Slashdot Mirror


100 Years Ago, No Free Broadband Pneumatic Tubes

TheSync writes "The Division of Labour blog spotlights a report written 100 years ago by a commission appointed by the Postmaster General, that came to the conclusion: 'That it is not feasible and desirable at the present time for the Government to purchase, to install, or to operate pneumatic tubes.' Here is a scan of the original NYTimes article. If only we had gotten the free government Intertubes in 1908!"

40 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. Snarky article by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reason the government wasn't into buying the pneumatic tube system is because there was no real standard and no guarantee the system would be worth installing anywhere else. I can't see how anyone who researched it at the time would come to any conclusion but that the last thing the government needed was to be saddled with an expensive, hard to maintain, experimental system...Especially given that they already had the postal service.

    The modern situation is a bit different. Government owned local data infrastructure is actually a pretty good idea. Small towns who can't interest the big telecoms in investing have bought bonds and done it themselves with good results, and it really opens the door to local competition since the competition is based around providing actual service...not around providing infrastructure. The technology is also standardized, and much more mature.

    Telecoms are getting too uppity these days. Some kind of smackdown is required.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Snarky article by theaveng · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>Government owned local data infrastructure is actually a pretty good idea.

      I'm sorry: What? I was always under the impression that "monopolies are bad", at least that's what we learned in 10th grade social studies, and yet here you are saying a monopoly is a good idea. I have to disagree. The U.S. Mail monopoly is a bad idea, and so too is a U.S. Data monopoly.

      What we need are MORE choices at the home, not whittled down to just one.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    2. Re:Snarky article by corsec67 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The last mile is going to be a monopoly, whether it be water, sewer, cable, electricity, phone, or fiber.
      You aren't going to have people running a cable to your house in case you might want to use it. If there is already a cable TV connection to a house, the value of adding a second one is very low.

      What shouldn't be a monopoly at all is the service provider. The last mile is going to be a monopoly, but the service provider doesn't have to be. Let any company hook up their DSL/phone equipment to the cable going to your house.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    3. Re:Snarky article by iluvcapra · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Strictly speaking, using a monopoly to abuse stifle competition or innovation is bad, monopolies themselves are acceptable and common.

      The US Mail service doesn't have a monopoly, just ask Fedex Ground, and nether would a publicly-owned infrastructure either. It just sets a minimum standard of service. You're free to start Theaveng's Letter Service tomorrow, but it has to be either as reliable and cheap as the USPS, or charge more and compete on features.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    4. Re:Snarky article by Xaositecte · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did you read anything beyond that line?

      GP's point is that in many rural areas, commercial data providers simply aren't willing to come into the town and install data infrastructure.

      Additionally, even though it's a monopoly, chances are nearly every citizen of a given small town knows each other, knows their elected representative personally, and can actually have a say in town decisions, as opposed to big cities or countrywide monopolies, which are usually run by an oligarchy of some sort.

    5. Re:Snarky article by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So the government owned water and sewer pipes that serve your house are a bad thing? You want to see multiple competing water and sewer companies building multiple competing water and sewage treatment systems, and multiple and competing reservoirs, etc? How about competing highway infrastructure? No?

      Or maybe you prefer the current system, where one company is granted a monopoly in exchange for shouldering the infrastructure cost?

      If we own the infrastructure, we can actually HAVE competition based on service. We sure as hell can't have it when the telecoms own all the pipe.

      Educate yourself.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    6. Re:Snarky article by thrillseeker · · Score: 4, Interesting

      then the last mile should belong to the homeowner.

    7. Re:Snarky article by corsec67 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wrong.

      The USPS has a government protected monopoly on mailing first and third class letters.

      FedEx/UPS are allowed to ship priority letters, but not first class letters.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#Universal_Service_Obligation_and_the_Postal_Monopoly

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    8. Re:Snarky article by nsayer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So the government owned water and sewer pipes that serve your house are a bad thing?

      In not all cases are they government owned. There still exist private water companies that for the purposes of this discussion operate no differently than, say, PG&E.

      And sewer and water are not perfect examples, because there are lots of folks who use wells and septic tanks, meaning that they are self-reliant. There even exist some folks who are self-sufficient for their electricity needs. I don't know of anyone who is "self sufficient" for their Internet connectivity. Indeed, it would literally be impossible.

