10 ms·

Because the government should be trusted with that infrastructure/information and they won't become a bloated, red-tape laden mess? I think the majority of peo

Because the government should be trusted with that infrastructure/information and they won't become a bloated, red-tape laden mess? I think the majority of people agrees there needs to be changes in things... but putting "government" in charge of the backbone of the internet? Would definitely not a change for the better. Personally... I think there should be one of two rules: Companies can't own content AND infrastructure (IE: Comcast)... or a higher cost (taxes? fees?) for companies that do and/or don't have reasonable competition.

chrisper 9y ago
Here in Switzerland the fiber is owned by the regional utility company (power company for example). I think by law they have to allow every ISP to use it. Now everyone (or almost everyone) in Switzerland can have fiber internet with gbit up and down.
- rayiner 9y ago
  About 30% of households in Switzerland have access to fiber, versus 25% in the US. Switzerland doesn’t impose unbundling on fiber. The major fiber operator, Swisscom, owns its own lines.
  - chrisper 9y ago
    Looking here: https://www.bakom.admin.ch/bakom/en/homepage/telecommunication/technology/deployment-of-optical-fibre-in-switzerland.html https://www.bakom.admin.ch/bakom/en/homepage/telecommunicati... It seems Swisscom owns some lines, but not all of it. Like some of Swisscom Internet goes on lines that is not owned by them. I guess a lot of the households in the mountains and other large terrains do not have fiber. If you look here: https://map.geo.admin.ch/?topic=nga&mobile=false&lang=en&bgLayer=ch.swisstopo.pixelkarte-grau&catalogNodes=317,320,327,334,338&E=2568573.61&N=1220096.30&zoom=1&layers=ch.bakom.downlink100,ch.bakom.uplink100,ch.bakom.anschlussart-glasfaser&layers_opacity=0.75,0.75,0.75 https://map.geo.admin.ch/?topic=nga&mobile=false&lang=en&bgL... Plenty of households have >=100 Mbit/s Internet. This map pretty much covers the same area as "where most Swiss people live."
    - rayiner 9y ago
      85% of Americans can also get 100 Mbps. It sounds like you might be in some place like Zurich, where the local power company deployed fiber and allows ISP to provide services over it. That’s a good model, but it’s not legally required. For the most part, Swiss telecom regulation is very similar to that in the United States.
      - orf 9y ago
        And how much would that 100mbit cost on average in America? Paying about $35 for 100mbit fiber right now, with actual unlimited usage.
        mitchty 9y ago
        I pay about $110/month for 105, so... a lot.
        rayiner 9y ago
        Where are you? Swisscom charges $80/month for 100 Mbps symmetric fiber, which is a typical price for gigabit fiber in the US. https://www.swisscom.ch/en/residential/internet-television-fixednetwork/inone-home.html https://www.swisscom.ch/en/residential/internet-television-f.... Gigabit plus TV plus phone is about $140/month, which is the same as I pay for the same package here in Maryland. Comcast offers 100 down plus TV for $60/month here in MD.
        orf 9y ago
        The UK, but my point was that just because people have access to something doesn't mean they can actually access it - if it's way too expensive for most people, for example. Similar thing with healthcare in the US I guess. I pay $50 a month for the internet and two mobile contracts, with 4GB data each and unlimited texts/minutes, from BT. TV is free (freeview, with hundreds of channels). You can pay for Sky or Virgin and get every channel ever, but why would you.
        9y ago
stephengillie 9y ago
Why do arguments like this continue to be made, despite many cities already having municipal broadband? This anti-governmental prejudice is tiring. Governments are made of people - what makes you trust those people less than other people?
- wernercd 9y ago
  Because, by and large, I don't trust people? I love my country and for the most part trust the Government... but on the same token - you'd have to be blind not to see how inefficient they are compared to private organizations (IE: Post Office compared to FedEx. Private Hospitals compared to the VA.) You'd also have to be blind to not see blatant growth and abuses of privileges. The ACA growing government meddling in healthcare. Snowden - and similar - releases showing abuses. Daily revelations about different groups abusing their privileges. "Arguments like this" continue to be made because examples are PLENTIFUL of how inefficient, self serving and abusive large organizations get. The same can be said of Unions - which are great in some aspects... horrible in others.
  - brohoolio 9y ago
    Post office has a slightly different mission than fedex. The post office connects the entire country. Which means you’ll have losses in remote places. But the country as a whole benefits from having that infrastructure in place to be able to send a letter to everyone. In terms of private hospitals you’ve obviously never had to pay a bill from them. They engineer the system to maximize profits, which is different than getting people out the door as efficiently as possible. Large institutions like the post office / va have problems. I’d argue large companies often have similar problems. But the distinction between what problems these orgs are solving and what private companies are solving is a very important distinction.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    The Post Office will send a letter to the other side of the country for 49 cents. How much would that cost from FedEx? They’re pretty competitive for packages too.
amelius 9y ago
The internet was practically invented by government institutions. Companies turned it into a mess.
- wernercd 9y ago
  Government regulation and abuse has no part in the mess? To say "companies" have blame and "government" doesn't? That's... interesting... And Government may have helped get the ball rolling but they didn't get us to where we are today alone - and if they were the only ones in charge, we wouldn't be where we are today.
baldfat 9y ago
Government does many things well. Protecting citizens freedoms, roads, airports and ports, education for all, social safety net (medicaid and social security), supplying fuel, CDC, protecting the environment, 911, policing, science and research funding.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Not our government. We spend more on education per student than all OECD nation’s but Switzerland, and have middle of the pack results. Go to Japan or Germany and say we’re doing a good job with our roads. Our municipal governments are among the worst polluters—antiquated sewer systems dump immense amounts of untreated sewage into our waterways each year.
  - baldfat 9y ago
    Take out the Inner City Schools (Which gets 50% of the funding since it is property based funding) and US is one of the tops in the world. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/property-taxes-and-unequal-schools/497333/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/propert... Massachusetts as a state would be in the top in the world right their with Finland, and that includes Boston http://blogs.wgbh.org/on-campus/2016/12/6/if-massachusetts-were-country-where-would-students-rank-math-reading-and-science/ http://blogs.wgbh.org/on-campus/2016/12/6/if-massachusetts-w... Also our Universities are also the top educational system in the world. 7 of the top 10 Universities of the world are US institutions. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2017/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankin... PS Rant, Why is that Conservatives and Libertarians like to make things look worst in America and they consider themselves the only patriotic ones?
    - rayiner 9y ago
      Inner city schools do not get less of the funding. Property taxes only account for half of K-12 funding. Federal and state grants to inner city and rural schools account for the other half. Here in Maryland, for example, Baltimore spends about the same as Montgomery County, a wealthy DC suburb. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/03/12/in-23-states-richer-school-districts-get-more-local-funding-than-poorer-districts/?utm_term=.ffc28de6334b https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/03/12/in-2.... > When federal dollars are included, just five states are spending less in their poorest districts than in their wealthiest. Nationwide, the average disparity drops from 15 percent to less than 2 percent.

