23 ms·

Really, he's calling for the FCC to prevent rent-seeking by local ISP monopolies by allowing the option of municipal networks. It's a really good idea; you can

by jfb 12y ago

Really, he's calling for the FCC to prevent rent-seeking by local ISP monopolies by allowing the option of municipal networks. It's a really good idea; you can tell because of how stridently Comcast/Verizon/AT&T oppose it.

NoPiece 12y ago
What do you think the federal policy on torrents will be? Ask Disney.
- jfb 12y ago
  Who cares? The Feds here are not in the business of bandwidth provision; they're acting to counterbalance the elephantine mass of Comcast by preventing them from overpowering municipal politics.
  - rev_bird 12y ago
    I think the idea was that if Disney can get the government to essentially destroy the idea of 20th century work entering the public domain, they could probably get the government to act against an open internet.
    - jfb 12y ago
      They can do this now. Municipal ownership of some of the pipes isn't going to stop what is essentially an orthogonal fight from happening at a higher level.
      - djrogers 12y ago
        Yeah - I think the point was that if the pipes are owned by the same government that's already in the pocket of hollywood, then the laws (more likely regulations written by bureaucrats, not laws passed by elected officials, but..) against torrenting/pirating/distributing would be easier to get written and enforced.
        jfb 12y ago
        Well, then, you switch to Comcast/Verizon/&c. if these issues are important to you. Big ISP will be forced to compete for your business, rather than buying your acquiescence with franchise agreements and big steak dinners at your state capital. I fail to see any way in which this isn't a good thing.
        skywhopper 12y ago
        A huge portion of broadband in the US is already owned by Hollywood. At least we have a theoretical voice in the federal government's policies. Still, the ideal is for local municipalities to own the last-mile fiber, like they do with power, water, sewers, and streets most places.
        CamperBob2 12y ago
        That might not actually be the case. You can't bring a First Amendment complaint against Verizon, but you can certainly bring one against your state-run or municipal ISP.
        tw04 12y ago
        Because Comcast has no stake in Hollywood?
  - WillNotDownvote 12y ago
    A thought that occurs to me is that if the government is providing internet access, various pressure groups will leverage that for various kinds of censorship. Why is my government providing access to porn? To religious sites? To sites that violate copyright? To sites that contain many sorts of 'unsavory' content? Allowing children uncensored access to many things? I don't know how those complaints would fare, but I'm absolutely certain they'd be made.
    - Jtsummers 12y ago
      This is already an issue faced by other government entities that provide access to the internet. See libraries. Their solution is to leave it open because it's not their place to censor. Parents already have (I assume faulty, never checked it out myself) software solutions to block "unsavory" content.
      - zerocrates 12y ago
        Libraries already have to use internet filtering/blocking software under CIPA (though adult users are supposed to be able to get the filter disabled).
      - WillNotDownvote 12y ago
        Right, and libraries in various municipalities are in fact censored, both in terms of publications and in internet access they allow. Why would this be different?
        wglb 12y ago
        How are they censored? Do you have any examples of this?
        fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
        The public library a few hundred feet from my residence heavily and ridiculously censors its internet access. The censorship is provided by a third party and getting a site whitelisted is practically impossible to achieve.
- hawkice 12y ago
  The ability to encrypt torrent traffic (requiring encryption is tremendously easy to do through the guis I use, and might even be the default in many clients) combined with the American reflexive response to government censorship leads me to think this won't be as big an issue as you imply.
  - smallerize 12y ago
    If you use a tracker, anyone on that tracker can get your IP address. Not to mention querying the DHT and busting everyone with a matching hash. I once downloaded a file with all the encryption buttons checked (Deluge interface) and some enforcement agency still sent a warning notice to my ISP with my IP address.
    - bduerst 12y ago
      Couldn't that be because they seeded the file to directly?
      - smallerize 12y ago
        I hadn't thought of that. I'd forgotten to install the "Blocklist" plugin for Deluge and configure a list.
- api 12y ago
  What will the federal policy be on encrypted traffic? Only two possibilities: ban it -- untenable -- or allow it.
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    They're not the only possibilities - for example they can refuse it but not police it, they can refuse it and police it, they can allow it but discourage it somehow (eg rate-limiting), I'm sure there are more if someone cared to thing about them for a minute. Not sure what you're trying to say here?
    - eru 12y ago
