5 ms·

You can still connect to a low speed ISP much in the same way that people banned from Twitter or YouTube can still use much smaller platforms with a lower reach

by yantz 8y ago

You can still connect to a low speed ISP much in the same way that people banned from Twitter or YouTube can still use much smaller platforms with a lower reach.

rootusrootus 8y ago
My tax dollars helped pay for the infrastructure that the ISP is selling me service over. It's a little different from Twitter or Youtube, who are just a site on the Internet.
- yantz 8y ago
  Your tax dollars helped pay for the development of the Internet and many of the technologies that those sites and services use today.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    Sure, the development of the technology, but not the actual services themselves. The difference with the local ISP is that my tax dollars actually helped pay for the physical plant. And through my gov't I give them actual physical right-of-way to lay cables and maintain them. This is a very important distinction that does not apply to a soft service on the 'net somewhere. Now, if my tax dollars helped pay for Twitter's datacenter, then now we have something to talk about. And perhaps in the state where Twitter is, they got tax breaks which amount to effectively a subsidy from the citizenry. In that case I think it's time to take the case to court.
    - yantz 8y ago
      The physical plant was made a long time ago and was a one-time investment, like arpanet back in the day, or for example investigation made by universities using public grants that helped develop video codecs that are now in use by sites like youtube. So yes, it's the same.
- wuliwong 8y ago
  I kinda agree with both you and 'yantz'. I think there is government subsidy in both cases and I also agree with you that the government subsidy muddies the waters a bit. I am someone who believes that private businesses should be free to discriminate with regards to whom they provide service but we are faced with varying degrees of subsidization and I'm not sure where you would draw the line. Another issue is that there is really no non-subsidized alternate choice of note to these corporations at this level in the United States. These large corporations lobby and help craft favorable legislation on a continual bases. There is a very complex and murky relationship between the large corporations in the United States and the various governing bodies.

by yantz 8y ago

You can still connect to a low speed ISP much in the same way that people banned from Twitter or YouTube can still use much smaller platforms with a lower reach.

rootusrootus 8y ago

My tax dollars helped pay for the infrastructure that the ISP is selling me service over. It's a little different from Twitter or Youtube, who are just a site on the Internet.

yantz 8y ago
Your tax dollars helped pay for the development of the Internet and many of the technologies that those sites and services use today.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  Sure, the development of the technology, but not the actual services themselves. The difference with the local ISP is that my tax dollars actually helped pay for the physical plant. And through my gov't I give them actual physical right-of-way to lay cables and maintain them. This is a very important distinction that does not apply to a soft service on the 'net somewhere. Now, if my tax dollars helped pay for Twitter's datacenter, then now we have something to talk about. And perhaps in the state where Twitter is, they got tax breaks which amount to effectively a subsidy from the citizenry. In that case I think it's time to take the case to court.
  - yantz 8y ago
    The physical plant was made a long time ago and was a one-time investment, like arpanet back in the day, or for example investigation made by universities using public grants that helped develop video codecs that are now in use by sites like youtube. So yes, it's the same.
wuliwong 8y ago
I kinda agree with both you and 'yantz'. I think there is government subsidy in both cases and I also agree with you that the government subsidy muddies the waters a bit. I am someone who believes that private businesses should be free to discriminate with regards to whom they provide service but we are faced with varying degrees of subsidization and I'm not sure where you would draw the line. Another issue is that there is really no non-subsidized alternate choice of note to these corporations at this level in the United States. These large corporations lobby and help craft favorable legislation on a continual bases. There is a very complex and murky relationship between the large corporations in the United States and the various governing bodies.