The internet should be a public utility • Hacker News Board

Re: The internet should be a public utility

#41

Post by claydavisss » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 4:42 PM UTC

zbrozek wrote: post #4

I talked with the mayor of Los Altos Hills, CA yesterday where I advocated for a municipal fiber ISP. It seems crazy to me that in Silicon Valley, and specifically in one of its richest towns, that broadband is not available to every residence. She makes a good point: the residents don't care. Her argument is that ~20 mbps DSL is good enough for the elderly population. And further - that for those who find that inade…

Most residents of Los Altos Hills could afford to have dedicated fiber brought directly to their homes, including all of the hardware to terminate it. But thanks for your humblebrag...I'm sure we'll make it a top priority to attend to the poor residents of America's most expensive zip code.

Re: The internet should be a public utility

#42

Post by claydavisss » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 4:43 PM UTC

Iwork4Google wrote: post #25

In order for anything useful to happen in our society, we have to vote. It is now abundantly clear which party values what, and for whom. If we would rather vote based on 'abortion preventing our souls from partying with Jesus in heaven' instead of 'municipal broadband for all residents as a public utility', then we're going to continue to complain about this for another 50 years and beyond. The problem is that sayin…

Democrats have a statewide monopoly on power thanks in part to the people who live in Los Altos Hills. And why would any government ever prioritize subsidizing infrastructure for the wealthiest zip code in the entire nation?

Re: The internet should be a public utility

#43

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 4:43 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #40

freehunter wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely nothing about public internet in any way implies anything even remotely related to your strawman argument.

> nothing about public internet in any way implies anything even remotely related to your strawman argument Why not? If the government has a monopoly on internet access, it becomes easier for voters to call for certain sites being blocked or certain sorts of traffic be monitored and/or intercepted.

[deleted]

Re: The internet should be a public utility

#44

Post by coldpie » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 4:44 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #29

I'm not sure that I want the government in a position to be a single point of control for which websites I can or cannot access.

This is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment. You are at more risk of this from private entities, who are not bound by the 1st amendment.

Re: The internet should be a public utility

#45

Post by topkai22 » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 4:46 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #11

BubRoss wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Competition accomplishes the same thing. Look at any area where Comcast or AT&T have competition, they shape up very quickly. DOCSIS 3.0 and 3.1 are actually very fast. Cable companies know however that if the better the internet they sell, the more they canabalize their ability to sell cable TV. They want to sell you data twice and one of their giant sources of revenue is something people would rather leave behind.

Competition does help when it happens. The problem is Comcast and AT&T charge higher prices wherever there is no competition and they actively do whatever they can to prevent competition, they absolutely do not just wait around for other ISPs to compete. A few years ago Comcast’s active anti-competitive bullying of local ISPs in my city pushed me off the ISP I preferred. And there are too many areas in the U.S. where…

I think this is how utilities evolved in many places- local monopolies arose, so local governments either built their own system, took over service delivery or created laws on top of the service delivery.

Re: The internet should be a public utility

#46

Post by sloshnmosh » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 4:49 PM UTC

Iwork4Google wrote: post #25

In order for anything useful to happen in our society, we have to vote. It is now abundantly clear which party values what, and for whom. If we would rather vote based on 'abortion preventing our souls from partying with Jesus in heaven' instead of 'municipal broadband for all residents as a public utility', then we're going to continue to complain about this for another 50 years and beyond. The problem is that sayin…

While I agree with (some) of what you said, you should know that it was the Telecommunications ACT during the Clinton presidency that created these huge monopoly’s and destroyed all the smaller telecoms and choices back in the mid 90’s.

Re: The internet should be a public utility

#47

Post by sneak » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 4:49 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #44

sneak wrote: post #29

I'm not sure that I want the government in a position to be a single point of control for which websites I can or cannot access.

This is a blatant violation of the 1st amendment. You are at more risk of this from private entities, who are not bound by the 1st amendment.

Perhaps. Competition is a realtime mechanism for stopping this sort of fuckery on a provider level presently. I can switch ISPs immediately (provided that there is more than one around).

Remediations for 1A violations are anything but realtime.

You could suffer rights abuses for a very long time with no immediate or cost-effective recourse. Also, such a circumstance in which your 1A rights are violated by your government ISP, which may be eventually protected by courts, remains inherently dangerous for example during declared periods of emergency where the usual rights and remedies are "temporarily" (weeks or months) suspended. Imagine the situation were this the case right now, and your government ISP disconnects you today (let's say on some bogus "local" authority). How long do you think it would be before the thing winds its way through the courts and your port finally gets ordered to be turned back on? A month? Three months? Six?

How much money has it cost you in legal fees? How many dollars did you lose from not being able to work in that time due to being entirely offline?

I don't trust any one player being the "only game in town" no matter who they are or what remedies I have against them. Making it state-run means that not only are they the only game in town (like Comcast is now in a lot of places), but that it's impossible to change that situation. It makes it permanent. We need more competition, not less. More opportunity for more people to create businesses and jobs, not less.

I think the people of Flint should be able to chime in on this thread.

Re: The internet should be a public utility

#48

Post by BubRoss » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #11

BubRoss wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Competition accomplishes the same thing. Look at any area where Comcast or AT&T have competition, they shape up very quickly. DOCSIS 3.0 and 3.1 are actually very fast. Cable companies know however that if the better the internet they sell, the more they canabalize their ability to sell cable TV. They want to sell you data twice and one of their giant sources of revenue is something people would rather leave behind.

Competition does help when it happens. The problem is Comcast and AT&T charge higher prices wherever there is no competition and they actively do whatever they can to prevent competition, they absolutely do not just wait around for other ISPs to compete. A few years ago Comcast’s active anti-competitive bullying of local ISPs in my city pushed me off the ISP I preferred. And there are too many areas in the U.S. where…

That's my point. Instead of having a government regulate a monopoly, if government is going to intervene it should be to allow others to compete first.

Re: The internet should be a public utility

#49

Post by cma » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 4:57 PM UTC

pinacarlos90 wrote: post #13

My question is, what would be the impact on the following areas if the internet was public utility? 1) security/encryption 2) bandwidth distribution 3) content freedom 4) Governance rules (federal gov?)

Those are almost all big issues with private companies too, and you get no vote in them and weaker constitutional protections.

It is less of an issue if there is lots of competition (that doesn't collude) though.

Re: The internet should be a public utility

#50

Post by otterley » Sat, Mar 28, 2020, 4:58 PM UTC

evv wrote: post #27

JoBrad wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A program that isn’t available to everyone and is routinely under fire. It also doesn’t solve the underlying problem, but instead throws money at the companies exacerbating it for profit. Broadly available, competitive broadband is the answer.

> It also doesn’t solve the underlying problem, but instead throws money at the companies exacerbating it for profit Quite similar to Obama's approach to healthcare, what a coincidence! :-)

The better choice - replacing private provisioning for basic healthcare coverage with a public service - was not politically viable. Sometimes you have to make a suboptimal choice for the greater good.