3 ms·

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

by 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.
    - pdkl95 13y ago
      Who said anything about providing anything for free? Who said anything about subsidizing access? Do you not get an electric bill, water bill, and possibly other utility bills? "Public Utility" != "free" While some sort of subsidized access for the poor is going to be necessary, of course, that is another discussion entirely. The issue here is how to deal with a monopoly. More specifically, how to deal with a "natural monopoly"[1] that forced out all other competition. Such behavior is expected from natural monopolies, and the usual way of dealing with such businesses is to make them utilities. As for the DSL diversion - you seem to be under the impression that you get a choice[2]. > kill capital investment in the networks LOL - We paid massive amounts in the 90s-00s[3] to pay for the necessary infrastructure, and I still don't have a fiber connection. That song and dance has been used to swindle voters, politicians, and businesses for several decades. If they had any intention to actually put that money towards infrastructure, we would have seen it by now. Note: upgrading the modems and such on the edge of the network (i.e. DOCSIS 2 -> 3) is merely using existing infrastructure in better ways. They were paid for "last-mile" deployment of fiber, and so far we've only seen tiny bit of FIOS (and similar). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly [2] http://www.broadbandmap.gov/summarize/nationwide#wirelineProviders http://www.broadbandmap.gov/summarize/nationwide#wirelinePro... http://www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers/wireline/served http://www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers/wireline/ser... (compare: min:1/max:1 vs min:2/max:whatever) [3] http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_0026... (to name one example; there are several)

by pdkl95 13y ago

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.
  - pdkl95 13y ago
    Who said anything about providing anything for free? Who said anything about subsidizing access? Do you not get an electric bill, water bill, and possibly other utility bills? "Public Utility" != "free" While some sort of subsidized access for the poor is going to be necessary, of course, that is another discussion entirely. The issue here is how to deal with a monopoly. More specifically, how to deal with a "natural monopoly"[1] that forced out all other competition. Such behavior is expected from natural monopolies, and the usual way of dealing with such businesses is to make them utilities. As for the DSL diversion - you seem to be under the impression that you get a choice[2]. > kill capital investment in the networks LOL - We paid massive amounts in the 90s-00s[3] to pay for the necessary infrastructure, and I still don't have a fiber connection. That song and dance has been used to swindle voters, politicians, and businesses for several decades. If they had any intention to actually put that money towards infrastructure, we would have seen it by now. Note: upgrading the modems and such on the edge of the network (i.e. DOCSIS 2 -> 3) is merely using existing infrastructure in better ways. They were paid for "last-mile" deployment of fiber, and so far we've only seen tiny bit of FIOS (and similar). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly [2] http://www.broadbandmap.gov/summarize/nationwide#wirelineProviders http://www.broadbandmap.gov/summarize/nationwide#wirelinePro... http://www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers/wireline/served http://www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers/wireline/ser... (compare: min:1/max:1 vs min:2/max:whatever) [3] http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_0026... (to name one example; there are several)