3 ms·
I know this is America, but from a conceptual standpoint, my natural reaction to that is to think that Internet access should be an infrastructure maintained by
by DisMeUrBro 8y ago
I know this is America, but from a conceptual standpoint, my natural reaction to that is to think that Internet access should be an infrastructure maintained by the state. It solves the practical problem of multiple companies wanting to dig the same holes to put the same pipes; solves the liberal problem of forcing companies to comply with an arbitrary way to pursue business; solves the problem of neutrality since by virtue of freedom a state-maintained Internet would be neutral.
It raises the problem of the state controlling Internet. But 1. They already can pass laws to outlaw some parts of the Internet if they want to and 2. ISPs are so big I'm not sure them controlling Internet is more reassuring.
This is just a suggestion. I didn't process all the implications.
- deelowe 8y ago> Internet access should be an infrastructure maintained by the state. Some cities and counties have tried this and were immediately sued by the incumbent operators. Cable and Telco have multidecade long contracts with local municipalities. Having a government just up and attempt to start doing their own thing is arguably a breach of contract/illegal.
- monocasa 8y agoI mean, they sue regardless of if they have contracts or not. Comcast et al. sued Longmont, CO up the road from me when they first started their municipal internet, and tried to get the state senate to retroactively change the law in their favor. Luckily that didn't go anywhere.
- kickopotomus 8y agoEhh I feel like this is a little murky. I am having a hard time finding a precedent, and IANAL so maybe one can chime in here, but illegal contracts are unenforceable. Therefore if laws regarding Internet regulation were to change such that contracts between telecomms/municipalities are rendered illegal, then I would think they become void.