Which phone company do you positively like ? Which internet operator are you paying because you want them to thrive ? How do you feel about Qualcomm and feeding them money ?
Which private military contractors do you want your tax dollars going to?
(Comment is meant to be added on to yours, not contradict you.)
Digitech Mobile is great so far. I think that particular question is very regional. In Switzerland (and Sweden,) the competition between them works well, IMHO.
> Which internet operator are you paying because you want them to thrive ?
I don't have a choice where I live. I.e. it's as bad as a monopoly. It used to be good, but then UPC was bought by Sunrise, and they seem intent on making me leave ASAP.
> How do you feel about Qualcomm and feeding them money ?
Blissfully ignorant.
On Qualcomm, as far as I know any mobile phone sold in the west will have a networking chipset from Qualcomm or pay royalties/patents to Qualcomm for using their technology. Apple was trying to do something about it with their switch to Intel chips, but it didn't end well for them (I think they absorbed the Intel cell modem division and might be trying for a second time at some point in the future ?)
That's an interesting take. Sometimes it's roughly the same, in particular when the cable company has a def acto monopoly in the country (the smaller your country is, the worse it probably gets).
I've talked to a few people who see it as an indicator of the place's quality of life: do they have enough consumer protection to either force the monopoly to provide decent service or not have a monopoly in the first place ? how expensive is it ? (basic lifeline services at crazy price will usually go with other primary goods and services also priced crazily)
Basically, a juridiction that can't do anything about their internet won't be able to do much about a lot of other issues directly impacting their population and economy. Sometimes you just need to leave your state, sometimes your country, but either way getting away from that specific juridiction is often the better choice.
...you get a for-profit corporation providing you overpriced, privacy-invading, poor service that is completely secret and funding lobbying to control your legislators and get whatever they want for legislation.
...because the for-profit corp can't "throw you in jail" for not paying your bill? (which...isn't a thing, really?)
golf clap
OP didn't see the difference between governments and the enterprises they provide the framework for. I explained one big difference, and why I don't think collectivizing everything is a good idea.
Were capitalism regulated, I'd agree with you - however the reality is that capitalism these days has devolved into monopoly and rent seeking:
Unhappy with your phone and especially internet provider? Good luck finding a new one, in most cases there is no competition at all or it's just as bad. Unhappy with your social network, say because there are too many Nazis and conspiracy theorists running rampant? Bad luck, no federation requirement means you'll lose all your followers and they'll lose you. Unhappy with your bank? Competition is just as fucked up. Unhappy with your railroad transport provider? Tough luck, they own the rails so you can't get another company to ship your stuff. Unhappy with your phone or PC operating system? Good luck, in the best case you just have to buy all your applications again (if they are even available at the competitor), in the worst you'll have to live with frankly sub-par open source alternatives. Your email provider banned you because you sent a photo of your naked child to the pediatrician? Even an international media outrage won't help you get your account, your digital life back.
The list goes on and on and on, and the common point is that anti-trust enforcement has gone completely down the drain.
I don't know how a government would enforce this. Nor if we want them to. Yes, you will and arguably should lose your followers if you move sites, and that's because your followers are passive browsers who don't care about you specifically. None of us are Taylor Swift who will have millions follow wherever she decides to go. That's one offset of anonymity in this case.
Also kind of funny that you mention federation as an implciit solution and then complain about email.
> Unhappy with your phone or PC operating system? Good luck, in the best case you just have to buy all your applications again (if they are even available at the competitor), in the worst you'll have to live with frankly sub-par open source alternatives.
Again, yes that makes sense. you acknoledging that they have better OS's seems to be submitting that there's value in their service. Personally, I can replicate 99% of what I use on Linux and a de-Googled AOSP, but it will vary from user to user (RIP to the artists stuck in the Adobe suite). Having a better service isn't grounds for a monopoly alone, that's just plain ol' competition.
Mandate that services over a certain user threshold expose open interfaces to which competitors can bind. That has worked reasonably well in banking and telecommunication.
> Also kind of funny that you mention federation as an implciit solution and then complain about email.
Unlike Mastodon federation or SEPA bank accounts, there is no legal requirement for the old service provider to assist in moving accounts, and I was talking about Googlemail which ties an entire person's identity across a multitude of services to one account. The person in my scenario lost everything from their mail account to the apps bought on their smartphone.
> Having a better service isn't grounds for a monopoly alone, that's just plain ol' competition.
Agreed but there have been many cases where the "better service" just bought up the competition. Adobe is the best example, and up next I'd classify Atlassian. Both of their respective stacks still show the signs of integration after decades.
Governments will happily make my life crap if I don't pay taxes. I dislike greed as much as the next person, but the monopolized incarceration powers of governments are not to be forgotten.
For some services, collective funding makes sense, like having hospitals that can stop the spread of diseases, or forcing pooling of money to locally maintain an even standard of infrastructure.