6 ms·

> we need a publicly owned internet. Ok, I'll bite. The privatized internet has failed us...compared to what? There's two prime examples of a publicly owned

> we need a publicly owned internet. Ok, I'll bite. The privatized internet has failed us...compared to what? There's two prime examples of a publicly owned internet in the world today. One is run by the CCP and is sardonically known as the Great Firewall of China. The other is the state-run intranet of North Korea. Do we really think that these are desirable alternatives to a privately run and distributed internet where unfortunately some people say and do crazy things, and some internet providers happen to have geographical monopolies that really have nothing to do with the internet in the first place but local protectionism? Come on.

vore 4y ago
What? > On the infrastructural side, Tarnoff shows a clear preference for the community-owned networks that have been proliferating across the United States, even as they’ve faced opposition from the telecom oligopoly. These networks tend to deliver better service at lower cost, while prioritizing community needs over those of major corporations’ shareholders. > > Meanwhile, on the services side, Tarnoff takes aim at the “bigness” incentivized by the need to produce returns for the difficulties they create for self-governance and the negative social interactions they promote. Instead, he presents a model of a “protocolized” social media with a proliferation of small communities that can interact with one another and where public funding is available for media. The article says nothing about a state-owned restricted internet. The CCP doesn't even "own" the internet in China. Don't Red Scare like this, all it serves is to muddy the waters.
- chroem- 4y ago
  Don't be so dismissive: it's a legitimate concern. These are the same western governments that are already trying to clamp down on internet content they don't like: e.g. pornography, encryption, etc.
  - vore 4y ago
    Again, the article is not talking about state ownership of the internet.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
georgemcbay 4y ago
I agree that the real problem is monopolies and not private ownership per se, but I wouldn't call it "local protectionism" so much as a complete lack of anti-trust enforcement allowing a small group of giant corporations to form a de facto cartel that is able to price fix and carve up their own regional monopolies as unspoken gentlemen's agreements. The monopolies are regional, but the players holding those local monopolies (and doing all sorts of lobbying to force out municipal ISP competition, etc) are a very small set of well known companies.
djrobstep 4y ago
Very sick of this rhetorical pattern: Anybody: *describes problem and straightforward solutions/improvements already proven in many other normal countries* Americans: "Well at least I'm not in North Korea!!! You want us to live like North Korea?" It's so tiresome!
- ddingus 4y ago
  Sadly, it is also deeply rooted. The US is very highly propagandized. It is proving quite effective.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    You don't think Americans have any valid reason to be mistrustful of their government or have reservations about it owning their communications infrastructure? What is propaganda, exactly? The information brought to you by Mark Felt, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden? Or media corporations assuring you that only dangerous conspiracy theorists would dare to question their government?
    - ddingus 4y ago
      Of course they do! I am one, and my level of trust is not pretty. And it is no more pretty when it comes to private entities handling things. Both serve profit, not people. And there is massive corruption. Those do us no favors. The answer comes from us, the people. That is what the law says. The propaganda is all about everything but that. See it now? There are places in the world where government is effective and it performs the tasks the people need, want and appreciate. Corruption is low. Ask those people and they will tell you their mistrust is of money, power, and threats to democracy. Our propaganda talks about our democracy all the time. People who study this can tell you public opinion has almost zero impact on policy. That is not democracy. Americans know these things, and their trust is low, as it would be for anyone in similar circumstances. Americans seek answers and there are none to be had amidst the propagandized national discourse. That's the source of deeply rooted things as discussed above.
  - 4y ago
Barrin92 4y ago
>One is run by the CCP The CCP doesn't run 'the Chinese internet'. In many ways the Chinese digital sphere is even more privatized than its European or American counterparts given that its almost entirely built on the back of the vertically integrated private companies that the article attacks. It's why there's basically no comparable search giant to Google, not even domestic in China, everything is driven by proprietary platforms rather than protocols, as China largely leapfrogged over that phase. Also discussed in the context of why there's so little long form blogging in China, here (https://yiqinfu.github.io/posts/walled-gardens-china/ https://yiqinfu.github.io/posts/walled-gardens-china/)
- abigail95 4y ago
  private chinese companies exist to enact ccp policy the public/private distinction from western countries doesn't exist in the same way over there to say it's more privatized would imply the government has less control, when clearly the opposite is true
- t0suj4 4y ago
  You call the shots, you own it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
diordiderot 4y ago
Chattanooga TN has the fastest internet in the US because they have publically owned ISP https://tech.co/news/chattanooga-fastest-internet-usa-2018-08 https://tech.co/news/chattanooga-fastest-internet-usa-2018-0...
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  The countries with the fastest broadband (according to wikipedia) appear to include those which have private ISPs, so I'm not convinced by that claim.
  - SyzygistSix 4y ago
    There is more than one way to skin a cat. (yuck)
cs137 4y ago
There's two prime examples of a publicly owned internet in the world today. One is run by the CCP and is sardonically known as the Great Firewall of China. The other is the state-run intranet of North Korea. Nothing about the Chinese government is "publicly owned". China is state capitalism at its finest--or worst, depending on whom you ask. North Korea is also not meaningfully communist and has since changed its ideology to juche, a strange mishmash of old-style imperialism, personality cult, and frank absurdity.
- CryptoPunk 4y ago
  [dead]
susanasj 4y ago
I'll bite on this: we absolutely would be better off with state provided internet infrastructure. I don't care nearly as much about the levels above that, but the fiber in the ground should be a publicly owned utility. there's lots of info here on a campaign that I am involved in NYC: internetforall.nyc But the short version is: internet access is crucial to modern life (jobs, housing, civic participation), and access to it is very unequally distributed because we are beholden to a few monopolies. I live in a nice building in gentrified Brooklyn and I have exactly one choice of internet provider. That has been true of every building I have lived in in Brooklyn. Poor neighborhoods and public housing may not even have access to broadband at all. NYC has been sued by homeless advocates because many shelters have no access at all, but when NYC has spent money to try to subsidize internet through private providers they are so immune to competition that they just don't fulfill their contracts, and the city has no choice to but to continue contracting with them: https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/report-verizon-nyc-settle-six-year-broadband-dustup https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/report-verizon-nyc-set.... The reality is that providing the infrastructure to poor neighborhoods is not profitable and never will be, and the nature of the physical infrastructure leads to monopoly and corruption. Are some of the problems because of incompetence and corruption in local government? Yes, of course. But if more cities have publicly owned and publicly run networks then at least someone has to answer for the embarrassing state of internet access in the US.

