"If it needs to be public first -- so be it. I think there's still room to argue the ISPs made use of public infrastructure to lay lines. "
Oh, they did. They like to act like it's an entirely private thing. What they'll say is it was given willingly for that purpose but doesn't mean that it should happen again. A bullshit argument but one that will prevent legal coercion in states with lawmakers they're paying off.
> A bullshit argument but one that will prevent legal coercion in states with lawmakers they're paying off.
You keep saying that but it doesn't work when the topic is an actual electable one. When people contact their representatives and say they want a certain policy or law, the rep's job is on the line.
The only reason politicians might bow to corporate pressure is they don't have harder pressure from the people on their backs.
"When people contact their representatives and say they want a certain policy or law, the rep's job is on the line."
Hows that worked out in all the states where people griped about Internet speeds, cost, and availability but politicians passed laws for incumbents anyway? It didn't. You're talking a huge campaign of enough voters across enough districts to override what a few lobbyists do. It's asymmetrical. It might work but it usually doesn't. It's also extraordinarily difficult.
I'm for people trying it esp in rural areas. It's just that the ISP's currently outspend them on outreach and politics. Many of the areas getting hit are also already conservative where they believe business does it better. So, there's that too.
> You're talking a huge campaign of enough voters across enough districts to override what a few lobbyists do. It's asymmetrical. It might work but it usually doesn't. It's also extraordinarily difficult.
That's how voting works. Will it happen this election cycle? Maybe not. On the plus side, we've got plenty of discussion on the books saying what might happen to the internet if we allow net neutrality to lapse. In 10 years from now, when the general public goes looking for what happened to the good old internet, there will be a depth of articles and commentary, as well as people who've been following the issue over that period.
It's not worthless to voice your knowledge, even when it appears people will go against you. Consider the FBI record story from yesterday,
> Two years later I regained my seat on the board as the riders finally figured out that the strong helmet rule was a good thing. It then started spreading around the world and has since become standard in racing organizations almost everywhere, saving hundreds of lives and preventing thousands of serious head injuries. I’m proud of that. [1]
Due to his early effort, people knew where to turn when their theories did not pan out. There was a plan B ready to go, and everyone jumped on board.
Not ideal in the formal mathematical-proof sense, but, that's how humans and evolution works. We try stuff, see what works and what doesn't, and adjust if necessary.
> I'm for people trying it esp in rural areas. It's just that the ISP's currently outspend them on outreach and politics. Many of the areas getting hit are also already conservative where they believe business does it better. So, there's that too.
I agree there are a lot of speed bumps. That shouldn't stop us from trying. As technologists, we have an opportunity to share the importance of this topic with our family, friends, and representatives.
Perhaps we're wrong. No harm done. In the event we're right, people may consider your words more carefully in the future.
Oh, they did. They like to act like it's an entirely private thing. What they'll say is it was given willingly for that purpose but doesn't mean that it should happen again. A bullshit argument but one that will prevent legal coercion in states with lawmakers they're paying off.