      Or only police a few very harshly times to make examples. (And inconvenient people will have a higher chance of getting selected.)
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  I'm more than prepared to give up pirating movies in exchange for modern broadband and competitive providers.
justizin 12y ago
I definitely agree, and this is one reason I advocate against overly harsh or vindictive rules that are unbalanced against ISPs because of our feelings about AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner - it would bite us later if we have a massive shift to municipal broadband. Sure, we can change the law, but we would have regulations in place that could interfere with the government entering the market, we might have gotten the big providers to agree to stricter rules if we promised never to try municipal broadband. This could be a perfect storm for conservatives, because they can wave their arms about how "liberals" are always asking for regulation and now that a "liberal industry" is regulated we don't like it and blah blah. I far prefer to just obsolete the big providers and to implement internet as a real public utility. Even if private companies end up contracted to provide it in some cases, those would be regulated monopolies, not regulated free market businesses. I far prefer that we build the case that even a city's own infrastructure would unlikely work without the internet, and that they should have at least some infrastructure that does not rely on commercial providers. San Francisco's water power plant on the Russian River is a great example of this, it provides power for muni trains and electrified buses, maybe _some_ streetlights and a few other public things. If we have a full PG&E failure, we might still have running trains and lit streets. I'm not sure it doesn't all flow into the same grid, SF being one of the oldest power grids, but if that isn't fully the case now, there is enough power independence to ensure that such a thing would work.
- shmerl 12y ago
  > Even if private companies end up contracted to provide it in some cases, those would be regulated monopolies, not regulated free market businesses. I guess you meant those would be regulated monopolies and not unregulated monopolies ;) ISP scene is quite far from free market at the moment.
  - redi90000 12y ago
    I don't understand why people are using monopoly to describe ISPs. Looking at http://www.broadbandmap.gov http://www.broadbandmap.gov, can anyone find one city without multiple broadband providers?
ksk 12y ago
> you can tell because of how stridently Comcast/Verizon/AT&T oppose it. How so? Whether its good or bad, ISPs would be against it. Most companies do not want competition. (regardless of what they say) >by allowing the option of municipal networks. I personally think its rather unfair to ask a for-profit company to compete against a tax funded service. >Really, he's calling for the FCC to prevent rent-seeking You can prevent rent-seeking by repealing any "sponsored" laws that protect their monopoly.
- jfb 12y ago
  The problem is that you have an asymmetry in resources between e.g. local officials who might want to stand up a fiber network and a company the size of Verizon, who very badly do not want this to happen. You need countervailing size, and in the US only the federal government has it.
  - ksk 12y ago
    The problem of asymmetry of resources exists in all domains that have high sunk costs. To reduce monopolies, using your logic ("you need countervailing size") the government would have to get involved in all of the other industries like shipping, oil refining, TV networks, etc. Instead, why not change the law (if needed) to prevent monopolies from happening?
    - GhotiFish 12y ago
      Friendly reminder to people of HN. Please don't downvote to disagree. Is your objective to discourage dissenting opinion? Seriously? That's not healthy for a community. ksk's comments were not out of place.
      - jfb 12y ago
        No, he's asking very good questions.
    - bduerst 12y ago
      The government already does, for regional monopolies (power, water, sewer, transportation, etc.) The problem isn't that the government should prop-up start ups in this specific industry to prevent a monopoly, but that the government should embrace communications as a regional monopoly - i.e. own the utility infrastructure and reduce costs for the entire economy. Obviously they can't nationalize the current companies, but they can start building public infrastructure.
redi90000 12y ago
Which ISPs have monopolies exactly and in what city? Go to broadbandmap.gov and find me one.
- TTPrograms 12y ago
  1) Click "Explore the Maps". 2) Click "number of broadband providers" on bottom. 3) Set sliders to color places with 1 provider. 4) The huge areas of green across the US are monopolies.
  - wernercd 12y ago
    http://www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers/wireline/both/2/12 http://www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers/wireline/bot... Then click "unserved" to show those areas... Interesting stuff... * Unserved = red * served ~ 2-6 providers = green * white = one provider aka monopoly Lots of white... I wonder how much is due to lack of interest vs "interference" of any sort.
finid 12y ago
They opposed Chattanooga too, but failed.

