So if I want to roll out 1000 megabit fiber like google is rolling out... your utility is going to allow me to do that without raping me on the price?
Because I don't see it. They'd have to massively upgrade their network and they're not going to do it. They just won't.
Where as if they're selling conduit space... my fiber bundle isn't going to take up any more space than the competition. So... even though I would be offering a service that might be as much as 20 to 40 times faster... I'd be using up the same resources on a conduit system as everyone else.
If we do it your way, then I'll be using 40 times THEIR resources that are normally used by competing ISPs.
What is more, technology with the cables and switches changes. Technology with conduits doesn't really change.
What is more the level of technical sophistication required to run a conduit system is VASTLY lower than what is required to run an actual network. I would trust a local government for example to be able to run a conduit system. I think they would have the technical expertise to manage a pipe in the ground. But I do not trust them to run an evolving information network system that could change radically every ten years.
Do you see the issue? If I want to run 1000 megabit fiber, your concept will fuck me and will frustrate the effort. It is therefore a bad idea on your part because you are limiting what people can do.
Under the conduit system, I can run the 1000 megabit fiber without incurring more expense than anyone else.
here is another thing I like. I want bad ISPs to go out of business. I want them to lose nearly all market share and die. If they have a monopoly on last mile service then they can't go out of business unless they're hilariously mismanaged. Monopolies can exist even if badly run indefinitely.
However, if I can bypass the bad companies so they can't charge ANYTHING. If at no point I have to interact with their cable then I can kill that company. They'll have two choices. They can either compete or die. And competing will mean improving service or cutting costs or both.
If you like... I'd be okay with both plans.
You like the idea of big established ISPs sharing bandwidth with subletting companies? Okay. I don't have a problem with that. I just wan the OPTION to bypass them if they're shitty at everything they do. That is, I want right of way in the conduit to run cable which should be sold at fair market value to anyone using the conduit including the existing ISP. If the existing ISP is offering a good price and the cost of running cable is really not worth it... then fine. Just buy some bandwidth on their cable.
If however, their cable is bullshit, I want to be able to lease space in the conduit and run my own fiber.
My uncle asked how much AT&T would charge to run cable to his cabin. He has a cabin off in the woods down a private road. The road is about two miles long near a national park. AT&T said it would cost him 100,000 dollars to run a SINGLE cable to his cabin.
Think about that. Two miles of fiber optic cable costs about 2000-2500 dollars. I just looked at wholesale pipe suppliers and I can buy 2 miles of corrigated PVC for less then 200 dollars. They're selling it for a penny a meter with a minimum order of 3000 meters. So you'd have to buy more from them then you need but at a penny a meter who the fuck cares. So we're up to about 3000 grand maybe in parts. Add another thousand dollars or so for switches etc. And we're nearing 4000 dollars for a 2 mile fiber link. Assuming you wanted to bury the pipe six inches to a foot under the ground just to make things pretty... you could factor in the costs of labor for that. But you're not going to get anywhere near 100,000 dollars. And appreciate, this is a full fiber link I'm rolling. Not some shitty cable that can only be used for a single concurrent phone call and some shitty DSL. I could push 10 gigabits over that thing.
Am I wrong? Probably there is an additional cost somewhere t
In regards to roads: 1. They take up a great deal more space then a WIRE. 2. All the roads have to be connected to all the other roads. An internet wire only needs to connect at the backbone. It doesn't need to connect to anything besides subscribing users and the backbone. It can run right next to competing systems without interacting with them at all. 3. There is no comparison between the cost of a road and the cost of a cable. 4. There are safety and legal considerations with roads that do not exist with cables. 5. Demand for roads is met about 100 percent in all places. Very few places in the US would you say that people don't have enough roads. You can't compare that to internet access.
I could go on. Long story short comparing roads with internet service makes about as much sense as comparing space travel with twinkies.
The only points of comparison would be where private companies take over roads. And that is controversial. On the one hand people say the tolls that are often imposed are excessive or a pain in the ass. On the other hand, the private companies do tend to actually maintain the roads a great deal better then the public transit authorities. Tell me the last time you saw a pot hole on a private toll road? I've never seen one.
As to electrical companies: 1. Well, we do have many electrical generating companies and they do compete. However, I assume you're talking about the power distribution system which is not duplicated. 2. Electrical wires are thicker than internet cables. You can't compare a big thick electrical wire on a poll with a fiber bundle. 3. There are safety issues with electrical power distribution. High voltage lines interfere with each other. 4. Demand for power is 100 percent met in all locations. There is also no price gauging for power since costs are generally passed along to consumers from power producers. The cost of distribution itself makes up a relatively small portion of your power bill.
As to water lines: 1. They take up more space. 2. They're much more expensive to run. 3. They have to link to large water networks that are generally publicly owned by the state or the federal government. So there really isn't any place for a private entity to make a contribution there. 4. There are lots of safety issues. Its hard to sue me for giving you contaminated internet. But if the water gets tainted somehow then that is a lot of liability.
As to gas: 1. As you point out, there are people that have gas in tanks. And that system is served and supplied by trucks. You have a tank either buried in the ground or off on the corner of your property and at intervals a gas truck swings by to top it off. It works just fine. You mostly see that in rural communities. Though, I've seen some businesses in cities that actually keep a large onsite propane tank because they can buy that cheaper by truck than they can buy gas from the utility.
2. Assuming that we ignore the tanked gas, the issue is half that you're not allowed to do it. If I tried to run a gas line down the road are you saying that I'd get a permit to do that? I wouldn't. So you're basically talking about a self fulfilling prophecy here. You cite industries where you're not allowed to run a competing line and then say "see it is just like that" ignoring that your position in part supports mine in that you are citing things that people are literally forbidden by law to compete with. I can't compete with my power company or my water utility or anything of that nature. I won't get the permits.
