5 ms·

A simple solution - if they want to act like a utility, treat them as such, and nationalize the monopoly. (clarification: nationalize the ISP portion of the bu

by pdkl95 13y ago

A simple solution - if they want to act like a utility, treat them as such, and nationalize the monopoly. (clarification: nationalize the ISP portion of the business that is utility-like; the content-production and other aspects of the business can be preserved as they currently exist) What happens after that has several options. It can be a publicly-owned utility, or spun off as a heavily-regulated independent (private) corporation under the PUC, to name a few possibilities. Such minutia is a secondary issue, and open for debate. Now that internet access has become a requirements for even basic things such as applying for a job, declaring the ISPs a "public utility" is long overdue.

rayiner 13y ago
Calling something essential then regulating it as a utility is a sure way to disaster. Look at our other utilities: I don't know what about water with lead in it, rolling brownouts, or crumbling bridges make you think treating internet as a utility would be a good idea. It's a sure way to freeze capital investment into improving the infrastructure. Is this about making sure that poor people have access to the internet, or subsidizing Netflix's business model? If it's the former, then Comcast is irrelevant. Let's address the problem directly and subsidize cell phones with HSPA+ level data access.
- dba7dba 13y ago
  Weren't the cable companies initially treated sort of like utility, due to the cost of laying the last mile cables? Isn't that why they were able to gain virtual monopoly on different regions?
  - tsotha 13y ago
    Yes, they were, though I think it had more to do with people not wanting the streets to be dug up every week by a different company. I think most places will support more than one ISP, but it takes time and the right economic environment to shell out the big bucks you need to challenge an incumbent.
- pdkl95 13y ago
  > rolling brownouts Did you forget the whole "Enron" mess - and the deregulation of the utilities to allow it? Rolling blackouts were the fault of a private business, trying to extort more profits.
- pdkl95 13y ago
  Also... > Calling something essential Are you disputing that activities such as "Applying for a job" are not essential? If so, there are quite a few business out there trying to hire people that might take issue with such an opinion.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    > Are you disputing that activities such as "Applying for a job" are not essential? No, just that you have to be precise about what is essential and what isn't, and tailor the solution to the actual problem. It's essential to be able to apply for jobs online. It's not essential to be able to watch the latest episodes of Sherlock on Netflix. If the concern is really about making sure the poor have adequate access to the internet for things like job applications, the way to go is to subsidize wireless service with data access. Alternatively, cheap, broadly available broadband already exists in the form of DSL service.
    - pdkl95 13y ago
      From my original post: > nationalize the ISP portion of the business that is utility-like; the content-production ... business can be preserved I believe I was rather precise in my original post. Access to the internet is the utility; any other part of the business - such as the production and selling of TV shows - can be left as-is. And while they are an important consideration, of course, the concern is NOT about "the poor". An ISP should not be an artificial roadblock to necessary personal, business, or governmental communication regardless of class. Also, "jobs" - while important - are not the only essential activity. More and more human interaction requires the internet. These various activities (many of which have not even been invented yet!) should not be contingent upon some local monopoly's whim. As for the "concern" about watching some stupid TV episode (despite Netflix being a 3rd-party and off-topic), who are you to say what is and is not "essential" for other people? What is "essential" can vary wildly: http://tressiemc.com/2013/10/29/the-logic-of-stupid-poor-people/
      - rayiner 13y ago
        My point is that basic internet access is essential, but speeds above what are provided by basic DSL are a luxury. Its insane to regulate all cable providers when all you need is to subsidize DSL or wireless. Unlike Norway, the U.S. is not an oil rich nation that has a culture of throwing money at infrastructure. It also has extremely pernicious rural versus urban politics. You regulate the cable companies as a utility, you'd kill capital investment in the networks.

by pdkl95 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

Calling something essential then regulating it as a utility is a sure way to disaster. Look at our other utilities: I don't know what about water with lead in it, rolling brownouts, or crumbling bridges make you think treating internet as a utility would be a good idea. It's a sure way to freeze capital investment into improving the infrastructure. Is this about making sure that poor people have access to the internet, or subsidizing Netflix's business model? If it's the former, then Comcast is irrelevant. Let's address the problem directly and subsidize cell phones with HSPA+ level data access.

dba7dba 13y ago
Weren't the cable companies initially treated sort of like utility, due to the cost of laying the last mile cables? Isn't that why they were able to gain virtual monopoly on different regions?
- tsotha 13y ago
  Yes, they were, though I think it had more to do with people not wanting the streets to be dug up every week by a different company. I think most places will support more than one ISP, but it takes time and the right economic environment to shell out the big bucks you need to challenge an incumbent.
pdkl95 13y ago
> rolling brownouts Did you forget the whole "Enron" mess - and the deregulation of the utilities to allow it? Rolling blackouts were the fault of a private business, trying to extort more profits.
pdkl95 13y ago
Also... > Calling something essential Are you disputing that activities such as "Applying for a job" are not essential? If so, there are quite a few business out there trying to hire people that might take issue with such an opinion.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > Are you disputing that activities such as "Applying for a job" are not essential? No, just that you have to be precise about what is essential and what isn't, and tailor the solution to the actual problem. It's essential to be able to apply for jobs online. It's not essential to be able to watch the latest episodes of Sherlock on Netflix. If the concern is really about making sure the poor have adequate access to the internet for things like job applications, the way to go is to subsidize wireless service with data access. Alternatively, cheap, broadly available broadband already exists in the form of DSL service.
  - pdkl95 13y ago
    From my original post: > nationalize the ISP portion of the business that is utility-like; the content-production ... business can be preserved I believe I was rather precise in my original post. Access to the internet is the utility; any other part of the business - such as the production and selling of TV shows - can be left as-is. And while they are an important consideration, of course, the concern is NOT about "the poor". An ISP should not be an artificial roadblock to necessary personal, business, or governmental communication regardless of class. Also, "jobs" - while important - are not the only essential activity. More and more human interaction requires the internet. These various activities (many of which have not even been invented yet!) should not be contingent upon some local monopoly's whim. As for the "concern" about watching some stupid TV episode (despite Netflix being a 3rd-party and off-topic), who are you to say what is and is not "essential" for other people? What is "essential" can vary wildly: http://tressiemc.com/2013/10/29/the-logic-of-stupid-poor-people/
    - rayiner 13y ago
      My point is that basic internet access is essential, but speeds above what are provided by basic DSL are a luxury. Its insane to regulate all cable providers when all you need is to subsidize DSL or wireless. Unlike Norway, the U.S. is not an oil rich nation that has a culture of throwing money at infrastructure. It also has extremely pernicious rural versus urban politics. You regulate the cable companies as a utility, you'd kill capital investment in the networks.