3 ms·

While I agree it doesn’t cripple some investment. I can see how it can cripple other investments. It’s essentially choosing a winner and declaring the other fol

by kjrose 9y ago

While I agree it doesn’t cripple some investment. I can see how it can cripple other investments. It’s essentially choosing a winner and declaring the other folks to be utilities without actually calling them utilities.

tzs 9y ago
Who is the winner and who are the other folks? I've seen some similar language from some politicians, but they have been confused over the difference between an ISP and a web site. To use a meat space analogy, they can't tell the difference between a taxi company and Walmart, and think that they both should fall under the same regulatory framework and have the same rules.
- kjrose 9y ago
  The roads are still privately owned in the net neutrality analogy. So the government isn’t paying to maintain or upgrade them. However the taxi companies also don’t have any direct payments or influence since the roada must remain neutral. If we want net neutrality than make the roads a public good. To do this FCC political play is just silliness.
  - Kadin 9y ago
    > If we want net neutrality than make the roads a public good That would be nice, but unfortunately the same corporate interests that are presently disassembling net neutrality rules already prohibited public-sector projects that might compete with them and interfere with their monopoly rents. There is no feasible route to public ownership of the infrastructure at the moment; ensuring reasonable and non-discriminatory access to it, on the basis of that infrastructure only existing due largely to license and permitting agreements (use of public land, pole leases, etc.), is -- or rather was, until last November's election -- a reasonable step in the right direction. I wouldn't mind a public conversation, though, about seizing last-mile infrastructure and making it a public good, just as a sort of Overton Window-shifting maneuver. Right now the momentum favors the ISPs, and they are going to continue to consolidate their monopoly positions and extract maximum rents from consumers while the regulatory environment favors them. Blunting the momentum and inevitability of their regulatory takeover would be good, although I'm pessimistic about being able to do it in the near term.

by kjrose 9y ago

tzs 9y ago

Who is the winner and who are the other folks? I've seen some similar language from some politicians, but they have been confused over the difference between an ISP and a web site. To use a meat space analogy, they can't tell the difference between a taxi company and Walmart, and think that they both should fall under the same regulatory framework and have the same rules.

kjrose 9y ago
The roads are still privately owned in the net neutrality analogy. So the government isn’t paying to maintain or upgrade them. However the taxi companies also don’t have any direct payments or influence since the roada must remain neutral. If we want net neutrality than make the roads a public good. To do this FCC political play is just silliness.
- Kadin 9y ago
  > If we want net neutrality than make the roads a public good That would be nice, but unfortunately the same corporate interests that are presently disassembling net neutrality rules already prohibited public-sector projects that might compete with them and interfere with their monopoly rents. There is no feasible route to public ownership of the infrastructure at the moment; ensuring reasonable and non-discriminatory access to it, on the basis of that infrastructure only existing due largely to license and permitting agreements (use of public land, pole leases, etc.), is -- or rather was, until last November's election -- a reasonable step in the right direction. I wouldn't mind a public conversation, though, about seizing last-mile infrastructure and making it a public good, just as a sort of Overton Window-shifting maneuver. Right now the momentum favors the ISPs, and they are going to continue to consolidate their monopoly positions and extract maximum rents from consumers while the regulatory environment favors them. Blunting the momentum and inevitability of their regulatory takeover would be good, although I'm pessimistic about being able to do it in the near term.