Big Idea: Make High Speed Internet a Public Utility like Running Water

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I think this is an idea worth fleshing out.  I’m not sure if I’m for or against it yet but I’ve come up with some reasons for it.

The main reason is economic security.

If anyone has left the rural and poor populations behind in the global interconnected economy, it’s the Internet service providers.   

I’m not arguing for a big government takeover of the Internet.  It can be managed locally or through public/private partnerships. We can debate logistics later.

High speed (T1 or better) has been around for at least 20 years now but the costs have only gone up and if you live in the sticks, have fun getting ripped off by slow Hughes net.  The private sector, for whatever reason, has failed to deliver where an assist from the government could go a long way to level the playing field between the urban and rural areas in the digital economy.

As an analogy, our Internet economy is currently operating without a federal interstate system.

Why don’t we build the digital interstates while lowering the costs for consumers?

It would no doubt pay for itself over time.

Edited February 15, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

Yes. Just like an interstate system was beneficial for business and personal uses and allowed growth, a high speed utility would allow for that same boost without attempted monopolization from giant telecoms. 

Next issue.

[Js1 86945]

Yes.

Next issue the surly brigade needs to solve? 

[TexArcher 38816]

I like the idea in theory.

But you know Fox News would spin this as, "look at the socialist libs destroying yet another sector of the free market!" And, ironically, a lot of country folks that this would help would vote against the candidate who puts this on his/her platform.

[Js1 86945]

7 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

I like the idea in theory.

But you know Fox News would spin this as, "look at the socialist libs destroying yet another sector of the free market!" And, ironically, a lot of country folks that this would help would vote against the candidate who puts this on his/her platform.

Duh?

Hillary already had that plan in 2016, to ensure everyone had access to high-speed internet by 2020.  

10% of Americans don't have access to high-speed internet.  When you go to the rural communities, it's 4x that. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by Js1

[Captainant 28393]

This isn't a big idea. If you are hosting a service or website you're paying the same for the bandwidth no matter who it's going to, or what the content of the data is. TCP is just packets, there's no intrinsic cost to sending one packet over another packet from any one sender to any one receiver.

The fundamental networking protocol of routing traffic always favors the fastest path, so if some ISP's routing hops are getting slower (and the user isn't using the ISP's dogshit DNS servers), then their requests will start to go through a faster route, if available. It's designed to be as evenly distributed as possible, with absolute generic packet-based communication, so it has very high resiliency. 

The cost of data (meaning, volume of network traffic) is CHEAP in a datacenter, which has significantly higher SLA's and contractual obligations with regard to performance. There's absolutely zero reason for home internet service to be the dogshit that it is in the US - aside from corporate greed and regulatory capture.

[bad_teammate 13481]

There are three companies that control the "last mile" connections from the backbone to the home:
- Comcast
- Time Warner
- Verizon

Oh wait.... make that two:
- Comcast/TimeWarner
- Verizon

We need public ISPs and public control of the last mile.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This isn't a big idea.

obviously not to you but if a democrat or republican started campaigning on it...

[Captainant 28393]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

There are three companies that control the "last mile" connections from the backbone to the home:
- Comcast
- Time Warner
- Verizon

Oh wait.... make that two:
- Comcast/TimeWarner
- Verizon

We need public ISPs and public control of the last mile.

Also worth noting, ISP's have received 400 BILLION ALREADY to build out fiber connectivity to homes and haven't done dick. It's infuriating that they've managed to push everyone else out of even being able to compete by controlling access to telephone poles and existing PUBLICLY FUNDED infrastructure

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

obviously not to you but if a democrat or republican started campaigning on it...

Of course, but I'm just saying that there is not a technical reason why this shouldn't be the case. It's literally the status-quo of how the internet and distributed network traffic works.

[52-80 19376]

no HD porn for you, farmboi

[Revolution512 1512]

Most poles are owned by the power company attached, otherwise the telecom that placed it is the permitting entity and rightfully so. You can avoid both by placing fiber underground but that is extremely expensive and time consuming.

Why are there only a couple of major players in the telecom world? Because they have the money to build it. Grande or someone of that size would never take on building into rural areas on hopes and dreams of future return. Really none of them would.

Google claims to be rich and even they couldn’t handle the cost. Can you get them all to work together and minimize cost while benefiting them all? That would be the dream. But they won’t and never will.

[Captainant 28393]

Just now, Revolution512 said:

Why are there only a couple of major players in the telecom world? Because they have the money to build it. Grande or someone of that size would never take on building into rural areas on hopes and dreams of future return. Really none of them would.

Except they didn't build any of what they're running on. They bought rights to poles and conduits and forced out the competition by starving them them of access to customers. Everything they do is in service of their monopolistic and trust behavior, and rural areas have had a tax collected on their behalf since the 90's on each of our internet bills. The ISP's were authorized decades ago to collect additional fees for network improvements and last mile to rural customers, and then pocketed the money and did nothing to meet their obligations. And because of their lobbying and regulatory capture, they have no accountability for that failure.