    9. Re:Snarky article by Jeff+Hornby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about the government monopoly on the roads? Or on national defense? Currency? Courts? What they probably didn't teach you in 10th grade social studies is that everything is a trade-off, and while monopolies are bad sometimes and for some things, they are often good for other things.

      The assumption that monopolies are bad is based on the idea that the only true value is progress and perhaps financial returns. Monopolies promote stability, predictability and ease of regulation. Personally I thnk that for communications infrastructure I'd value stability and predictability.

      --
      Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
    10. Re:Snarky article by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IMHO, the last mile should belong to the municipality. That way, you avoid arguments as to who is responsible for issues that happen to cables outside anyone's ownership, or in communal ownership.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    11. Re:Snarky article by theaveng · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>>GP's point is that in many rural areas, commercial data providers simply aren't willing to come into the town and install data infrastructure.

      Then pass a law that obligates Comcast to run cable internet, Verizon to run DSL, Dish Satellite to provide satellite internet, Sprint to provide cellular internet, to any customer who asks for it. We have similar laws for electricity and phone, so why not internet.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    12. Re:Snarky article by ensignyu · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most people only own the land up to their driveway. From there on, it's usually owned by the city.

      That's why if the water pipes break (due to an earthquake or something) in the middle of the street, it's not your responsibility to fix it. You'd have a hard time dividing up the bill, in any case.

      And for obvious reasons, a company can't just dig up a road and install new pipes or cables. They need a permit, and the city doesn't want the road being dug up every other week so they grant exclusive rights for ONE group to do it once.

      Now arguably since it's public land, the network connections ought to be owned and controlled by the city and leased out to any ISP that wants to hook you up, but that's much different from the homeowner owning the last mile.

    13. Re:Snarky article by spun · · Score: 4, Informative

      The last mile is going to be a monopoly,

      Why? Just because you cannot think of a way?

      No, because the last mile is a natural monopoly.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    14. Re:Snarky article by prgrmr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most homeowners don't want to own the wiring inside their homes, let alone the wiring outside of it.

    15. Re:Snarky article by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is exceptionally rare to have a choice for electrical providers. Ditto for gas and cable. Probably 99% of the U.S. population is served by one or fewer telephone companies, one or fewer cable company, and one or fewer natural gas providers.

      Also, your argument that DSL competes with FiOS is somewhat of a misnomer. Once you get FiOS, they cut your twisted pair. It is no longer possible to get DSL service at that location after that. And unless you have at least one CLEC providing DSL service in your area (outside of major cities, CLECs are rare), your DSL provider is the phone company, so those aren't really in competition at all.

      Internet service tends towards a monopoly in all but the largest cities. In my hometown in Tennessee, there is exactly one provider of high speed service---the cable company---and there's rumor that they are on the verge of bankruptcy. No DSL service at that CO, no FiOS, nothing. That's pretty typical of small town America. At best, you have two, and a duopoly is every bit as bad as a monopoly. By contrast, if the municipality owns the lines and can lease them freely to multiple providers, the startup cost to provide service in a town becomes relatively small, and the tendency is to end up with five or six companies competing even in small markets. Why? Because the startup costs are low, and if a major provider starts charging too much, it suddenly becomes very feasible for somebody else to step in and start providing service. The same is not true if the company would have to lay hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of wire infrastructure just to get started.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    16. Re:Snarky article by north.coaster · · Score: 4, Informative

      We have similar laws for electricity and phone, so why not internet.

      Perhaps you need a history lesson. Rural areas of the United States originally got electric service through public cooperative organizations because the private utilities would not provide service in these areas. While laws were passed to provide government loans to these co-ops, private companies were not forced to provide service.

      Private utility companies later purchased many of these co-ops, but there are still co-ops providing electric service in many areas today.

    17. Re:Snarky article by corcoranp · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is a big difference between infrastructure and service.

      Unless you have purpose in having multiple connections (maybe if you have some alternative utility system) then you'd only need a single utility connection (per utility...electric, phone, cable, etc). The service provider would bill you for the utility they provide you.

