Just the fact that the ISPs had to ease off bandwidth caps (and that they could rather easily) during a crisis tells you how essential it's become. And I don't need to tell anyone reading this who's got kids that they basically can't do their homework without Internet. Half of it's online.
Then there's the fact that SEC filings indicate that it costs an ISP between $10-$20/mo to provide Internet that they then charge $100-$150/mo for. a 5x-7.5x profit margin is rapacious. Especially for something built o
I love how these blathering baboons start grabbing at "this magical internet" as if it is something tangible. There is no such thing as "fast Internet." The Internet exists in all continents, so it would be a bit difficult to arbitrarily declare the Internet a public utility. How myopic and naive these people are.
There is such a thing as a fast home Internet connection. My current subscription package doesn't include Quartz, but based on the summary, I'm pretty sure "Internet" in the featured article refers to a home connection.
The Internet exists in all continents, so it would be a bit difficult to arbitrarily declare the Internet a public utility.
Water and electric circuits exist in all continents, yet home water supply and home electric power supply are public utilities.
This headline is indeed not technically correct (the best kind of correct). Headlines rarely tell the full story. However, the mention of "access" five times in the summary and "broadband" thrice makes it clear that Internet access, not the Internet itself, is the topic of discussion. Winning a gold medal in pedantry doesn't advance the cause of affordable home Internet access.
This exactly. By their same argument, water and electricity aren't utilities because nobody owns the rain and rivers and nobody owns all the electrons in the universe. How hard is it for these dolts to comprehend that they're merely talking about the right to network access?
Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Then there's the fact that SEC filings indicate that it costs an ISP between $10-$20/mo to provide Internet that they then charge $100-$150/mo for. a 5x-7.5x profit margin is rapacious. Especially for something built o
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Whom am I kidding? The proles have won.
By "Internet" TFA means a home connection thereto (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no such thing as "fast Internet."
There is such a thing as a fast home Internet connection. My current subscription package doesn't include Quartz, but based on the summary, I'm pretty sure "Internet" in the featured article refers to a home connection.
The Internet exists in all continents, so it would be a bit difficult to arbitrarily declare the Internet a public utility.
Water and electric circuits exist in all continents, yet home water supply and home electric power supply are public utilities.
Re: (Score:0)
A well and its associated plumbing is not a specific, unified world wide network of computers.
A home electric power supply is not a specific, unified world wide network of computers.
Argue all day about internet access being a utility, but the Internet itself IS NOT A UTILITY.
Re:By "Internet" TFA means a home connection there (Score:4, Insightful)
This headline is indeed not technically correct (the best kind of correct). Headlines rarely tell the full story. However, the mention of "access" five times in the summary and "broadband" thrice makes it clear that Internet access, not the Internet itself, is the topic of discussion. Winning a gold medal in pedantry doesn't advance the cause of affordable home Internet access.
Re:By "Internet" TFA means a home connection there (Score:4, Insightful)
This exactly. By their same argument, water and electricity aren't utilities because nobody owns the rain and rivers and nobody owns all the electrons in the universe. How hard is it for these dolts to comprehend that they're merely talking about the right to network access?