Capitalism in action. If you remove government regulation you don’t get a free market utopia all you get is an ugly race to the bottom in pursuit of more and more profit.

Laissez-faire capitalism. FIFY. Reasonably regulated (for consumer protection and to prevent against anti-competitive practices) capitalism in a fair and open market would be peachy. We can has fair and open market? Pic of begging kitten

We have seen that in every segment it’s been deregulated (not like history, or even a quick game of monopoly doesn’t provide enough examples) a few at the top make out like bandits and the rest….. well it isn’t so pretty.

And each time that happened the apologists said one of two things. 1) They’re doin’ it wrong, or 2) if you wanna make an omelette, you gotta break some eggs.

At no point will they ever acknowledge that their entire approach is wrong because… something something holy writ something ideological purity, you socialist!

Broadband is a natural_monopoly. Monopolies, natural or otherwise, need to be regulated. Anyone who doesn’t see that hasn’t been paying attention (or is profiting off that monopoly). Why are ISP’s (Verizon, ATT&T) trying so hard to ditch fixed line POTS? Because they are regulated as Common Carriers (Title II). Well that and the ridiculously under_regulated wireless market.

Yes, but as the esteemed Mason Wheeler and others have told us, they need to be treated as municipal utilities.

Why invest in infrastructure to provide a better, faster, more capable experience? More innovations, jobs, economic growth and prosperity, a higher standard of living… nah. It’s easier and more profitable (at least in the near term) to leverage your monopoly position to squeeze higher and higher profits out of worse and worse service. Just look what happened when the last Verizon CEO wanted to convert to fiber (a good solid long term strategy) to position Verizon to offer better, more sustainable service for years to come. Short term Wall St. investors crucified him for wasting money that could have been paid out in the current quarter.

Which is why they shouldn’t have control of infrastructure. Where were the free market enthusiasts to denounce them? Crickets

Broadband is a utility. It needs to be regulated like one. Water, roads, electric, telephone, broadband all utilities, all need to be regulated for the greater good of the country.

Yep. But do allow some competition to avoid nepotism and wasteful spending on “consultants,” etc. You don’t want to swap one type of corruption for another.

If Verizon, CableVision, Time Warner, AT&T, etc. don’t want to be regulated as the common carriers that they are, fine. There’s the door. Just remember to leave the tax payer bought and paid for infrastructure there on your way out. It’s not like they’ve been doing such a bang up job taking care of it anyway.

Damn straight!

Being an ISP isn’t a sexy business, but it is a needed one.

Consolidation and centralization are worrying trends and we need to fight it where we find it.

Reclassify Broadband providers as “Common Carriers”.

Split any companies into a portion that handles the internet/telephony and everything else. [while your are at it do the same with the cable and satellite television companies]

It might be easier to separate the highways from the vehicles, as it were. Let municipalities, etc., have the right to run the infrastructure and let competition over connectivity suppliers increase.

Internet Service Providers should do just that, be a company that manages/upgrades/maintains the “pipes” in other words provides access to the internet. Allow any number of companies to offer internet features/functions on those pipes (email, telephony, web hosting, file hosting, video, etc.).

Tax (yes I said the ugly “T” word) everyone to maintain the shared infrastructure. It’s nothing new. We have a gas tax to help maintain the highway system, a 911 tax to help fund 911 service, we could use another one to help offset the cost of maintaining the infrastructure. Users would be charged a reasonable amount for internet access based on the level (speed) they want. Nothing for slow/emergency access (think 1/1 service for the poor and elderly) more for 10/10, 100/100, 1000/1000, etc. With an internet surcharge that goes to fund the backbone.

I’d call it “connectivity provider” to prevent confusion. The actual services would be your features and function providers, etc.

Current telcoms will absolutely hate it. Which only goes to prove that it’s the right thing to do. Everyone else will love it.

If we do it properly. If we end up with the opposite evil, i.e. a corrupt local monopoly, people won’t thank you. We need a way of holding connectivity providers to account if they fall short of their stated goals.

As they say, “A rising tide lifts all boats”. Faster, more stable, reliable internet access will improve jobs, medicine, education, etc. We managed to get electricity, running water, telephone service to pretty much the entire country in ages past.

That’s because we didn’t have a nationwide mania for laissez-faire, hatred of government on principle, and an irrational fear of socialism so intense that the word is practically synonymous with “pedophile” or “terrorist.”

There’s no reason we can’t do the same with broadband (and no, cellular/satellite service is not a realistic replacement for fixed line broadband). We just have to put an end to the dysfunctional disincentives that reward companies for holding back the rest of the country in the selfish pursuit of larger profits for themselves.

There is a reason… the misguided pursuit of laissez-faire economics in the teeth of the evidence of over two hundred years that it doesn’t freakin’ work… for the majority. The fact that it makes a few lucky sociopaths rich is what keeps it going, and that’s why we’re here, at the logical endpoint.

If you want the people to accept it, whatever the cost to themselves, you’ve got to make them afraid of even discussing alternatives by creating a bogeyman and relating any alternative to it. Convince them that their personal freedom depends on their solutions. Job done.

If you want to get even the religious on board, you’ve got to convince them it’s a moral issue. Finito. Next.

And if you want people to dismiss empirical evidence while proclaiming that it has intellectual respectability, work in as many pretentious turns of phrase and pseudo-mathematical equations based on theory alone as you can. Complete.

So there you go. Unless you can get people to properly evaluate the way they think without freaking out at the notion of actually thinking, nothing will change.