3. Again, the issue is mostly safety. If a gas main blows up the local utility can eat the damage but who else wants to deal with it.
4. Like many of these businesses the gas utilities are often subsidized with tax dollars. So the price on your bill might be lower than what it actually costs. And if I have to compete with that, then I might not be able to because I have to fun the cost of all operations from my bill since I won't get any help from the government
I think I specified the difference very clearly. I'll try again.
In the situation where the company owns the cable they are ALSO selling last mile internet access. They are not merely leasing space on the cable. So if you changed things so that comcast was unable to sell last mile access directly to consumers but instead ONLY leased space to third parties to sell internet access then the two situations would be more similar.
Furthermore, if I am only selling conduit space then I am not controlling the quality of the cable you run. If I am running the cable and the cable I have run is inferior then anyone that leases that cable will have inferior bandwidth. If however, I am only leasing conduit space then the cable is entirely the responsibility and under the control of those that lease space in the conduit. Now you could argue "what if there isn't that much room in the conduit" which could be an issue. But it would be a requirement of any organization that ran the conduit that it would upgrade the conduit as required to handle additional capacity and use the leasing fees it was getting form people running cable to fund that operation.
Conduits are not expensive. It is in its most simplistic form a pipe in the ground with regular access points. That's it. Your only requirement in so far as upgrades would be to make sure that the pipe is large enough to handle all the cable that wants to run down that street as well as a bit of overhead so they're not too tightly packed in there.
An individual with the right to form his own opinions, express them, and have them felt if only fractionally by the state through his elected representatives.
That's fine. I have no problem with any government agency asking for a bump in their budget.
By all means... present an argument for why you need more money.
And while you're at it, you can tell me why you need the money more than the other government agencies that likewise are always asking for more money.
In short, get in line.
And being short of money by the way is no excuse for not complying with due process. If you have a choice between complying with due process and doing less or not complying with due process and doing more... you comply with due process.
I'm still waiting for you to make a non-fallacious argument.
Let me just explain the way I read pretty much anything that isn't fiction.
I look at every thing as a collection of argument.
It turn it all into symbolic logic effectively. I do this unconsciously, effortlessly, and instantly.
When I see a statement that says 1+1=hamburger I ignore it because it isn't rational.
I will note your opinions. But I classify opinions AS opinions. Opinions are not arguments.
And just for clarification, an argument is not someone shouting at someone in this context. It is a logical statement with supporting reasoning or evidence to support a given conclusion or course of action.
Absent the logic or evidence... I don't see an argument.
I do see a lot of opinions.
I see people saying "X was proposed by Y and I don't like Y so I don't trust that X is going to be good."
I see that. But that is an opinion. That isn't an argument. You can logically defend a position that X is bad because Y proposed it. That is logically fallacious. It is ad hominem.
Now you can play all the rhetorical games and spin all the sophistry you like... but given that I am going to turn everything you say into logical equations... and follow each out to its logical conclusion... such rhetorical games will not work on me.
I don't say this because I'm superior or because I'm so amazing. I say it because the way I process information is inherently immune to that sort of manipulation.
I am what the marketing people call a "stable independent thinker"... I am unmoved by peer opinion. I am unmoved by bling. I an unmoved by allusions to status. I am unmoved by anything but the data.
To trick someone like me... you have to lie to me. Half truths don't work on me because they get classified as such as they are assimilated.
All of this likely sounds like bragging to you. I regret that. I don't know how else to explain myself without it sounding like I'm thumping my chest and telling you how amazing I am.
I have many weaknesses. But really, I am just different. And in being different I am immune from a great many of the common tricks people like to try in arguments.
I would ask that you waste neither of our time going forward by not attempting them anymore. They mean as much to me as a chimp beating its chest is impressive to either of us. To his peers, the chest beating is impressive. It is a statement of power and dominance. But to a human being, the gesture has no significance even if we understand what the chimp would like us to believe.
If I have offended you anywhere in this... that is unfortunate. I am honestly trying to communicate with you. But I am not quite neurotypical. The way my brain works is not the way your brain works.
Our only hope of common understanding is logic. Logic is universal.
Its not a question of blame. If your daughter gets fed into a wood chipper do you care who is to blame for it?
No... you just want that terrible thing that happened to have not happened. Who was to blame is really quite irrelevant.
Back on topic, I don't care who is to blame if a situation is fucked up. The reality is that the public WILL NOT take responsibility and hold their politicians to account. They just don't do it. So setting up a system where you are assuming they're going to do a thing that you know they won't is STUPID.
They won't do it so I'm not going to rely on a system where they must. END OF FUCKING ARGUMENT.
Now the genius of doing this through the free market is that CONSUMERS will hold companies to account for bad service or inflated prices IF THEY HAVE CHOICES.
That WILL WORK because it DOES work all the time. Where as voters holding politicians to account frequently doesn't work.
So given the choice between a system that will almost certain not work and one that we know will work... I'll go with the one that I know will work.
I really don't see how your choice in this matter is either credible or even respectable. I say this without intendeding to offend you... I'm just being honest and direct here... your position sounds idiotic... aka the choice an idiot would make.
I am NOT saying you're an idiot. I do however think you're not being open minded or thinking about the issue very deeply.
For the sake of argument just abandon all positions. Tabula rasa. Just blank slate. Think about what your objectives are... and then see which concept will more closely give you what you want.
Maybe I'm missing something. For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume I may have fucked up somewhere. Help me then... Tell me your fear.
My fear is that monopolies tend to offer bad service at an inflated price. That's really what I'm worried about. And I have no confidence in government because politicians are too easy to bribe and generally they don't give a fuck what voters think.
