4 ms·

If it's not profitable for a company such as Verizon, isn't that another argument towards classifying broadband as a utility and setting up service providers th

by m3rc 12y ago

If it's not profitable for a company such as Verizon, isn't that another argument towards classifying broadband as a utility and setting up service providers through a munincipal partnership where profit isn't the goal?

harryh 12y ago
If profit isn't the goal then it's going to be funded by taxpayers? A lot of non nerds don't care about super fast broadband (which is one of the reasons it's hard to roll out profitably). You're going to tax them to pay for something they don't want?
- m3rc 12y ago
  Faster broadband isn't just an improvement on a personal level where specific power users benefit, as we've seen in cities that start up partnerships with Google Fiber it's an incredible boost to the city's economy from various businesses and startups that choose to operate in a city wih improved broadband access. Taxpayers may not be paying for specifically themselves, but it's no different than tax dollars to be used to fund a public library even if you don't personally go there, or to finance a rennovation that will allow for more tourism opportunities. That's the entire point of taxes, that they don't directly pay for your specific desires.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    This is a dodge. Every family would see some economic upside from the universal deployment of fiber Internet. But upper-class professional families would see more upside than working class urban families. As a subsidy, universal fiber Internet is regressive.
    - m3rc 12y ago
      If it's an upside for everyone, how is that supposed to be regressive? Is tourism regressive? Or libraries? Do you have any examples of a tax payed for service that is somehow totally equally spread in it's helping of people?
      - tptacek 12y ago
        You didn't read my comment carefully. It's an upside for everyone, but it's more of an upside for rich people. Just like the "Bush tax cuts". Examples of progressive public services? Public schools seem like a pretty good example there. It is a fine thing to have an upside for everyone even if rich people get more of the benefit. The Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the Art Institute; these are good things. The problem happens when we use public funds to finance them.
        m3rc 12y ago
        I don't think you read mine either. We already do that, we already use public funds to pay for things that do, or have the potential to, benefit the rich more. Besides the fact that there's no way to actually prove paying for bradband with taxpayer money would disproportionately help the rich, should we audit every single tax-payed-for entity to make sure it's perfectly fair?
        tptacek 12y ago
        No? How about we just think carefully before plowing money into obviously regressive services that the market is already providing?
        m3rc 12y ago
        I mean... yeah if you start from the assumption that universial broadband access is regressive then it'd be a bad idea but that's making a massive assumption with only one outcome 1.) The market is already providing those services in a terribly inefficient and inadequate way that places the US at a massive disadvantage to the rest of the world which is already light years ahead of us in broadband access 2.) The current system is vastly more disadvantageous to lower income people who can't afford the ridiculous pricing models ISPs provide
        tptacek 12y ago
        A majority of low-income urban families already have broadband access. Most of them would benefit more from lower teacher/student ratios in classrooms, or more frequently scheduled bus routes, than they would from a service that provides most of its value to people who pay monthly fees to Netflix and Amazon. Giving everyone fiber Internet is an awesome move if fiber Internet is free. But since it isn't, it has to compete with every other spending priority that governments have.
rhino369 12y ago
Most utilities are private companies that essentially get fixed profit. Essentially they operate on a cost-plus system. That was how telecom was run in America for 50 years and it didn't work out. These sorts of companies aren't innovative or efficient. Any investment in new upgrades would require a public utility commission to approve a rate hike. Guess what, the public isn't going to support you raising their rates for faster internet. Maybe it is the way to go, but you gotta be damn sure they do it correctly the first time. Because you won't get upgrades.
- m3rc 12y ago
  Are the current munincipal partnerships with Google Fiber worse than the current totally private run ISPs?
  - rhino369 12y ago
    Google Fiber is a totally privately run ISP. It is even less regulated than Verizon Fios. Google Fiber exists because Google is given an exemption from all sorts of local regulations. Proposing Title II is pretty much the opposite of that.
tptacek 12y ago
What do you think happens once Internet access becomes a "utility"? Do you like dealing with the utilities you have now? Everywhere I've lived, "utility" implies: * DMV-level customer service * Delayed capital improvements (single tree branches falling in alleys routinely knock out power for as much as 1/5th of Oak Park) * Opaque pricing * Utterly baroque billing (I've had power cut twice due to billing SNAFUs) Much more importantly: who knows what the Internet is going to look like 15 years from now? Regulating an industry as a utility retards investment by capping the upside. I don't like the idea that Comcast can favor Amazon over Netflix and do think there should be some lightweight regulation that prevents anticompetitive collusion between providers and networks. But Title II is a pretty scary regulatory regime; it gives the FCC control over product packaging, pricing, network interconnection, and customer dispute resolution. It does way, way, way more than just protect Netflix.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  Don't most of those points apply to Comcast and T-W right now?
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Comcast is god-awful. Just abysmal. Priced terribly. Performs terribly. Wildly uneven customer service, including overt dishonesty. But having just had the experience of getting an account up with them at my new office: Having AT&T available as an option solved virtually every one of my problems, from pricing to installation dates. "AT&T says they can do XXX". "Comcast says they can do YYY". Worked great. I do not in reality have that option with regulated utilities.
    - m3rc 12y ago
      So where's the downside to the current munincipal partnerships areas like Kansas City have with Google Fiber?
      - tptacek 12y ago

by m3rc 12y ago

harryh 12y ago

If profit isn't the goal then it's going to be funded by taxpayers? A lot of non nerds don't care about super fast broadband (which is one of the reasons it's hard to roll out profitably). You're going to tax them to pay for something they don't want?

