Should the Internet be a utility? - If so should "essential" websites like YouTube also be utilities?

[meager]

why would US pay for utilities in India?

That’s true, but the question never specified it applied only to the US. I doubt India is rich enough to establish this policy, so maybe it won’t do that.

 

[Hey Johnny Bravo]

Considering how many essential services now run on the Internet, basic access to government and healthcare sites should probably be provided. You can call 911 even without paid phone service, so access to necessary online services is important. Things you used to be able to call a city hall, doctor's office, or school about are now handled almost exclusively online.

YouTube is not a necessary service. It is entertainment.

 

[Preacher ✝]

The Internet has kept improving because old technologies and dominant platforms were allowed to die.
What you would achieve by turning the Internet into a utility would be the opposite. You can reasonably expect that existing infrastructures and providers would be locked into place and decisions about the future of the network will be made by regulators through political processes.

I understand that making something a utility risks some level of stagnation but its not like our electricity infrastructure hasn't evolved since the late 1800s when it became a utility.

I actually think this proposal has some merit:

They don't necessarily have to define it as a utility. I would just force it that any ISP can operate anywhere if they can lay the lines for it, or pay for the cross connects over existing lines. For ISPs for a general customer, they need to do where all consumer end-points meet at an MMR (within a given area or building) and any ISP who operates in the area can connect customers with their equipment.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

but its not like our electricity infrastructure hasn't evolved since the late 1800s when it became a utility.

Power grids evolve slowly and incrementally. As far as I'm aware, the basic structure of electricity generation, transmission, and distribution has remained relatively stable for over a century. And upgrades normally don't involve replacing the entire stack.
Internet infrastructure, however, is much different. In a relatively short period, access technologies have undergone major shifts, with dial-up, DSL, cable, fiber, and now increasingly wireless and satellite systems. The ecosystem built on top of that infrastructure evolves even faster than that.
In sectors where technological change is slow and predictable, an institutional structure and system designed to stabilize infrastructure can work reasonably well. But for the Internet? Where rapid replacement and experimentation are the norm?

I actually think this proposal has some merit:

It raises some additional questions. Cc @The ATF Disliked That
If one provider invests the capital to build physical infrastructure, under that proposal they would be required to allow other providers to use that infrastructure once it exists, provided those competitors can connect to it. Such an arrangement may increase short-term competition at the service level, but it also changes the incentives around building infrastructure in the first place. That is, the builder of the network no longer can control how that infrastructure is used once it's in place. How does that affect incentives to build new networks in the first place? And who ultimately decides the terms under which competitors gain access to that infrastructure?
Those kinds of trade-offs are part of why Internet infrastructure has historically developed through a mix of competing technologies and overlapping networks rather than through a single standardized access structure.

 

[Preacher ✝]

In sectors where technological change is slow and predictable, an institutional structure and system designed to stabilize infrastructure can work reasonably well. But for the Internet? Where rapid replacement and experimentation are the norm?

What about South Korea? Unless I misunderstand their system Internet is a utility there and they have some of the best, fastest, Internet in the world.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

What about South Korea? Unless I misunderstand their system Internet is a utility there and they have some of the best, fastest, Internet in the world.

Phew, I don't know much about the situation in South Korea, I'll do some quick research. But at the top of my head, South Korea is definitely not comparable to anything in the USA or Europe because its density, geography, and political history are just so different.
Like, South Korea is just slightly bigger than Portugal and Indiana, with ~5 times as many people as Portugal and ~7 times as many people as Indiana

 

[The ATF Disliked That]

How does that affect incentives to build new networks in the first place? And who ultimately decides the terms under which competitors gain access to that infrastructure?

It would likely have to be local municipalities would have to own parts of the utility themselves and provide the access for it, and just tell ISPs, yeah if they can pay it, they can lay it. There are also companies who just lay the fiber itself and just lease it and nothing else, so that might be an option?

It's definitely an idea that many have thought of, but actually getting on board with it is definitely a many years debate.

 

[Dojima's Dragon]

. I argue that the Internet should only be a luxury for the rich. Let them destroy themselves in degeneracy while us peasants return to the land and heal from this sickness

the internet is the only place i can sperg about sandnigs and laugh at trannies without becoming a social pariah for it and sincerely fuck you if you want it to be in the hands of the pedo elite. It's already bad enough with all the censorship and restrictions they place on the internet. Last thing we want is cockwads like you taking my right to sperg out from me you dirty nigger!

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

It would likely have to be local municipalities would have to own parts of the utility themselves and provide the access for it, and just tell ISPs, yeah if they can pay it, they can lay it.

If municipalities own the relevant parts of the network, then the core questions become political and administrative (rather than market-based). Access terms, pricing, maintenance standards, upgrade schedules, dispute resolution, and who bears the cost when expansion or replacement is needed, those questions.

There are also companies who just lay the fiber itself and just lease it and nothing else, so that might be an option?

A firm whose business model is building and leasing infrastructure is still making investment decisions based on expected returns, risk, and control over the asset. The institutional questions don't go away if the owner is a leasing company rather than a retail ISP.

Once the infrastructure layer is in municipal hands or administered through standardized access mandates, more of the future of the network gets routed through political or quasi-political decision-making. Maybe it results in a cleaner access model in some cases, but it also means slower adaption, more administrative friction, and more pressure toward preserving the structure that's already in place. Maybe that tradeoff is easier to tolerate for things like roads or water pipes, but it's an immensely ugly tradeoff for things like Internet infrastructure, where access technologies and network demands change much, much faster in comparison