4 ms·
Hear me out: Privatize all ISPs and run them USPS style (gov owned, non-gov board operated). Not just email but the internet is more vital than USPS, there is a
by _8j50 3y ago
Hear me out: Privatize all ISPs and run them USPS style (gov owned, non-gov board operated). Not just email but the internet is more vital than USPS, there is a reason it was never made fully private. New ISPs should still be allowed like fedex and ups are with usps.
You pay thus bill but you also pay them again with your tax money with the hefty rural service subsidies they basically rob from the government.
Municipal internet is thinking too small, federal internet is more like it. Last mile should be 100% gov owned with CPE/NID/inside-wiring installed by the gov or competing ISPs but owned by the consumer.
The fed gov should just buy out their majority share stock and do a hostile takeover and buy the rest of the shares once price tanks when people here it will be operated at a loss.
No more outsourced support,etc... because fedgov can't do that. And my favorite benefit: they can't sell your info to third parties and then have the gov buy it from them once they are operated by the fed.
This type of stuff seems crazy but it can happen!
- martinald 3y agoThis is basically the exact model Australia did with their NBN which was a disaster. The idea was to nationalise the last mile networks and unify them into one wholesale ISP that retail providers could use. It also intended to upgrade the network rapidly to FTTH. Problem was just as it was getting started there was a change of govt and the FTTH element was significantly reduced in scope to save costs. So now you are left with the govt owning all the last mile infrastructure with basically no competition and an extremely slow plan to upgrade it. I believe FTTH upgrades are increasing in pace now, but it's hard for me to find stats on actual FTTH rollout there (they combine it with gigabit HFC which isn't the same imo). This is really the downfall of many people who think the state should nationalise telecoms. Yes it may work well with a government that's really commited to it. But you also run the risk of an election with someone that doesnt consider it a priority suddenly you are in a real mess.
- _8j50 3y agoWas their telecom government operated? Why would the government decide budget if they don't operate the company but merely own it like a shareholder would? To your point and my USPS analogy, the head of USPS trump appointed is still at the same job because Biden can't just fire him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postmaster_General https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postmaster_Gener... This model has worked well despite the volatile nature of US election and one party railing against the USPS being wasteful and should be privatized.
- crote 3y agoSomething similar is already the case with other infrastructure in many countries. For example, in my country the company providing my electricity connection is (by law) separated from the one which sells me the actual electricity. This means I can choose one of a dozen or so companies who do the whole electricity market thing to sell me power at the best price possible, and being charged a fixed fee for the hookup regardless of which company is selling the power to me. The same thing applies to gas and (to a very limited extent) telephone/internet. The companies owning the infrastructure are usually owned by the local governments, so they do not really have an incentive to generate a profit. The same applies to railways. One state-owned company manages the rails itself, and everyone who wants to run trains on it pays them a usage fee. It's the only solution to deal with natural monopolies like this, really.