      Think of it another way...does every grocery store own the building it resides in? Of course not, they push off costs that are not associated with their core business.

      Because I work for a large US utility, I know that most utilities have infrastructure in a separate business unit and the service business unit in another.

      Most utilities could easily spin off these business functions into independent money making entities. Infrastructure's business models are based on billing for transport costs either directly to the customer or to service providers

      --
      Peter Corcoran
    18. Re:Snarky article by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Informative

      No it isn't.

      For it to be a natural monopoly, you would have to make assumptions:

      • The "desired output" is largely identical for all customers
      • There aren't enough customers to provide economies of scale on more than one network.

      I would assert that neither of these assumptions are true.

      People want different things from their last mile connections. Some people merely want voice or voice+video service. Some people want on-demand content. Some people want hagh transmission capacity. Some people only want data... Etc..

      If the diversity of customer needs is high enough (it should be), the second assumption also falls. If each of the last mile providers can attract a significant portion of the market, they should each be able to achieve a customer base large enough to bring down the costs of the network that would need to be passed on to the individual users.

      And lastly, proof that this is the case. We currently have a situation where most communities have multiple last mile providers with overlapping services. One or more cable companies, and an incumbent telephone company. Both of which can justify upgrading their last-mile networks to the point where it's essentially a complete rebuild. This would be impossible if the last mile were a natural monopoly.

    19. Re:Snarky article by theaveng · · Score: 2, Informative

      When I lived in the country, the last mile literally did belong to me (well, actually my parents). The phone company was required by PA law to provide electricity to the curb, but the final mile into our home was paid by my parents. So yes a similar solution could work for internet.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    20. Re:Snarky article by hobbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You may have noticed that the wires of which you speak run under the road of which you speak. And I'm damned if the road is getting dug up every time some company comes offering my neighbour a dollar off his phone bill.

      So perhaps you might build tubes under the road, and then any number of companies can come and lay their wires without disruption. Well, of course, wires also occupy physical space, so it isn't any number. And who owns the tubes? Why not just give the same entity the right to own the wires?

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    21. Re:Snarky article by Zerth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Company A's gas is made by eco-friendly hippies. Company B's is made by raping cows but has great customer service and mails me barbecue jerky. I support the environment by buying A(or cow-raping customer service, whichever).

      Both A & B put their gas into the network. I may be actually getting B's molecules, but since they put in the same quantity as their customers buy, it is a wash on whose you actually receive. I'm not paying for better molecules, I'm paying for service & business practices.

      Ditto with the internet. The infrastructure company rolls out a massive pipe from a central location to all the homes and all the service providers hook up to that point. They provide internet transit to their customers from that point, you pay for the transit you need, the infrastructure company makes sure it's pipes are wider than the highest transit level provided. Same electrons between your house and the peering point, different services from there on out and business practices from the transit providers.

      The only reason you have more than one wire now is because phone and cable started out as different industries. Once they are the same, like gas providers, you'll only have one wire.

    22. Re:Snarky article by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then having to pay taxes to pay for it isn't that bad. Since you kind of own it in a way[1].

      Some people might not like paying for an internet connection for someone in a farm miles away from everyone else.
      But:
      1) you're living in a society and you need farmers/ranchers etc. If it helps them do their part (instead of going to the city to look for a job), a subsidized internet connection is quite cheap in comparison.
      2) the value of the _your_ network increases as you add more participants.

      [1] In a Democracy, in theory you're the boss of the Government.

      Of course lots of people choose to abdicate instead and then blame the government for everything, when half the problem is the fault of the voters (or those who can vote but can't be bothered to vote).

      --
  2. So... by pitchpipe · · Score: 4, Funny

    Ted Stevens was right, just 100 years late!

    --
    Look where all this talking got us, baby.
  3. Top hats, and bow ties. by Ostracus · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
  4. The steampunk Intertubes by David+Gerard · · Score: 3, Funny

    Here's a picture by Joi Ito of a mechanical router, on display in a Tokyo museum. The engine of the steampunk Internet. Imagine BBs being pumped through the series of pneumatic tubes. "ROUTER BLOWOUT! SEVEN SYSADMINS SHOT DEAD BY THEIR ANALYTICAL ENGINES!"

