3 ms·

One advantage of repealing all net neutrality and letting Comcast milk the Netflixes of the world is that it'll encourage big population centers like San Franci

One advantage of repealing all net neutrality and letting Comcast milk the Netflixes of the world is that it'll encourage big population centers like San Francisco or New York to seize the fiber with eminent domain and give it to e.g. the local electric company to run. Or at least apply their own local net neutrality standards to the regional Comcast branch. I've always thought that was a better solution than involving the feds anyways. Why do people from California need to beg senators from Alabama to stop Comcast from screwing with their local fiber? The last mile connection seems to be the only important one anyways: It would be feasible for someone like Netflix to hook together all the big cities themselves, but they can't dig up all the streets to lay their own fiber.

rayiner 9y ago
What makes you think California would do better on its own? California is an infrastructure backwater, due to anti-development policies. If you live in the shadow of Comcast Center in Philly, you've probably got two fiber providers to chose from. If you live in San Francisco you probably don't have fiber at all. (Philadelphians also have pretty decent public transit, while San Franciscans have ... BART. I posit that those things are not unrelated.)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- MichaelBurge 9y ago
  I don't think California specifically would be better off, for the reasons you describe. It was mostly intended to raise the question: "If nobody around the companies and people advocating for Net Neutrality actually wants it, why should a higher power intervene on their behalf?" The headline seems to give the impression that it's only federal Republicans blocking them, which if true would make you think they would prefer to have more local control. I haven't heard any net neutrality advocates give a good argument for that yet. I could imagine "It's easier to have one standard than 50, for each state", but we don't seem to currently have too many disparate Net Neutrality laws that need to be unified. Or "Even unenlightened rural areas deserve open internet" - but that's not convincing if the big tech cities don't even have it yet. I suppose there's, "It's easier to organize a nationwide campaign than to organize hundreds of local ones", but that makes it a matter of logistics not principle. Is that all there is to it? Are they currently forbidden by e.g. the FCC from passing local net neutrality laws?
  - rayiner 9y ago
    > Are they currently forbidden by e.g. the FCC from passing local net neutrality laws? Not directly, but it would be problematic. The "channels" of interstate commerce are an area in which the Federal government has primacy. States can regulate them to some degree (e.g. prescribing speed limits on the portions of interstate highways passing through their jurisdiction). But they can't regulate them in a way that conflicts with how the federal government regulates them.

rayiner 9y ago

What makes you think California would do better on its own? California is an infrastructure backwater, due to anti-development policies. If you live in the shadow of Comcast Center in Philly, you've probably got two fiber providers to chose from. If you live in San Francisco you probably don't have fiber at all. (Philadelphians also have pretty decent public transit, while San Franciscans have ... BART. I posit that those things are not unrelated.)

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
MichaelBurge 9y ago
I don't think California specifically would be better off, for the reasons you describe. It was mostly intended to raise the question: "If nobody around the companies and people advocating for Net Neutrality actually wants it, why should a higher power intervene on their behalf?" The headline seems to give the impression that it's only federal Republicans blocking them, which if true would make you think they would prefer to have more local control. I haven't heard any net neutrality advocates give a good argument for that yet. I could imagine "It's easier to have one standard than 50, for each state", but we don't seem to currently have too many disparate Net Neutrality laws that need to be unified. Or "Even unenlightened rural areas deserve open internet" - but that's not convincing if the big tech cities don't even have it yet. I suppose there's, "It's easier to organize a nationwide campaign than to organize hundreds of local ones", but that makes it a matter of logistics not principle. Is that all there is to it? Are they currently forbidden by e.g. the FCC from passing local net neutrality laws?
- rayiner 9y ago
  > Are they currently forbidden by e.g. the FCC from passing local net neutrality laws? Not directly, but it would be problematic. The "channels" of interstate commerce are an area in which the Federal government has primacy. States can regulate them to some degree (e.g. prescribing speed limits on the portions of interstate highways passing through their jurisdiction). But they can't regulate them in a way that conflicts with how the federal government regulates them.