2 ms·

What would we do with that data if we had it? Would we force the ISPs to build out unprofitable infrastructure? Would we direct some funding to the ISPs to do t

by jbob2000 7y ago

What would we do with that data if we had it? Would we force the ISPs to build out unprofitable infrastructure? Would we direct some funding to the ISPs to do that? Would we incentivize rural folks to move to better served areas? It just seems like more politics to yell at the FCC to gather this data - why do we want it?

moftz 7y ago
Nationalize the ISPs and build out fiber to everywhere. You don't need to worry about profitability if you aren't trying to make a profit.
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  Not necessary. Just void all those laws that prevent competition in broadband ISPs. Strike down state laws abolishing municipality-owned ISPs. Strike down local ordinances granting telecoms local monopolies. Eminent domain the utility poles and buried conduits to transfer them to the county/municipality, though. Too many companies squeeze out competition by saying "you can't hang your wires on our poles". These companies have been sitting on ass, collecting rents, because they are legally protected from competition. The instant a viable competitor shows up, they scramble to clean up their acts. So strip away their protection. Wherever they don't build out, they lose the market, because the residents might do it themselves.
thwythwy 7y ago
You get that the government is controlled by politics right? The FCC Chair is quite obviously a political appointment based on politics. ISPs get to dig in the public right of way. They have access to what is a natural monopoly of plugging into peoples' homes. Unprofitable infrastructure? How about the fact that these companies take all their cap-ex and throw it into CONTENT then beg the federal government to allow them to throttle their customers so they can charge for the content. Force indeed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
ziddoap 7y ago
The data would help get rid of the hand-waving and half-explanations of where the government money went. We would be able to point to data, and say "We gave you X million dollars, you only expanded your network by ~1%, where did the money go?". It provides a signal saying a closer look is warranted, such as an audit.
hinkley 7y ago
Do you think the phone company made money on that one phone line out to a farm house? Hell no. The fees and pay schedules for all subscribers included a subsidy for making sure the entire county had phone service. How different is this situation from the former? A little more hardware? I'm not even sure that's true.
- topspin 7y ago
  "Do you think the phone company made money on that one phone line out to a farm house?" Phone line, power line, mail service... We used to understand there is great value in universal service. It was almost a given that having everyone in the same century was a great public good despite the loses incurred on behalf of some users. Today that's gone. The supposed "right" are simply Senators or Congressman from Comcast et al. The "left" is indulging a growing contempt for anyone not living in a dense city. There is literally no part of the establishment with any interest solving rural broadband. So it festers endlessly; we can't even measure the problem. I'm betting on Starlink because I don't have enough decades left for the politics of traditional broadband internet service to unfuck itself.
  - hinkley 7y ago
    At one point we got a mea culpa from Al Gore from his days legislating for rural broadband. His theory was we'd stop rural flight if people had internet access where they were. Al Gore's curse here is that Al Gore fits in with the popular kids. I don't think it occurred to him how narrow the definition of 'community' is when the population is sparse. In addition to the people who stick out like a sore thumb and simply don't belong, you have a larger silent group of people who pass for normal. Those people see themselves as refugees, after a fashion. They're going to have some sour grapes for the place that "didn't want them", where they couldn't be themselves. Two can play that game, and cities have the strength to punch back, harder. If the internet hadn't balkanized, I had hopes that this cycle would slow down or reverse. Exposure therapy makes people more accepting of situations that are unfamiliar. It's one of the things that happens to you in the city. Or to a lesser extent in popular media. Maybe Al was thinking the same thing, I can't say. Things are instead just getting more polarized. Maybe it's the horse and water problem. People who don't question their assumptions aren't going to go on the internet and educate themselves out of the status quo.

moftz 7y ago

Nationalize the ISPs and build out fiber to everywhere. You don't need to worry about profitability if you aren't trying to make a profit.

logfromblammo 7y ago
Not necessary. Just void all those laws that prevent competition in broadband ISPs. Strike down state laws abolishing municipality-owned ISPs. Strike down local ordinances granting telecoms local monopolies. Eminent domain the utility poles and buried conduits to transfer them to the county/municipality, though. Too many companies squeeze out competition by saying "you can't hang your wires on our poles". These companies have been sitting on ass, collecting rents, because they are legally protected from competition. The instant a viable competitor shows up, they scramble to clean up their acts. So strip away their protection. Wherever they don't build out, they lose the market, because the residents might do it themselves.

thwythwy 7y ago

You get that the government is controlled by politics right? The FCC Chair is quite obviously a political appointment based on politics. ISPs get to dig in the public right of way. They have access to what is a natural monopoly of plugging into peoples' homes. Unprofitable infrastructure? How about the fact that these companies take all their cap-ex and throw it into CONTENT then beg the federal government to allow them to throttle their customers so they can charge for the content. Force indeed.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

ziddoap 7y ago

The data would help get rid of the hand-waving and half-explanations of where the government money went. We would be able to point to data, and say "We gave you X million dollars, you only expanded your network by ~1%, where did the money go?". It provides a signal saying a closer look is warranted, such as an audit.

hinkley 7y ago

Do you think the phone company made money on that one phone line out to a farm house? Hell no. The fees and pay schedules for all subscribers included a subsidy for making sure the entire county had phone service. How different is this situation from the former? A little more hardware? I'm not even sure that's true.

topspin 7y ago
"Do you think the phone company made money on that one phone line out to a farm house?" Phone line, power line, mail service... We used to understand there is great value in universal service. It was almost a given that having everyone in the same century was a great public good despite the loses incurred on behalf of some users. Today that's gone. The supposed "right" are simply Senators or Congressman from Comcast et al. The "left" is indulging a growing contempt for anyone not living in a dense city. There is literally no part of the establishment with any interest solving rural broadband. So it festers endlessly; we can't even measure the problem. I'm betting on Starlink because I don't have enough decades left for the politics of traditional broadband internet service to unfuck itself.
- hinkley 7y ago
  At one point we got a mea culpa from Al Gore from his days legislating for rural broadband. His theory was we'd stop rural flight if people had internet access where they were. Al Gore's curse here is that Al Gore fits in with the popular kids. I don't think it occurred to him how narrow the definition of 'community' is when the population is sparse. In addition to the people who stick out like a sore thumb and simply don't belong, you have a larger silent group of people who pass for normal. Those people see themselves as refugees, after a fashion. They're going to have some sour grapes for the place that "didn't want them", where they couldn't be themselves. Two can play that game, and cities have the strength to punch back, harder. If the internet hadn't balkanized, I had hopes that this cycle would slow down or reverse. Exposure therapy makes people more accepting of situations that are unfamiliar. It's one of the things that happens to you in the city. Or to a lesser extent in popular media. Maybe Al was thinking the same thing, I can't say. Things are instead just getting more polarized. Maybe it's the horse and water problem. People who don't question their assumptions aren't going to go on the internet and educate themselves out of the status quo.