SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Presidential candidate and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders yesterday released a plan to overhaul the US broadband market by breaking up giant providers, outlawing data caps, regulating broadband prices, and providing $150 billion to build publicly owned networks.
[...]Sanders said he would "eliminate data caps and ban throttling" and "instruct the FCC to regulate broadband Internet rates so households and small businesses are connected affordably." This would include a requirement "that all Internet service providers offer a Basic Internet Plan that provides quality broadband speeds at an affordable price."
[...]Sanders' $150 billion proposal includes a Department of Agriculture Rural Utility Service program "to provide capital funding to connect all remote rural households and businesses and upgrade outdated technology and infrastructure, prioritizing funding for existing co-ops and small rural utilities." Sanders said that $7.5 billion should be set aside for tribal areas and that all public housing should provide free broadband to residents.
[...]Sanders also wants the FCC to define broadband as a minimum of 100Mbps download speeds and 10Mbps uploads, instead of the current 25Mbps down and 3Mbps up. Sanders would also "reinstate and expand privacy protection rules," reversing the Trump-era decision to eliminate broadband-privacy rules.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @07:05PM (67 children)
Does he mention the shortages that will result? This is basically asking for internet to be like electricity in California.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @07:26PM (2 children)
You know, the Internet runs on electricity ... lots of electricity.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @07:35PM
Sometimes for Californians too.
(Score: 5, Funny) by ilPapa on Monday December 09 2019, @10:48PM
The Internet also runs on Californians... lots of Californians.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by barbara hudson on Monday December 09 2019, @07:36PM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 4, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Monday December 09 2019, @07:39PM (37 children)
Why would there be shortages? Mismanagement is not something you have to do.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Monday December 09 2019, @07:47PM (24 children)
To the contrary, if the legal environment rewards it, and the competition is doing it, then it IS something you have to do.
The incentives must be changed. Sanders seems to understand that fairly well.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by barbara hudson on Monday December 09 2019, @08:00PM (6 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Monday December 09 2019, @08:07PM (5 children)
Big media would never allow that!
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @08:33PM
exactly. how are they going to turn the internet into cable tv if people can just serve their own content?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @08:35PM (1 child)
A Russian asset (Sanders) would though. If not for him taking orders from Putin we would have a woman president.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @11:39PM
Not just Sanders, but the entire Republican party too: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/07/20/the-entire-republican-party-is-becoming-a-russian-asset/ [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Monday December 09 2019, @08:45PM (1 child)
Zzzzz ... wait, huh? You're saying September is over [wikipedia.org]?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday December 09 2019, @09:42PM
Yeah, we're in reruns...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday December 09 2019, @09:27PM (9 children)
The post I replied to stated that if Bernie nationalised or regulated the US ISPs then there would be a shortage of Internet (somehow).
I was making the point that the result did not have to be bad, despite what your right-wing media will tell you.
I am unsure of the point of your reply. You appear to be agreeing with me. Plenty of countries have heavily regulated Internet, and it can be made to work well.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday December 09 2019, @09:50PM (2 children)
Plenty of countries have heavily regulated Internet
Yeah, but most of them are regulating content, ordering the ISPs to block "offensive" sites.
More than a regulated internet, we need an open internet, with mandated symmetrical up/downloads, community service provision, robust against any price gouging and censorship
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday December 09 2019, @10:06PM
Most of them? Maybe.
Regulating the ISPs does not mean you also have to block sites as well. It would be easy to do one and not the other.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday December 10 2019, @06:43AM
Judging by how net neutrality has been playing out, the private companies are pretty eager to block sites they find offensive, like Bernie's servers if he's not careful, as well as any competition.
Here in Canada, the ISP's (mostly Bell) just got a court order for them to block some site that shared URL's where pirating was happening, a bad precedent that the ISP's have been pushing for for quite a while. We do have net neutrality which is one of the reasons for the court order.
I'd trust my government further then I'd trust Bell or Rogers. Do you trust your big ISP's?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday December 10 2019, @12:02AM (5 children)
Yes, but. It takes more than requiring to get fast transmission speeds. Of course, he didn't talk about addressing lag...so maybe.
But basically he promised fiber optic speeds to remote households...and that's expensive. It's a LOT cheaper/user to do that in areas where you've got lots of customers close together.