[F250 29177]

36 minutes ago, Captainant said:

This isn't a big idea. If you are hosting a service or website you're paying the same for the bandwidth no matter who it's going to, or what the content of the data is. TCP is just packets, there's no intrinsic cost to sending one packet over another packet from any one sender to any one receiver.

The fundamental networking protocol of routing traffic always favors the fastest path, so if some ISP's routing hops are getting slower (and the user isn't using the ISP's dogshit DNS servers), then their requests will start to go through a faster route, if available. It's designed to be as evenly distributed as possible, with absolute generic packet-based communication, so it has very high resiliency. 

The cost of data (meaning, volume of network traffic) is CHEAP in a datacenter, which has significantly higher SLA's and contractual obligations with regard to performance. There's absolutely zero reason for home internet service to be the dogshit that it is in the US - aside from corporate greed and regulatory capture.

This was like reading about the peanuts in peanut butter in discussion about strawberry jam versus grape.

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11856]

Just don’t put city of Austin in charge locally, or you’ll be boiling your routers.  

[Captainant 28393]

1 minute ago, F250 said:

This was like reading about the peanuts in peanut butter in discussion about strawberry jam versus grape.

... I don't follow? ISP's exist to serve traffic to you from domains and IP's you request. It costs the ISP the same to serve you one TCP packet from their servers as it does from anyone else's servers. There is no good reason that ISP's cap data or treat traffic differently depending on the source. It's entirely relevant because it's the foundation on which they're supposedly making the decision that they do

[bad_teammate 13481]

14 minutes ago, Revolution512 said:

Can you get them all to work together and minimize cost while benefiting them all? That would be the dream. But they won’t and never will.

Yep, which is why it should be treated and handled as a public utility.

[Mole 4338]

Just to provide a rural perspective, where I live it’s cheaper, faster, and more reliable to run off a phone hotspot than it is to pay for an ISP.

[bad_teammate 13481]

1 minute ago, Mole said:

Just to provide a rural perspective, where I live it’s cheaper, faster, and more reliable to run off a phone hotspot than it is to pay for an ISP.

As long as the bits get there and away at high speed, wired vs. wireless doesn't really matter.

[Incredulity 11861]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

As long as the bits get there and away at high speed, wired vs. wireless doesn't really matter.

But that makes the whole "last mile" OMFG freak out irrelevant.

[Captainant 28393]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

As long as the bits get there and away at high speed, wired vs. wireless doesn't really matter.

Except in the FCC's regulatory structure treats them as different services. So it unfortunately does matter.

[bad_teammate 13481]

Just now, Incredulity said:

But that makes the whole "last mile" OMFG freak out irrelevant.

I've read this entire thread and I have no idea what "OMFG freak out" you're talking about. People seem to be discussing all of this calmly and rationally.

 

[Incredulity 11861]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

I've read this entire thread and I have no idea what "OMFG freak out" you're talking about. People seem to be discussing all of this calmly and rationally.

 

every shag/surl thread about NN.

[bad_teammate 13481]

Just now, Captainant said:

Except in the FCC's regulatory structure treats them as different services. So it unfortunately does matter.

Regulatory structures and guidelines can change, and should if the technology and circumstances merit.

[bad_teammate 13481]

Just now, Incredulity said:

every shag/surl thread about NN.

Then go to those threads with your tone policing BS.

[TwiceHorn 31991]

Seems pretty analogous to the Rural Electrification Project.  I guess someone should study up on how that was done and proceed accordingly.

[Foosters 18226]

1 hour ago, TexArcher said:

I like the idea in theory.

But you know Fox News would spin this as, "look at the socialist libs destroying yet another sector of the free market!" And, ironically, a lot of country folks that this would help would vote against the candidate who puts this on his/her platform.

Dude, if someone proposed the idea of public libraries today, what do you think would happen? The right would bury it as a socialist takeover of the private publishing industry.

The only reason we have them, is because they existed long enough before "conservatives" went full fucking regard.

[Brian Fantana 6856]

Should be a no brainer at this point.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

Good idea. I’m down. Being right wing like I am doesn’t mean being opposed to infrastructure necessary for growth and security 

[Parliament 14561]

We're closer to a "free public" option than you may know. 4G Obamaphones. Cap it at a reasonable level. If you go over, you gotta find a Starbucks or library.

Now if you're talking about nationalizing hard wire, that's totally unnecessary.

[Captainant 28393]

3 minutes ago, Parliament said:

Now if you're talking about nationalizing hard wire, that's totally unnecessary.

We don't have to nationalize it, but ISP's should be classified as title II common carriers, because they fit the definition to a tee.

[Leeroy Jenkins 2475]

Bring on 5G mother fuckers. 

[Captainant 28393]

1 minute ago, Leeroy Jenkins said:

Bring on 5G mother fuckers. 