    If you're browsing with Chrome, don't forget to click the special page about:internets.

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  5. No I wouldn't... by Dareth · · Score: 2, Funny

    But I do wish Debian would take it off their list of supported architectures. I want a new stable by New Years!

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  6. Actually, Ted Stevens wasn't so wrong by StCredZero · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From Wikipedia:

    Technical analysis

    Stevens's speech was analyzed by Princeton computer science professor Edward Felten, who said that he disagreed with Stevens's argument but felt that the language "series of tubes" was entirely reasonable as a non-technical explanation given off-the-cuff in a meeting.[12]

    The term pipe is a commonly used idiom to refer to a data connection, with pipe diameter being analogous to bandwidth or throughput.[13] For instance, high-bandwidth connections are often referred to as "fat pipes."

    Most routers use a data structure called a queue to buffer packets.[14] When packets arrive more quickly than can be forwarded, the router will hold the packets in a queue until they can be sent on to the next router or be dropped.[15] On links that become congested, packets typically spend more time in the queue than they do actually moving down wires or optical fiber...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

    I too disagree with Steven's argument. But people who jump on "tubes" often do not even know the concepts behind the analogy. In a lot of cases, the people that laugh at his comment are even less informed about the topic than Stevens.

    1. Re:Actually, Ted Stevens wasn't so wrong by MoellerPlesset2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, besides being partially false and over-simplistic it should be held in mind that the actual context was that Stevens was supposedly argumenting against net-neutrality. And in that context, it's just bizzare and does nothing to support the actual issue involved. It should also be remembered, I think, that Stevens had earlier been subjected to hours of expert testimony on the subject. He knew full well he was bullshitting people with his incoherent argument even if his 'internet' did arrive late.

    2. Re:Actually, Ted Stevens wasn't so wrong by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My main issue with the analogy is that, to the extent that the internet is like a series of tubes, how is it not like a truck? Data flow is not continuous, it's sent in discreet packets of variable sizes, it can take multiple routes to get to a destination, and every so often at a switching point there's a collision so the data never arrives and has to be resent. Honestly, I think roads and trucks is a much better analogy. Given that, I think it's safe to say that he still really had no idea what he was talking about, and the plausibility of one of his analogies is due to chance alone.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Actually, Ted Stevens wasn't so wrong by drew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Ted Stevens had made an otherwise coherent argument where he happened to characterize the Internet using a new variation of otherwise common technical slang, I suspect that very few people would have even noticed, and I doubt that we'd still be talking about it two years later.

      But if you look at the whole speech, you get several other wonderful nuggets like: "Ten movies streaming across that internet, and what, what happens to your own personal internet? I just the other day got- an internet was sent by my staff at ten o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all the other things that are going on in the internet commercially!" In that light, it's a lot harder to think of him as a generally clueful person who happened to misuse a bit of jargon that he was not acquainted with. In that light, the "Series of Tubes" comment, rather than being a sign of incompetence itself, is just the easiest bit for the world to latch onto, and repeat forever and ever. Sort of like President Bush's "Internets".

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  7. Re:WTF? by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I actually think that technology history is a very interesting topic.

    For example, in 1684 Robert Hooke presented a scheme to the Royal Society for setting up lines of towers to relay semaphore signals over long distances. This was an eminently practical suggestion. In fact the Royal Navy in the following century developed the capability of coordinating complex land and sea operations using semaphore. Still it wasn't until over a hundred years later that an attempt was made to make a practical land based network. By that time, the first practical demonstrations of electrical telegraphy had already taken place. Electrical telegraphy was both cheaper and nearly 8x as fast. Once electrical telegraphy was possible, semaphore was doomed.

    What's interesting about semaphore is that it is intrinsically low tech. It's most efficient with some kind of mechanical shutter system, but you can make do with a pair of flags. The Romans certainly had the engineering ability to connect their empire with a series of semaphore towers; the only thing wanting was the idea. You can imagine how history would have been different if it had occurred to them. At the very least, the slow and easily intercepted nature of semaphore might have lead to many computer science and cryptography ideas being discovered thousand of years earlier.