Look at the speed cameras as an example. Who do you think actually voted to have speed cameras in ANYWHERE? The answer is no one ever has. There is no community that actually wanted speed cameras. And yet they're all over the place.
Why? Because they potentially generate revenue despite being UNPOPULAR with voters.
If your concept of democracy actually had meaning then there wouldn't be speed cameras... but there are.
I don't trust the government to manage this because they've repeatedly shown themselves to either be incompetent or corrupt. And yeah, that is the fault of voters for not holding the politicians to account... but how does that help me? Do you think it gives me any joy when I'm getting fucked over by the system to say "well but the voters are stupid"... no. It does NOTHING for me. I'm fucked and I have no recourse under your system.
Fuck that. And fuck anyone that thinks monopolies are a good idea. Fucking ignorant peasants.
People that want to talk about the way people talk about things rather than what we were talking about are not interested in the topic but in the rhetoric.
I find extensive discussions of rhetoric to be predictable and boring. This is mostly because I am very well versed in them and it is a bit like talking about the ABCs or what a plus sign does in an equation. I am familiar with it all to such an extent that it bores me.
I have no incentive to discuss anything here unless it amuses me and rhetorical discussions do not amuse me.
So... are we going to have a discussion of substance or are we done?
You're assuming that the ISPs are both efficient and have a very low profit margin.
Neither is especially true.
In any case... if your silly concept on markets made any sense then it would make sense to monopolize everything. We should have one shoe company. One sandwich company. One media outlet. One everything.
How did that little idea work out for Soviet Russia, Comrade?
I'm done talking with you about this... I say this with no intention of offending you but you're too ignorant to really have this conversation. As offensive as that sounds to you, how offensive do you think it is to have my time wasted with such drivel?
You're making an argument for why mass monopolization of everything is more efficient which is contradicted by everything we know about economics.
Please just stop. You're going to give me a lot of ego fueled emotional ire and I really have no patience for it.
Why are you conflating cable quality with the conduit? The conduit company would have no responsibility for the cables any more then someone that builds a road is responsible for your car on a toll road.
You pay the toll and that lets you drive your car on the road. Everyone that drives on the road pays the toll and the toll road company has no incentive to favor any specific company.
What is more, look at the quality of toll roads. If they're privately owned and operated they tend to be radically better maintained than public roads.
And don't get me wrong. I don't like to pay tolls anymore then the next guy. But you are paying the toll for all roads regardless. You pay it in your gas taxes etc. And all of that pays for the roads.
And when you contract for internet service at your home a portion of the monthly fee goes to pay for polls and conduits.
I am merely suggesting we break these organizations up so they have no vested interest in monopolizing or fucking over the consumer.
I don't understand why you find this controversial. It seems extremely reasonable to me.
Please cite specifically your problem with this concept. Do it clearly and directly. Tell me your fears.
I will tell you mine again.
1. I fear corruption. I fear that people will be paid off to fuck over consumers.
2. I fear that monopolies have no incentive to actually provide good service so they'll just sit there with crumbling infrastructure soaking up fees that no one has any choice but to pay.
3. I an endless number of excesses and slights on the part of monopolies to do whatever they want because their consumers have no recourse.
Those are my fears and why I am suggesting what I am suggesting.
Now you honestly tell me YOUR fears. Directly and openly. Tell me your worry and fear.
If we understand each other's fears we can craft policies that avoid what we fear.
And everyone wins.
If you fail to provide this information... I will assume you are negotiating in bad faith and will classify you as a troll.
That implies an involved an informed electorate that engages in everything down to council meetings.
We have representatives in those meetings but implying that they're always under the voter's control or act in the voter's best interests is at best naive.
You can't know when competition will raise prices or not.
Generally, the only businesses where you could even begin to make that argument are businesses that generally break even at best.
If your business is profitable then competition shouldn't raise prices.
Again, you're assuming the costs of the cables is really high. Its not. Its very cheap.
Again. I could PERSONALLY set up an ISP for my neighborhood on my own dime. That is, if I were permitted to run cable in some conduits or something. The cost of the equipment and the cable is not that high. And then I could buy a fat commercial link to serve my micro ISP... and that link would actually be the most expensive ongoing cost of my operation. Not my cable.
Now here you might say "but who are you buying it from if not the big isps!" well, you would probably be surprised to know that most of the bandwidth is nto actually served by those people. The big ISPs dominate last mile service. But the backbone tends to be run by other companies. And that whole market for bandwidth is radically different from the consumer market. For one thing there tends to be quite a bit of competition. Even small towns often have two trunk lines going into them. And big cities or built up suburbs will have five or six at least. That sort of competition keeps the prices down.
In any case, I could personally out compete the big ISPs in MY neighborhood if I had right of way to lay my own cable. I could offer much faster speeds at much lower costs. Its not that hard.
People are pissed at the big ISPs because they're fucking us and have been fucking us for years because halfwits in our society keep thinking that monopolies are good for consumers. Despite the fact that they never are.
A blocked conduit is far less likely than a shit cable. It is also far easier to fix. And if a third party is in charge of the conduits then they have no interest in providing bad service. They would have no stake in which ISP was doing better or worse. They'd just be collecting conduit lease fees. And if a conduit is blocked or broken then they lose money because they can't charge lease fees from those broken conduits.
The point is to make sure that everyone's best interests line up with providing the best service at the lowest cost.
A monopoly has no incentive to do either. A government agency that runs the whole thing also has no such interest. Their only interest is to satisfy their political needs. Which may have nothing to do with whether they provide good service or not.
By putting everything in the hands of competing companies that only make money if they do a good job... we create an environment where our intelligence and hardwork is used to make things better rather than just fuck everyone over.
