5 ms·

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.

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
    This isn't complicated. To believe the USG could have created an equivalent or better Internet as a regulated public utility, you have to believe that none of the major attributes of the modern Internet were produced through competition, because that is what you lose when you nationalize and regulate an industry. Electricity, gas, and water work as utilities because to a first approximation, the only competitive access is price. One thing regulation can do is drive prices to an acceptable place (often not the lowest price, but a satisficing price). But that is not the only axis of competition for Internet service. Nobody knows or cares what the quality of their gas service is, but most people can tell you how fast their Internet connection is, and not everyone wants the same service. As I pointed out downthread, when telecom was a regulated utility, we didn't even have competition in telephone handsets.
    - borkborkbork 10y ago
      Yeah, they'll tell you their internet connection speed is shitty. Unless you live in Chattanooga, where the evil Department of Fiber Optics is busy oppressing them.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Go look up EPB's ASN and see which public utility companies they're peering with to get Chattanooga customers in touch with Google. But this is entirely silly. EPB is great. More cities should run their own last-mile networks. What they do instead is impose regulatory frameworks that forbid companies that could run gig fiber networks from doing so unless they also serve markets where they would hemorrhage money. But the success of public utilities in places like Chattanooga is not an argument that a public utility could have built the modern Internet. To see just one reason why, try to host Youtube or Netflix on EPB's network.
        borkborkbork 10y ago
        You're right. They're prioritizing access over the financial concerns of the providers. That's what public utilities do. That's what we did when we electrified the South. That's why I keep pointing to your fundamental political assumptions. It's not that we can't do it, it's that certain people don't think it's valuable.
        tptacek 10y ago
        Please stop attacking me personally. You have no idea what my fundamental political assumptions are. If you're frustrated about how unpersuasive I find your argument, perhaps stop arguing; you aren't entitled to persuade me, but you're starting to write as if you feel you are.
        borkborkbork 10y ago
        I'm actually enjoying this conversation. That's why I've stuck around this long. To quote your last comment: "What they do instead is impose regulatory frameworks that forbid companies that could run gig fiber networks from doing so unless they also serve markets where they would hemorrhage money." Who cares if they're hemorrhaging money? The Public Works Administration hemorrhaged money electrifying the South. The Post Office hemorrhages money delivering to far flung rural areas. Society however has made the judgement that these costs are worth it because they promote inclusiveness and equality. You are making the opposite judgement. That judgement is inherently political.
tptacek 10y ago
I'm sure if the government had retained full control of the Internet as a regulated public utility, the US would have the finest Department of Streaming Video in the world.
- borkborkbork 10y ago
  The attitude that leads to you ridicule government provided services is exactly why I made my previous comment about your obvious political bias. It wasn't any more rude than the sarcasm that you're exhibiting here. Ask the Brits about the NHS.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    One difference between my comment and yours is that you were in fact incorrect about my political inclinations, but I am not in fact wrong about the service model of a regulated public Internet. You're doing the same thing by asking me to litigate the NHS: presuming that I'm opposed to all government services and all regulations. I won't play that game: you are out of bounds by personalizing this, and asking me to pass a purity test to continue arguing with you isn't reasonable. Argue better.
    - borkborkbork 10y ago
      I haven't asked you to do anything of the sort. I point out the NHS because I want you to explain why the internet is fundamentally different. You've done an excellent job explaining how the existing internet emerged. You've done nothing to discredit my actual argument.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- dtornabene 10y ago
  Why is this any different than the previous upthread comments you called "rude" and labeled with Forum Psych 101 : Fallacy Section. Its kind of ugly, honestly. I say this as someone who has actually taken the time to email you before, thanking you for calling out racism.

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
  This isn't complicated. To believe the USG could have created an equivalent or better Internet as a regulated public utility, you have to believe that none of the major attributes of the modern Internet were produced through competition, because that is what you lose when you nationalize and regulate an industry. Electricity, gas, and water work as utilities because to a first approximation, the only competitive access is price. One thing regulation can do is drive prices to an acceptable place (often not the lowest price, but a satisficing price). But that is not the only axis of competition for Internet service. Nobody knows or cares what the quality of their gas service is, but most people can tell you how fast their Internet connection is, and not everyone wants the same service. As I pointed out downthread, when telecom was a regulated utility, we didn't even have competition in telephone handsets.
  - borkborkbork 10y ago
    Yeah, they'll tell you their internet connection speed is shitty. Unless you live in Chattanooga, where the evil Department of Fiber Optics is busy oppressing them.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Go look up EPB's ASN and see which public utility companies they're peering with to get Chattanooga customers in touch with Google. But this is entirely silly. EPB is great. More cities should run their own last-mile networks. What they do instead is impose regulatory frameworks that forbid companies that could run gig fiber networks from doing so unless they also serve markets where they would hemorrhage money. But the success of public utilities in places like Chattanooga is not an argument that a public utility could have built the modern Internet. To see just one reason why, try to host Youtube or Netflix on EPB's network.
      - borkborkbork 10y ago
        You're right. They're prioritizing access over the financial concerns of the providers. That's what public utilities do. That's what we did when we electrified the South. That's why I keep pointing to your fundamental political assumptions. It's not that we can't do it, it's that certain people don't think it's valuable.
        tptacek 10y ago
        Please stop attacking me personally. You have no idea what my fundamental political assumptions are. If you're frustrated about how unpersuasive I find your argument, perhaps stop arguing; you aren't entitled to persuade me, but you're starting to write as if you feel you are.
        borkborkbork 10y ago
        I'm actually enjoying this conversation. That's why I've stuck around this long. To quote your last comment: "What they do instead is impose regulatory frameworks that forbid companies that could run gig fiber networks from doing so unless they also serve markets where they would hemorrhage money." Who cares if they're hemorrhaging money? The Public Works Administration hemorrhaged money electrifying the South. The Post Office hemorrhages money delivering to far flung rural areas. Society however has made the judgement that these costs are worth it because they promote inclusiveness and equality. You are making the opposite judgement. That judgement is inherently political.

tptacek 10y ago

I'm sure if the government had retained full control of the Internet as a regulated public utility, the US would have the finest Department of Streaming Video in the world.

borkborkbork 10y ago
The attitude that leads to you ridicule government provided services is exactly why I made my previous comment about your obvious political bias. It wasn't any more rude than the sarcasm that you're exhibiting here. Ask the Brits about the NHS.
- tptacek 10y ago
  One difference between my comment and yours is that you were in fact incorrect about my political inclinations, but I am not in fact wrong about the service model of a regulated public Internet. You're doing the same thing by asking me to litigate the NHS: presuming that I'm opposed to all government services and all regulations. I won't play that game: you are out of bounds by personalizing this, and asking me to pass a purity test to continue arguing with you isn't reasonable. Argue better.
  - borkborkbork 10y ago
    I haven't asked you to do anything of the sort. I point out the NHS because I want you to explain why the internet is fundamentally different. You've done an excellent job explaining how the existing internet emerged. You've done nothing to discredit my actual argument.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
dtornabene 10y ago
Why is this any different than the previous upthread comments you called "rude" and labeled with Forum Psych 101 : Fallacy Section. Its kind of ugly, honestly. I say this as someone who has actually taken the time to email you before, thanking you for calling out racism.