4 ms·

I'm not sure you can say "wholly private networks" when they use public infrastructure...

by Vendan 12y ago

rayiner 12y ago
What public infrastructure? In most places they pay for their rights of way.
- selmnoo 12y ago
  I think the problem is that you're referring back to classical models and frameworks of law and business. The internet has become something too big and too great, it's a weird system in that it is the commons yet parts of it are privately owned. New rules should apply. The owners of the tubes (so to speak) should have some privileges that are normally afforded to owners of any business or technology, but they shouldn't be totally free to endanger the state the Internet is in today -- where small startups have some hope of taking on the big players. Basically, it's a new world, we have to make some new rules.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    I understand where you're coming from, but you can see how that's a non-falsifiable argument, right?
- Vendan 12y ago
  The right to have a legal monopoly? I only have a single high speed internet option, and they know it.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Monopolies aren't illegal. What's illegal is commercial behavior in furtherance of maintaining a monopoly. You probably don't have just one credible high-speed option because of anticompetitive actions on Comcast or AT&T's part. (I'm prepared to be wrong about that last point; I'm in Chicago, where I do in fact have several high-speed options).
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      > You probably don't have just one credible high-speed option because of anticompetitive actions on Comcast or AT&T's part. > (I'm prepared to be wrong about that last point; I'm in Chicago, where I do in fact have several high-speed options). Easy to test for: collect prices in areas where there is only one supplier versus areas where there are many and compare. The typical excuse is that it costs more to supply rural areas. Until there is competition and then suddenly ADSL and Cable drop in price tremendously. This situation existed until recently in one rural area where I had a house, the prices were outrageous. Then, just as we were about to roll out a wireless network for the neighbourhood the prices dropped through the floor. Probably coincidence ;).
      - tptacek 12y ago
        There's an element of post hoc ergo propter hoc to this. It's also very plausible that whatever force introduces a competitive high-speed carrier to a rural area also works to reduce prices: for instance, maybe competitive carriers enter the market because something happens to suddenly make that market cheaper to serve.

I'm not sure you can say "wholly private networks" when they use public infrastructure...

by Vendan 12y ago

I'm not sure you can say "wholly private networks" when they use public infrastructure...

rayiner 12y ago

What public infrastructure? In most places they pay for their rights of way.

selmnoo 12y ago
I think the problem is that you're referring back to classical models and frameworks of law and business. The internet has become something too big and too great, it's a weird system in that it is the commons yet parts of it are privately owned. New rules should apply. The owners of the tubes (so to speak) should have some privileges that are normally afforded to owners of any business or technology, but they shouldn't be totally free to endanger the state the Internet is in today -- where small startups have some hope of taking on the big players. Basically, it's a new world, we have to make some new rules.
- tptacek 12y ago
  I understand where you're coming from, but you can see how that's a non-falsifiable argument, right?
Vendan 12y ago
The right to have a legal monopoly? I only have a single high speed internet option, and they know it.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Monopolies aren't illegal. What's illegal is commercial behavior in furtherance of maintaining a monopoly. You probably don't have just one credible high-speed option because of anticompetitive actions on Comcast or AT&T's part. (I'm prepared to be wrong about that last point; I'm in Chicago, where I do in fact have several high-speed options).
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    > You probably don't have just one credible high-speed option because of anticompetitive actions on Comcast or AT&T's part. > (I'm prepared to be wrong about that last point; I'm in Chicago, where I do in fact have several high-speed options). Easy to test for: collect prices in areas where there is only one supplier versus areas where there are many and compare. The typical excuse is that it costs more to supply rural areas. Until there is competition and then suddenly ADSL and Cable drop in price tremendously. This situation existed until recently in one rural area where I had a house, the prices were outrageous. Then, just as we were about to roll out a wireless network for the neighbourhood the prices dropped through the floor. Probably coincidence ;).
    - tptacek 12y ago
      There's an element of post hoc ergo propter hoc to this. It's also very plausible that whatever force introduces a competitive high-speed carrier to a rural area also works to reduce prices: for instance, maybe competitive carriers enter the market because something happens to suddenly make that market cheaper to serve.