No. Because the cable offered is always a shit sandwich. Fuck sharing a cable with those assholes. I'll share conduit space with them. But not their fucking garbage cable. Half that shit is absurdly old copper cable.
Meth addicts ironically are doing more to get that shit out of the ground than the incompetent monopolies. They're literally digging the copper cables up and selling them for scrap. Its happened so many times in some areas that the fucking ISPs are finally laying fiber if only because it has no resale value.
You know what... if you want to accept a cable provided by the monopoly... you do that. I fucking refuse. We need competing cables laid so at the very least the big ISPs understand that if they don't invest in infrastructure then they lose marketshare.
If they have a monopoly then no matter how badly they fuck up we're still stuck with them.
Everyone trying to say that monopolies are good is an economic fool.
And we have the ability by voting with our wallets to control corporations. All you have to do to be able to control the corporations is to have enough choice that you can choose their competitors if they don't give you good service.
Most political offices at this point are at best monopolies. How likely is it for a democrat to win in a republican area or a republican to win in a democrat area? How many corrupt as hell politicians can remain in office indefinitely because the parties refuse to run primaries against incumbants? And that means that if you're not willing to vote for the opposing party, the incombant candidate no matter how much of a piece of shit is likely to keep his job.
And it is in this context you tell me we have control over our governments? And it gets so much worse than that.
Do I trust corporations? Not at all. I just think they're less powerful in general and more easily controlled if they decide to get crazy.
A corporation can't rewrite the laws to suit it unless they get the cooperation of a corrupt politician. And that's just the corruption of the government not the corporation. The corporation isn't corrupt because it bribes a politician. The corporation is only corrupt when they break their contracts. Yes, breaking the law is a breach of contract but not with their customers.
A corporation can't just print money to fund any stupid thing it wants. The fed sits there and pumps out TRILLIONS of dollars devaluing EVERYONE's money via stealth tax on EVERYONE with cash in their pocket or bank account. It is one of the many regressive taxes the government likes to do. The very rich are not effected by this because their money isn't in cash. So the devaluing of the dollar doesn't hurt them. But it hurts everyone working for a wage and it hurts everyone with a significant amount of their net worth in a bank account.
Look, corporations do a lot of shitty things. I'm not defending them. I'm saying the government is a bigger threat 99.9 percent of the time.
How many corporations have personally genocided populations? Now lets compare that to governments.
Corps do shitty stuff... understand I'm not defending them for that. But they're not nearly as dangerous as the government.
Which do you fear more? The NSA reading your email or Google?
NSA reads your email and maybe they classify you a terrorist and kill you or throw you in some dark cell to be forgotten.
Google reads you email and they send you penis pill spam messages.
See what I'm talking about? As fucked up as anything comcast or Verizon or Monsanto or Microsoft or IBM or whatever have done... it doesn't begin to compare to the straight up sadistic shit you see governments do.
Corporations generally act out of a sense of greed or self interest. They want money.
Governments not only want money but they want power, they want belief, they want your sons for their wars, and your daughters to pop out new citizens for their empires.
Government is a necessary evil. I believe we need a government to do certain things. Mostly kill people that need to be killed. Literally the most useful function of government. The farther you get from the government's job of killing enemy armies that want to invade and rape our people... or government tracking down murderers and either locking them up or letting them dance on air. The farther you get from that... the less justification government has to do anything. Practically anything outside of that is better handled through some form of consensual collective action.
Listen, I am not your enemy. I'm a nice guy and a good neighbor. I make some really juicy hamburgers and have a good sense of humor.
I am not your enemy. I'm just saying... as your neighbor... I'd prefer if these things were handled by someone that didn't have the right to shoot me whenever they felt like it.
1. The company if it isn't just run by the local government... which I'm fine with so long as they behave themselves... but in the case of a company, the first difference would be that they don't have the end user as a customer. That has many effects the first of which being that there is no conflict of interest. If I am providing internet to end users and you are competing with me, it isn't in my interest to help you. But if I'm leasing conduit space to anyone... then it is in my interest to offer as much space as possible so that as many people pay leases for cable as possible. Its a completely different relationship.
2. There is a universe of difference between leasing bandwidth on a cable and leasing conduit space. Lets say I don't upgrade the cable and its shitty. That could mean that indifferent to my company's intention to provide a high quality service... I can't because the cable is shit. But the conduit just needs to have enough space in it for my cable. That's it.
Your road analogy is irrelevant. The cost of running cable is a fraction of what it costs to run road. It also takes a fraction of the space. You can't compare them. If you gave me conduit access, I could personally run cable on my own budget to my whole neighborhood spending nothing but a some savings to do it.
This is just an argument in favor of monopolies which is pretty much the talking points of every oppressive economic force the US has ever endured.
Saying that no one would lay cable without a monopoly is asinine. In some areas you possibly can't have much competition. But in major cities you can. And I've seen as many as four ISPs coexist profitably in rural communities. So... I'm calling bullshit on your whole position.
there's no substanciation for that position and it is effectively little more than an ad hominem attack where you assume X is bad because Y supports it.
That is illogical. Whomever supports a bill is not relevant.
Talk about X and why it is bad. I don't give a flying fuck who Y is or what you think of Y.
Slashdot Mirror
So if I want to roll out 1000 megabit fiber like google is rolling out... your utility is going to allow me to do that without raping me on the price?
Because I don't see it. They'd have to massively upgrade their network and they're not going to do it. They just won't.
Where as if they're selling conduit space... my fiber bundle isn't going to take up any more space than the competition. So... even though I would be offering a service that might be as much as 20 to 40 times faster... I'd be using up the same resources on a conduit system as everyone else.