by jfb 12y ago

NoPiece 12y ago

What do you think the federal policy on torrents will be? Ask Disney.

jfb 12y ago
Who cares? The Feds here are not in the business of bandwidth provision; they're acting to counterbalance the elephantine mass of Comcast by preventing them from overpowering municipal politics.
- rev_bird 12y ago
  I think the idea was that if Disney can get the government to essentially destroy the idea of 20th century work entering the public domain, they could probably get the government to act against an open internet.
  - jfb 12y ago
    They can do this now. Municipal ownership of some of the pipes isn't going to stop what is essentially an orthogonal fight from happening at a higher level.
    - djrogers 12y ago
      Yeah - I think the point was that if the pipes are owned by the same government that's already in the pocket of hollywood, then the laws (more likely regulations written by bureaucrats, not laws passed by elected officials, but..) against torrenting/pirating/distributing would be easier to get written and enforced.
      - jfb 12y ago
        Well, then, you switch to Comcast/Verizon/&c. if these issues are important to you. Big ISP will be forced to compete for your business, rather than buying your acquiescence with franchise agreements and big steak dinners at your state capital. I fail to see any way in which this isn't a good thing.
      - skywhopper 12y ago
        A huge portion of broadband in the US is already owned by Hollywood. At least we have a theoretical voice in the federal government's policies. Still, the ideal is for local municipalities to own the last-mile fiber, like they do with power, water, sewers, and streets most places.
      - CamperBob2 12y ago
        That might not actually be the case. You can't bring a First Amendment complaint against Verizon, but you can certainly bring one against your state-run or municipal ISP.
      - tw04 12y ago
        Because Comcast has no stake in Hollywood?
- WillNotDownvote 12y ago
  A thought that occurs to me is that if the government is providing internet access, various pressure groups will leverage that for various kinds of censorship. Why is my government providing access to porn? To religious sites? To sites that violate copyright? To sites that contain many sorts of 'unsavory' content? Allowing children uncensored access to many things? I don't know how those complaints would fare, but I'm absolutely certain they'd be made.
  - Jtsummers 12y ago
    This is already an issue faced by other government entities that provide access to the internet. See libraries. Their solution is to leave it open because it's not their place to censor. Parents already have (I assume faulty, never checked it out myself) software solutions to block "unsavory" content.
    - zerocrates 12y ago
      Libraries already have to use internet filtering/blocking software under CIPA (though adult users are supposed to be able to get the filter disabled).
    - WillNotDownvote 12y ago
      Right, and libraries in various municipalities are in fact censored, both in terms of publications and in internet access they allow. Why would this be different?
      - wglb 12y ago
        How are they censored? Do you have any examples of this?
        fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
        The public library a few hundred feet from my residence heavily and ridiculously censors its internet access. The censorship is provided by a third party and getting a site whitelisted is practically impossible to achieve.
hawkice 12y ago
The ability to encrypt torrent traffic (requiring encryption is tremendously easy to do through the guis I use, and might even be the default in many clients) combined with the American reflexive response to government censorship leads me to think this won't be as big an issue as you imply.
- smallerize 12y ago
  If you use a tracker, anyone on that tracker can get your IP address. Not to mention querying the DHT and busting everyone with a matching hash. I once downloaded a file with all the encryption buttons checked (Deluge interface) and some enforcement agency still sent a warning notice to my ISP with my IP address.
  - bduerst 12y ago
    Couldn't that be because they seeded the file to directly?
    - smallerize 12y ago
      I hadn't thought of that. I'd forgotten to install the "Blocklist" plugin for Deluge and configure a list.
api 12y ago
What will the federal policy be on encrypted traffic? Only two possibilities: ban it -- untenable -- or allow it.
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  They're not the only possibilities - for example they can refuse it but not police it, they can refuse it and police it, they can allow it but discourage it somehow (eg rate-limiting), I'm sure there are more if someone cared to thing about them for a minute. Not sure what you're trying to say here?
  - eru 12y ago
    Or only police a few very harshly times to make examples. (And inconvenient people will have a higher chance of getting selected.)
sliverstorm 12y ago
I'm more than prepared to give up pirating movies in exchange for modern broadband and competitive providers.

