4 ms·

So I would have no problem I don't think with a certain mandatory minimum amount of guaranteed bandwidth unlimited free (as in beer as well as bird) data being

So I would have no problem I don't think with a certain mandatory minimum amount of guaranteed bandwidth unlimited free (as in beer as well as bird) data being provided subsidized I suppose by people who want to stream 3DHD entertainment (say half/third the highest speed the ISP offers). A free and open internet guaranteed and the ability for ISPs to offer VIP services to paying customers/businesses. Everyone is happy or am I just a smug liberal looney left millenial whatever that other guy said... or merely mistaken somehow?

marcoperaza 9y ago
Why should it be free? Internet access is very affordable.
- nthcolumn 9y ago
  Can't somebody explain why I am dead wrong here? I have a gut feeling it doesn't stack up. But to answer your question: Free because cost is a barrier to the other free - free speech. And yes it is very affordable - especially to ISPs, should not be a problem at all for them to provide completely gratis universal access. This way people who cannot afford it - and there are currently people who cannot afford it - get access to the internet and therefore education, so they can get better jobs thereby alleviating poverty so in the end they can afford those sweet high bandwidth charges. The American Dream. (the nice one where you work hard and become successful - not the one where your dad leaves you billions and then when you lose it all you get the enemy to hack you rich and powerful again)
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    >And yes it is very affordable - especially to ISPs, should not be a problem at all for them to provide completely gratis universal access. The ISPs wouldn't be so well off once you make their main product free. Investment in network infrastructure would go to zero in this system. They would all go bankrupt pretty quickly actually. The only way to keep the internet running with a mandate to offer it free would be to nationalize it. And once it's nationalized, forget about improvements to the network or new generations of mobile internet tech. Internet costs <$50 a month. You want to effectively nationalize an entire industry because that's too expensive in your opinion.

marcoperaza 9y ago

Why should it be free? Internet access is very affordable.

nthcolumn 9y ago
Can't somebody explain why I am dead wrong here? I have a gut feeling it doesn't stack up. But to answer your question: Free because cost is a barrier to the other free - free speech. And yes it is very affordable - especially to ISPs, should not be a problem at all for them to provide completely gratis universal access. This way people who cannot afford it - and there are currently people who cannot afford it - get access to the internet and therefore education, so they can get better jobs thereby alleviating poverty so in the end they can afford those sweet high bandwidth charges. The American Dream. (the nice one where you work hard and become successful - not the one where your dad leaves you billions and then when you lose it all you get the enemy to hack you rich and powerful again)
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  >And yes it is very affordable - especially to ISPs, should not be a problem at all for them to provide completely gratis universal access. The ISPs wouldn't be so well off once you make their main product free. Investment in network infrastructure would go to zero in this system. They would all go bankrupt pretty quickly actually. The only way to keep the internet running with a mandate to offer it free would be to nationalize it. And once it's nationalized, forget about improvements to the network or new generations of mobile internet tech. Internet costs <$50 a month. You want to effectively nationalize an entire industry because that's too expensive in your opinion.