chrisper 9y ago

Here in Switzerland the fiber is owned by the regional utility company (power company for example). I think by law they have to allow every ISP to use it. Now everyone (or almost everyone) in Switzerland can have fiber internet with gbit up and down.

rayiner 9y ago
About 30% of households in Switzerland have access to fiber, versus 25% in the US. Switzerland doesn’t impose unbundling on fiber. The major fiber operator, Swisscom, owns its own lines.
- chrisper 9y ago
  Looking here: https://www.bakom.admin.ch/bakom/en/homepage/telecommunication/technology/deployment-of-optical-fibre-in-switzerland.html https://www.bakom.admin.ch/bakom/en/homepage/telecommunicati... It seems Swisscom owns some lines, but not all of it. Like some of Swisscom Internet goes on lines that is not owned by them. I guess a lot of the households in the mountains and other large terrains do not have fiber. If you look here: https://map.geo.admin.ch/?topic=nga&mobile=false&lang=en&bgLayer=ch.swisstopo.pixelkarte-grau&catalogNodes=317,320,327,334,338&E=2568573.61&N=1220096.30&zoom=1&layers=ch.bakom.downlink100,ch.bakom.uplink100,ch.bakom.anschlussart-glasfaser&layers_opacity=0.75,0.75,0.75 https://map.geo.admin.ch/?topic=nga&mobile=false&lang=en&bgL... Plenty of households have >=100 Mbit/s Internet. This map pretty much covers the same area as "where most Swiss people live."
  - rayiner 9y ago
    85% of Americans can also get 100 Mbps. It sounds like you might be in some place like Zurich, where the local power company deployed fiber and allows ISP to provide services over it. That’s a good model, but it’s not legally required. For the most part, Swiss telecom regulation is very similar to that in the United States.
    - orf 9y ago
      And how much would that 100mbit cost on average in America? Paying about $35 for 100mbit fiber right now, with actual unlimited usage.
      - mitchty 9y ago
        I pay about $110/month for 105, so... a lot.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        Where are you? Swisscom charges $80/month for 100 Mbps symmetric fiber, which is a typical price for gigabit fiber in the US. https://www.swisscom.ch/en/residential/internet-television-fixednetwork/inone-home.html https://www.swisscom.ch/en/residential/internet-television-f.... Gigabit plus TV plus phone is about $140/month, which is the same as I pay for the same package here in Maryland. Comcast offers 100 down plus TV for $60/month here in MD.
        orf 9y ago
        The UK, but my point was that just because people have access to something doesn't mean they can actually access it - if it's way too expensive for most people, for example. Similar thing with healthcare in the US I guess. I pay $50 a month for the internet and two mobile contracts, with 4GB data each and unlimited texts/minutes, from BT. TV is free (freeview, with hundreds of channels). You can pay for Sky or Virgin and get every channel ever, but why would you.
        9y ago