justizin 12y ago

I definitely agree, and this is one reason I advocate against overly harsh or vindictive rules that are unbalanced against ISPs because of our feelings about AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner - it would bite us later if we have a massive shift to municipal broadband. Sure, we can change the law, but we would have regulations in place that could interfere with the government entering the market, we might have gotten the big providers to agree to stricter rules if we promised never to try municipal broadband. This could be a perfect storm for conservatives, because they can wave their arms about how "liberals" are always asking for regulation and now that a "liberal industry" is regulated we don't like it and blah blah. I far prefer to just obsolete the big providers and to implement internet as a real public utility. Even if private companies end up contracted to provide it in some cases, those would be regulated monopolies, not regulated free market businesses. I far prefer that we build the case that even a city's own infrastructure would unlikely work without the internet, and that they should have at least some infrastructure that does not rely on commercial providers. San Francisco's water power plant on the Russian River is a great example of this, it provides power for muni trains and electrified buses, maybe _some_ streetlights and a few other public things. If we have a full PG&E failure, we might still have running trains and lit streets. I'm not sure it doesn't all flow into the same grid, SF being one of the oldest power grids, but if that isn't fully the case now, there is enough power independence to ensure that such a thing would work.

shmerl 12y ago
> Even if private companies end up contracted to provide it in some cases, those would be regulated monopolies, not regulated free market businesses. I guess you meant those would be regulated monopolies and not unregulated monopolies ;) ISP scene is quite far from free market at the moment.
- redi90000 12y ago
  I don't understand why people are using monopoly to describe ISPs. Looking at http://www.broadbandmap.gov http://www.broadbandmap.gov, can anyone find one city without multiple broadband providers?

ksk 12y ago

> you can tell because of how stridently Comcast/Verizon/AT&T oppose it. How so? Whether its good or bad, ISPs would be against it. Most companies do not want competition. (regardless of what they say) >by allowing the option of municipal networks. I personally think its rather unfair to ask a for-profit company to compete against a tax funded service. >Really, he's calling for the FCC to prevent rent-seeking You can prevent rent-seeking by repealing any "sponsored" laws that protect their monopoly.

jfb 12y ago
The problem is that you have an asymmetry in resources between e.g. local officials who might want to stand up a fiber network and a company the size of Verizon, who very badly do not want this to happen. You need countervailing size, and in the US only the federal government has it.
- ksk 12y ago
  The problem of asymmetry of resources exists in all domains that have high sunk costs. To reduce monopolies, using your logic ("you need countervailing size") the government would have to get involved in all of the other industries like shipping, oil refining, TV networks, etc. Instead, why not change the law (if needed) to prevent monopolies from happening?
  - GhotiFish 12y ago
    Friendly reminder to people of HN. Please don't downvote to disagree. Is your objective to discourage dissenting opinion? Seriously? That's not healthy for a community. ksk's comments were not out of place.
    - jfb 12y ago
      No, he's asking very good questions.
  - bduerst 12y ago
    The government already does, for regional monopolies (power, water, sewer, transportation, etc.) The problem isn't that the government should prop-up start ups in this specific industry to prevent a monopoly, but that the government should embrace communications as a regional monopoly - i.e. own the utility infrastructure and reduce costs for the entire economy. Obviously they can't nationalize the current companies, but they can start building public infrastructure.

redi90000 12y ago

Which ISPs have monopolies exactly and in what city? Go to broadbandmap.gov and find me one.

TTPrograms 12y ago
1) Click "Explore the Maps". 2) Click "number of broadband providers" on bottom. 3) Set sliders to color places with 1 provider. 4) The huge areas of green across the US are monopolies.
- wernercd 12y ago
  http://www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers/wireline/both/2/12 http://www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers/wireline/bot... Then click "unserved" to show those areas... Interesting stuff... * Unserved = red * served ~ 2-6 providers = green * white = one provider aka monopoly Lots of white... I wonder how much is due to lack of interest vs "interference" of any sort.

finid 12y ago

They opposed Chattanooga too, but failed.