5 ms·

This is a great move. It is simply tragic that we live in the country that invented the Internet, and yet the bandwidth available to the average citizen is ver

This is a great move. It is simply tragic that we live in the country that invented the Internet, and yet the bandwidth available to the average citizen is very low compared to the rest of the first world countries. The free market has failed the Internet. For some things, like utilities, government regulation works best. I think we all can agree that network access is a utility and should be treated as such.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
ewjordan 17y ago
It is simply tragic that we live in the country that invented the Internet, and yet the bandwidth available to the average citizen is very low compared to the rest of the first world countries. To some extent that is a result of the fact that we had it early. A lot of money was put into the early infrastructure, and it now needs to be upgraded, but there's little incentive to do so as long as it's working well enough. Whereas latecomers to the party can get equipment three generations better than what we started with, and install it for a lot less money than we had to sink into our old stuff. This is not too uncommon in business, either, where (especially in fields where patents don't ensure a monopoly for the innovator), the innovator spends a lot of resources in development, setting up the supply chain, and driving consumer demand. The "me, too!" business then comes along and benefits from all of this without having to pay a dime, and can skip right past many unprofitable months and challenge the innovator to a game of catch-up very quickly.
- fnid2 17y ago
  It's called "leap-frogging." Preventing it is the goal of patents, but many here argue against those as well. It's like they want things to be better, but they don't want to allow the creators of those better things to benefit from the betterment themselves. When you limit the innovators' ability to profit from their innovations, they'll stop innovating...
  - lutorm 17y ago
    You're saying the goal of patents is to force others to adapt outdated technologies? Funny, I always thought the purpose of patents was to promote progress of "science and the useful arts".
    - fnid2 17y ago
      I can't imagine where you got that I was saying that. The goal of patents is to allow innovators to share their ideas, while still protecting their ability to profit from the idea. The goal of patents is to reduce the risk of competitors taking profits for an idea without investing the R&D in the idea.
r0s 17y ago
The free market has failed the Internet. For some things, like utilities, government regulation works best. It needs both, honestly. Companies need freedom to innovate, and they also need rules to prevent them from screwing consumers and other businesses. I see neutrality as a means to ensure freedom for companies to innovate on an equal playing field. Here's an over stretched metaphor: It's as if UPS owned parts of the highway and only allowed delivery of certain items by certain companies. FedEx would pay huge tithes to them just to compete. Eventually FedEx would need to buy it's own network of highways somewhere else to lock-in an area and compete. This is an exaggeration, but I see this as analogous to media companies (like TimeWarner) buying up cable companies to become ISPs. Metaphors end here, because I personally don't see driving on a highway as a Right, and internet communication is very similar to Speech, which is an American Right.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

ewjordan 17y ago

It is simply tragic that we live in the country that invented the Internet, and yet the bandwidth available to the average citizen is very low compared to the rest of the first world countries. To some extent that is a result of the fact that we had it early. A lot of money was put into the early infrastructure, and it now needs to be upgraded, but there's little incentive to do so as long as it's working well enough. Whereas latecomers to the party can get equipment three generations better than what we started with, and install it for a lot less money than we had to sink into our old stuff. This is not too uncommon in business, either, where (especially in fields where patents don't ensure a monopoly for the innovator), the innovator spends a lot of resources in development, setting up the supply chain, and driving consumer demand. The "me, too!" business then comes along and benefits from all of this without having to pay a dime, and can skip right past many unprofitable months and challenge the innovator to a game of catch-up very quickly.

fnid2 17y ago
It's called "leap-frogging." Preventing it is the goal of patents, but many here argue against those as well. It's like they want things to be better, but they don't want to allow the creators of those better things to benefit from the betterment themselves. When you limit the innovators' ability to profit from their innovations, they'll stop innovating...
- lutorm 17y ago
  You're saying the goal of patents is to force others to adapt outdated technologies? Funny, I always thought the purpose of patents was to promote progress of "science and the useful arts".
  - fnid2 17y ago
    I can't imagine where you got that I was saying that. The goal of patents is to allow innovators to share their ideas, while still protecting their ability to profit from the idea. The goal of patents is to reduce the risk of competitors taking profits for an idea without investing the R&D in the idea.

r0s 17y ago

The free market has failed the Internet. For some things, like utilities, government regulation works best. It needs both, honestly. Companies need freedom to innovate, and they also need rules to prevent them from screwing consumers and other businesses. I see neutrality as a means to ensure freedom for companies to innovate on an equal playing field. Here's an over stretched metaphor: It's as if UPS owned parts of the highway and only allowed delivery of certain items by certain companies. FedEx would pay huge tithes to them just to compete. Eventually FedEx would need to buy it's own network of highways somewhere else to lock-in an area and compete. This is an exaggeration, but I see this as analogous to media companies (like TimeWarner) buying up cable companies to become ISPs. Metaphors end here, because I personally don't see driving on a highway as a Right, and internet communication is very similar to Speech, which is an American Right.