5 ms·

Because very large companies with a lot of money are willing to spend vast fortunes to ensure we don't. If it costs them $200 million in lobbying to ensure that

Because very large companies with a lot of money are willing to spend vast fortunes to ensure we don't. If it costs them $200 million in lobbying to ensure that they hang onto $1 billion a year in revenue, that's well worth it to them, while the rest of us are too busy paying our too-high monthly ISP bills to scrape together $200 million to counter their lobbying. A regular diet of TechDirt[0] on the subject, going back many years, tells quite a story. [0] https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=muni+broadband https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=muni+broadband

amiga_500 6y ago
Why are the entire population just accepting the lack of democratic representation to defend their interests?
- pwinnski 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you're suggesting as an alternative. Large groups of people just marched in the street to protest far more heinous injustice that this corruption and the result was violent attacks by militarized police. What do you suggest it looks like for us to not accept this?
  - amiga_500 6y ago
    So would you say you are in a democracy, given the lobbying beats out voter needs and the state violently suppresses protests? Where does this end? edit as I hit the fake "you're submitting too fast" sorry if I hit a nerve there fella
    - pwinnski 6y ago
      Would you say that you avoid answering questions on a regular basis? Do you pretend your questions actually seek an answer, rather than just making whatever point you want to make in the superficial form of a question? Still, I'll answer the question: Yes, I think we are clearly not yet in a totalitarian regime despite our general lack of choice in internet providers. I believe we are clearly still in a democratic republic, although a badly-abused one. Your last "question" suggests that the direction in which things move is inevitable, but American history demonstrates that is not the case. There has been an ebb and flow between moneyed powers and the people for more than 240 years, and we've been both better off and worse off than we are today. We will fight back, and make progress, but things like that don't happen on an internet timescale. Since you've declined to answer any questions or offer any alternatives, I'll offer some of my own. If you're an American an want to do something to push back against the corrupting influence of money in America, look here: https://www.unrigbook.com/get-involved https://www.unrigbook.com/get-involved
    - ex_amazon_sde 6y ago
      > Where does this end? ...it ends with democracy ending.
    - fallingfrog 6y ago
      No, I would not say we are in a democracy.
- gruez 6y ago
  Because they're too busy fighting amongst themselves on wedge issues.
  - noobermin 6y ago
    People like to claim that but I don't see that as a real reason. I honestly think Americans have just gotten used to being stepped on they just accept it.
    - amiga_500 6y ago
      That's my working suspicion. They gave up.
      - kaens 6y ago
        If you grow up with no experience of not being stepped on, exactly what would you be giving up on? How exactly do you expect people on average to not accept the general state of the world as it has been for their entire existence? Acceptance is the default. People, by and large, often do not have the experience of holding ideals of which to give up on that do not in one way or another map onto their experiences in a way suggesting they are living in-line with their ideals.
        amiga_500 6y ago
        Well others have pushed back. What I would like is for you guys to at least say this, instead of all the tiresome "freedom" stuff. Acceptance is the first step.
        kaens 6y ago
        oh i'm with you there
- fallingfrog 6y ago
  At this point only a general strike or an armed insurrection would be enough to budge the corporate/state system from its entrenched positions. Voting is not working- many politicians promise to fix this and other problems but once in office they have no incentive to actually do so.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Voting is working. The problem isn’t that (voting); it’s voters who don’t care and vote while uneducated on the issues.
- jacobwilliamroy 6y ago
  Because some people just like to be used. I think they call it codependence.
jmole 6y ago
Well, yes, but actually not quite... It's an infrastructure game. If I need to build new fiber/cable/whatever to X homes to get N% * X new subscribers, then those costs & profits have to amortize out to at least 0. And most of the time they dont. We tried to fix this for electric power by separating transmission from distribution ("deregulating") and allowing consumers to have a choice. There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not this actually lowered prices for consumers. For internet services, bandwidth is essentially free for providers (for typical usage), so the main costs involved are infrastructure upkeep & customer support. Cable TV distribution & phone/security services typically subsidize these costs too. Municipal broadband is a nice idea, but it takes a unique set of circumstances for it to work. Consider how many other municipal infrastructure services are 100% run by your city/county. Maybe there's a different approach. The federal government wants to prevent Huawei from deploying telecom equipment in the US. Maybe we should look at a top-down approach to internet infrastructure funding, the same way we do with highways and schools. If they want to set the rules, they should put up the money to do so. But then again, look at the poor state of our bridges and tunnels... What's abundantly clear is that telecommunications services are an essential piece of infrastructure for modern commerce. COVID eliminated any doubt whatsoever about this fact. So how do we make sure it's funded well, but also run efficiently? It's not a trivial question by any means.
- dbt00 6y ago
  > Municipal broadband is a nice idea, but it takes a unique set of circumstances for it to work. Consider how many other municipal infrastructure services are 100% run by your city/county. Where I live, my electric, water, sewer and gas services are directly run by the city. Trash and recycling are billed through the city but operated by a vendor. They're great. I would love to have internet service through them, and the fact that this town above all hasn't managed to do that is ridiculous.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > Municipal broadband is a nice idea, but it takes a unique set of circumstances for it to work. If "unique set of circumstances" means "not getting snowed under by lawsuits from major ISPs", then yes, this is true. But that's the government's fault for letting ISPs get away with such tactics. > Consider how many other municipal infrastructure services are 100% run by your city/county. Consider how many would be if the government would stop favoring major ISPs.

