6 ms·

Time to nationalize then. I hate even thinking that, but I'd rather have tax dollars wasted than see our money funnelled to Wall Street. BTW that article showi

by gph 12y ago

Time to nationalize then. I hate even thinking that, but I'd rather have tax dollars wasted than see our money funnelled to Wall Street. BTW that article showing how much capital they spent doesn't say what they actually spent that money on. My bet is most of it went to their cellular networks and other business interests. Their own data shows broadband investment has fallen[1]. Only 12 billion in the last 4 years. So clearly that 100+ billion each year isn't going to faster internet... at least not in landlines. Guess I can download videos to my phone slightly faster now. Yay. At the same time we keep paying more[2]. And now they want to suck dry the content providers as well, who will probably only pass on the costs to us? Eff That. Maybe they should actually reinvest their money into building out a 21st century network, and then they wouldn't need a fast lane. [1]http://www.vox.com/2014/5/12/5711082/big-cable-says-broadband-investment-is-flourishing-but-their-own-data http://www.vox.com/2014/5/12/5711082/big-cable-says-broadban... [2]http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24528383 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24528383 [2]

rayiner 12y ago
> Time to nationalize then. I hate even thinking that, but I'd rather have tax dollars wasted than see our money funnelled to Wall Street. When capital investment into broadband is set by vote, do you think you'll be happy with the resulting level of investment?
- jarin 12y ago
  The military relies on the Internet too, it should be politically neutral.
  - dynamitejoe 12y ago
    Not quite, the military really only cares about the SIPRnet, a construct that is thankfully completely free of the likes of AT&T, the FCC, etc. The military has never depended on the Internet normal people use. Its a great service for Bob and Joe Servicemember to be able to watch Netflux in their down time, but because its not really important to any mission in any way, they dont care.
    - jarin 12y ago
      That's not really true, NIPRNet (unclassified regular Internet) is just as important nowadays. There are a lot of essential communications going on that aren't classified, and not everyone doing an essential job function has a security clearance.
- gph 12y ago
  >do you think you'll be happy with the resulting level of investment? I'll be accepting of it. At least we get the end results of our own failure to persuade the public or politicians. As it is our fate is left to 'market forces'. Market forces have been undeniably screwing us for the better part of a decade. And it's looking like they want more for less in the future.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Our level of investment in all our other public infrastructure is dismal: http://www.asce.org/failuretoact http://www.asce.org/failuretoact. Why would investment into internet infrastructure be any different? Indeed, it'd probably be worse. Remember, the electorate skews older than the overall population, while I'd bet internet usage skews younger.
  - pdonis 12y ago
    > Market forces have been undeniably screwing us for the better part of a decade. Excuse me? What's been screwing us in broadband is precisely that market forces are not operating, because local governments have been giving sweetheart deals to particular providers.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      I suggest you read some of these agreements, they're usually online. Here's the one for my town: http://www.wilmingtonde.gov/docs/1320/3716Rev1.pdf http://www.wilmingtonde.gov/docs/1320/3716Rev1.pdf. These aren't sweetheart deals. Generally, they extract millions of dollars for tangentially-related municipal programs, and then have build-out requirements forcing you to serve areas above a certain density even if you can't sign up enough customers to make it profitable. Basically, the terms are unattractive enough such that only the big de-facto monopolies are willing to take the deal.
      - pdonis 12y ago
        > the terms are unattractive enough such that only the big de-facto monopolies are willing to take the deal. Which means that these are effectively sweetheart deals for the big de facto monopolies, since without them there would certainly be an incentive for smaller competitors to enter the market. That may not have been the intent of the municipal governments, so "sweetheart deal" may not be the best descriptive term, but that's what ends up happening. It certainly isn't a free market with these kinds of requirements in place.
- briandear 12y ago
  Nationalizing anything nearly always leads to lower quality. Compare the toll roads in France to the "free" autobahns in Germany. The French toll routes are far better maintained. Another case is health care, compare an NHS experience with a hip replacement in the UK with a hip replacement in France (or the US.) In the UK, the waiting list is measured in 6+ months, while in the US or France, it is almost immediate. For a more extreme example, have a look at Venezuela's nationalization efforts. Nationalization of anything is often a bad solution. The government doesn't have a profit motive, thus they have no incentives. However, that being said, the big question is if the Internet is a common carrier or not. (I would argue that it is.) Apparently Ted Cruz and Al Franken agree as well. Nationalization isn't the answer, the proper framing of the industry is what's really needed.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - julien_c 12y ago
    Hip replacement is most definitely nationalized in France.
    - danielweber 12y ago
      The doctors are not employed by the state, as they are in the UK. There are as many different ways of running a health care system as there are countries. It's not the US in one bucket, everyone else in a second bucket. The set up of the Sweden system looks more like the US than it does like Canada or Taiwan, which both have single-payer.
    - briandear 12y ago
      I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. The bills are paid by the social insurance (and mutuels if you have it,) however the providers are mostly private.
  - sjaaktrekhaak 12y ago
    Your argument doesn't add up. The autoroutes of France belong to the government and their semi-private companies[1]. As a counter example, all roads in the Netherlands are owned by the government - and the Dutch roads are considered to be of outstanding quality. Major roads are taken care of on a province level, smaller roads on a municipality level - however all of them have to ensure the roads are safe to travel and will not cause damage to your vehicle, nor are unsafe to drive. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoroutes_of_France#Administration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoroutes_of_France#Administra...
opendais 12y ago
Nationalizing the infrastructure isn't viable in the US for a host of reasons. Politics. The culture of poor stewardship of the commons in the US. Etc. They need to be force all ISPs to act as common carriers.