    A pneumatic tube system, on the other hand, is only possible for a civilization that has at least stem engine technology. Such systems were unlikely to scale beyond local service in any case. It's an interesting concept, but not nearly as potentially revolutionary as semaphore might have been.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  8. For clarity's sake then... by VValdo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So wait- is the Internet something you dump something on? More importantly, is it a big truck?

    I only ask because I just the other day got...an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday.

    Why? Why?

    W

    --
    -------------------
    This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  9. Re:WTF? by fm6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why? Because pneumatic infosystems are "obviously" a silly idea? If you think that, you need to crack a book now and then. If you did, you'd know that pneumatic mail delivery was widely used in Europe from the late 19th century well into the 20th. (The Paris system didn't shut down until 1984!)

    They were also widely used in the U.S. for internal business mail and similar stuff. Many large department stores used pneumatic systems instead of cash registers. The clerk put your money and bill into a tube, where it got sent up to the bookkeeping department, which sent back a receipt and your change. That's more cost effective than totaling out dozens of registers at the end of the day, and also minimized the amount of cash in places where it could be ripped off. Back in the 70s, there were still a few stores that used this system; it took the rise of networked POS systems and credit cards to kill it completely.

    So the folks that wanted to build a national pneumatic system had some solid technology and experience to build on. Sure, they failed — but their failure is worth studying now that we're busy arguing about the best way to install a telecom infrastructure that's half as good as the ones in Asia.

  10. There *were* semaphore towers in widespread usage by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There were optical telegraph towers in France in 1795. They had a network of 500 stations that covered much of the country, and used them for military communications for 70 years.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  11. Re:WTF? by goatpunch · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Romans certainly had the engineering ability to connect their empire with a series of semaphore towers; the only thing wanting was the idea. You can imagine how history would have been different if it had occurred to them.

    Yes, IP over Flag Semaphore would have quickly become bogged down with people downloading mosaics over bittorrent.

  12. Not every part of the world is in a city by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You need people running cable to your house on demand, when you order the service. This clearly works, since it has been done. If you refute the idea, ensure that your refutation is compatible with the reality of the telephone/cable duopoly found in virtually every US city.

    You said "city". Not every part of the world is in a city. The phone and cable TV companies allege that running cable to a rural market is cost prohibitive, giving the customers who grow your food a choice between three options with low throughput per dollar: dial-up, satellite, or GPRS.

  13. Not a natural monopoly. by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, it isn't a natural monopoly. It only seems that way because of lack of planning on cities part. The last mile should be a PIPE. No, not an internet connection that is called a pipe, but an honest to goodness hole through the ground pipe. The system should look a lot like a storm drain or sewer system. If you want to buy a service from Joe's home movie cable company, you should be able to have Joe's just pull a wire through the existing pipe to the larger main pipe, and all the way to their office where the video source comes from. Heck, if the city had data tubes, I could literally be on a neighborhood by having a line run from my house to my neighbors across the street. Of course, this would create MASSIVE competition, as the barrier of entry for a new cable company, phone provider or ISP would plummet.

    No, the last mile is definitely not a natural monopoly.

    1. Re:Not a natural monopoly. by MindStalker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Are you insane. You can't run several mile long cable to each and every house the main access pipes would physically be full after just a few hundred houses. Then what do you do?
      Well Joe's home movie office could install routers at all major intersections, but after a few dozen companies move in the routers would fill up the intersections..
      Well Joe and a few others could share...
      Then others want to share and then one day a cable breaks and everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else to fix it so they decide everyone should pay Joe a greater monthly access fee and let Joe fix it. Soon Joe has quit his business and runs Joe's telecom.

    2. Re:Not a natural monopoly. by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This isn't 1980 anymore. We have 40 Gigabit Ethernet that runs up to 10km and IEEE is working to standardize 100 Gigabit over 40km. So, no, you wouldn't need routers at every major intersection. We don't have them now with our phone or cable, why would having competition suddenly changes the physics of transmitting data?

      And, your scenrio of Joe becoming a telecom would be great. You would end up with ATT, MCI, Comcast, Verizon, Joe's, and maybe a couple of other locals. You could count on getting better internet service than when you get ATT and Comcast as the only choices, if even that many.