3 ms·

I think it'd be better to advocate that we remove the government granted monopolies and handouts than try to add piles of red tape to the internet, and open it

I think it'd be better to advocate that we remove the government granted monopolies and handouts than try to add piles of red tape to the internet, and open it up for censorship and other controls by special interests.

jbooth 15y ago
Which government granted monopolies and handouts, specifically?
- dantheman 15y ago
  In many municipalities cable companies are granted a monopoly. http://www.fff.org/freedom/0598d.asp http://www.fff.org/freedom/0598d.asp http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/cable-franchise-reform-deregulation-or-just-new-regulators/ http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/cable-franchise-ref...
  - jbooth 15y ago
    In "many", yeah, but that's more a product of market forces than anything else. I happen to have negotiated one of these contracts from the municipal side, and we didn't have a monopoly, we played the companies against each other, because we were an attractive enough market to do so. You're proposing more state/federal oversight to insure that municipalities don't give away monopoly rights?
    - sp332 15y ago
      What recourse do your constituents have if they have different criteria for picking an ISP than you did? Why remove the "market forces" in the first place?
      - jbooth 15y ago
        Typically, monopolies are granted in exchange for running service to unprofitable customers, anyone who wouldn't normally be connected. So those consumers are pretty undeniably better off. If there isn't something like that in the offing, competent town leadership would presumably use their attractive market position to make cable companies compete to provide service.
fpgeek 15y ago
You do know that without the "government granted monopolies and handouts" there never would have been an Internet in the first place, right? Even putting aside the research dollars, AT&T would have, among other things, happily strangled the (end user) modem in its cradle had they been allowed to.

jbooth 15y ago

Which government granted monopolies and handouts, specifically?

dantheman 15y ago
In many municipalities cable companies are granted a monopoly. http://www.fff.org/freedom/0598d.asp http://www.fff.org/freedom/0598d.asp http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/cable-franchise-reform-deregulation-or-just-new-regulators/ http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/cable-franchise-ref...
- jbooth 15y ago
  In "many", yeah, but that's more a product of market forces than anything else. I happen to have negotiated one of these contracts from the municipal side, and we didn't have a monopoly, we played the companies against each other, because we were an attractive enough market to do so. You're proposing more state/federal oversight to insure that municipalities don't give away monopoly rights?
  - sp332 15y ago
    What recourse do your constituents have if they have different criteria for picking an ISP than you did? Why remove the "market forces" in the first place?
    - jbooth 15y ago
      Typically, monopolies are granted in exchange for running service to unprofitable customers, anyone who wouldn't normally be connected. So those consumers are pretty undeniably better off. If there isn't something like that in the offing, competent town leadership would presumably use their attractive market position to make cable companies compete to provide service.

fpgeek 15y ago

You do know that without the "government granted monopolies and handouts" there never would have been an Internet in the first place, right? Even putting aside the research dollars, AT&T would have, among other things, happily strangled the (end user) modem in its cradle had they been allowed to.