Then let me ask you directly Rym: where is the demarcation point for nationalizing the internet? What constitutes the portion that needs to be nationalized and what portion is allowed to stay in private hands? Be as specific as possible.
I already said. All infrastructured owned by the large telephone, cable, and wireless companies. Just eminent domain those entire corporations. Break off the parts of those companies that perform other things. That means, for example, breaking up the NBC from the Comcast.
Omnutia - I like to fantasize that we're just in a typical backslide/regressive period as the US is wont to have over its 200 year history. I keep waiting for the pendulum swing back to sanity. Maybe it will come before we resemble a third world country entirely. (But I admit it's not looking very good.)
@Apreche - are you putting backbone companies like Level3 and the CDNs in that eminent domain bucket? What about Google Fiber?
I think that I would ask what we do with analogous companies with our current utilities. Like are power plants Nationalized? what about water treatment plant? Mining Companies? Sewage Treatment?
Now correct me if I am wrong here, and there is every chance that I might be, (My understanding in the internet's underlying infrastructure is pretty basic) but I thought that the ISPs don't actually own a significant portion of the Server space that is available to the public. they just own the bits that connect them. That's what we pay for, not the content, but the access. Just like the electric company, they don't make the power, at least not in all cases, they just deliver it.
Would not CDNs fall under this description, they are the water, the power not the delivery system. Why would they need to be nationalized?
Then let me ask you directly Rym: where is the demarcation point for nationalizing the water system? What constitutes the portion that needs to be nationalized and what portion is allowed to stay in private hands? Be as specific as possible.
I used to argue that ISPs should be nationalized, but a few months ago I had an interesting conversation with a coworker from England. He explained how the ISPs in the UK work, and it somewhat changed my view. Basically, nearly all of the infrastructure (trunk lines, fiber networks, etc) is semi-nationalized (technically owned by BT Wholesale, but overseen by the Office of Communications), and any potential ISP can resell it to end users (adding value-added stuff like colocation and bundles). That means that there's minimal lock-in and a lower barrier to entry for new competition (BT Wholesale is legally obligated to charge certain rates for last-mile ISPs). Also, if I recall correctly (and I may be wrong), it's possible for end users to buy directly from BT if there aren't any other ISPs they want to use in their area.
It's anecdotal, but after over a decade of speaking with a dozen or so friends in the UK, they universally complain that their internet is complete shit.
The Telecom Act of 1996 was supposed to do something like that. One of the goals was to split the market between wholesale and retail telephony. What happened was not so good.
The dream of deregulation was that new players would offer phone service. New players did enter the market but due to the way the law was written new players did not have to bring their own infrastructure. Some did (Covad, Choice One) but most simply resold the services of the existing Telcos.
How did that work? The Telcos were forced to resell network access for less than what they charged retail customers. So the new guys could come in and undercut the prices of the incumbents while reselling the incumbents products.
My company (at the time) was SNET and SNET made a legitimate attempt to split itself into a wholesale company and a retail subsidiary. It started to work well enough but the network was not able to generate enough revenue to upgrade the network. There was not enough money to be made as a wholesaler in the market. Then SBC bought us and the experiment ended.
The Telcos and Cable companies have been monopolies for far too long and their business model is built upon being a monopoly. Both types of companies are used to being gatekeepers of a sort who make their money off of usage charges. They didn't care so much when people just used the Internet for email and porn because those two things do not interfere with their core businesses. Things changed with Internet phone calls and Internet video services.
Why pay $30 a month for metered phone service when you can pay a couple of dollars for unlimited Skype calling? Why pay $70 a month for cable TV when Netflix and Hulu combined is only about $15?
This is why we need to have Net Neutrality. True Net Neutrality. It is also why I can not understand the judges decision which sounds like he was thinking, "if you don't like your ISP just use a different one." Which is bullshit because we have already seen that the ISPs are more interested in using the Internet as a cash cow than a dumb pipe.
Nationalizing is not the answer. Ma Bell was a quasi-nationalized phone service. Most of you were not alive when Ma Bell was in charge and it sucked back then. Service was crappy and expensive.
Basically, nearly all of the infrastructure (trunk lines, fiber networks, etc) is semi-nationalized (technically owned by BT Wholesale, but overseen by the Office of Communications), and any potential ISP can resell it to end users (adding value-added stuff like colocation and bundles).
