5 ms·

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 fro

by 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.

by 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.