3 ms·

There's a reason for that. Here in the US, we don't consider train tracks to be "infrastructure" because they're almost all privately owned. Amtrak has to lea

There's a reason for that. Here in the US, we don't consider train tracks to be "infrastructure" because they're almost all privately owned. Amtrak has to lease track usage from heavy freight railroads, and their trains have to sit and wait any time a freight train wants the track: freight has priority over passengers in this country. Optical fibers are not infrastructure here, because that's all privately owned too (even if the land to put it on was gifted to the corporations who own the fiber). Electric grids are privately owned too, but their owners are regulated as utility monopolies. So basically, only roads and bridges are actually publicly-owned.

massysett 11y ago
I know of no definition of "infrastructure" that hinges on whether it is publicly owned. The Department of Homeland Security plans for "critical infrastructure security" and it acknowledges that most "critical infrastructure" is privately owned. https://www.dhs.gov/what-critical-infrastructure https://www.dhs.gov/what-critical-infrastructure
- Grishnakh 11y ago
  If the infrastructure is privately owned, I don't see how the government has any business worrying about it and certainly not paying for its maintenance and upkeep (beyond normal usage fees, just like any other customer). If the infrastructure is critical to national security, it shouldn't be privately owned.
  - teddyh 11y ago
    Most businesses are privately owned (or at least not owned by the government), but government still worries about the economy, about jobs, etc.
    - Grishnakh 11y ago
      Yes, but that doesn't mean that the government should pay for private companies to maintain their infrastructure while the companies keep all the profits for themselves.
the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
Why would infrastructure have to be "public"? Trains and mail is partially privatized, fiber/copper entirely and still those are considered infrastructure.
- Grishnakh 11y ago
  Yes, but the whole idea behind the worry that US infrastructure is falling apart is that the government has a role to fix it. Obviously, with roads and bridges, it's the government's job to fix those, since those things are owned and operated by the government. However, do you think that the government should be handing buckets of cash to Comcast so they can maintain their cable internet infrastructure? Should the government fork over money to Verizon, AT&T, etc. to maintain cellular infrastructure? Should the government hand money to CSX to maintain their railroads? (Over and above the money that Amtrak pays them to lease the track, that is.) As for the mail, that's not privatized: the USPS is wholly-owned by the US federal government. But as I understand it, it's entirely self-funded. Unless you're talking about UPS/FedEx. If the infrastructure is privately owned, why should the government use taxpayer money to maintain and upgrade it? That's the epitome of Mussolini-style fascism: the government working solely for the corporations and not the people. If the infrastructure is really that important, and the corporate owners aren't taking care of it, then it should just be nationalized.
  - the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
    > However, do you think that the government should be handing buckets of cash to Comcast so they can maintain their cable internet infrastructure? […] I don't have an opinion on that topic, but traditionally governments take over private infrastructure companies if that is necessary to continue the service. TFL in London is a government body but when the subway system was initially developed they were entirely private companies.
    - Grishnakh 11y ago
      That's how it was in Manhattan (NYC) too, and that's why the layout of the subways doesn't seem to make much sense: they were all started by competing companies 100 years or more ago. The problem isn't "taking over private infrastructure to continue the service", the problem is when the government funnels money to private corporations to continue the service. If the corporation can provide the service all by itself using free-market economics (more of less, there's probably some utility regulation needed), then fine, but if they have to be propped up by the government, then they shouldn't exist and it should be nationalized. A prime example of this is the government gifting tons of money to internet providers like Comcrap to make infrastructure improvements, who then just pocketed the money and didn't make any improvements. IMO, all critical infrastructure should just be government-owned, and operated much like the USPS but with less Congressional interference. The USPS operates basically as a private company, except it's owned by the government and isn't for-profit, and is overseen by the government. Overall, it's worked pretty well except for Congress screwing around with it from time to time (like requiring them to pre-fund all employees' retirement with a law in 2006). The MTA (the company that runs public transit) in NYC works this way too. Putting the safety and security of your nation into the hands of a privately-held corporation that's only interested in profits is sheer lunacy.

massysett 11y ago

I know of no definition of "infrastructure" that hinges on whether it is publicly owned. The Department of Homeland Security plans for "critical infrastructure security" and it acknowledges that most "critical infrastructure" is privately owned. https://www.dhs.gov/what-critical-infrastructure https://www.dhs.gov/what-critical-infrastructure

Grishnakh 11y ago
If the infrastructure is privately owned, I don't see how the government has any business worrying about it and certainly not paying for its maintenance and upkeep (beyond normal usage fees, just like any other customer). If the infrastructure is critical to national security, it shouldn't be privately owned.
- teddyh 11y ago
  Most businesses are privately owned (or at least not owned by the government), but government still worries about the economy, about jobs, etc.
  - Grishnakh 11y ago
    Yes, but that doesn't mean that the government should pay for private companies to maintain their infrastructure while the companies keep all the profits for themselves.

the_mitsuhiko 11y ago

Why would infrastructure have to be "public"? Trains and mail is partially privatized, fiber/copper entirely and still those are considered infrastructure.

Grishnakh 11y ago
Yes, but the whole idea behind the worry that US infrastructure is falling apart is that the government has a role to fix it. Obviously, with roads and bridges, it's the government's job to fix those, since those things are owned and operated by the government. However, do you think that the government should be handing buckets of cash to Comcast so they can maintain their cable internet infrastructure? Should the government fork over money to Verizon, AT&T, etc. to maintain cellular infrastructure? Should the government hand money to CSX to maintain their railroads? (Over and above the money that Amtrak pays them to lease the track, that is.) As for the mail, that's not privatized: the USPS is wholly-owned by the US federal government. But as I understand it, it's entirely self-funded. Unless you're talking about UPS/FedEx. If the infrastructure is privately owned, why should the government use taxpayer money to maintain and upgrade it? That's the epitome of Mussolini-style fascism: the government working solely for the corporations and not the people. If the infrastructure is really that important, and the corporate owners aren't taking care of it, then it should just be nationalized.
- the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
  > However, do you think that the government should be handing buckets of cash to Comcast so they can maintain their cable internet infrastructure? […] I don't have an opinion on that topic, but traditionally governments take over private infrastructure companies if that is necessary to continue the service. TFL in London is a government body but when the subway system was initially developed they were entirely private companies.
  - Grishnakh 11y ago
    That's how it was in Manhattan (NYC) too, and that's why the layout of the subways doesn't seem to make much sense: they were all started by competing companies 100 years or more ago. The problem isn't "taking over private infrastructure to continue the service", the problem is when the government funnels money to private corporations to continue the service. If the corporation can provide the service all by itself using free-market economics (more of less, there's probably some utility regulation needed), then fine, but if they have to be propped up by the government, then they shouldn't exist and it should be nationalized. A prime example of this is the government gifting tons of money to internet providers like Comcrap to make infrastructure improvements, who then just pocketed the money and didn't make any improvements. IMO, all critical infrastructure should just be government-owned, and operated much like the USPS but with less Congressional interference. The USPS operates basically as a private company, except it's owned by the government and isn't for-profit, and is overseen by the government. Overall, it's worked pretty well except for Congress screwing around with it from time to time (like requiring them to pre-fund all employees' retirement with a law in 2006). The MTA (the company that runs public transit) in NYC works this way too. Putting the safety and security of your nation into the hands of a privately-held corporation that's only interested in profits is sheer lunacy.