OTOH, the FCC could do a lot to improve things. If they just break the grip of monopolies and effectively eliminate lying in advertisements they'd be doing a lot to make things better, and that wouldn't require any additional money at all.
Or maybe he's counting on StarLink to deliver his election promises. That could work for downloads and uploads. It might even not make lag terrible.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday December 10 2019, @12:32AM (3 children)
I found this on the Internet:
You could give everybody a fibre connection for that, no problem, because fibre is not that expensive anymore.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @09:56AM (2 children)
Look up what gross profit means.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday December 10 2019, @07:15PM
I couldn't find a reference to their net profit. $24 billion profit for one quarter ought to be plenty of money for everyone in america to get a nice fast fibre connection to their home.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @01:21PM
It doesn't just mean "really big" profit?
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 10 2019, @12:38AM
Actually, that's more of a state/local issue than a Federal one.
Despite all the hate on the FCC (as Pai-hole is a fucktard whore for the telecoms), Internet franchises/monopolies/duopolies/blocking of municipal broadband, etc., etc. is a function of state and local governments which are *much* more corrupt than the Feds.
Write your city council member, your state assemblyman, etc. They're the ones that are fucking you in the ass without lube on this one.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday December 10 2019, @01:57AM (6 children)
Yeah, but, socialism. Sanders is promising stuff that he doesn't have, hoping that he can take it away from someone else.
You know that I'm no fan of the telcos. In fact, I despise them because they are constantly ripping us off. But, Bernie doesn't own a telco of his own, so he can't give service away.
What I'd like to see, is for Ajit Pai to disappear, and the new head come from a consumer advocacy background. Almost overnight the FCC would get out of bed with AT&T and the rest, and maybe start enforcing old stuff. Like, all those billions given to the telcos to build that last mile? I want to see that last mile. If that involves breaking up telcos that won't cooperate, then fine.
But, really, Bernie can't give away any internet.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by lentilla on Tuesday December 10 2019, @05:00AM
This is about setting the standard to which sellers must adhere if they wish to call their product "broadband". Bernie is not putting on green leggings and doing a Robin Hood.
In an ideal market, competition would ensure that quality Internet was available at a fair price. Unfortunately, the incumbent players have formed an oligopoly and have successfully infiltrated the FCC, turning it into their lap-dog. As a result corrective action needs to be taken.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday December 10 2019, @02:46PM (3 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday December 10 2019, @03:05PM (2 children)
Sounds good. But, let's remember that Bernie is a rich old white guy, and a member of the Good Old Boy's Club. He isn't going to play hard ball with other rich old white men.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday December 10 2019, @07:36PM (1 child)
Watch him in the debates - he can't attack. Everybody up there are his friends. Even if it's completely one-sided, they obviously don't think of him as a friend. He's a genuinely nice guy, and that's not always a good thing, but it's not always a bad thing either. A nice guy he might be, but put him in a position to get something done and line up all those 'friends' on the other side as obstructionists and we might see him snap a little. Only time will tell for sure.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @01:49PM
Well, we saw what happened when we put a "not-nice guy" in the WH.
I'm game for putting a nice guy in there instead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @02:51PM
Yeah, but, socialism isn't always a dirty word except to greedy assholes.
And your formula therefore applies to all regulations. Government can't give anything away, so let's just get rid of it, mmmkay?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @08:14PM (11 children)
Price controls = shortages. More price controls = more shortages. You can count on it.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Monday December 09 2019, @09:38PM (10 children)
Not where I live, (not the US, so AT&T and their friends don't control the Internet).
We have very strict price controls, and I have the choice of about 20 ISPs. If I needed it I could get gigabit down and 500 mbps up for $90 per month. $5 per month for a static IP, and as far as I am aware no ISPs block ports, so I can run whatever server I want. (The one I use doesn't anyway).
