4 ms·

Imagine being an internet company which spends half its time blasting all citizens with ads about how you have the "fastest nationwide network" and the other ha

by habosa 6y ago

Imagine being an internet company which spends half its time blasting all citizens with ads about how you have the "fastest nationwide network" and the other half lobbying elected lawmakers to say that nobody really needs fast internet. Imagine being that utterly useless and greedy. Telecom companies really are a special breed.

croes 6y ago
Because fastest doesn't necessarily mean fast and you easily stay the fastest if nobody gets faster.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bdw5204 6y ago
The issue is that offering halfway decent internet to people in rural areas would cost them lots of money and there's not much evidence they could get away with a huge price increase to compensate since most people don't have any extra money to spend in internet (especially in areas that tend to be low wage/low cost of living). They're also against the government doing it because that would potentially cost them customers. Plus none of their executives would actually choose to live in "flyover country" anyway if they care about quality internet. The problem is that utility companies are natural monopolies that aren't supposed to make profits and also many politicians now subscribe to a laissez-faire ideology that doesn't recognize that natural monopolies exist and that both regulating them and investing public funds in infrastructure in areas they'd neglect are legitimate and necessary functions of government. That's why we have a postmaster general who thinks the post office needs to turn a profit by providing worse service at a higher price who was put into his position by a politician who was supposedly elected by rural America to defend their interests. Infrastructure investment was what made America rich and great and letting it stagnate and crumble to protect short term corporate profits is what is causing this country's decline and opening the door for China's rise.
- willis936 6y ago
  >The issue is that offering halfway decent internet to people in rural areas would cost them lots of money What did they do with the $100 million they got in 2013? There is a massive (10s of billions at this point) subsidy of internet expansion in the US with no apparent binding contract that has specified deliverables and defined punishment. It’s basically free money. Of course they’re going to pocket it. They probably drafted the bills. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Connect_America_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Connect...
  - whoknew1122 6y ago
    Probably stock buy-backs to increase share price and thus executive pay. It's what companies have been doing since St. Reagan of Hollywood blessed us with trickle-down economics.
    - gremlinsinc 6y ago
      > St. Reagan of Hollywood God, bless you. I love this title for Mr. Trickles.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- pdimitar 6y ago
  The cost can be amortized over time through other customers that actually do need the fiber. They are huge companies. They should be able to absorb a one-time big investment, come on.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > The issue is that offering halfway decent internet to people in rural areas would cost them lots of money and […] Which was the original purpose of AT&T being a regulated monopoly: they were 'mandated' to build out telephone lines everywhere, but were allowed to raise prices in urban areas to help subsidize the cost. See also electrical utilities. If we're not going to have The Market™ do things, then perhaps government should step in. Have the state or country run the fibre and handle ISO Layers 1 and 2, and then have ISPs handle things at Layer 3 (IP): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-access_network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-access_network See UTOPIA Fiber in Utah: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Telecommunication_Open_Infrastructure_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Telecommunication_Open_In... * https://www.utopiafiber.com/residential-pricing/ https://www.utopiafiber.com/residential-pricing/
amelius 6y ago
Don't hate the players, hate the game
- bsenftner 6y ago
  In this case, hate both.

by habosa 6y ago

croes 6y ago

Because fastest doesn't necessarily mean fast and you easily stay the fastest if nobody gets faster.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bdw5204 6y ago

The issue is that offering halfway decent internet to people in rural areas would cost them lots of money and there's not much evidence they could get away with a huge price increase to compensate since most people don't have any extra money to spend in internet (especially in areas that tend to be low wage/low cost of living). They're also against the government doing it because that would potentially cost them customers. Plus none of their executives would actually choose to live in "flyover country" anyway if they care about quality internet. The problem is that utility companies are natural monopolies that aren't supposed to make profits and also many politicians now subscribe to a laissez-faire ideology that doesn't recognize that natural monopolies exist and that both regulating them and investing public funds in infrastructure in areas they'd neglect are legitimate and necessary functions of government. That's why we have a postmaster general who thinks the post office needs to turn a profit by providing worse service at a higher price who was put into his position by a politician who was supposedly elected by rural America to defend their interests. Infrastructure investment was what made America rich and great and letting it stagnate and crumble to protect short term corporate profits is what is causing this country's decline and opening the door for China's rise.

willis936 6y ago
>The issue is that offering halfway decent internet to people in rural areas would cost them lots of money What did they do with the $100 million they got in 2013? There is a massive (10s of billions at this point) subsidy of internet expansion in the US with no apparent binding contract that has specified deliverables and defined punishment. It’s basically free money. Of course they’re going to pocket it. They probably drafted the bills. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Connect_America_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund#Connect...
- whoknew1122 6y ago
  Probably stock buy-backs to increase share price and thus executive pay. It's what companies have been doing since St. Reagan of Hollywood blessed us with trickle-down economics.
  - gremlinsinc 6y ago
    > St. Reagan of Hollywood God, bless you. I love this title for Mr. Trickles.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
pdimitar 6y ago
The cost can be amortized over time through other customers that actually do need the fiber. They are huge companies. They should be able to absorb a one-time big investment, come on.
throw0101a 6y ago
> The issue is that offering halfway decent internet to people in rural areas would cost them lots of money and […] Which was the original purpose of AT&T being a regulated monopoly: they were 'mandated' to build out telephone lines everywhere, but were allowed to raise prices in urban areas to help subsidize the cost. See also electrical utilities. If we're not going to have The Market™ do things, then perhaps government should step in. Have the state or country run the fibre and handle ISO Layers 1 and 2, and then have ISPs handle things at Layer 3 (IP): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_broadband * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-access_network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-access_network See UTOPIA Fiber in Utah: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Telecommunication_Open_Infrastructure_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Telecommunication_Open_In... * https://www.utopiafiber.com/residential-pricing/ https://www.utopiafiber.com/residential-pricing/

amelius 6y ago

Don't hate the players, hate the game

bsenftner 6y ago
In this case, hate both.