Net Neutrality

[pineapplemike]

Surely you can see why people would opposed to government intervention when government is the one that facilitated the monopolies to develop? ISPs lobbied to government to create a barrier to entry and so now we are forced to have the government ensure we have access? Aren't these companies and the government already in bed with each other? I read Eric Schmidt's emails with John Podesta, it's like we're fighting two heads on the same snake, while libertarian-oriented people would prefer to let the market do it's thing.

I'm not advocating for a strict free market solution, I'm just asking questions, seems like a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation between a corrupt government and a corporatist corporation

[Zlaxer]

Ok.
1 - DSL is a different network, using the PTSN, and is long-obsolete anyway. Not part of the “competition”.

2 - you will never, and I mean never, see the owner of a trunk line sharing their conduit with another network. Let alone digging it up, and installing more lines, to hurt their own monopoly.

3 - yeah, Frontier is a conglomerate buying up old landlines from Verizon and ATT. They aren’t laying a new network. Reading the historical section here is actually a little scary. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Communications

You're pretty certain of so many things.....lolz....Frontier is laying new fiber, and Quest and Charter are now moving into my region.....Wikipedia has never been known to be wrong.....


If government does away with net neutrality, then they need to make sure ISPs have equal access to the conduits to lay fiber...

It seems like you want net neutrality simply to put the government in control because you don't trust evil corporations....but what you continue to fail to realize is that a central all powerful government is easy for a few elite corporations to bend to their will...

Qwest merged with CenturyLink - a dying DSL company.
Charter = Spectrum = Time Warner.

Like I said, you might see some new connections to the local IEX, with a hip new company name, but you will never see competition.

And no, I'm no statist. But there is a role for the state here. The lines should be public, and services should compete on them. There's no sense at all in wasting resources to re-lay the same routes with identical cables.

The conduits should be public (since they're mostly along streets and need to cut across private property)...the lines themselves, and their data, should be kept private.....let the market dictate how traffic is regulated....

[SuburbanFarmer]

Surely you can see why people would opposed to government intervention when government is the one that facilitated the monopolies to develop? ISPs lobbied to government to create a barrier to entry and so now we are forced to have the government ensure we have access? Aren't these companies and the government already in bed with each other? I read Eric Schmidt's emails with John Podesta, it's like we're fighting two heads on the same snake, while libertarian-oriented people would prefer to let the market do it's thing.

I'm not advocating for a strict free market solution, I'm just asking questions, seems like a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation between a corrupt government and a corporatist corporation

Of course I do. I think we're caught in a battle between ISPs and content providers (Google/Faceberg/etc). Neither choice is ideal.

All I can fall back to is that the infrastructure in place needs to be public. There is just no sense in wishing for 3-4 identical networks to be laid down, for competition. It's not gonna happen.

ISPs can still compete for who handles your internet traffic. The problem is that people will quickly realize that they don't provide much of anything, and they'll be driven into the ground. They've more than recouped their investment from those networks, and it's time to let them go.

[Speaker to Animals]

These companies don't even exist without the commons. Their lines literally run across private property everywhere. We grant them access to our property as communities for the greater good. Do we get to charge them a toll for using our property? No? Okay. Fuck off with your deregulation. This entire industry doesn't even exist without public easement.

[Fife]

Well, I'm glad the federal government is talking about getting out of the way.

With companies competing and working to come up with new and better ways to deliver a better product at a better price, what will the way the internet works look like in 10 years?

https://www.wired.com/2017/02/google-fiber-restructure/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... 45757e47bf

[Fife]

These companies don't even exist without the commons. Their lines literally run across private property everywhere. We grant them access to our property as communities for the greater good. Do we get to charge them a toll for using our property? No? Okay. Fuck off with your deregulation. This entire industry doesn't even exist without public easement.

[Speaker to Animals]

Another thing, the nations with the most advanced and highest capacity broadband networks (i.e. South Korea) also are the most tightly regulated. In South Korea's case, it'sreally tightly fucking regulated. As in, beyond anything the typical American would ever want.

The least regulated markets also tend to be the shittiest markets out there.

[Speaker to Animals]

These companies don't even exist without the commons. Their lines literally run across private property everywhere. We grant them access to our property as communities for the greater good. Do we get to charge them a toll for using our property? No? Okay. Fuck off with your deregulation. This entire industry doesn't even exist without public easement.

In fact, they didn't build the Internet, Fife. Is this news to you? The evil statists built the Internet.

[Fife]

Ah, the dream of a Soros-owned state monopoly internet..... missed it by *that* much.

[Speaker to Animals]

Dude, do you have an argument or what?