If we do it your way, then I'll be using 40 times THEIR resources that are normally used by competing ISPs.
What is more, technology with the cables and switches changes. Technology with conduits doesn't really change.
What is more the level of technical sophistication required to run a conduit system is VASTLY lower than what is required to run an actual network. I would trust a local government for example to be able to run a conduit system. I think they would have the technical expertise to manage a pipe in the ground. But I do not trust them to run an evolving information network system that could change radically every ten years.
Do you see the issue? If I want to run 1000 megabit fiber, your concept will fuck me and will frustrate the effort. It is therefore a bad idea on your part because you are limiting what people can do.
Under the conduit system, I can run the 1000 megabit fiber without incurring more expense than anyone else.
here is another thing I like. I want bad ISPs to go out of business. I want them to lose nearly all market share and die. If they have a monopoly on last mile service then they can't go out of business unless they're hilariously mismanaged. Monopolies can exist even if badly run indefinitely.
However, if I can bypass the bad companies so they can't charge ANYTHING. If at no point I have to interact with their cable then I can kill that company. They'll have two choices. They can either compete or die. And competing will mean improving service or cutting costs or both.
If you like... I'd be okay with both plans.
You like the idea of big established ISPs sharing bandwidth with subletting companies? Okay. I don't have a problem with that. I just wan the OPTION to bypass them if they're shitty at everything they do. That is, I want right of way in the conduit to run cable which should be sold at fair market value to anyone using the conduit including the existing ISP. If the existing ISP is offering a good price and the cost of running cable is really not worth it... then fine. Just buy some bandwidth on their cable.
If however, their cable is bullshit, I want to be able to lease space in the conduit and run my own fiber.
My uncle asked how much AT&T would charge to run cable to his cabin. He has a cabin off in the woods down a private road. The road is about two miles long near a national park. AT&T said it would cost him 100,000 dollars to run a SINGLE cable to his cabin.
Think about that. Two miles of fiber optic cable costs about 2000-2500 dollars. I just looked at wholesale pipe suppliers and I can buy 2 miles of corrigated PVC for less then 200 dollars. They're selling it for a penny a meter with a minimum order of 3000 meters. So you'd have to buy more from them then you need but at a penny a meter who the fuck cares. So we're up to about 3000 grand maybe in parts. Add another thousand dollars or so for switches etc. And we're nearing 4000 dollars for a 2 mile fiber link. Assuming you wanted to bury the pipe six inches to a foot under the ground just to make things pretty... you could factor in the costs of labor for that. But you're not going to get anywhere near 100,000 dollars. And appreciate, this is a full fiber link I'm rolling. Not some shitty cable that can only be used for a single concurrent phone call and some shitty DSL. I could push 10 gigabits over that thing.
Am I wrong? Probably there is an additional cost somewhere t
In regards to roads:
1. They take up a great deal more space then a WIRE.
2. All the roads have to be connected to all the other roads. An internet wire only needs to connect at the backbone. It doesn't need to connect to anything besides subscribing users and the backbone. It can run right next to competing systems without interacting with them at all.
3. There is no comparison between the cost of a road and the cost of a cable.
4. There are safety and legal considerations with roads that do not exist with cables.
5. Demand for roads is met about 100 percent in all places. Very few places in the US would you say that people don't have enough roads. You can't compare that to internet access.
I could go on. Long story short comparing roads with internet service makes about as much sense as comparing space travel with twinkies.
The only points of comparison would be where private companies take over roads. And that is controversial. On the one hand people say the tolls that are often imposed are excessive or a pain in the ass. On the other hand, the private companies do tend to actually maintain the roads a great deal better then the public transit authorities. Tell me the last time you saw a pot hole on a private toll road? I've never seen one.
As to electrical companies:
1. Well, we do have many electrical generating companies and they do compete. However, I assume you're talking about the power distribution system which is not duplicated.
2. Electrical wires are thicker than internet cables. You can't compare a big thick electrical wire on a poll with a fiber bundle.
3. There are safety issues with electrical power distribution. High voltage lines interfere with each other.
4. Demand for power is 100 percent met in all locations. There is also no price gauging for power since costs are generally passed along to consumers from power producers. The cost of distribution itself makes up a relatively small portion of your power bill.
As to water lines:
1. They take up more space.
2. They're much more expensive to run.
3. They have to link to large water networks that are generally publicly owned by the state or the federal government. So there really isn't any place for a private entity to make a contribution there.
4. There are lots of safety issues. Its hard to sue me for giving you contaminated internet. But if the water gets tainted somehow then that is a lot of liability.
As to gas:
1. As you point out, there are people that have gas in tanks. And that system is served and supplied by trucks. You have a tank either buried in the ground or off on the corner of your property and at intervals a gas truck swings by to top it off. It works just fine. You mostly see that in rural communities. Though, I've seen some businesses in cities that actually keep a large onsite propane tank because they can buy that cheaper by truck than they can buy gas from the utility.
2. Assuming that we ignore the tanked gas, the issue is half that you're not allowed to do it. If I tried to run a gas line down the road are you saying that I'd get a permit to do that? I wouldn't. So you're basically talking about a self fulfilling prophecy here. You cite industries where you're not allowed to run a competing line and then say "see it is just like that" ignoring that your position in part supports mine in that you are citing things that people are literally forbidden by law to compete with. I can't compete with my power company or my water utility or anything of that nature. I won't get the permits.
3. Again, the issue is mostly safety. If a gas main blows up the local utility can eat the damage but who else wants to deal with it.
4. Like many of these businesses the gas utilities are often subsidized with tax dollars. So the price on your bill might be lower than what it actually costs. And if I have to compete with that, then I might not be able to because I have to fun the cost of all operations from my bill since I won't get any help from the government
I think I specified the difference very clearly. I'll try again.
