4 ms·

> He also points out that this is because the infrastructure was originally built by state-owned monopolies. Yup. Doesn't mean competition can't happen anothe

> He also points out that this is because the infrastructure was originally built by state-owned monopolies. Yup. Doesn't mean competition can't happen another way. > Also, as I pointed out in another thread, the internet situation in the other big diverse European countries isn't better than in the U.S. Why limit the comparison to Europe? Also, why focus on situations where quality is the same or worse? No country is identical anyway, so we know apples to apples isn't really happening. And, to see it done somewhere successfully is to know it's possible. Good quality and competition can be found in parts Asia, Europe, and the US. I'm confident we can figure out how to increase competition among ISPs in the US so we do not have walled gardens shoved down our throats. I don't know that I have the right solutions in mind but I would like to discuss possibilities and see lawmakers attempt various negotiations with data providers.

rayiner 9y ago
> Why limit the comparison to Europe? The question isn't "what's the best policy for maximizing the quality of the broadband network?" It's "what's the best policy for maximizing the quality of the broadband network, in a country where people prioritize many other things more highly?" It's pointless to compare the U.S. system to an Eastern European or Asian country where the people see broadband, technology, and computers, as a way to close the wealth gap with the US/UK/Germany/France. People in the U.S. don't see broadband that way. To the extent ordinary people care about it at all, they see the issue in terms of the pressing social justice issues the U.S. faces: rural/urban, low-income/high-income, etc. They care (quite reasonably) a lot more about whether low-income folks in Baltimore have access to broadband (and computers to use it!) than whether knowledge workers in Menlo Park have gigabit. That's why we have well-developed programs for, e.g. subsidizing rural telephone deployment, but really nothing for fiber: https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/the-broadband-gap-why-do-they-have-more-fiber https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/the-broadband-gap-.... This is particularly relevant in the context of municipally-supported systems displacing private ones. Take Amtrak. A private system aimed at shuttling knowledge workers from DC to New York might actually be pretty good. Instead, we have a public system where the only sensical route is burdened by having to subsidize trains around the country nobody uses. Here in Annapolis (a D.C. satellite city), Verizon is upgrading our fiber to gigabit and I can get 50-150 mbps downloads on my iPhone. Having experienced the D.C. subway spend a good chunk of the last year literally on fire, there is no way I'd vote to turn internet service over to the government. If I lived in Tokyo I'd feel differently, but I'm stuck with the government I've got. > Also, why focus on situations where quality is the same or worse? The countries I picked for comparison are just the 5 largest EU countries, which contain more than 2/3 of the population.
- studentrob 9y ago
  > It's pointless to compare the U.S. system to an Eastern European or Asian country where the people see broadband, technology, and computers, as a way to close the wealth gap with the US/UK/Germany/France. Hong Kong, Tokyo, Taipei, Seoul are very wealthy and have quality internet options. There are pockets of wealth and poverty all over the world. Are you saying the US isn't trying to be competitive any more and doesn't need to worry about knowledge workers? If so, that is absurd. We import tons of talent, not because it's cheap, but because we need it. We aren't churning out enough students in high tech and MD roles to satisfy our country's demands. > If you tried to build a municipal network in Baltimore, the conversation would not be about how it's going to bring in knowledge workers and enhance economic competitiveness. It's going to be about why public money is being spent on wealthy knowledge workers when schools in low income communities are crumbling. I think we're getting off topic. The question is whether net neutrality is worth supporting, and what we can do to further that discussion among non-techies who might be looking for a better understanding of this topic. > The countries I picked for comparison are just the 5 largest EU countries, which contain more than 2/3 of the population. Even a majority doesn't prove it isn't possible. Everything starts small.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    > Hong Kong, Tokyo, Taipei, Seoul are very wealthy and have quality internet options. When the current Prime Minister of Japan was born, the U.S. had a per-capita GDP more than five times higher than Japan. Singapore and South Korea became rich even more recently (and China still isn't). Their political leaders remember when their countries weren't rich, and how they became rich. Moreover, those countries see their cities as their crown jewels. There is political will to build a new subway or fancy fiber network in the capital city. Contrast say DC (the ostensible capital of the US). When I was growing up in the 1990s, in the D.C. suburbs, people talked about D.C. in hushed tones (you might be able to make out "murder capital" if you listened carefully). Wealthy educated people would certainly never imagine living there, except maybe in Georgetown or DuPont. The idea of directing state (or gasp national) money to DC or New York or SF for fiber is a political non-starter. There are highways that need to be built out to the exurbs, after all (where all the political power is). > Even a majority doesn't prove it isn't possible. "Possible" isn't the question. The question is "practically achievable, given the relevant constraints." Germany, the U.K., France, etc. are big diverse economies. They're not dominated by hyper-dense city states. Given that we often do much worse than them (e.g. where it comes to roads, public transit, or healthcare), they're a pretty good benchmark for what's practically achievable for us.