I am sure the US could find a way to mess it up of course, but that doesn't mean you have to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @09:57PM (5 children)
$90 per month for gigabyte internet! Holy crap you're being ripped off, here it's $40-$70 with no price controls. Of course price controls do nothing if you set them way above market value.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @09:59PM
Also, this is with no usage cap.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @10:06PM (3 children)
It would have helped if he said he was paying in NZ$
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @11:56PM (2 children)
If its New Zealand then they lied about not having shortages. 50%+ of the country seems to lose service every couple months...
https://ottawacitizen.com/pmn/news-pmn/tonga-director-cant-rule-out-sabotage-in-internet-outage/wcm/898c883a-919a-408e-87a5-b203262c647d [ottawacitizen.com]
https://www.poandpo.com/news/new-zealand-extreme-weather-conditions-in-south-island-caused-major-outage-8122019870 [poandpo.com]
So converting from NZD to USD, we see they pay about the same, for less reliable service.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday December 10 2019, @12:36AM (1 child)
Or are you lying? Is that in the link about Tonga? Or maybe the link about a storm cutting cables to a part of the country "South of Ashburton" which is a tiny rural town, not "50%+ of the country" or even 1% of the country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @01:49AM
Tonga isn't New Zealand?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jasassin on Monday December 09 2019, @11:04PM (3 children)
If you don't live in the US and you have 20 different ISP's to choose from, did you come here to brag? Did you come here to belittle the US unfortunate circumstances which they are in? Either way, your post makes you sound like an entitled douche.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday December 09 2019, @11:22PM
All right then. You're welcome.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday December 10 2019, @02:02AM (1 child)
I disagree. It's posts like that, remind me how horrid out telcos are. People in other countries spend about as much on internet as I do, and they get genuine service, no matter where they go. Others have posted that they can travel all over Europe (western and central, anyhow) and never lose connectivity. Here? FFS, it's not even a bad joke - our wireless doesn't cover half of our territory at the best of times. And, you can't drag an ethernet cable behind you when you go shopping, or whatever.
(Score: 3, Informative) by dry on Tuesday December 10 2019, @06:54AM
It's all relative, here in Canada, our internet makes yours look cheap and fast. Our ISP's are very profitable though.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @07:52PM (10 children)
Opposed to the shortages that currently are under the current monopoly system in most places?
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday December 09 2019, @08:18PM
Yes, as opposed to those, which are indeed worse.
There's always going to be unintended side effects, and we shouldn't pretend they don't exist when dismissing idiots wantoningly dismissing massive problems with the status quo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @08:39PM (6 children)
Nope, nice strawman though. It is enough to trick your average dnc drone, but not those with critical thinking. Does Sanders address that price controls will cause shortages or not?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @10:43PM (5 children)
What fucking shortages?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @11:43PM (4 children)
The shortages that inevitably result from price controls, like the rolling blackouts recently seen in California after they prevented the electric company from raising prices.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @01:37AM (2 children)
Oh ho, and here I thought the tales were just wild drunken rumors people like to tell at parties for attention.
But here we are, super moron coward troll! Ya know, if you do a special dance with one of your donut buddies you turn into one unstoppable shillbot!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @01:46AM (1 child)
Lol, there will be more shortages and then youll blame capitalism like usual. Even if told obvious stuff you'll call the messenger a moron and then they don't need to feel bad about taking advantage of your ignorance. It is a beautiful system!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @01:07PM
For an obvious shill you're been pretty blatant about your FUD spewing and astroturfing. Go check if the American right wing idiots have payed you your salary yet! Trump is known for not paying his shills :D
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @02:55PM
Bull-fucking-shit. There have been plenty of industries with price controls that have no supply problems at all. However, that takes a regulatory board that is actually independent, absolute transparency to real numbers from the regulated corporations, and thus able to assess industry rate increase requests objectively. It has happened in the past. But then, corruption.
It would also help if entities providing essential services were not allowed to operate as for-profit operations but rather as... public trusts?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday December 09 2019, @11:40PM (1 child)
Another advantage of monopoly driven shortages: it shows that it doesn't need for all people to suffer from shortages, there are at least some that benefit (large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @05:35AM
There are two effects of government meddling:
1) Shortage of the thing in question
2) Massive inflation in price and/or reduction in quality
Just look at elective healthcare procedure like LASIK where the gov won't pay, the price gets cut in half every 10 years. Everything else, it doubles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @08:14PM (7 children)
Shortages of what, exactly?
There's plenty of dark fiber around the country for interchanges that can be used to increase the bandwidth available to the backbones.
