5 ms·
The greatest irony in all of this is that it's precisely the capital-rentiers, the venture capitalists (this post, for example), etc. who are complaining about
by selmnoo 12y ago
The greatest irony in all of this is that it's precisely the capital-rentiers, the venture capitalists (this post, for example), etc. who are complaining about this.
Anyway, one place where I disagree with you is about the 'civil rights' being thrown in in this debate. I'm actually happy to see instability of this sort panning out, because it seems to me that we really need to go over this and let it play out in the hopes of getting greater stability in the end. So let this become a civil rights issue, as it happens there actually are lots of legitimate reasons why it should become a civil rights issue. This will get me downvoted, but here I go anyway: rich people shouldn't have faster internet just because they're rich -- what'll end up happening if this is true across a large scale is poor folks will have difficulty innovating for the future's faster internet. I'd rather that inequality in this way not play out, we already have enough of it in the tech space.
- rayiner 12y agoI'd support subsidizing service with tax money. My problem is that people like de Blasio are looking for a free lunch: that Verizon's shareholders will subsidize broadband for poor people in NYC instead of NYC taxpayers. It doesn't work that way. Taxpayers will pay in the end. It'd be most efficient if they paid via direct subsidy. As it stands, they pay in the form of higher prices, less competition, and less choices.