Enjoy getting 10GB of "premium" bandwidth, and then getting charged $15/GB past that. Or getting throttled past 10GB/mo even with an unlimited plan (fuck you AT&T).

Because wireless data is COMPLETELY different compared to wired data according to the FCC.

[gmr548 16681]

If the majority of the American public realized that we get shittier internet service for higher prices than the rest of the first world... Well, nevermind, because that's common knowledge with healthcare and it doesn't matter to 40 percent of the country. We get what we deserve.

Edited February 15, 2019 by gmr548

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Our healthcare is pretty damn elite.  You get a bad disease, you want to be treated here.  

[elfenix 34658]

52 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Our healthcare is pretty damn elite.  You get a bad disease, you want to be treated here.  

csb

[DaysOff 8157]

Our biggest mistake was letting cable companies get involved as a a provider.

[Captainant 28393]

4 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

Our biggest mistake was letting cable companies get involved as a a provider.

It was sort of unavoidable unfortunately. Most houses are wired for cable when they're built, and most internet signals (meaning, broadband, DSL, etc) come in over a coaxial cable. So, they already had the infrastructure for internet in place, just needed to update the connecting systems.

It's also informative of why the regulation around them is so fucky - because the service providers are piggybacking on the cable infrastructure they built (which when it was laid, wasn't meant to serve internet traffic) to serve internet traffic and pocket the extra fees off the top that are meant for connecting rural customers, and then turbofuck rural customers anyway.

[elfenix 34658]

uh, DSL comes in over twisted copper pair. 

 

it's an accident of history that there's 3 lines that come into your house that could potentially carry data - the power, cable, and phone lines.  of those, the phone line is the least capable, and the power is the most.  but for the expectation by most consumers of being able to have all 3 connections (even if they aren't all used) and telco's usage of government fuckery to disable internet over powerline, you would probably only lay out power lines if you were building out a neighborhood today. 

 

 

edit: the ISPs' argument that they are providing an information service because they provide DNS is laughable.  that would be like the phone company arguing that POTS is an information service because they send you a phone book. 

Edited February 15, 2019 by elfenix

[RDCanecutter 26854]

I use only bottled internet.

[pacman 7491]

As if We the People could ever defeat Big Cable to get a common sense idea through...nevertheless, you are spot on 

[CO Horn 172]

We have fiber internet service from our city owned utility company.  1GB for $50/month forever.  Prior to that I was paying $80 to Comcast for 10MB. At work we pay $100/month for 50MB down/10Mb up.  Other cities in Colorado are looking at doing the same.

[F250 29177]

3 minutes ago, CO Horn said:

We have fiber internet service from our city owned utility company.  1GB for $50/month forever.  Prior to that I was paying $80 to Comcast for 10MB. At work we pay $100/month for 50MB down/10Mb up.  Other cities in Colorado are looking at doing the same.

A few years ago I consulted for a utility here in Texas that was considering trying this out. They already had fiber laid out all over the city, including rural areas. It wouldn't have been difficult for them to provide internet service from an infrastructure perspective but they never got city approval.

[Deej 77673]

34 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

I use only bottled internet.

Me, too. I hate it when my internet smells like zebra mussels.

[TwiceHorn 31991]

3 minutes ago, F250 said:

A few years ago I consulted for a utility here in Texas that was considering trying this out. They already had fiber laid out all over the city, including rural areas. It wouldn't have been difficult for them to provide internet service from an infrastructure perspective but they never got city approval. outspent by the incumbent cable operator at city hall.

Fify.

Edited February 15, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Brew 3049]

A number of the utility companies in my area provide phone, internet, etc. Due to regulations on consistent losses in TN it took a couple of the bigger ones proving it could be done before a bunch of others followed suit.

[workswithseed 2201]

15 hours ago, Foosters said:

Dude, if someone proposed the idea of public libraries today, what do you think would happen? The right would bury it as a socialist takeover of the private publishing industry.

The only reason we have them, is because they existed long enough before "conservatives" went full fucking regard.

I mean who goes to public libraries anymore?

[RayDog 682]

21 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Seems pretty analogous to the Rural Electrification Project.  I guess someone should study up on how that was done and proceed accordingly.

Beto already campaigned on this basic idea in Texas making a rural internet project equivalent to rural electrification. Of course, while public funding was assumed as part of the effort, the public vs. Private management and control is to be determined, possibly at the state and local level. 

Sounds like a great idea. Two of the best countries for Internet for everyone in Europe are Romania and Bulgaria because they put everyone on fiber before other countries.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Fancy that.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[relapse98 634]

I'm with her on getting a fiber connection to every house. Then we differ. I think the free market should be able to provide the services on top of that fiber. So everyone gets a wire, then they choose if they want Spectrum, texas.net, etc to provide internet and other services on it.

[bad_teammate 13481]

I've said it many times, but seriously... anyone who doesn't have Warren #1 or #2 needs to fucking fight me in a Spec's parking lot.