4 ms·

Government intervention is only needed to settle disputes. Governments are already constantly intervening by barring isps other than eg Comcast from building. T

Government intervention is only needed to settle disputes. Governments are already constantly intervening by barring isps other than eg Comcast from building. That government intervention has to stop. Government enacted monopolies are what caused the problem in the first place. Yes government has to act to stop it, but probably at the state level.

TameAntelope 5y ago
That's a fun idea, but we're well past that now. In reality, monopolies do exist, and the government needs to step in to resolve the dispute the people in a given area now have with the monopoly for its anticompetitive practices. Also, infrastructure isn't easy to build and is oftentimes not even profitable. Are you suggesting only places where an ISP can make money should have Internet access?
- billytetrud 5y ago
  ISPs are government-granted monopolies. It's so disappointing how many people here don't seem to understand that. Look up regulatory capture and then down vote me...
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    Yes, but the granting of monopoly status already happened, that part is over. You can't unring that bell, is my point.
    - billytetrud 5y ago
      You absolutely can "unring that bell". You outlaw government granted monopolies
      - TameAntelope 5y ago
        Sure, and you could murder all of the executives of ISPs to send a message to other ISPs about anti-competitive behavior. Anything is obviously possible, but no, you can't actually "unring" this bell.
  - fouric 5y ago
    The ISPs got into a monopoly position due to government intervention, yes. That was a mistake. Unfortunately, now that we're in this position, it's too late, we're stuck, and we need the government to get us back out - "activation energy", so to speak, to get us over the energy barrier from our current high-energy position (ISP monopolies) to a low-energy position (competitive market). Ideally, at that point, the government would then step back and merely enact rules to keep the market fair and competitive. Whether that actually happens is another matter. My prediction is that the past trend of the government never letting go of power that it has acquired will continue.
    - billytetrud 5y ago
      I'm not sure it is too late. I believe we should strive to find a path to the best state of being, and maybe (probably) we have to do dinner less than ideal things on the way, but we should still try to do the most effective things at some point. So in short, in the long term Theres no need to settle for something less than ideal
  - croon 5y ago
    You need to tear up roads to lay cable, meaning you likely want to limit it down to preferably one per neighborhood, as all other infrastructure is. Not doing that would give you this: https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/cables-above-street-kathmandu-picture-id529993807 https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/cables-above-street-kat... So sure, ISPs per one phrasing is "government-granted monopolies", but the only problem was giving it to one private actor, not that government was involved. It's not that you're technically wrong, but that it's an incomplete and unfair portrayal.
    - billytetrud 5y ago
      Wouldn't it be better to set a cost to tearing up the road rather than limit it to one road tearer upper?
      - croon 5y ago
        No, it would mean any entrant into the ISP market has a cost moat for each neighborhood that inevitably has to be paid by the end user, for no gain other than ISPs owning their own connection, which has no user benefit, and thus, only benefits ISPs in a consumer-hostile way. Instead of just treating infrastructure like infrastructure.

TameAntelope 5y ago

That's a fun idea, but we're well past that now. In reality, monopolies do exist, and the government needs to step in to resolve the dispute the people in a given area now have with the monopoly for its anticompetitive practices. Also, infrastructure isn't easy to build and is oftentimes not even profitable. Are you suggesting only places where an ISP can make money should have Internet access?

billytetrud 5y ago
ISPs are government-granted monopolies. It's so disappointing how many people here don't seem to understand that. Look up regulatory capture and then down vote me...
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  Yes, but the granting of monopoly status already happened, that part is over. You can't unring that bell, is my point.
  - billytetrud 5y ago
    You absolutely can "unring that bell". You outlaw government granted monopolies
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      Sure, and you could murder all of the executives of ISPs to send a message to other ISPs about anti-competitive behavior. Anything is obviously possible, but no, you can't actually "unring" this bell.
- fouric 5y ago
  The ISPs got into a monopoly position due to government intervention, yes. That was a mistake. Unfortunately, now that we're in this position, it's too late, we're stuck, and we need the government to get us back out - "activation energy", so to speak, to get us over the energy barrier from our current high-energy position (ISP monopolies) to a low-energy position (competitive market). Ideally, at that point, the government would then step back and merely enact rules to keep the market fair and competitive. Whether that actually happens is another matter. My prediction is that the past trend of the government never letting go of power that it has acquired will continue.
  - billytetrud 5y ago
    I'm not sure it is too late. I believe we should strive to find a path to the best state of being, and maybe (probably) we have to do dinner less than ideal things on the way, but we should still try to do the most effective things at some point. So in short, in the long term Theres no need to settle for something less than ideal
- croon 5y ago
  You need to tear up roads to lay cable, meaning you likely want to limit it down to preferably one per neighborhood, as all other infrastructure is. Not doing that would give you this: https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/cables-above-street-kathmandu-picture-id529993807 https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/cables-above-street-kat... So sure, ISPs per one phrasing is "government-granted monopolies", but the only problem was giving it to one private actor, not that government was involved. It's not that you're technically wrong, but that it's an incomplete and unfair portrayal.
  - billytetrud 5y ago
    Wouldn't it be better to set a cost to tearing up the road rather than limit it to one road tearer upper?
    - croon 5y ago
      No, it would mean any entrant into the ISP market has a cost moat for each neighborhood that inevitably has to be paid by the end user, for no gain other than ISPs owning their own connection, which has no user benefit, and thus, only benefits ISPs in a consumer-hostile way. Instead of just treating infrastructure like infrastructure.