I think Big Tech needs to shake up their lobbying division.
Local loop unbundling [1] is a regulatory method to "utility-ize" ISPs by forcing the infrastructure owner (usually big telco companies) to allow competitors to use the infrastructure.
Here in UK LLU seems to be working reasonably well, as least in terms of value for money. My Internet bill is 25 pounds (~35 dollars) per month and from chatting with my colleagues in the US, I'm under the impression that this is quite cheap by US standards. It happens to be the same as my limitless 4G data subscription. You can get cheaper rates if you have a long-term subscription; I used to pay 15 pounds per month but now pay more after switching to a monthly subscription.
In the US LLU regulations also exist but according to some discussions I found [2] its implementation was sabotaged by the big carriers and the FCC did not manage to enforce it and gave up.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling
[2] https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-no-Local-loop-unbundling-...
It's basically impossible to compare that plan with a US plan without saying what you get for that price.
I just checked. In my area (inside California), pure internet plans range from $20/month for 50Mbps to $85/month for 1200Mbps.
That being said, it is popular to bundle with cable/voice along with internet.
But I've never seen any competitors offer service over a cable, VDSL, or other fiber network, and those are the only kinds of wired Internet service that are really viable anymore.
Moss media. Spread the meme.
What? The article literally mentions that:
> Because ISPs are mere conduits for data, it makes sense to prevent them from treating data differently depending on its source or content.
* ISPs present a cost and performance problem for most Americans, whereas social media giants present fundamental issues of society and speech. It's easier to see there is a problem, while also being harder to figure out.
Google, Facebook and Twitter do.
Admittedly bans/refusals from IPSs are orders of magnitude more rare, but I find it disturbing that there there are no regulations or oversight to an ISP refusing or terminating service, when access to the internet is so fundamental to modern life, and to many people's livelihoods.
I can't do my job without high-speed internet access, but I either don't use, or can easily replace Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
Actually, looking at the article itself, I'm surprised how little there is here. It comes in just under 900 characters, it fits in 4 tweets.
You're wrong about this, by an order of magnitude. It's 8,640 characters. I can only guess that maybe you have some malfunction of an adblocker that cut yours off after the first paragraph?
I don't think Yost has any chance of successfully arguing that Google is a public utility, but it would be interesting if there was a public utility search engine. It seems obvious that search is something everyone needs, and perhaps if there was some legal right that the public utility had - for example, to index web pages without breaking copyright laws - then the public utility could actually reasonably compete with Google.
A title that says its conclusion is less interesting to me. First if I know the conclusion then what's the point of reading the story and secondly the story is more likely to be an influence campaign than an actual researched opinion.
For example: "What are public utilities and how it applies to Big Tech" sounds a lot more like an article worth my time reading.
If those are not public utilities, there should be law to prevent public institutions from using them.
I always seen it as public threat that politicians are on private social media, what if private company declares war on our behalf?
If you have to use the Google products in a school, and the school has a contract with Google, that seems like a utility and/or common carrier. The analogy that I use with my friends is "You have Verizon for your mobile phone, yeah? I have ATT. We can call/text each other, right? Of course - that's how phones work. What would you think if you could ONLY call Verizon customers, and if you wanted to call/text me, you had to get an ATT phone? And what about all those land lines, customer service lines, etc... how annoying would it be if everyone had to have the same phone company, and the companies kept coming and going in and out of vogue? All the older people user Company X, Millennials are all on Y, and the kids are all about Z...."
Most people think that's an awful, terrible world to imagine. That said, it reminds me a little of Neil Stephenson's "Snow Crash" ~ one review says "Snow Crash is a mind-altering romp through a future America so bizarre, so outrageous.... you'll recognize it immediately"
Also the owner of Wired is Advance, which own Reddit. They have a vested interest in not seeing that kind of legislation pass.
I don't really care if Google discriminates in its search results to provide a better user experience. If I don’t like that UX I can use another search engine.
But what about Twitter? Twitter is not just discriminating in tweet search results, they deplatform Tweet authors and organizations (e.g. Unity 2020) on a whim and with no recourse. The analog would be if Google just deleted your website if your page rank fell too low.
IMO Google looks like an information broker and Twitter/Facebook look like common carriers of tweets/posts.
If your argument is that we can’t call them either then it seems like it’s on you to suggest a framework that does correctly classify content platforms.
Social media companies harm the public. Glad they finally admitted to this.