In the situation where the company owns the cable they are ALSO selling last mile internet access. They are not merely leasing space on the cable. So if you changed things so that comcast was unable to sell last mile access directly to consumers but instead ONLY leased space to third parties to sell internet access then the two situations would be more similar.
Furthermore, if I am only selling conduit space then I am not controlling the quality of the cable you run. If I am running the cable and the cable I have run is inferior then anyone that leases that cable will have inferior bandwidth. If however, I am only leasing conduit space then the cable is entirely the responsibility and under the control of those that lease space in the conduit. Now you could argue "what if there isn't that much room in the conduit" which could be an issue. But it would be a requirement of any organization that ran the conduit that it would upgrade the conduit as required to handle additional capacity and use the leasing fees it was getting form people running cable to fund that operation.
Conduits are not expensive. It is in its most simplistic form a pipe in the ground with regular access points. That's it. Your only requirement in so far as upgrades would be to make sure that the pipe is large enough to handle all the cable that wants to run down that street as well as a bit of overhead so they're not too tightly packed in there.
This isn't rocket science.
An individual with the right to form his own opinions, express them, and have them felt if only fractionally by the state through his elected representatives.
In all forms for all sides.
That's fine. I have no problem with any government agency asking for a bump in their budget.
By all means... present an argument for why you need more money.
And while you're at it, you can tell me why you need the money more than the other government agencies that likewise are always asking for more money.
In short, get in line.
And being short of money by the way is no excuse for not complying with due process. If you have a choice between complying with due process and doing less or not complying with due process and doing more... you comply with due process.
End of discussion.
I'm still waiting for you to make a non-fallacious argument.
Let me just explain the way I read pretty much anything that isn't fiction.
I look at every thing as a collection of argument.
It turn it all into symbolic logic effectively. I do this unconsciously, effortlessly, and instantly.
When I see a statement that says 1+1=hamburger I ignore it because it isn't rational.
I will note your opinions. But I classify opinions AS opinions. Opinions are not arguments.
And just for clarification, an argument is not someone shouting at someone in this context. It is a logical statement with supporting reasoning or evidence to support a given conclusion or course of action.
Absent the logic or evidence... I don't see an argument.
I do see a lot of opinions.
I see people saying "X was proposed by Y and I don't like Y so I don't trust that X is going to be good."
I see that. But that is an opinion. That isn't an argument. You can logically defend a position that X is bad because Y proposed it. That is logically fallacious. It is ad hominem.
Now you can play all the rhetorical games and spin all the sophistry you like... but given that I am going to turn everything you say into logical equations... and follow each out to its logical conclusion... such rhetorical games will not work on me.
I don't say this because I'm superior or because I'm so amazing. I say it because the way I process information is inherently immune to that sort of manipulation.
I am what the marketing people call a "stable independent thinker"... I am unmoved by peer opinion. I am unmoved by bling. I an unmoved by allusions to status. I am unmoved by anything but the data.
To trick someone like me... you have to lie to me. Half truths don't work on me because they get classified as such as they are assimilated.
All of this likely sounds like bragging to you. I regret that. I don't know how else to explain myself without it sounding like I'm thumping my chest and telling you how amazing I am.
I have many weaknesses. But really, I am just different. And in being different I am immune from a great many of the common tricks people like to try in arguments.
I would ask that you waste neither of our time going forward by not attempting them anymore. They mean as much to me as a chimp beating its chest is impressive to either of us. To his peers, the chest beating is impressive. It is a statement of power and dominance. But to a human being, the gesture has no significance even if we understand what the chimp would like us to believe.
If I have offended you anywhere in this... that is unfortunate. I am honestly trying to communicate with you. But I am not quite neurotypical. The way my brain works is not the way your brain works.
Our only hope of common understanding is logic. Logic is universal.
Its not a question of blame. If your daughter gets fed into a wood chipper do you care who is to blame for it?
No... you just want that terrible thing that happened to have not happened. Who was to blame is really quite irrelevant.
Back on topic, I don't care who is to blame if a situation is fucked up. The reality is that the public WILL NOT take responsibility and hold their politicians to account. They just don't do it. So setting up a system where you are assuming they're going to do a thing that you know they won't is STUPID.
They won't do it so I'm not going to rely on a system where they must. END OF FUCKING ARGUMENT.
Now the genius of doing this through the free market is that CONSUMERS will hold companies to account for bad service or inflated prices IF THEY HAVE CHOICES.
That WILL WORK because it DOES work all the time. Where as voters holding politicians to account frequently doesn't work.
So given the choice between a system that will almost certain not work and one that we know will work... I'll go with the one that I know will work.
I really don't see how your choice in this matter is either credible or even respectable. I say this without intendeding to offend you... I'm just being honest and direct here... your position sounds idiotic... aka the choice an idiot would make.
I am NOT saying you're an idiot. I do however think you're not being open minded or thinking about the issue very deeply.
For the sake of argument just abandon all positions. Tabula rasa. Just blank slate. Think about what your objectives are... and then see which concept will more closely give you what you want.
Maybe I'm missing something. For the sake of argument, I'm going to assume I may have fucked up somewhere. Help me then... Tell me your fear.
My fear is that monopolies tend to offer bad service at an inflated price. That's really what I'm worried about. And I have no confidence in government because politicians are too easy to bribe and generally they don't give a fuck what voters think.
Look at the speed cameras as an example. Who do you think actually voted to have speed cameras in ANYWHERE? The answer is no one ever has. There is no community that actually wanted speed cameras. And yet they're all over the place.
Why? Because they potentially generate revenue despite being UNPOPULAR with voters.