amiga_500 6y ago

Why are the entire population just accepting the lack of democratic representation to defend their interests?

pwinnski 6y ago
I'm not sure what you're suggesting as an alternative. Large groups of people just marched in the street to protest far more heinous injustice that this corruption and the result was violent attacks by militarized police. What do you suggest it looks like for us to not accept this?
- amiga_500 6y ago
  So would you say you are in a democracy, given the lobbying beats out voter needs and the state violently suppresses protests? Where does this end? edit as I hit the fake "you're submitting too fast" sorry if I hit a nerve there fella
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    Would you say that you avoid answering questions on a regular basis? Do you pretend your questions actually seek an answer, rather than just making whatever point you want to make in the superficial form of a question? Still, I'll answer the question: Yes, I think we are clearly not yet in a totalitarian regime despite our general lack of choice in internet providers. I believe we are clearly still in a democratic republic, although a badly-abused one. Your last "question" suggests that the direction in which things move is inevitable, but American history demonstrates that is not the case. There has been an ebb and flow between moneyed powers and the people for more than 240 years, and we've been both better off and worse off than we are today. We will fight back, and make progress, but things like that don't happen on an internet timescale. Since you've declined to answer any questions or offer any alternatives, I'll offer some of my own. If you're an American an want to do something to push back against the corrupting influence of money in America, look here: https://www.unrigbook.com/get-involved https://www.unrigbook.com/get-involved
  - ex_amazon_sde 6y ago
    > Where does this end? ...it ends with democracy ending.
  - fallingfrog 6y ago
    No, I would not say we are in a democracy.
gruez 6y ago
Because they're too busy fighting amongst themselves on wedge issues.
- noobermin 6y ago
  People like to claim that but I don't see that as a real reason. I honestly think Americans have just gotten used to being stepped on they just accept it.
  - amiga_500 6y ago
    That's my working suspicion. They gave up.
    - kaens 6y ago
      If you grow up with no experience of not being stepped on, exactly what would you be giving up on? How exactly do you expect people on average to not accept the general state of the world as it has been for their entire existence? Acceptance is the default. People, by and large, often do not have the experience of holding ideals of which to give up on that do not in one way or another map onto their experiences in a way suggesting they are living in-line with their ideals.
      - amiga_500 6y ago
        Well others have pushed back. What I would like is for you guys to at least say this, instead of all the tiresome "freedom" stuff. Acceptance is the first step.
        kaens 6y ago
        oh i'm with you there
fallingfrog 6y ago
At this point only a general strike or an armed insurrection would be enough to budge the corporate/state system from its entrenched positions. Voting is not working- many politicians promise to fix this and other problems but once in office they have no incentive to actually do so.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  Voting is working. The problem isn’t that (voting); it’s voters who don’t care and vote while uneducated on the issues.
jacobwilliamroy 6y ago
Because some people just like to be used. I think they call it codependence.

jmole 6y ago

Well, yes, but actually not quite... It's an infrastructure game. If I need to build new fiber/cable/whatever to X homes to get N% * X new subscribers, then those costs & profits have to amortize out to at least 0. And most of the time they dont. We tried to fix this for electric power by separating transmission from distribution ("deregulating") and allowing consumers to have a choice. There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not this actually lowered prices for consumers. For internet services, bandwidth is essentially free for providers (for typical usage), so the main costs involved are infrastructure upkeep & customer support. Cable TV distribution & phone/security services typically subsidize these costs too. Municipal broadband is a nice idea, but it takes a unique set of circumstances for it to work. Consider how many other municipal infrastructure services are 100% run by your city/county. Maybe there's a different approach. The federal government wants to prevent Huawei from deploying telecom equipment in the US. Maybe we should look at a top-down approach to internet infrastructure funding, the same way we do with highways and schools. If they want to set the rules, they should put up the money to do so. But then again, look at the poor state of our bridges and tunnels... What's abundantly clear is that telecommunications services are an essential piece of infrastructure for modern commerce. COVID eliminated any doubt whatsoever about this fact. So how do we make sure it's funded well, but also run efficiently? It's not a trivial question by any means.

dbt00 6y ago
> Municipal broadband is a nice idea, but it takes a unique set of circumstances for it to work. Consider how many other municipal infrastructure services are 100% run by your city/county. Where I live, my electric, water, sewer and gas services are directly run by the city. Trash and recycling are billed through the city but operated by a vendor. They're great. I would love to have internet service through them, and the fact that this town above all hasn't managed to do that is ridiculous.
pdonis 6y ago
> Municipal broadband is a nice idea, but it takes a unique set of circumstances for it to work. If "unique set of circumstances" means "not getting snowed under by lawsuits from major ISPs", then yes, this is true. But that's the government's fault for letting ISPs get away with such tactics. > Consider how many other municipal infrastructure services are 100% run by your city/county. Consider how many would be if the government would stop favoring major ISPs.