think carefully about agreeing to give them more power, and consider what happens when (not if) that government be…

The alternative is that big corporations like Facebook and Google will control the internet, which seems way worse.

There is competition and choices between big corporations, limited as they may be. There's only one government.

Re: Nationalize the internet

#54
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Data services back then like frame relay were so slow they could barely carry a single voice conversation over them. Long distance switching involved physically connecting together circuits over vast distances, the equipment involved was fantastically expensive and extremely intricate, in many cases all mechanical. So yeah, it was stupidly expensive to make long distance calls because the equipment itself was stupidl…

Technology has helped bring down the cost, obviously. But a big part of the reason long distance was so expensive was because government regulations forced AT&T to use its long-distance service to subsidize local service: https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/r... .

That's just part of the reason. The real question is did deregulation actually decrase prices and increase competition as was promised?

Here (Ontario) we had one telephone company and one cable company prior to deregulation. The telephone company (Bell Canada) was very tightly regulated. While telephone service wasn't necessarily the least expensive in the world, it was very reliable and at least ten years ahead of what was being offered in the US. By virtue of their rapid conversion to a fullly digital network, made possible by their partnership with Nortel, services like ISDN, the precursor to DSL, were reltively cheap and readaily available.

I knew people in Silicon Valley in the late 1990s that could not, for no amount of money, get anything faster than dial-up. Local telecom providers, of which there were many, were all using obsolete equipment and had terrible infrastructure. At the same time in Ontario anyone could get dual-channel ISDN for around $50/mo.

After deregulation here there was a little bit of competition, but then, like the US, the market quickly stabilized into a live and let live state where nobody wants to compete with anyone else for fear of retribution. Cellular service packages are suspiciously identical in terms of features and pricing.

Since they're de-regulated there's little we can do. We can't force them to fix their pricing. We can't force them to compete. We can't tell them to do a damned thing they don't already want to do.

Now Bell Canada is too busy being a media company, it owns a bunch of television stations, to care about anything other than profit. There was an opportunity there to keep them regulated and have a neutral, non-discriminatory network provider, but that ship has long since sailed.

Re: Nationalize the internet

#55
post #21

> Conventional wisdom has been that private industry is better equipped to handle things than the government. Deregulation has been the agenda of baby boomer conservatives. And it has failed. It has failed the environment. It has failed the airline industry. It has failed education. It will fail the internet. The biggest trend in administrative law over the last few decades has been reductions in the degree to which…

Thank you for this. I really appreciate the effort in describing how Sweden did their internet connectivity: it's worth mentioning that Sweden has or at least had one of the fastest average speeds per capita in the world.

Re: Nationalize the internet

#56

I genuinely struggle to understand proposals like this. The current political system is broken - the FCC is symptomatic of that. In what world does it seem like a good idea to give more power to that broken system?

Then it's equally broken for everyone. Nationalized or quasi-nationalized (heavily regulated) telecom companies used to be dysfunctional and sometimes comically inept but at least they weren't actively hostile against consumers and businesses.

[deleted]

Re: Nationalize the internet

#57

When people want something nationalized, it usually comes with the asterisk *as long as the gov officials managing it are part of my tribe and preferred policy set. This isn't always bad, since sometimes we all are in general agreement, but it's important to ask yourself: in political systems power can shift fast, do you want these policies to be part of this shift? Do you want the internet to be managed by trump app…

Even if it isn't caught up in partisan fighting, the average voter isn't going to want to spend money on upgrades.

Do you think your grandma wants to increase the price of her internet by 10 bucks a month to get gigabit? Mine wouldn't.

Re: Nationalize the internet

#59
Decentralize it! We need better measures of power centralization. When an ISP is effectively able to create its own monopolizing legislation, it might as well be part of the government. The government isn't going to buy them out and improve their architecture, so we need a new internet that is owned and operated by all of us all the time.

Re: Nationalize the internet

#60

When people want something nationalized, it usually comes with the asterisk *as long as the gov officials managing it are part of my tribe and preferred policy set. This isn't always bad, since sometimes we all are in general agreement, but it's important to ask yourself: in political systems power can shift fast, do you want these policies to be part of this shift? Do you want the internet to be managed by trump app…

Indeed, while I really want to like the proposal, democracy in the US doesn’t seem strong enough (and the judiciary don’t seem interested enough) for it to work.

It’s easy to imagine the Internet facing a different class of threats, from a united front of spooks, rights-holders-groups, and moralists. I can’t imagine the open uncensored web surviving long, unless it had some kind of mini constitution of its own.

This said, the future under private companies doesn’t look great either. ISPs are uncompetitive, exploitative, and anti-consumer, and the corporations who act as censors (Google, Apple, Facebook) have increasing skin in the rights-holder-group game, and are happy to build censorship machines for lobbyists, spies, and other authoritarians.

Maybe it’s worth thinking about what such a “Constitution for the Internet” might be now, before it completely disappears. (And perhaps while TBL and Vint Cerf have some fight left in them for a roadshow)!

Post reply on HN