If your concept of democracy actually had meaning then there wouldn't be speed cameras... but there are.
I don't trust the government to manage this because they've repeatedly shown themselves to either be incompetent or corrupt. And yeah, that is the fault of voters for not holding the politicians to account... but how does that help me? Do you think it gives me any joy when I'm getting fucked over by the system to say "well but the voters are stupid"... no. It does NOTHING for me. I'm fucked and I have no recourse under your system.
Fuck that. And fuck anyone that thinks monopolies are a good idea. Fucking ignorant peasants.
People that want to talk about the way people talk about things rather than what we were talking about are not interested in the topic but in the rhetoric.
I find extensive discussions of rhetoric to be predictable and boring. This is mostly because I am very well versed in them and it is a bit like talking about the ABCs or what a plus sign does in an equation. I am familiar with it all to such an extent that it bores me.
I have no incentive to discuss anything here unless it amuses me and rhetorical discussions do not amuse me.
So... are we going to have a discussion of substance or are we done?
You're assuming that the ISPs are both efficient and have a very low profit margin.
Neither is especially true.
In any case... if your silly concept on markets made any sense then it would make sense to monopolize everything. We should have one shoe company. One sandwich company. One media outlet. One everything.
How did that little idea work out for Soviet Russia, Comrade?
I'm done talking with you about this... I say this with no intention of offending you but you're too ignorant to really have this conversation. As offensive as that sounds to you, how offensive do you think it is to have my time wasted with such drivel?
You're making an argument for why mass monopolization of everything is more efficient which is contradicted by everything we know about economics.
Please just stop. You're going to give me a lot of ego fueled emotional ire and I really have no patience for it.
Good day.
Why are you conflating cable quality with the conduit? The conduit company would have no responsibility for the cables any more then someone that builds a road is responsible for your car on a toll road.
You pay the toll and that lets you drive your car on the road. Everyone that drives on the road pays the toll and the toll road company has no incentive to favor any specific company.
What is more, look at the quality of toll roads. If they're privately owned and operated they tend to be radically better maintained than public roads.
And don't get me wrong. I don't like to pay tolls anymore then the next guy. But you are paying the toll for all roads regardless. You pay it in your gas taxes etc. And all of that pays for the roads.
And when you contract for internet service at your home a portion of the monthly fee goes to pay for polls and conduits.
I am merely suggesting we break these organizations up so they have no vested interest in monopolizing or fucking over the consumer.
I don't understand why you find this controversial. It seems extremely reasonable to me.
Please cite specifically your problem with this concept. Do it clearly and directly. Tell me your fears.
I will tell you mine again.
1. I fear corruption. I fear that people will be paid off to fuck over consumers.
2. I fear that monopolies have no incentive to actually provide good service so they'll just sit there with crumbling infrastructure soaking up fees that no one has any choice but to pay.
3. I an endless number of excesses and slights on the part of monopolies to do whatever they want because their consumers have no recourse.
Those are my fears and why I am suggesting what I am suggesting.
Now you honestly tell me YOUR fears. Directly and openly. Tell me your worry and fear.
If we understand each other's fears we can craft policies that avoid what we fear.
And everyone wins.
If you fail to provide this information... I will assume you are negotiating in bad faith and will classify you as a troll.
I fail to see anything in there that has anything to do with republicans or advocates for either states or the federal government.
All you've said really is that the government is frequently corrupt or incompetent.
And it seems from that you want to claim more authority for such entities? Explain how that makes sense.
As to funny rants... given your last statement, I am assuming you're joking.
I welcome the next round of idiotic legislation that accomplishes nothing.
That implies an involved an informed electorate that engages in everything down to council meetings.
We have representatives in those meetings but implying that they're always under the voter's control or act in the voter's best interests is at best naive.
Then they have nothing to fear from these changes since according to you they're already in compliance with those codes.
So... you won't mind that getting made law.
End of discussion. Thanks.
You can't know when competition will raise prices or not.
Generally, the only businesses where you could even begin to make that argument are businesses that generally break even at best.
If your business is profitable then competition shouldn't raise prices.
Again, you're assuming the costs of the cables is really high. Its not. Its very cheap.
Again. I could PERSONALLY set up an ISP for my neighborhood on my own dime. That is, if I were permitted to run cable in some conduits or something. The cost of the equipment and the cable is not that high. And then I could buy a fat commercial link to serve my micro ISP... and that link would actually be the most expensive ongoing cost of my operation. Not my cable.
Now here you might say "but who are you buying it from if not the big isps!" well, you would probably be surprised to know that most of the bandwidth is nto actually served by those people. The big ISPs dominate last mile service. But the backbone tends to be run by other companies. And that whole market for bandwidth is radically different from the consumer market. For one thing there tends to be quite a bit of competition. Even small towns often have two trunk lines going into them. And big cities or built up suburbs will have five or six at least. That sort of competition keeps the prices down.
In any case, I could personally out compete the big ISPs in MY neighborhood if I had right of way to lay my own cable. I could offer much faster speeds at much lower costs. Its not that hard.
People are pissed at the big ISPs because they're fucking us and have been fucking us for years because halfwits in our society keep thinking that monopolies are good for consumers. Despite the fact that they never are.
A blocked conduit is far less likely than a shit cable. It is also far easier to fix. And if a third party is in charge of the conduits then they have no interest in providing bad service. They would have no stake in which ISP was doing better or worse. They'd just be collecting conduit lease fees. And if a conduit is blocked or broken then they lose money because they can't charge lease fees from those broken conduits.
The point is to make sure that everyone's best interests line up with providing the best service at the lowest cost.
A monopoly has no incentive to do either. A government agency that runs the whole thing also has no such interest. Their only interest is to satisfy their political needs. Which may have nothing to do with whether they provide good service or not.
