3 ms·
That's a very bad idea. If there was to be a super cheap/free tier it also had to be rather limited in bandwidth, barely enough for e.g. remote school to remove
by sgeisler 6y ago
That's a very bad idea. If there was to be a super cheap/free tier it also had to be rather limited in bandwidth, barely enough for e.g. remote school to remove these barriers. But if it was too good you'd essentially kill off private providers giving the government even more control over people's communication. Right now they at least need to pass laws and face backlash to force ISPs to censor stuff. If your government was your ISP they could just censor whatever they want without much oversight since there'd be little competition left to challenge them. Private companies have at least some incentive not to do so (they'll loose customers).
- nix23 6y ago>If your government was your ISP they could just censor whatever they want Like they can today. >you'd essentially kill off private providers giving the government No one said that, the ISP can provide the bandwidth, and all the free tier contracts are paid by the government (our taxes).
- tgragnato 6y agoI get where you are coming from, but I think many would agree that ISPs are a natural monopoly. Censorship wise, use strict IPS rules on major IXs/cables and you are there. The Internet is not too censored only because we do not want it to be, whether it is controlled by a company or the government, things change little. I do not understand why censorship operated by individuals and companies is so underestimated, in some respects it's even worse.
- DennisP 6y agoIn the US, the government is restricted by the First Amendment. The oversight is the courts. Censorship by private ISPs wasn't allowed when we had net neutrality, but at the moment they can do whatever they want. If most places had competitive free markets for internet, that might be be ideal, but we basically have monopoly providers in much of the country.