m3rc 12y ago
Faster broadband isn't just an improvement on a personal level where specific power users benefit, as we've seen in cities that start up partnerships with Google Fiber it's an incredible boost to the city's economy from various businesses and startups that choose to operate in a city wih improved broadband access. Taxpayers may not be paying for specifically themselves, but it's no different than tax dollars to be used to fund a public library even if you don't personally go there, or to finance a rennovation that will allow for more tourism opportunities. That's the entire point of taxes, that they don't directly pay for your specific desires.
- tptacek 12y ago
  This is a dodge. Every family would see some economic upside from the universal deployment of fiber Internet. But upper-class professional families would see more upside than working class urban families. As a subsidy, universal fiber Internet is regressive.
  - m3rc 12y ago
    If it's an upside for everyone, how is that supposed to be regressive? Is tourism regressive? Or libraries? Do you have any examples of a tax payed for service that is somehow totally equally spread in it's helping of people?
    - tptacek 12y ago
      You didn't read my comment carefully. It's an upside for everyone, but it's more of an upside for rich people. Just like the "Bush tax cuts". Examples of progressive public services? Public schools seem like a pretty good example there. It is a fine thing to have an upside for everyone even if rich people get more of the benefit. The Chicago Symphony Orchestra, the Art Institute; these are good things. The problem happens when we use public funds to finance them.
      - m3rc 12y ago
        I don't think you read mine either. We already do that, we already use public funds to pay for things that do, or have the potential to, benefit the rich more. Besides the fact that there's no way to actually prove paying for bradband with taxpayer money would disproportionately help the rich, should we audit every single tax-payed-for entity to make sure it's perfectly fair?
        tptacek 12y ago
        No? How about we just think carefully before plowing money into obviously regressive services that the market is already providing?
        m3rc 12y ago
        I mean... yeah if you start from the assumption that universial broadband access is regressive then it'd be a bad idea but that's making a massive assumption with only one outcome 1.) The market is already providing those services in a terribly inefficient and inadequate way that places the US at a massive disadvantage to the rest of the world which is already light years ahead of us in broadband access 2.) The current system is vastly more disadvantageous to lower income people who can't afford the ridiculous pricing models ISPs provide
        tptacek 12y ago
        A majority of low-income urban families already have broadband access. Most of them would benefit more from lower teacher/student ratios in classrooms, or more frequently scheduled bus routes, than they would from a service that provides most of its value to people who pay monthly fees to Netflix and Amazon. Giving everyone fiber Internet is an awesome move if fiber Internet is free. But since it isn't, it has to compete with every other spending priority that governments have.

rhino369 12y ago

Most utilities are private companies that essentially get fixed profit. Essentially they operate on a cost-plus system. That was how telecom was run in America for 50 years and it didn't work out. These sorts of companies aren't innovative or efficient. Any investment in new upgrades would require a public utility commission to approve a rate hike. Guess what, the public isn't going to support you raising their rates for faster internet. Maybe it is the way to go, but you gotta be damn sure they do it correctly the first time. Because you won't get upgrades.

m3rc 12y ago
Are the current munincipal partnerships with Google Fiber worse than the current totally private run ISPs?
- rhino369 12y ago
  Google Fiber is a totally privately run ISP. It is even less regulated than Verizon Fios. Google Fiber exists because Google is given an exemption from all sorts of local regulations. Proposing Title II is pretty much the opposite of that.

tptacek 12y ago

What do you think happens once Internet access becomes a "utility"? Do you like dealing with the utilities you have now? Everywhere I've lived, "utility" implies: * DMV-level customer service * Delayed capital improvements (single tree branches falling in alleys routinely knock out power for as much as 1/5th of Oak Park) * Opaque pricing * Utterly baroque billing (I've had power cut twice due to billing SNAFUs) Much more importantly: who knows what the Internet is going to look like 15 years from now? Regulating an industry as a utility retards investment by capping the upside. I don't like the idea that Comcast can favor Amazon over Netflix and do think there should be some lightweight regulation that prevents anticompetitive collusion between providers and networks. But Title II is a pretty scary regulatory regime; it gives the FCC control over product packaging, pricing, network interconnection, and customer dispute resolution. It does way, way, way more than just protect Netflix.

waterlesscloud 12y ago
Don't most of those points apply to Comcast and T-W right now?
- tptacek 12y ago
  Comcast is god-awful. Just abysmal. Priced terribly. Performs terribly. Wildly uneven customer service, including overt dishonesty. But having just had the experience of getting an account up with them at my new office: Having AT&T available as an option solved virtually every one of my problems, from pricing to installation dates. "AT&T says they can do XXX". "Comcast says they can do YYY". Worked great. I do not in reality have that option with regulated utilities.
  - m3rc 12y ago
    So where's the downside to the current munincipal partnerships areas like Kansas City have with Google Fiber?
    - tptacek 12y ago