9 ms·

This is the result of government corruption. For example: the government paid ISPs $400 billion dollars (!) to create a nationwide fiber network, and the ISPs p

This is the result of government corruption. For example: the government paid ISPs $400 billion dollars (!) to create a nationwide fiber network, and the ISPs pocketed the money and didn't do it. No investigation into what happened or anything. The money is just gone. Clearly corruption is the only explanation. Politicians have been bought. Why voters don't know/care is another issue, but it might have something to do with the fact that the news media has also been bought.

colejohnson66 6y ago
It’s really down to the simple fact that most people aren’t aware. And those that are feel powerless to do anything about it; “It’s been this way for so long, it’s part of how life is now.” (see also: the NSA spying complex) Not to mention that ISP monopolies aren’t near the top of people’s “policy priority list”(TM) (contrast with, say, abortion), so even if a politician were to campaign to fix the problem, most people wouldn’t care. And because of that, most candidates don’t campaign that much about ISPs because it’s (essentially) a waste of ad money. Take Ron Wyden (D-OR) for example. He’s been talking about the problems of “Big Tech,”[a] the NSA, etc. for years, but no one outside tech or his state have even heard of him. [a]: Those aren’t “scare quotes.” They’re because there isn’t really a good word for it. FAANG seems too restrictive compared to how many companies are actually part of the problem.
- thotsBgone 6y ago
  Most people aren't aware... why? I'd guess because the media is controlled by some of the same people who want us to remain unaware. They block information from reaching the media, and flood media with sensationalist stories to prevent attention from settling on issues that matter.
rayiner 6y ago
> For example: the government paid ISPs $400 billion dollars (!) to create a nationwide fiber network False: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556
- thotsBgone 6y ago
  It wasn't in taxes or tax breaks, but the ISPs were given exemption to regulation on prices in exchange for deploying a fiber network they never deployed. This basically happened twice, which is why I talk about 400 billion when the link you gave only talks about the first 200. https://www.natoa.org/events/BrokenPromisesGarcia.pdf https://www.natoa.org/events/BrokenPromisesGarcia.pdf BTW the logic in your link doesn't make sense. The $200 billion number is "based on taking what ISP profits would have been had they been regulated as a utility", yes, but the only reason we didn't regulate them as a utility is they promised us the fiber networks!
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Is there a way to have a discussion where we use words according to their ordinary meaning? You said "the government paid ISPs $400 billion dollars." As you acknowledge, money didn't change hands. So nothing was "paid" right? The government deregulated prices in 1996 for the same reason we deregulated airline fares, truck tariffs, etc. The government wanted to get out of the business of price control. And it didn't just happen in the U.S., it happened all over the world. Fiber was presented as a benefit that would result from increased capital investment following deregulation. And that happened to an extent--wireline capital expenditure almost doubled from 1996-2001. But after 2000, capital started moving to the fast-growing industry of cellular wireless, where the returns were better. So yeah, we didn't get as much investment in fiber as we expected. But we got huge investments in cellular. That's how free markets work--the government can't predict or direct where capital goes. The 1996 telecom deregulation wasn't a bargain, where ISPs were allowed to raise prices in exchange for a "promise" to build fiber. It was a deregulation of the industry. It's fair to complain that maybe the benefits of deregulation were oversold. (I can also claim that projections about premiums reductions under Obamacare have been oversold!) I think the 1996 deregulation should have been paired with a preemption of state-and-local broadband construction regulation. (American municipalities regulate in a way that makes it expensive to build infrastructure, whether you're talking about broadband or subway tunnels.) In particular, the nearly universal requirement to agree to service an entire city in exchange for permission to service any part of a city vastly limits the competition that could have been enabled by deregulation. Its fair to have a debate about the ultimate outcomes of the 1996 deregulation. But its deceitful to act like it was a planned government fiber-construction project where ISPs just "pocketed the money" and didn't build the infrastructure.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

colejohnson66 6y ago

It’s really down to the simple fact that most people aren’t aware. And those that are feel powerless to do anything about it; “It’s been this way for so long, it’s part of how life is now.” (see also: the NSA spying complex) Not to mention that ISP monopolies aren’t near the top of people’s “policy priority list”(TM) (contrast with, say, abortion), so even if a politician were to campaign to fix the problem, most people wouldn’t care. And because of that, most candidates don’t campaign that much about ISPs because it’s (essentially) a waste of ad money. Take Ron Wyden (D-OR) for example. He’s been talking about the problems of “Big Tech,”[a] the NSA, etc. for years, but no one outside tech or his state have even heard of him. [a]: Those aren’t “scare quotes.” They’re because there isn’t really a good word for it. FAANG seems too restrictive compared to how many companies are actually part of the problem.

thotsBgone 6y ago
Most people aren't aware... why? I'd guess because the media is controlled by some of the same people who want us to remain unaware. They block information from reaching the media, and flood media with sensationalist stories to prevent attention from settling on issues that matter.

rayiner 6y ago

> For example: the government paid ISPs $400 billion dollars (!) to create a nationwide fiber network False: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556

thotsBgone 6y ago
It wasn't in taxes or tax breaks, but the ISPs were given exemption to regulation on prices in exchange for deploying a fiber network they never deployed. This basically happened twice, which is why I talk about 400 billion when the link you gave only talks about the first 200. https://www.natoa.org/events/BrokenPromisesGarcia.pdf https://www.natoa.org/events/BrokenPromisesGarcia.pdf BTW the logic in your link doesn't make sense. The $200 billion number is "based on taking what ISP profits would have been had they been regulated as a utility", yes, but the only reason we didn't regulate them as a utility is they promised us the fiber networks!
- rayiner 6y ago
  Is there a way to have a discussion where we use words according to their ordinary meaning? You said "the government paid ISPs $400 billion dollars." As you acknowledge, money didn't change hands. So nothing was "paid" right? The government deregulated prices in 1996 for the same reason we deregulated airline fares, truck tariffs, etc. The government wanted to get out of the business of price control. And it didn't just happen in the U.S., it happened all over the world. Fiber was presented as a benefit that would result from increased capital investment following deregulation. And that happened to an extent--wireline capital expenditure almost doubled from 1996-2001. But after 2000, capital started moving to the fast-growing industry of cellular wireless, where the returns were better. So yeah, we didn't get as much investment in fiber as we expected. But we got huge investments in cellular. That's how free markets work--the government can't predict or direct where capital goes. The 1996 telecom deregulation wasn't a bargain, where ISPs were allowed to raise prices in exchange for a "promise" to build fiber. It was a deregulation of the industry. It's fair to complain that maybe the benefits of deregulation were oversold. (I can also claim that projections about premiums reductions under Obamacare have been oversold!) I think the 1996 deregulation should have been paired with a preemption of state-and-local broadband construction regulation. (American municipalities regulate in a way that makes it expensive to build infrastructure, whether you're talking about broadband or subway tunnels.) In particular, the nearly universal requirement to agree to service an entire city in exchange for permission to service any part of a city vastly limits the competition that could have been enabled by deregulation. Its fair to have a debate about the ultimate outcomes of the 1996 deregulation. But its deceitful to act like it was a planned government fiber-construction project where ISPs just "pocketed the money" and didn't build the infrastructure.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]