By putting everything in the hands of competing companies that only make money if they do a good job... we create an environment where our intelligence and hardwork is used to make things better rather than just fuck everyone over.
No. Because the cable offered is always a shit sandwich. Fuck sharing a cable with those assholes. I'll share conduit space with them. But not their fucking garbage cable. Half that shit is absurdly old copper cable.
Meth addicts ironically are doing more to get that shit out of the ground than the incompetent monopolies. They're literally digging the copper cables up and selling them for scrap. Its happened so many times in some areas that the fucking ISPs are finally laying fiber if only because it has no resale value.
You know what... if you want to accept a cable provided by the monopoly... you do that. I fucking refuse. We need competing cables laid so at the very least the big ISPs understand that if they don't invest in infrastructure then they lose marketshare.
If they have a monopoly then no matter how badly they fuck up we're still stuck with them.
Everyone trying to say that monopolies are good is an economic fool.
the context of the point is unclear to me. Are you agreeing with me?
And we have the ability by voting with our wallets to control corporations. All you have to do to be able to control the corporations is to have enough choice that you can choose their competitors if they don't give you good service.
Most political offices at this point are at best monopolies. How likely is it for a democrat to win in a republican area or a republican to win in a democrat area? How many corrupt as hell politicians can remain in office indefinitely because the parties refuse to run primaries against incumbants? And that means that if you're not willing to vote for the opposing party, the incombant candidate no matter how much of a piece of shit is likely to keep his job.
And it is in this context you tell me we have control over our governments? And it gets so much worse than that.
Do I trust corporations? Not at all. I just think they're less powerful in general and more easily controlled if they decide to get crazy.
A corporation can't rewrite the laws to suit it unless they get the cooperation of a corrupt politician. And that's just the corruption of the government not the corporation. The corporation isn't corrupt because it bribes a politician. The corporation is only corrupt when they break their contracts. Yes, breaking the law is a breach of contract but not with their customers.
A corporation can't just print money to fund any stupid thing it wants. The fed sits there and pumps out TRILLIONS of dollars devaluing EVERYONE's money via stealth tax on EVERYONE with cash in their pocket or bank account. It is one of the many regressive taxes the government likes to do. The very rich are not effected by this because their money isn't in cash. So the devaluing of the dollar doesn't hurt them. But it hurts everyone working for a wage and it hurts everyone with a significant amount of their net worth in a bank account.
Look, corporations do a lot of shitty things. I'm not defending them. I'm saying the government is a bigger threat 99.9 percent of the time.
How many corporations have personally genocided populations? Now lets compare that to governments.
Corps do shitty stuff... understand I'm not defending them for that. But they're not nearly as dangerous as the government.
Which do you fear more? The NSA reading your email or Google?
NSA reads your email and maybe they classify you a terrorist and kill you or throw you in some dark cell to be forgotten.
Google reads you email and they send you penis pill spam messages.
See what I'm talking about? As fucked up as anything comcast or Verizon or Monsanto or Microsoft or IBM or whatever have done... it doesn't begin to compare to the straight up sadistic shit you see governments do.
Corporations generally act out of a sense of greed or self interest. They want money.
Governments not only want money but they want power, they want belief, they want your sons for their wars, and your daughters to pop out new citizens for their empires.
Government is a necessary evil. I believe we need a government to do certain things. Mostly kill people that need to be killed. Literally the most useful function of government. The farther you get from the government's job of killing enemy armies that want to invade and rape our people... or government tracking down murderers and either locking them up or letting them dance on air. The farther you get from that... the less justification government has to do anything. Practically anything outside of that is better handled through some form of consensual collective action.
Listen, I am not your enemy. I'm a nice guy and a good neighbor. I make some really juicy hamburgers and have a good sense of humor.
I am not your enemy. I'm just saying... as your neighbor... I'd prefer if these things were handled by someone that didn't have the right to shoot me whenever they felt like it.
In two ways.
1. The company if it isn't just run by the local government... which I'm fine with so long as they behave themselves... but in the case of a company, the first difference would be that they don't have the end user as a customer. That has many effects the first of which being that there is no conflict of interest. If I am providing internet to end users and you are competing with me, it isn't in my interest to help you. But if I'm leasing conduit space to anyone... then it is in my interest to offer as much space as possible so that as many people pay leases for cable as possible. Its a completely different relationship.
2. There is a universe of difference between leasing bandwidth on a cable and leasing conduit space. Lets say I don't upgrade the cable and its shitty. That could mean that indifferent to my company's intention to provide a high quality service... I can't because the cable is shit. But the conduit just needs to have enough space in it for my cable. That's it.
Your road analogy is irrelevant. The cost of running cable is a fraction of what it costs to run road. It also takes a fraction of the space. You can't compare them. If you gave me conduit access, I could personally run cable on my own budget to my whole neighborhood spending nothing but a some savings to do it.
Its not that expensive.
Never mind that rival ISPs are still frustrated from getting permission to run that cable.
You focus on a specific thing not understanding that the monopolies don't why a competitor is barred from competing so long as they are.
This is just an argument in favor of monopolies which is pretty much the talking points of every oppressive economic force the US has ever endured.
Saying that no one would lay cable without a monopoly is asinine. In some areas you possibly can't have much competition. But in major cities you can. And I've seen as many as four ISPs coexist profitably in rural communities. So... I'm calling bullshit on your whole position.
there's no substanciation for that position and it is effectively little more than an ad hominem attack where you assume X is bad because Y supports it.
That is illogical. Whomever supports a bill is not relevant.
Talk about X and why it is bad. I don't give a flying fuck who Y is or what you think of Y.