The danger with government nationalizing telecommunications networks is that once it is done, innovation and quality go way down. We had nationalized telecommunications for over 70 years and customers could only have one brand of phone, and we're limited in the number of phones available in their houses. In addition, long distance calling was cost-prohibitive. The monopoly only started cracking when MCI introduced mi…
As opposed to the monopolies which have contributed innovations such as quotas, pay for play internet and snooping.
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.
A private company has to comply with all governmental laws and regulations. If the government wants something banned, they can just create a law that lets them do that. They've already demonstrated that they can easily do that with the patriot act.
I think this makes perfect sense. Competition fundamentally doesn't work when it comes to infrastructure like this. I don't hear anyone saying that we need more privatized competition in our sewer systems. Why? Because it's incredibly costly to build and having private companies build two, three, or more sewer systems in one city/town would be insane. The costs per user of each one of those systems would rise dramatically because you would have far fewer people paying into each system. Same goes for our internet connections. Creating multiple competing networks in this case raises prices for everyone and we needlessly duplicate the amount of infrastructure required to serve everyone. That is why we make services like sewer, water, and electricity regulated monopolies. I don't see how internet, in this day in age, is any different. Just like everyone needs electricity, everyone needs internet. That being said, we do need competent government officials that can balance costs with public good. If we elect incompetent people, we get incompetent results.
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…
So basically you are advocating that someone else (the taxpayers) picks up you internet connection bill?
Have you considered to move somewhere else with a better internet rather than complain about everything and everyone?
Agreed, but this article didn't convince me. Watching the Comcast/Verizon duopoly play out over two decades has overwhelmingly negated the argument for private-sector infrastructure.
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…
> " 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." I really think this is not a useful simplification of the various policy positions of the major voting blocs in the US. I think there is a lot of nuance and i…
The two political parties are already caricatures. Of course it’s a gross simplification, but participation means being forced into those by the procrustean American voting system.
The danger with government nationalizing telecommunications networks is that once it is done, innovation and quality go way down. We had nationalized telecommunications for over 70 years and customers could only have one brand of phone, and we're limited in the number of phones available in their houses. In addition, long distance calling was cost-prohibitive. The monopoly only started cracking when MCI introduced mi…
Some utilities should be heavily regulated, or even owned by the state. Internet access is one of them.
Everything else is just "deregulate everything 'Murica" propaganda
The danger with government nationalizing telecommunications networks is that once it is done, innovation and quality go way down. We had nationalized telecommunications for over 70 years and customers could only have one brand of phone, and we're limited in the number of phones available in their houses. In addition, long distance calling was cost-prohibitive. The monopoly only started cracking when MCI introduced mi…
> We had nationalized telecommunications for over 70 years No. Until 1982 AT&T in the United States was a legal monopoly, not a nationalized telecom. The book, The Idea Factory about Bell Labs has most of the history including why the the defense work Bell Labs did during WWII and beyond helped them justify a nationwide monopoly on telecom.
And compared to virtually every nationalized telecom it provided better, cheaper service that was universally available.
Internet access should be regulated like it was a utility however, and that's the great failing of public policy in that area.
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.
If we're playing that game, there's a million things they could do as well, but it doesn't make any of them likely. Hell, they could do what you're talking about right now, other countries do that even though their Internet access isn't controlled by the government. The porn ban in the UK is a great example of privately-controlled ISPs being forced to block certain sites.
I'll repeat, there is absolutely nothing about publicly funded Internet service that in any way even remotely connects "internet access as a public utility" to "government starts blocking certain sites". They could do it right now if they wanted to.