The only things there are shortages of is honest competition, broad-based deployment and municipal broadband.
Why don't you put Ajit Pai's cock back in your whore mouth and leave us be?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @08:42PM (3 children)
Shortages of internet access. The thing with price controls placed on it. Man the education system sucks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @12:43AM (1 child)
You're a little confused there, friend. We have big swathes of the country that have no decent broadband right now. How is expanding that access going to cause *more* shortages?
Or are you just uninformed because you spend all your time playing Ms. Pac Man at the arcade at the strip mall up your ass?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @12:52AM
Sorry, but you don't seem capable of understanding that no one claimed there was a current lack of shortages and price controls.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @12:53AM
And how! Your reading comprehension is awful.
I said:
Moron.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday December 10 2019, @12:12AM (2 children)
There's plenty of shortages around the country. That dark fiber you're talking about (if it's still around) doesn't help anyone living at a distance from the trunk.
The ISPs have a long history, however, of promising the government to deliver service if they're only paid in advance, and then only delivering service where it's profitable, while they pocket the subsidy. I'm quite happy with the idea of breaking them up...but I feel it should be done along service layers more than across companies. The companies providing the hardware connection (wires) shouldn't be be the same, or have exclusive contracts with, the companies handling message transmission. It makes sense for the hardware companies to be amalgamated into a utility. The transmission layer companies, though, should have equal access to the wires. That's the way it was in dial-up days, and until the phone company got into the business it worked well, with lots of local ISPs. Then companies providing services over the different layers amalgamated, and we ended up with "the phone company ISP" and "the cable company ISP", because the hardware layer really does need to be a utility.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @12:45AM
My point was that there won't be any issue with bottlenecks at the backbones once broadband is more broadly deployed.
Reading comprehension not your strong suit?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @12:59AM
Yes well, the only guaranteed thing is there will be more shortages, unless they set the price caps so high they are irrelevant.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday December 09 2019, @11:25PM (4 children)
Speaking of, Bernie happens to be in the lead [politicalwire.com] here in California. No doubt from all the illegal Mexicans casting votes on behalf of dead people. I don't know why you were modded troll, California does have some power challenges and we might have money to properly fix them instead of buying school lunches and medical care for illegals and anchor babies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @12:38AM (2 children)
All the dead illegals are Hillary [and her successor] voters, not Sanders voters.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday December 10 2019, @12:42AM (1 child)
I'm kinda pleased Sanders is in the lead here. This state might as well be called the "deep state" with regards to its congressmen (except for a very pissed-off Devin Nunes) and we all know the deep state hates Boinie Sandahs.
The only problem is that Grand Emperor-for-Life Baraq Hussein Soetoro has stated explicitly that he will do whatever he can to stop a Bernie nomination -- and magical Negroes have throats of gold and fists of stone here in these parts.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday December 10 2019, @01:08AM
Officially, Obama will not do that. Probably:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2019/11/26/barack-obama-2020-democrats-candidates-biden-073025 [politico.com]
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/11/26/obama-privately-considered-leading-stop-bernie-campaign-combat-sanders-2020-surge [commondreams.org]
It will probably depend on the situation. But I think he skipped his chances to try and crush Sanders or Warren. Assuming that he would even be effective in doing so. Centrism is only popular with fearful Democrats.
Biden is still the guy to beat [realclearpolitics.com], but a lot can happen between now and February.
https://nypost.com/2019/12/09/democrats-pick-hillary-clinton-as-2020-frontrunner-in-new-party-poll/ [nypost.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday December 10 2019, @04:02PM
It's not either-or. California is a very wealthy state. Whoever told you you can't have electricity because of school lunch programs was just trying to distract you. Electricity is more profitable when it's scarce, you know.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday December 10 2019, @04:11PM
You mean the electricity shortages that started when California de-regulated its power industry and private corporations decided they could make a lot more money if their product was more scarce? I'm pretty sure that's how ISPs work now.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday December 09 2019, @07:54PM
They should leave the content providers alone. Internet service needs heavy public oversight.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @08:06PM (8 children)
Make the post office relevant again and nationalize the infrastructure.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday December 09 2019, @10:02PM
Anybody who uses Facebook or Twitter can never use the intarweb tubes again.