vore 4y ago

What? > On the infrastructural side, Tarnoff shows a clear preference for the community-owned networks that have been proliferating across the United States, even as they’ve faced opposition from the telecom oligopoly. These networks tend to deliver better service at lower cost, while prioritizing community needs over those of major corporations’ shareholders. > > Meanwhile, on the services side, Tarnoff takes aim at the “bigness” incentivized by the need to produce returns for the difficulties they create for self-governance and the negative social interactions they promote. Instead, he presents a model of a “protocolized” social media with a proliferation of small communities that can interact with one another and where public funding is available for media. The article says nothing about a state-owned restricted internet. The CCP doesn't even "own" the internet in China. Don't Red Scare like this, all it serves is to muddy the waters.

chroem- 4y ago
Don't be so dismissive: it's a legitimate concern. These are the same western governments that are already trying to clamp down on internet content they don't like: e.g. pornography, encryption, etc.
- vore 4y ago
  Again, the article is not talking about state ownership of the internet.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

georgemcbay 4y ago

I agree that the real problem is monopolies and not private ownership per se, but I wouldn't call it "local protectionism" so much as a complete lack of anti-trust enforcement allowing a small group of giant corporations to form a de facto cartel that is able to price fix and carve up their own regional monopolies as unspoken gentlemen's agreements. The monopolies are regional, but the players holding those local monopolies (and doing all sorts of lobbying to force out municipal ISP competition, etc) are a very small set of well known companies.

djrobstep 4y ago

Very sick of this rhetorical pattern: Anybody: *describes problem and straightforward solutions/improvements already proven in many other normal countries* Americans: "Well at least I'm not in North Korea!!! You want us to live like North Korea?" It's so tiresome!