stephengillie 9y ago

Why do arguments like this continue to be made, despite many cities already having municipal broadband? This anti-governmental prejudice is tiring. Governments are made of people - what makes you trust those people less than other people?

wernercd 9y ago
Because, by and large, I don't trust people? I love my country and for the most part trust the Government... but on the same token - you'd have to be blind not to see how inefficient they are compared to private organizations (IE: Post Office compared to FedEx. Private Hospitals compared to the VA.) You'd also have to be blind to not see blatant growth and abuses of privileges. The ACA growing government meddling in healthcare. Snowden - and similar - releases showing abuses. Daily revelations about different groups abusing their privileges. "Arguments like this" continue to be made because examples are PLENTIFUL of how inefficient, self serving and abusive large organizations get. The same can be said of Unions - which are great in some aspects... horrible in others.
- brohoolio 9y ago
  Post office has a slightly different mission than fedex. The post office connects the entire country. Which means you’ll have losses in remote places. But the country as a whole benefits from having that infrastructure in place to be able to send a letter to everyone. In terms of private hospitals you’ve obviously never had to pay a bill from them. They engineer the system to maximize profits, which is different than getting people out the door as efficiently as possible. Large institutions like the post office / va have problems. I’d argue large companies often have similar problems. But the distinction between what problems these orgs are solving and what private companies are solving is a very important distinction.
- mikeash 9y ago
  The Post Office will send a letter to the other side of the country for 49 cents. How much would that cost from FedEx? They’re pretty competitive for packages too.

amelius 9y ago

The internet was practically invented by government institutions. Companies turned it into a mess.

wernercd 9y ago
Government regulation and abuse has no part in the mess? To say "companies" have blame and "government" doesn't? That's... interesting... And Government may have helped get the ball rolling but they didn't get us to where we are today alone - and if they were the only ones in charge, we wouldn't be where we are today.

baldfat 9y ago

Government does many things well. Protecting citizens freedoms, roads, airports and ports, education for all, social safety net (medicaid and social security), supplying fuel, CDC, protecting the environment, 911, policing, science and research funding.

rayiner 9y ago
Not our government. We spend more on education per student than all OECD nation’s but Switzerland, and have middle of the pack results. Go to Japan or Germany and say we’re doing a good job with our roads. Our municipal governments are among the worst polluters—antiquated sewer systems dump immense amounts of untreated sewage into our waterways each year.
- baldfat 9y ago
  Take out the Inner City Schools (Which gets 50% of the funding since it is property based funding) and US is one of the tops in the world. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/property-taxes-and-unequal-schools/497333/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/propert... Massachusetts as a state would be in the top in the world right their with Finland, and that includes Boston http://blogs.wgbh.org/on-campus/2016/12/6/if-massachusetts-were-country-where-would-students-rank-math-reading-and-science/ http://blogs.wgbh.org/on-campus/2016/12/6/if-massachusetts-w... Also our Universities are also the top educational system in the world. 7 of the top 10 Universities of the world are US institutions. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2017/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankin... PS Rant, Why is that Conservatives and Libertarians like to make things look worst in America and they consider themselves the only patriotic ones?
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Inner city schools do not get less of the funding. Property taxes only account for half of K-12 funding. Federal and state grants to inner city and rural schools account for the other half. Here in Maryland, for example, Baltimore spends about the same as Montgomery County, a wealthy DC suburb. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/03/12/in-23-states-richer-school-districts-get-more-local-funding-than-poorer-districts/?utm_term=.ffc28de6334b https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/03/12/in-2.... > When federal dollars are included, just five states are spending less in their poorest districts than in their wealthiest. Nationwide, the average disparity drops from 15 percent to less than 2 percent.