That would help the post office.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Monday December 09 2019, @10:58PM (6 children)
I can barely get those dickheads to deliver mail to the right physical address and you want to trust them with the internet?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @11:01PM (5 children)
Like most other utilities, they work in rest of the world just fine.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday December 09 2019, @11:46PM
"Working fine" does not mean "working efficiently".
To be more precise, the "efficiency" term is used in its "growth r..."... ummm, sorry, let's call it properly... "profit extraction rate" meaning ('cause what other meaning you think it makes sense in late capitalism?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by HiThere on Tuesday December 10 2019, @12:15AM (3 children)
The worked fine in the US until the idiots stripped the post office out of the government, and then laded it with lots of special rules. Like it, alone, must have a fully funded retirement package. (A fully funded retirement package is actually a good idea, but not if the competition doesn't carry equal baggage.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @12:11PM
The US Postal Service has always been an inefficient mess, long before they had to actually make sure their pensions could be actually be paid out. Just ask Lysander Spooner.
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Tuesday December 10 2019, @07:35PM (1 child)
That happened under a democrat president and majority senate. If you have a pension then it must be funded. Why is this same tired old excuse brought up? At least once a week I get mail for a completely different address. The people who deliver it claim they're not supposed to see if the address is correct or not. Who the fuck thinks that is a good idea? Several times they were off by one house so then the entire street is wrong.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday December 10 2019, @08:20PM
I don't know the reason, I know the results. I agree that the post office is not as good as it used to be. Simultaneously the carriers are paid less (in constant dollars).
When I was in college it was considered a desirable temporary job. And not really bad as a permanent job, if you didn't mind being out in all weather (not desirable, but not bad, either). But by the time I was a decade out of college it was no longer considered desirable. My guess is they can't hold on to anyone who can get a job elsewhere. And they make the rules to suit their presumptive job holders.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Monday December 09 2019, @08:30PM (17 children)
Do you really want your government in charge of this?
Ask the people in Flint if they want their water board doling out internet.
Ask a retired vet if they think the VA should do it.
Ask a CDL holder if the DOT should be in charge of it.
Ask someone from New Orleans if the Core of Engineers should have a crack at it.
Ask someone driving through Indianapolis if their Mayor should be in on the deal.
I am deeply skeptical of a nationwide shift from private sector to public sector internet service. Doubly so if it's going to impact wireline alternatives like the nascent Starlink network.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @08:37PM (1 child)
i agree with your skepticism. these corps are scum too though. the people have to take the power back from both.
(Score: 4, Informative) by HiThere on Tuesday December 10 2019, @12:25AM
When you say "people have to take power back from both", you neglect to provide a mechanism for a distributed grid.
A large part of the problem with government running things in the US is the number of people who want to "make government smaller" by selling off the pieces that could be profitable to groups that are run by asset strippers. They don't want to allow the government to operate efficiently, because that would interfere with their goal. (Which goal? It varies. Usually the asset strippers are able to determine the details to their own benefit while selling it to supporters as "making the government smaller".)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by krishnoid on Monday December 09 2019, @08:49PM
Good point. But I don't want <local cable company> responsible for managing water, veteran's medical care, transporation, levees, or running, uh, Animal Crossing. Or cable internet, for that matter.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @08:58PM (4 children)
Lol, easily solved by making the public option legal and still allowing private companies to lease bandwidth and/or provide their own infrastructure. If the public option is so terrible then people will pay for the private service.
You free market wackos always seem to forget the frequent problems with private companies while inflating the problems of government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @10:03PM (3 children)
The problem with a public option is that politicians will give regulatory ease to public providers to the detriment of private providers, eventually just outlaw private enterprises, like how private mass transit was killed in most places.
Far better to let private companies provide service, on open and public infrastructure.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday December 09 2019, @10:10PM
In America? Do you know how campaign contributions work? The opposite is what will happen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @01:40AM
The proof is already in, no it is not in any way better. Inflated prices for shitty equipment, massive lobbying to extract tax dollars, it is like the conservative nightmare but when wrapped in capitalism they can't help but fall for the pretty tissue paper.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday December 10 2019, @04:06PM
Look, either the government is too bureaucratic to get anything done efficiently, or it's too streamlined for private industry to compete. It can't be both.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Monday December 09 2019, @09:09PM
I want the government to be a fair and impartial referee of the various competitors striving to provide Internet access. And if there aren't enough players to make things competitive, then I want something done about that as well, even if that means providing the services themselves. I absolutely think the Post Office should have been involved in Internet services all along. It's not like private parcel delivery companies can't compete with them, or FedEx, UPS, and the like couldn't exist.