This is very similar to how Australian ISP's work. The only reason I am with my current ISP is because they give me a great mobile plan (bought my phone separately), where all my mobile phone services and data plan is incredibly cheap, the ISP hosts the entire Steam library and has many official Valve servers. Data caps are a thing but I haven't hit a cap because I get 200gb a month.
The original plan for the "National Broadband Network" was for the government to put in place a fibre network that reached every premises in Australia, all ISP's were to provide unlimited data, ISP's basically are supposed to give you extras to attract you or other features.
It's anecdotal, but after over a decade of speaking with a dozen or so friends in the UK, they universally complain that their Internet is complete shit.
When I lived in the UK, the data caps were quite low. Many people used cable but because of the immense population density and poor infrastructure, the Internet speeds would go at a crawl during peak times and be acceptable during work hours.
The real issue here is that the internet as a tool is just beginning to scare all the old school media platforms. TV, Phone, even Radio are all wetting their pants at the idea that no one will need them in the coming years, and they should be.
This wouldn't be such a bad thing except that the ISPs are owned in large part by the same people who are currently soiling themselves. There is a real conflict of interests here, which is why I think they really will need to be regulated in some fashion whether its by classifying them as a utility or some other solution.
The government or the public at large are going to have to make them do the right thing.
Government is too chicken to reclassify them and the legacy companies have been moving everything to IP because of the lack of regulation. Expect a major shitstorm if anyone in government suggests a classification change.
Comments
Now correct me if I am wrong here, and there is every chance that I might be, (My understanding in the internet's underlying infrastructure is pretty basic) but I thought that the ISPs don't actually own a significant portion of the Server space that is available to the public. they just own the bits that connect them. That's what we pay for, not the content, but the access. Just like the electric company, they don't make the power, at least not in all cases, they just deliver it.
Would not CDNs fall under this description, they are the water, the power not the delivery system. Why would they need to be nationalized?
The reason I like this setup is that it enforces low rates and promotes a competitive market while still allowing ISPs to make money (and thus provides pretty good incentives for them). Also, most importantly, this setup has shown to get results. Ofcom's numbers for 2013 are staggeringly good compared to what I get for similar prices in NYC.
The dream of deregulation was that new players would offer phone service. New players did enter the market but due to the way the law was written new players did not have to bring their own infrastructure. Some did (Covad, Choice One) but most simply resold the services of the existing Telcos.
How did that work? The Telcos were forced to resell network access for less than what they charged retail customers. So the new guys could come in and undercut the prices of the incumbents while reselling the incumbents products.
My company (at the time) was SNET and SNET made a legitimate attempt to split itself into a wholesale company and a retail subsidiary. It started to work well enough but the network was not able to generate enough revenue to upgrade the network. There was not enough money to be made as a wholesaler in the market. Then SBC bought us and the experiment ended.
The Telcos and Cable companies have been monopolies for far too long and their business model is built upon being a monopoly. Both types of companies are used to being gatekeepers of a sort who make their money off of usage charges. They didn't care so much when people just used the Internet for email and porn because those two things do not interfere with their core businesses. Things changed with Internet phone calls and Internet video services.
Why pay $30 a month for metered phone service when you can pay a couple of dollars for unlimited Skype calling? Why pay $70 a month for cable TV when Netflix and Hulu combined is only about $15?
This is why we need to have Net Neutrality. True Net Neutrality. It is also why I can not understand the judges decision which sounds like he was thinking, "if you don't like your ISP just use a different one." Which is bullshit because we have already seen that the ISPs are more interested in using the Internet as a cash cow than a dumb pipe.
Nationalizing is not the answer. Ma Bell was a quasi-nationalized phone service. Most of you were not alive when Ma Bell was in charge and it sucked back then. Service was crappy and expensive.
The original plan for the "National Broadband Network" was for the government to put in place a fibre network that reached every premises in Australia, all ISP's were to provide unlimited data, ISP's basically are supposed to give you extras to attract you or other features. When I lived in the UK, the data caps were quite low. Many people used cable but because of the immense population density and poor infrastructure, the Internet speeds would go at a crawl during peak times and be acceptable during work hours.
This wouldn't be such a bad thing except that the ISPs are owned in large part by the same people who are currently soiling themselves. There is a real conflict of interests here, which is why I think they really will need to be regulated in some fashion whether its by classifying them as a utility or some other solution.
The government or the public at large are going to have to make them do the right thing.