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 Meanwhile the telephone companies have totally withdrawn.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: 1) by migz on Thursday April 03 2014, @12:55PM
I agree that oligopolists like Comcast have unfounded power to prohibit me from competing. The ONLY way Comcast can do this is through regulation, granted by government, and government alone, that grants an artificial license to allow them to do something and prohibits me from doing it. Those regulations need to go away.
We don't need more regulations e.g. net neutrality laws. We just need the freedom to self-provisions. Then they can go fly a kite.
You do understand that this is the telcos, asking government to give them tax payers money? Won't anybody think of the poor who can't afford internet access? How will the corporations make money off the poor? I know! Let's screw the tax-payers again!
(Score: 1) by urza9814 on Thursday April 03 2014, @01:27PM
The problem with government is corporations and the problem with corporations is government. Brilliant.
In the absence of government corporations would find other ways to impose their will on you. The difference between a government and a corporation is that a government asserts an exclusive right to use violent force within some geographic area. Now, should the government give up that right, you think nobody else will try to take it? You think corporations won't be hiring armed guards? You think they can't afford it? They'll just jack up prices. They have power, you do not, and you will lose every time.
We need to get rid of government, but we need to get rid of corporations first. Otherwise you'll just wind up paying taxes to News Corp. And without the corporations we *may* find we don't need to get rid of government after all. Although I kinda doubt that.
Wipe out both and establish a federation of cooperatives.
(Score: 1) by migz on Thursday April 03 2014, @02:04PM
It's called fascism.
Corporations as juristic persons only exist because of government.
The government does not have and exclusive right to use violence. They may claim it, they may do it, but that does not make it a right.
Who has the power? From where I'm standing the elephant in the room is government, not the corporations.
Who is going to protect you from that big massive overarching corporation that can sell you stuff you don't want, take what they like, and use force? Your answer is government? Well the name of that overarching corporation is The Government!
And yes, smaller units of voluntary association would be better.