4 ms·

Comparing the internet you have in 2016 to the internet that existed in the 1990's is a bit unfair, don't you think? The idea that only markets are capable of d

Comparing the internet you have in 2016 to the internet that existed in the 1990's is a bit unfair, don't you think? The idea that only markets are capable of delivering innovations or necessary services to the public is debatable. For example, the U.S. government, through DARPA, created countless valuable networking innovations that private companies, such as AT&T, didn't want to touch even when given the opportunity.

tptacek 10y ago
I think if you read the comment carefully you'll see I'm not simply saying "the 'public' EU backbone provided rural ISDN", but rather that I'm making a more subtle point than that, about the nature of ISDN. There's a reason an ISDN BRI provides the rate it does, and a reason why each of its B-channels is 64k: the digital phone network was already channelized that way.
- borkborkbork 10y ago
  Actually I was replying to your original comment before you edited. The idea that a publicly run internet would not have been able to produce the innovations necessary for Netflix is debatable and betrays a certain political persuasion on your part.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    No, it doesn't. You've fallen victim to the fundamental attribution fallacy, and it's led you to generate a rude remark.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
toss1941 10y ago
He's saying the task to deploy ISDN in the 1990's was minuscule compared to what is required to roll out fiber to everyone today. It's like comparing government oranges to private Teslas.
- borkborkbork 10y ago
  Government has been responsible for the largest undertakings in human history. Space flight, nuclear weaponry and energy, particle colliders, etc.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    That's mostly true. It's just that the modern Internet isn't one of those things, unless you're talking about the academic research funding that generated Raj Jain papers.
    - borkborkbork 10y ago
      You're right, it's not. But it could have been.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        There is very little evidence to suggest it would be. A space program is a monumentally impressive achievement, but it's one that was generated by fiat. The Internet is the result of countless different responses to market pressures. Our telecom networks used to be effectively nationalized. You couldn't even choose your own telephone. Back when the government had a role in running the actual backbone, there were restrictions on commerce on the Internet!
  - objectivistbrit 10y ago
    Many of the largest undertakings. (Here's one counter-example - the world's first transatlantic cable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York,_Newfoundland_and_London_Telegraph_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York,_Newfoundland_and_Lon...). The mistake many libertarians make is to argue that government is inherently incompetent. This viewpoint contradicts reality. Government agencies which attract smart people can be as successful as any private company. Large private companies can be as bureaucratic as any government agency. The fundamental difference is that there's no way to get rid of bloated and ineffective government organisations. NASA is a good example: in the 1960s it was the place where every bright young engineer and scientist wanted to work, but over the decades it stagnated into another bureaucracy dominated by non-technical folk chasing pork-barrel funding.
throwanem 10y ago
> Comparing the internet you have in 2016 to the internet that existed in the 1990's is a bit unfair, don't you think? I certainly do! It astonishes me that the article here under discussion treats them so.
- borkborkbork 10y ago
  How so?
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Via the same implicit counterfactual on which you rely - that is, that had the Internet remained a publicly funded, primarily academic project over the last two decades, it would nonetheless be substantially similar to the Internet we have today.
    - borkborkbork 10y ago
      That's not my argument. Publicly funded does not necessarily mean primarily academic. The market is not the only driver of public demand for goods and services. Streaming video is a fairly obvious innovation that benefits the general public.
      - throwanem 10y ago
        That's certainly your argument. But you're doing a better job of losing it to 'tptacek than to me. Please don't let me distract you any further.
        borkborkbork 10y ago
        He's just better at dodging my questions than you are :). But please, keep erecting your straw man. The entire point of this is that the internet would be fundamentally different if it were democratically controlled. That does not mean we would miss out on innovations like streaming video. It does mean that average users would have faster speeds and more control over their data. This of course assumes a political environment geared towards the average citizen. Sadly, in the United States, that is not currently the case. But it is achievable, and we used to be much closer to that ideal.

tptacek 10y ago

I think if you read the comment carefully you'll see I'm not simply saying "the 'public' EU backbone provided rural ISDN", but rather that I'm making a more subtle point than that, about the nature of ISDN. There's a reason an ISDN BRI provides the rate it does, and a reason why each of its B-channels is 64k: the digital phone network was already channelized that way.

borkborkbork 10y ago
Actually I was replying to your original comment before you edited. The idea that a publicly run internet would not have been able to produce the innovations necessary for Netflix is debatable and betrays a certain political persuasion on your part.
- tptacek 10y ago
  No, it doesn't. You've fallen victim to the fundamental attribution fallacy, and it's led you to generate a rude remark.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

toss1941 10y ago

He's saying the task to deploy ISDN in the 1990's was minuscule compared to what is required to roll out fiber to everyone today. It's like comparing government oranges to private Teslas.

borkborkbork 10y ago
Government has been responsible for the largest undertakings in human history. Space flight, nuclear weaponry and energy, particle colliders, etc.
- tptacek 10y ago
  That's mostly true. It's just that the modern Internet isn't one of those things, unless you're talking about the academic research funding that generated Raj Jain papers.
  - borkborkbork 10y ago
    You're right, it's not. But it could have been.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      There is very little evidence to suggest it would be. A space program is a monumentally impressive achievement, but it's one that was generated by fiat. The Internet is the result of countless different responses to market pressures. Our telecom networks used to be effectively nationalized. You couldn't even choose your own telephone. Back when the government had a role in running the actual backbone, there were restrictions on commerce on the Internet!
- objectivistbrit 10y ago
  Many of the largest undertakings. (Here's one counter-example - the world's first transatlantic cable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York,_Newfoundland_and_London_Telegraph_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York,_Newfoundland_and_Lon...). The mistake many libertarians make is to argue that government is inherently incompetent. This viewpoint contradicts reality. Government agencies which attract smart people can be as successful as any private company. Large private companies can be as bureaucratic as any government agency. The fundamental difference is that there's no way to get rid of bloated and ineffective government organisations. NASA is a good example: in the 1960s it was the place where every bright young engineer and scientist wanted to work, but over the decades it stagnated into another bureaucracy dominated by non-technical folk chasing pork-barrel funding.

throwanem 10y ago

> Comparing the internet you have in 2016 to the internet that existed in the 1990's is a bit unfair, don't you think? I certainly do! It astonishes me that the article here under discussion treats them so.

borkborkbork 10y ago
How so?
- throwanem 10y ago
  Via the same implicit counterfactual on which you rely - that is, that had the Internet remained a publicly funded, primarily academic project over the last two decades, it would nonetheless be substantially similar to the Internet we have today.
  - borkborkbork 10y ago
    That's not my argument. Publicly funded does not necessarily mean primarily academic. The market is not the only driver of public demand for goods and services. Streaming video is a fairly obvious innovation that benefits the general public.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      That's certainly your argument. But you're doing a better job of losing it to 'tptacek than to me. Please don't let me distract you any further.
      - borkborkbork 10y ago
        He's just better at dodging my questions than you are :). But please, keep erecting your straw man. The entire point of this is that the internet would be fundamentally different if it were democratically controlled. That does not mean we would miss out on innovations like streaming video. It does mean that average users would have faster speeds and more control over their data. This of course assumes a political environment geared towards the average citizen. Sadly, in the United States, that is not currently the case. But it is achievable, and we used to be much closer to that ideal.