Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
from the cue-the-America-is-too-big-apologists dept.
Ezra Klein of Vox.com interviews Susan Crawford about treating the internet as a utility. Crawford is the author of Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry & Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age. Former Special Assistant to president Obama on Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, she may well be the Telecomm Lobby's enemy #1.
From the interview:
We need a public option for internet access because internet access is just like electricity or a road grid. This is something that the private market doesn't provide left to its own devices. What they'll do is systematically provide extraordinarily expensive services for the richest people in America, leave out a huge percentage of the population and, in general, try to make their own profits at the expense of social good.
When it comes to fiber penetration - that's the world class kind of network we should have - we're behind Sweden, Estonia, Korea, Hong Kong, Japan. A whole host of other developed countries. We should be looking the rest of the world in the rearview mirror. Instead, for more than 77% of Americans, their only choice for a high capacity connection is their local cable monopoly. So just as we have a postal service that's a public option for communications in the form of mail, we also need public options in every city for very high-capacity, very high-speed fiber internet access. That way we'll make sure and we can compete with every other nation in the 21st century.
What happens is that we deregulated this entire sector about 10 years ago and the cable guys already had exclusive franchises across across the country. They were able to very inexpensively upgrade those to pretty high-speed internet access connections. Meanwhile the telephone companies have totally withdrawn. They have copper line in the ground and it's expensive for them to build and replace it with fiber. Because of both deregulation and sweeping consolidation in the cable industry we've ended up on this plateau where for about 80% of Americans their only choice for a high-capacity internet access connection is their local cable monopoly.
In a sense I'm trying to have it both ways. This is by nature a monopoly. It really makes sense to have one wire going to your house. The problem is we've gotten stuck with the wrong wire. We've got a cable wire and it should be fiber and it should be then shared by lots of competitors. That's what drives prices down. If you hand the one company the ability to control that market they'll just reap their rewards and price discriminate and make lots of profits.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Thursday April 03 2014, @03:07AM
This.
We already see this mentality exhibited, (sometimes here on SN as well as that other place), that you have no expectation of privacy while driving on the street.
You can be monitored, have your license plate scanned, and your papers demanded on a whim.
On a county road. Paid for by local taxes.
Anything provided by any level of government is fair game for all levels of government. There is no way to keep the federal government from grabbing 100% of the data. After all, you put it in a public place. You can't claim privacy any more.
Logically having government provide fiber backbones to the curb side just like they provide roads and water and sewer.
But until we can get our government under control we dare not trust them with our communications.
Discussion should abhor vacuity, as space does a vacuum.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by urza9814 on Thursday April 03 2014, @11:38AM
Isn't this why we say: USE ENCRYPTION!
I don't trust Verizon or Cox (my only two options) any more than I trust the US Government. In fact, I may even trust them less -- one of the fed's favorite tactics for violating the constitution is to let private contractors do it, since they aren't always bound by the same rules.
The NSA *already* watches everything we do, with the full cooperation of the corporate network owners -- so saying you won't accept a government network because they'll spy on you doesn't seem like a valid argument. We have a strong suspicion it'll happen on a government network, but we KNOW it will happen on a corporate one!
What we really need is something vaguely equivalent to credit unions. Give every subscriber a vote on any major decisions along with a share of any profits. Perhaps with some taxes on the wealthy ones paid to the poorer ones, because otherwise there's no way in hell the ten person ISP union you'd end up with in some of the villages in rural Pennsylvania where I grew up would have any hope of connecting to anyone else...
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday April 03 2014, @02:32PM
Except we DON't use encryption that much, and encryption isn't that safe. SSL is hopelessly compromised. Encrypted Email is almost unheard of in real life.
Discussion should abhor vacuity, as space does a vacuum.
(Score: 1) by Open4D on Thursday April 03 2014, @12:02PM
Count me in. Piloting a ton of metal at life-threatening speeds on a public road is definitely a matter of public interest IMO.
Any arguments about which layer of government is responsible for which roads is secondary; we probably come from different countries so we would be talking at cross purposes if we were to get into that.
Note, I am only referring to the driver, not the passengers.
And lots of other privacy invasions (like Internet snooping - to bring this back on topic somewhat) should be avoided even if it means higher crime.