ISPs seek halt of net neutrality rules before they take effect next month - eviltoast
  • Arsonistic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    As they exist right now, definitely. But making Internet a govermentally run service is also likely to turn out bad. The best method so far, based on what other countries are doing, seems to be public infrastructure, that any ISP can then sell service through. This prevents monopolies and creates competition in the market, which tends to result in better service for the users.

    Edit: public as in anybody can use it to provide service, not as in governmentally managed. Just to force a separation to prevent monopolies.

    • jorp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      What do we need ISPs competing on if the infrastructure is run by the government? They can’t increase speeds, they can’t increase service availability, they’ll just be getting a profit margin on top of what the government is charging them to use the communications infrastructure. I’d rather just pay the government the pre-profit amount

      • Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        The infrastructure would be things like fiber cable wired to each house.

        But in this scenario, the ISPs would be manning the servers that your connection is routed through. So they’d still have massive influence on the speed and data.

        If the government owned the servers, they could block and track down anything against state interest.

        Not saying they can’t do that anyways, but at least the third party makes the process more difficult, less seamless, and gives the chance of new competitors.

      • Arsonistic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Maybe I didn’t explain it the best way possible. By public I didn’t mean governmentally run, I just meant that anybody can use the infrastructure. It just forces a separation between the company doing the infrastructure and the ISPs, to prevent monopolies.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      So make the internet into a state service for ISPs? It might not be worse but it could be much better.

      Imagine if they did this for water pipes.

      • Arsonistic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Maybe I didn’t explain it the best way. By public I didn’t mean governmentally run, I just meant that anybody can use the infrastructure. It just forces a separation between the company doing the infrastructure and the ISPs, to prevent monopolies.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      They’re welcome to compete with the government utility. But I want a government utility isp. One I get a say in as a voter, not merely as a customer