Who do you want in charge of our dams? The Corps of Engineers, or private companies? What happens when private companies are in control? Let's see, they cut corners, taking risks of which they do not understand the magnitude, then when things go wrong, they make excuses. You know, like with Deepwater Horizon and Fukushima. Did you know that there was yet another chemical plant explosion just last month, in Port Neches, Texas?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Monday December 09 2019, @09:31PM (1 child)
Yes. Government may not be the best (a benevolent dictator is best, but that never lasts) but they are better than a greedy corporation most days.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Tuesday December 10 2019, @12:19AM
Well, that depends on the incentive structures. But with private companies there are corporate raiders that buy companies simply to strip their assets. Sometimes they get the government to sell of pieces of itself so that they can strip those assets.
Government's no panacea, but current corporate behavior averages worse.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday December 09 2019, @09:36PM
Having seen the effects of privatisation of public services, my answer is "yes".
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday December 09 2019, @09:40PM
And then be sure to ask them if they want the most hated companies in the US doing it. [fortune.com]
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Monday December 09 2019, @09:51PM (2 children)
Government's role is to make good rules. They should ensure competition rather than a monopoly. Actually operating equipment and providing customer service is not something government needs to do. My condo building recently got fixed-point 5G internet as an alternative to cable. The result is a 30 % price drop and many times higher bandwidth. I know everyone hates the FCC, but somehow this is happening under their watch.
Regarding subsidized rural internet, the cost of living is much higher in cities to begin with. Why can't rural Americans pay for their low-density lifestyle? Raise the price of milk or something...
(Score: 2, Troll) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 10 2019, @12:50AM (1 child)
Except that's a local/state thing, not a Federal thing. The FCC has nothing to do with it.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday December 10 2019, @03:45AM
Coward, Anonymous said [soylentnews.org]:
Who decides which ISPs operate in local areas? State and local governments. Not the FCC.
The FCC sets national policy. It does not decide which ISPs get to be in which city, let alone which condo.
ISPs get franchise agreements and rights of way from local and state governments. The FCC isn't involved in any way in such things.
As such, when I said:
That's the literal truth. And for this, Coward, Anonymous [soylentnews.org] applies a 'troll' mod?
I don't really see how pointing that a particular governmental entity isn't responsible for your internet access choices constitutes trolling [urbandictionary.com].
Perhaps someone could explain it to me?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday December 09 2019, @10:00PM
All those things for lack of public interest and oversight, and yes, even antipathy.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @09:26PM
...by creating a giant centralized authority to put in charge of it on the federal level!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 09 2019, @10:15PM (1 child)
And they have the resources to do it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday December 09 2019, @11:51PM
As for the result of their attempt, as probable as it may be, it is still to be seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday December 09 2019, @11:46PM (3 children)
I use Bell and have unlimited internet (older grandfathered account): they don't seem to throttle me too much (because I pay my bills!?!??????) and I am 'happy' with them.
I've downloaded old Doctor Who (250GB+) and got it fairly quickly.
I pay more than I'd like, but am cheap, so....
Any way to get me cheaper internet would be good, but I'm happy with speed and throttling.
And Bell (with VPN) leaves me alone.
Now, if I could only get my wife to drop paying for TV...
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 10 2019, @01:42AM (2 children)
Now ask yourself why you only get good downloads and not uploads, and why their terms of service prevent you from running a server on your own connection.
It's ok, I'll wait while your brain processes through the logic. Here's a hint, bread and circuses.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday December 10 2019, @11:45AM
I have a plex server running that my family can access that Bell hasn't (yet) complained about.
Yet.
I hear you, though. We're fighting that here in Canada, too.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday December 10 2019, @04:13PM
It's just market economics. Most customers just want to consume funny cat videos. It's cheaper for them to design their infrastructure for downloads, especially when the vast majority of customers that need more uploads are businesses that are willing and able to pay more for better service.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?