ddingus 4y ago
Sadly, it is also deeply rooted. The US is very highly propagandized. It is proving quite effective.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  You don't think Americans have any valid reason to be mistrustful of their government or have reservations about it owning their communications infrastructure? What is propaganda, exactly? The information brought to you by Mark Felt, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden? Or media corporations assuring you that only dangerous conspiracy theorists would dare to question their government?
  - ddingus 4y ago
    Of course they do! I am one, and my level of trust is not pretty. And it is no more pretty when it comes to private entities handling things. Both serve profit, not people. And there is massive corruption. Those do us no favors. The answer comes from us, the people. That is what the law says. The propaganda is all about everything but that. See it now? There are places in the world where government is effective and it performs the tasks the people need, want and appreciate. Corruption is low. Ask those people and they will tell you their mistrust is of money, power, and threats to democracy. Our propaganda talks about our democracy all the time. People who study this can tell you public opinion has almost zero impact on policy. That is not democracy. Americans know these things, and their trust is low, as it would be for anyone in similar circumstances. Americans seek answers and there are none to be had amidst the propagandized national discourse. That's the source of deeply rooted things as discussed above.
- 4y ago

Barrin92 4y ago

>One is run by the CCP The CCP doesn't run 'the Chinese internet'. In many ways the Chinese digital sphere is even more privatized than its European or American counterparts given that its almost entirely built on the back of the vertically integrated private companies that the article attacks. It's why there's basically no comparable search giant to Google, not even domestic in China, everything is driven by proprietary platforms rather than protocols, as China largely leapfrogged over that phase. Also discussed in the context of why there's so little long form blogging in China, here (https://yiqinfu.github.io/posts/walled-gardens-china/ https://yiqinfu.github.io/posts/walled-gardens-china/)

abigail95 4y ago
private chinese companies exist to enact ccp policy the public/private distinction from western countries doesn't exist in the same way over there to say it's more privatized would imply the government has less control, when clearly the opposite is true
t0suj4 4y ago
You call the shots, you own it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

diordiderot 4y ago

Chattanooga TN has the fastest internet in the US because they have publically owned ISP https://tech.co/news/chattanooga-fastest-internet-usa-2018-08 https://tech.co/news/chattanooga-fastest-internet-usa-2018-0...

throwawaylinux 4y ago
The countries with the fastest broadband (according to wikipedia) appear to include those which have private ISPs, so I'm not convinced by that claim.
- SyzygistSix 4y ago
  There is more than one way to skin a cat. (yuck)

cs137 4y ago

There's two prime examples of a publicly owned internet in the world today. One is run by the CCP and is sardonically known as the Great Firewall of China. The other is the state-run intranet of North Korea. Nothing about the Chinese government is "publicly owned". China is state capitalism at its finest--or worst, depending on whom you ask. North Korea is also not meaningfully communist and has since changed its ideology to juche, a strange mishmash of old-style imperialism, personality cult, and frank absurdity.

CryptoPunk 4y ago
[dead]

susanasj 4y ago

I'll bite on this: we absolutely would be better off with state provided internet infrastructure. I don't care nearly as much about the levels above that, but the fiber in the ground should be a publicly owned utility. there's lots of info here on a campaign that I am involved in NYC: internetforall.nyc But the short version is: internet access is crucial to modern life (jobs, housing, civic participation), and access to it is very unequally distributed because we are beholden to a few monopolies. I live in a nice building in gentrified Brooklyn and I have exactly one choice of internet provider. That has been true of every building I have lived in in Brooklyn. Poor neighborhoods and public housing may not even have access to broadband at all. NYC has been sued by homeless advocates because many shelters have no access at all, but when NYC has spent money to try to subsidize internet through private providers they are so immune to competition that they just don't fulfill their contracts, and the city has no choice to but to continue contracting with them: https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/report-verizon-nyc-settle-six-year-broadband-dustup https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/report-verizon-nyc-set.... The reality is that providing the infrastructure to poor neighborhoods is not profitable and never will be, and the nature of the physical infrastructure leads to monopoly and corruption. Are some of the problems because of incompetence and corruption in local government? Yes, of course. But if more cities have publicly owned and publicly run networks then at least someone has to answer for the embarrassing state of internet access in the US.