OP was taking about Tumblr, but I think it applies even more to the Fediverse: users need to develop an ethos of paying to support the sites they use. Otherwise advertisers pay the bills and call the shots.
OP was taking about Tumblr, but I think it applies even more to the Fediverse: users need to develop an ethos of paying to support the sites they use. Otherwise advertisers pay the bills and call the shots.
That is what taxes are for. The Constitution enables the government to establish “post offices and postal roads”. Those purposes are served these days by the equipment that comprises the backbone of the internet. There is no reason it shouldn’t be federally funded.
Ok can we also regulate the infrastructure like a utility, please?
Absolutely makes sense to me. On top of that it should be treated as necessary as water or electricity with it universally provided to all citizens for a nominal fee supported by tax revenue.
But if I understood you correctly, that only deals with the problem of paying for your internet connection. By far the biggest cost for servers is the power consumption and probably hardware second. Making internet usage free wouldn’t do much.
Usually, it is paid by the people who use it, and that is also typically the taxpayers and extra from selling products or services as individual options, packages, or contracts. (Like postage stamps or shipping costs)
The above statement was to your comment, but I went on a rant about subscription models and didn’t feel like deleting it. Please ignore or take as a grain of salt. I didn’t revise what I said or finish my thoughts on subscriptions:
Most have taken the monthly subscription approach because it is easier to take money automatically monthly vs. selling individually. The downside is that consumers lose freedom as subscriptions are just bundles with a monthly contract or license. Sometimes, it is cheaper as a subscription if there is heavy enough use of the service as the cost is usually spread out to all subscribers. This, unfortunately, incentivize you to be using the bundle more than everyone else. Usually, companies limit you to prevent subscription costs from being overshadowed by the cost of doing business with outliers/power users. This is worse for capitalism markets as there is an incentive to offer limited cheap products instead of a free market where there is a variety of product ranges to choose from. It is a sort of natural homogenized process that makes each competitor similar. To combat this, tiers are offered with bundled higher limits and/or more features. A downside to tiers is that the lower tiers are slowly gutted of features to transition more users to higher tiers. further increasing the companies profits artificially as bundles muddled what was demanded vs. what is supplied.
Interesting correlation I hadn’t thought of or heard before.
There’s been plenty of support for Internet access being treated as an essential utility.
What’s the equivalent of a postage stamp in this case?
That’s the dumbest idea ever. Worked really “well” in the UK, lol.
Worked just fine in Switzerland and Spain which are both comparable in speeds to the US while being significantly cheaper. It’s also worth mentioning that these countries provide universal broadband service to all citizens.
There’s no point comparing anyone to Switzerland. It’s an exceptional country with an exceptional economy and politics. It’s like saying that Vatican is doing good because 100% of the population is a devoted Catholic, so the whole world should become Catholic.
As for getting high speeds cheaper, you need to look at countries like Latvia, where you’re easily getting unlimited full duplex 1Gbps for €18 per month https://balticom.lv/lv/internets
That’s what happens when the government is not involved in any way, shape or form.
The reason Latvia has fast Internet is the state owned telecom invested in fiber and private companies had to step up to compete. The government also heavily regulates to prevent monopolies so there is ample competition to bring prices down.
Internet in the US is what happens when there isn’t enough government involvement in the telecom market.
No, the reason why Latvia has a great and cheap internet is because Latvia didn’t have any regulations for a very long time. This allowed small groups of people to go to the roofs, install their equipment there and throw cables between buildings with zero resistance from either people or government. I know it because I was there, working at two ISPs in the early 2000-s.
This complete lack of regulation created a very competitive market where literally every high schooler could create an ISP and run a successful business.
Also state owned Lattelecom didn’t have shit until it was too late. They were only providing regular 10-18Mbit DSL until 2013 if I remember correctly.
Fuck government involvement!
Latvia has the Competition Law which prevents monopolies and anticompetitive business practices. Government involvement is literally the only reason Latvia has good internet.
Lack of government involvement results in what happened in the US where a few large ISPs buying up all the others leading to a total lack of competition or innovation.
Fuck the “free market” myth.
WTF are you talking about, lol?