I posted this article because I was interested to see what HN thinks on the issue of having broadband as a public utility.
Sure, you get faster internet because you're handing over control and subsidization to government, but then you're taking something that really should be in the hands of every private individual and allowing the government to get its hands into something that has traditionally been defined by open access and freedom.
Personally I'm very happy with my private fiber service and would much rather have a private company with consumer interests (supposedly) at stake instead of simply plugging into Big-Brother Net.
It would be naive to think the government isn't already monitoring, scraping, and sniffing every corner of the net that they can. However, it has to be a much easier pathway to abuse once Internet service leaves the hands of private enterprise.
Your first point is simply the tired old ideology of "government bad, private enterprise good". Municipal governments already run a number of public utilities which are far more important and critical than broadband, so there's no reason to think they would not do a good job with internet.
Your second point is just plain stupid. If a government makes it lawful to snoop, it won't make any kind of difference who controls the servers - ISPs are not going to start breaking the law of the land on behalf of their customers.
For sake of argument, let's say that everyone's abiding by the rules and the government's ultimate goal is to have as much access to private data as possible. Which method do you think is easier?
"We're doing you a favor!" - own the network by marketing ridiculously cheap subsidized internet with extremely high-speeds.
"We're taking away your freedom" - change the rules by forcing privacy-violating legislation past the house and senate
This is a strange mixture of paranoia and naiveté. On the one hand you suppose that the government's goal is to snoop on everyone, but on the other you ignore that they have already been caught doing that with the willing participation of private telcos. (FISA, warrantless wiretapping, etc.)
Putting telecommunication service in the hands of municipalities reduces the possibility of diabolical eves-dropping schemes for all the same reasons that it's less efficient than private enterprise: it's decentralized and it's run by incompetent local government.
I would much rather have the local city doing something than AT&T (et al.). I find it absurd to think that you have a greater amount of influence and trust that a huge corporation has your interests in mind than a democratically elected local government.
The mere idea that a corporation would be run with the consumer interest in mind is weird. I do believe corporations are designed to maximize profits, not to maximize public interest. And maximizing profits means screwing over the rural communities, just like described in the article and just like private health care means screwing over those in poor health.
The local city government is at least required to maximize their number of votes to stay in business.
Sure, you get faster internet because you're handing over control and subsidization to government, but then you're taking something that really should be in the hands of every private individual and allowing the government to get its hands into something that has traditionally been defined by open access and freedom.
Personally I'm very happy with my private fiber service and would much rather have a private company with consumer interests (supposedly) at stake instead of simply plugging into Big-Brother Net.
It would be naive to think the government isn't already monitoring, scraping, and sniffing every corner of the net that they can. However, it has to be a much easier pathway to abuse once Internet service leaves the hands of private enterprise.