rayiner 9y ago

> Why limit the comparison to Europe? The question isn't "what's the best policy for maximizing the quality of the broadband network?" It's "what's the best policy for maximizing the quality of the broadband network, in a country where people prioritize many other things more highly?" It's pointless to compare the U.S. system to an Eastern European or Asian country where the people see broadband, technology, and computers, as a way to close the wealth gap with the US/UK/Germany/France. People in the U.S. don't see broadband that way. To the extent ordinary people care about it at all, they see the issue in terms of the pressing social justice issues the U.S. faces: rural/urban, low-income/high-income, etc. They care (quite reasonably) a lot more about whether low-income folks in Baltimore have access to broadband (and computers to use it!) than whether knowledge workers in Menlo Park have gigabit. That's why we have well-developed programs for, e.g. subsidizing rural telephone deployment, but really nothing for fiber: https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/the-broadband-gap-why-do-they-have-more-fiber https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/the-broadband-gap-.... This is particularly relevant in the context of municipally-supported systems displacing private ones. Take Amtrak. A private system aimed at shuttling knowledge workers from DC to New York might actually be pretty good. Instead, we have a public system where the only sensical route is burdened by having to subsidize trains around the country nobody uses. Here in Annapolis (a D.C. satellite city), Verizon is upgrading our fiber to gigabit and I can get 50-150 mbps downloads on my iPhone. Having experienced the D.C. subway spend a good chunk of the last year literally on fire, there is no way I'd vote to turn internet service over to the government. If I lived in Tokyo I'd feel differently, but I'm stuck with the government I've got. > Also, why focus on situations where quality is the same or worse? The countries I picked for comparison are just the 5 largest EU countries, which contain more than 2/3 of the population.

studentrob 9y ago
> It's pointless to compare the U.S. system to an Eastern European or Asian country where the people see broadband, technology, and computers, as a way to close the wealth gap with the US/UK/Germany/France. Hong Kong, Tokyo, Taipei, Seoul are very wealthy and have quality internet options. There are pockets of wealth and poverty all over the world. Are you saying the US isn't trying to be competitive any more and doesn't need to worry about knowledge workers? If so, that is absurd. We import tons of talent, not because it's cheap, but because we need it. We aren't churning out enough students in high tech and MD roles to satisfy our country's demands. > If you tried to build a municipal network in Baltimore, the conversation would not be about how it's going to bring in knowledge workers and enhance economic competitiveness. It's going to be about why public money is being spent on wealthy knowledge workers when schools in low income communities are crumbling. I think we're getting off topic. The question is whether net neutrality is worth supporting, and what we can do to further that discussion among non-techies who might be looking for a better understanding of this topic. > The countries I picked for comparison are just the 5 largest EU countries, which contain more than 2/3 of the population. Even a majority doesn't prove it isn't possible. Everything starts small.
- rayiner 9y ago
  > Hong Kong, Tokyo, Taipei, Seoul are very wealthy and have quality internet options. When the current Prime Minister of Japan was born, the U.S. had a per-capita GDP more than five times higher than Japan. Singapore and South Korea became rich even more recently (and China still isn't). Their political leaders remember when their countries weren't rich, and how they became rich. Moreover, those countries see their cities as their crown jewels. There is political will to build a new subway or fancy fiber network in the capital city. Contrast say DC (the ostensible capital of the US). When I was growing up in the 1990s, in the D.C. suburbs, people talked about D.C. in hushed tones (you might be able to make out "murder capital" if you listened carefully). Wealthy educated people would certainly never imagine living there, except maybe in Georgetown or DuPont. The idea of directing state (or gasp national) money to DC or New York or SF for fiber is a political non-starter. There are highways that need to be built out to the exurbs, after all (where all the political power is). > Even a majority doesn't prove it isn't possible. "Possible" isn't the question. The question is "practically achievable, given the relevant constraints." Germany, the U.K., France, etc. are big diverse economies. They're not dominated by hyper-dense city states. Given that we often do much worse than them (e.g. where it comes to roads, public transit, or healthcare), they're a pretty good benchmark for what's practically achievable for us.