4 ms·

Frankly, given carrier behavior, re-nationalizing telecom starts looking appealing. If you're concerned with privacy from government, don't be - you already lo

by _jal 8y ago

Frankly, given carrier behavior, re-nationalizing telecom starts looking appealing. If you're concerned with privacy from government, don't be - you already lost that war. If you're concerned with a drop in innovation, don't be - we're already far behind most of the rest of the developed world. If you're concerned about prices going up, don't be - we already pay insanely high rates compared to peer-countries. Welcome to the "free" "market".

oldmanhorton 8y ago
One reason to be more concerned about privacy in a nationalized communication network is because it removes a middle man - one who cares at least a little about PR backlash - from the current system. In a nationalized system, there is likely much less friction for a bureaucrat to block entire classes of content than there is today (where they need to deal with a handful of companies whose goal is to make money rather than silence dissident opinion).
atemerev 8y ago
I am much more worried about the government spying for my phone than about corporations spying for my phone. All that corporations want is money.
- jjgreen 8y ago
  Governments tend to have quite a bit of money.
- zigzaggy 8y ago
  I agree with you, in theory. But these days, with the revolving door between gov leadership and corporate leadership (1) this is a distinction without much of a difference. And we all probably know about the vast data collection by the PRISM program (2), and access given to tech databases by the Freedom Act (3). And of course our current president signed 702 rauthorization last Jan. (4) so this cozy relationship could continue. I guess my point is that it sure feels like we’re in a pretty hopeless state, given the deep ties between business and government. At one time I was not so cynical about this topic. But after seeing the inside of the political process in both campaign work and working in the defense industry, my eyes have been opened. The only solution involves political activism on topics most people either don’t understand or don’t care about. (1)https://googletransparencyproject.org/articles/googles-revolving-door-us https://googletransparencyproject.org/articles/googles-revol... (2)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_progra... (3)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act (4)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveil...
richardwhiuk 8y ago
> If you're concerned with a drop in innovation, don't be - we're already far behind most of the rest of the developed world. Not convinced by that - mobile telephony is pretty equal in technological innovation across most of the developed world (LTE rolled out, VoLTE rolled out by most carriers, 5G in planning), and handsets are pretty much the same for all markets.

by _jal 8y ago

oldmanhorton 8y ago

One reason to be more concerned about privacy in a nationalized communication network is because it removes a middle man - one who cares at least a little about PR backlash - from the current system. In a nationalized system, there is likely much less friction for a bureaucrat to block entire classes of content than there is today (where they need to deal with a handful of companies whose goal is to make money rather than silence dissident opinion).

atemerev 8y ago

I am much more worried about the government spying for my phone than about corporations spying for my phone. All that corporations want is money.

jjgreen 8y ago
Governments tend to have quite a bit of money.
zigzaggy 8y ago
I agree with you, in theory. But these days, with the revolving door between gov leadership and corporate leadership (1) this is a distinction without much of a difference. And we all probably know about the vast data collection by the PRISM program (2), and access given to tech databases by the Freedom Act (3). And of course our current president signed 702 rauthorization last Jan. (4) so this cozy relationship could continue. I guess my point is that it sure feels like we’re in a pretty hopeless state, given the deep ties between business and government. At one time I was not so cynical about this topic. But after seeing the inside of the political process in both campaign work and working in the defense industry, my eyes have been opened. The only solution involves political activism on topics most people either don’t understand or don’t care about. (1)https://googletransparencyproject.org/articles/googles-revolving-door-us https://googletransparencyproject.org/articles/googles-revol... (2)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_progra... (3)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act (4)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveil...

richardwhiuk 8y ago

> If you're concerned with a drop in innovation, don't be - we're already far behind most of the rest of the developed world. Not convinced by that - mobile telephony is pretty equal in technological innovation across most of the developed world (LTE rolled out, VoLTE rolled out by most carriers, 5G in planning), and handsets are pretty much the same for all markets.