5 ms·

> Shareholders are also people. Some shareholders are large and rich. Some are small. Some are pension funds that want their members to receive dividends and re

> Shareholders are also people. Some shareholders are large and rich. Some are small. Some are pension funds that want their members to receive dividends and returns. right. i didn't say i'm happy that shareholders will lose money. just that i found the trade-off acceptable. presumably most of them will get out of for-profit ISP stocks and not totally lose their shirt over it, should things start going downhill. then others will decline to invest in the first place. if e.g. comcast were to go out of business, then that would suck, because a bunch of people would have to look for other work. i'd hope that competition would just make those sorts of companies into better citizens, and then they could stay in business, and provide a better product at a fairer price. > And maybe I am a pessimist, but I haven't seen that many examples of government run enterprises that can be said to be well-run. i've read many articles on arstechnica where people have extolled the quality of their municipal ISP, and bemoaned the ISP-led legislation that banned their municipal ISP. note that i'm not saying we should outlaw private ISPs. but my strong opinion, based on all the evidence i've read, and my own personal experience, is that national ISPs (comcast, at&t, etc) use their monopoly power to the fullest extent that they can. they have terrible service, they provide a product inferior to what other countries provide municipally for less money, and they do nothing but complain to congress about how they're hurting while bragging to shareholders about how well they're doing. in short, i think they're bad actors, and i'd rather see the thing they provide treated like a public utility, which i firmly believe it is at this point. > I haven't seen that many examples of government run enterprises that can be said to be well-run ARPA-E is a fine example of a current government project that is well run and highly lauded. it would also be good to remember that you wouldn't have the internet were it not for "government run enterprise" (it was ARPAnet before it was "the internet").

vuln 8y ago
What about the large percent of the population that is invested in these ISPs without actually knowing they are? There is a large portion of the american public that has zero clue where their pension / retirement fund is being invested. What about all the employees stock that they might have purchased or were awarded as a bonus?
- arthur_pryor 8y ago
  i'd prefer a robust public safety net to corporate welfare. but again, i find it more likely that comcast and the like would become competitive and less obscenely profitable, as opposed to going out of business entirely. and if the pension fund knows what they're doing, they'd get out of the ISP stock. municipal ISPs aren't going to ruin anyone's retirement plan. that's absurd. or as the kids like to say, national ISPs deserve a little disruption. their employees and shareholders will survive, and we'll all be better off.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  Those that have ISP stocks as part of their pension/retirement are likely not investing directly in those, but in managed plans. The people who manage those plans would get out of ISP stocks as well.
- jpetso 8y ago
  Note that you're explicitly making an argument that a company being "too big to fail" should require us to continue supporting their monopoly and funneling money to them, all for the sake of "the small guy". You're right that there is a potential negative impact for direct or indirect shareholders. However, these have to be weighed against a continued cost on society (everyone and their dog overpaying for internet while getting terrible service). I don't see you taking this other side into account. It also doesn't touch on all the money that gets absorbed by various entities somewhere along the way from "customer being charged" to "small guy shareholder getting their pension". If we've determined that another system can provide a better solution in the long run, the question needs to be "how do we support people in the old system who are going to get hit by its demise", and then go about implementing the better system, instead of advocating for the rent-seeking monopolist's continued existence. Especially if we're talking about infrastructure.

vuln 8y ago

What about the large percent of the population that is invested in these ISPs without actually knowing they are? There is a large portion of the american public that has zero clue where their pension / retirement fund is being invested. What about all the employees stock that they might have purchased or were awarded as a bonus?

arthur_pryor 8y ago
i'd prefer a robust public safety net to corporate welfare. but again, i find it more likely that comcast and the like would become competitive and less obscenely profitable, as opposed to going out of business entirely. and if the pension fund knows what they're doing, they'd get out of the ISP stock. municipal ISPs aren't going to ruin anyone's retirement plan. that's absurd. or as the kids like to say, national ISPs deserve a little disruption. their employees and shareholders will survive, and we'll all be better off.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
Those that have ISP stocks as part of their pension/retirement are likely not investing directly in those, but in managed plans. The people who manage those plans would get out of ISP stocks as well.
jpetso 8y ago
Note that you're explicitly making an argument that a company being "too big to fail" should require us to continue supporting their monopoly and funneling money to them, all for the sake of "the small guy". You're right that there is a potential negative impact for direct or indirect shareholders. However, these have to be weighed against a continued cost on society (everyone and their dog overpaying for internet while getting terrible service). I don't see you taking this other side into account. It also doesn't touch on all the money that gets absorbed by various entities somewhere along the way from "customer being charged" to "small guy shareholder getting their pension". If we've determined that another system can provide a better solution in the long run, the question needs to be "how do we support people in the old system who are going to get hit by its demise", and then go about implementing the better system, instead of advocating for the rent-seeking monopolist's continued existence. Especially if we're talking about infrastructure.