by gph 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago

> Time to nationalize then. I hate even thinking that, but I'd rather have tax dollars wasted than see our money funnelled to Wall Street. When capital investment into broadband is set by vote, do you think you'll be happy with the resulting level of investment?

jarin 12y ago
The military relies on the Internet too, it should be politically neutral.
- dynamitejoe 12y ago
  Not quite, the military really only cares about the SIPRnet, a construct that is thankfully completely free of the likes of AT&T, the FCC, etc. The military has never depended on the Internet normal people use. Its a great service for Bob and Joe Servicemember to be able to watch Netflux in their down time, but because its not really important to any mission in any way, they dont care.
  - jarin 12y ago
    That's not really true, NIPRNet (unclassified regular Internet) is just as important nowadays. There are a lot of essential communications going on that aren't classified, and not everyone doing an essential job function has a security clearance.
gph 12y ago
>do you think you'll be happy with the resulting level of investment? I'll be accepting of it. At least we get the end results of our own failure to persuade the public or politicians. As it is our fate is left to 'market forces'. Market forces have been undeniably screwing us for the better part of a decade. And it's looking like they want more for less in the future.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Our level of investment in all our other public infrastructure is dismal: http://www.asce.org/failuretoact http://www.asce.org/failuretoact. Why would investment into internet infrastructure be any different? Indeed, it'd probably be worse. Remember, the electorate skews older than the overall population, while I'd bet internet usage skews younger.
- pdonis 12y ago
  > Market forces have been undeniably screwing us for the better part of a decade. Excuse me? What's been screwing us in broadband is precisely that market forces are not operating, because local governments have been giving sweetheart deals to particular providers.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    I suggest you read some of these agreements, they're usually online. Here's the one for my town: http://www.wilmingtonde.gov/docs/1320/3716Rev1.pdf http://www.wilmingtonde.gov/docs/1320/3716Rev1.pdf. These aren't sweetheart deals. Generally, they extract millions of dollars for tangentially-related municipal programs, and then have build-out requirements forcing you to serve areas above a certain density even if you can't sign up enough customers to make it profitable. Basically, the terms are unattractive enough such that only the big de-facto monopolies are willing to take the deal.
    - pdonis 12y ago
      > the terms are unattractive enough such that only the big de-facto monopolies are willing to take the deal. Which means that these are effectively sweetheart deals for the big de facto monopolies, since without them there would certainly be an incentive for smaller competitors to enter the market. That may not have been the intent of the municipal governments, so "sweetheart deal" may not be the best descriptive term, but that's what ends up happening. It certainly isn't a free market with these kinds of requirements in place.
briandear 12y ago
Nationalizing anything nearly always leads to lower quality. Compare the toll roads in France to the "free" autobahns in Germany. The French toll routes are far better maintained. Another case is health care, compare an NHS experience with a hip replacement in the UK with a hip replacement in France (or the US.) In the UK, the waiting list is measured in 6+ months, while in the US or France, it is almost immediate. For a more extreme example, have a look at Venezuela's nationalization efforts. Nationalization of anything is often a bad solution. The government doesn't have a profit motive, thus they have no incentives. However, that being said, the big question is if the Internet is a common carrier or not. (I would argue that it is.) Apparently Ted Cruz and Al Franken agree as well. Nationalization isn't the answer, the proper framing of the industry is what's really needed.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- julien_c 12y ago
  Hip replacement is most definitely nationalized in France.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    The doctors are not employed by the state, as they are in the UK. There are as many different ways of running a health care system as there are countries. It's not the US in one bucket, everyone else in a second bucket. The set up of the Sweden system looks more like the US than it does like Canada or Taiwan, which both have single-payer.
  - briandear 12y ago
    I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. The bills are paid by the social insurance (and mutuels if you have it,) however the providers are mostly private.
- sjaaktrekhaak 12y ago
  Your argument doesn't add up. The autoroutes of France belong to the government and their semi-private companies[1]. As a counter example, all roads in the Netherlands are owned by the government - and the Dutch roads are considered to be of outstanding quality. Major roads are taken care of on a province level, smaller roads on a municipality level - however all of them have to ensure the roads are safe to travel and will not cause damage to your vehicle, nor are unsafe to drive. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoroutes_of_France#Administration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoroutes_of_France#Administra...

opendais 12y ago

Nationalizing the infrastructure isn't viable in the US for a host of reasons. Politics. The culture of poor stewardship of the commons in the US. Etc. They need to be force all ISPs to act as common carriers.