5 ms·

My colleague argues that it's ok for Time Warner Spectrum/Comcast to control specific areas and districts because they laid the pipe and own the last mile (when

My colleague argues that it's ok for Time Warner Spectrum/Comcast to control specific areas and districts because they laid the pipe and own the last mile (when they've decided to). I try and argue that it's anti-competitive and that I shouldn't be held to ransom by 'Rectum for $60/mo (their minimum) if I want reliable internet. I do see where he's coming from though but I don't know how to counter those arguments as I don't know the history of how all the fiber got laid and who actually "owns" any of it. It seems like the phone lines or water that it's a public good at this point. Bringing up that example is countered with what a f up all the Baby Bells became. Anyway, curious as to what some folks here that are much older and might have had a hand in the growth of broadband have to say.

webkike 9y ago
Pacific bell laid the cable. The Rockefellers dug the oil they sold for less than the competition could. The thing is none of these things happened in a vacuum. Everything has externalities. People enjoy considering other people as independent creatures but we're all working within the limitations of each other. We grow up in hives, learn in hives, go to work in hives, and eventually form hives we die in that we like to call our own. No one owns anything. If someone claims to, ask them again in one hundred years.
- JBlue42 9y ago
  Good point. Everything is interdependent and a system within a system.
- pathseeker 9y ago
  >No one owns anything. If someone claims to, ask them again in one hundred years. That's a pretty useless definition of ownership. Nobody I know of requires permanence in the definition of ownership.
rayiner 9y ago
> I do see where he's coming from though but I don't know how to counter those arguments as I don't know the history of how all the fiber got laid and who actually "owns" any of it. It seems like the phone lines or water that it's a public good at this point. It depends on who laid the fiber. In the context of cable companies like Comcast, almost all of the fiber was built with private money. Cable companies were historically not regulated as telecommunications carriers, which means they didn't get whatever subsidies were available for deploying telephone service to various places. In fact, the opposite is true. Municipalities generally treat cable-company contracts as a way to get freebies. A standard contract will require the company to pay 5% of gross revenues to the municipality, plus various goodies (wiring up municipal buildings with fiber, lump-sum contributions, etc.) That is on top of the rental fees paid to the power or telephone company for space on the poles. That is very different from how, for example, water and sewer lines are built. In almost every county, water and sewer lines are paid for by mandatory fees paid to the county when you build a house. Most people don't realize it because it gets rolled into the price of the house. But in the county where I live, for example, the builder pays about $25,000 to the county in fees to hook up to the public water/sewer system.
- JBlue42 9y ago
  Thanks, that was educational. I had no idea about those fees and the like. Since he came from a construction background, maybe he's more familiar with all that.
FireBeyond 9y ago
> My colleague argues that it's ok for Time Warner Spectrum/Comcast to control specific areas and districts because they laid the pipe and own the last mile (when they've decided to). They've been paid, multiple times, by varying levels of government, large subsidies with the specific mandate to improve service, increase maintenance, and so on. And multiple times they've accepted this money and done literally nothing with it. To the extent that Charter (I think?) was recently spanked by NY for selling packages of 50mbps, 100mbps and above... while supplying modems that were physically incapable of more than ~20mbps.
- JBlue42 9y ago
  I wasn't aware of that. I know that a lot of folks around here aren't fans of the government, but isn't this what a stronger FCC would be good for? I guess as long as the right person was appointed to the chair.
chadgeidel 9y ago
"They laid the pipe" With how much in original federal subsidies? How much in annual federal subsidies? How much is the protection of monopoly provider in certain areas worth? They (Comcast) aren't running their business with ONLY their dollars.
s73ver_ 9y ago
I, for one, don't give a shit that they think they own it. I care about the level of service, and I'm entirely in favor of eminent domain to just take it, since they've proven they can't provide service worth a damn.
- JBlue42 9y ago
  I agree somewhat but I doubt in today's political climate (esp. this administration) you would get anyone advocated for local or federal level control since the People seem to distrust any gov't and its ability to do a job (despite things continuing to function to an ok degree).
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    You are, of course, entirely right.
    - JBlue42 9y ago
      Honestly, I think all the "anti-government" people I've come across (normal ones, not moneyed SV people) would be ok if they could legitimately see and hear about how their local, state, and federal tax dollars are at work in some easy way. The news doesn't cover it, and probably can't, well enough, but the data has to be there because it's public. And also, taxes are the number one thing people want to complain about.
      - libertyEQ 9y ago
        One of the founding principles of the US was individual liberty. The more the government is involved, the less liberty is possible. Now, most "anti-government" people I know differentiate between federal and state/local and it is the strong federal government we object to. Centralizing power is dangerous (as we've seen with social networks) because when some group of people whose ethics you strongly disagree with take control, you have no choice except to leave. Cannabis is currently legal in 5 states despite being illegal at the federal level. These topics were extensively discussed in the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers over 200 years ago, and I would suggest everyone read them.

webkike 9y ago

Pacific bell laid the cable. The Rockefellers dug the oil they sold for less than the competition could. The thing is none of these things happened in a vacuum. Everything has externalities. People enjoy considering other people as independent creatures but we're all working within the limitations of each other. We grow up in hives, learn in hives, go to work in hives, and eventually form hives we die in that we like to call our own. No one owns anything. If someone claims to, ask them again in one hundred years.

JBlue42 9y ago
Good point. Everything is interdependent and a system within a system.
pathseeker 9y ago
>No one owns anything. If someone claims to, ask them again in one hundred years. That's a pretty useless definition of ownership. Nobody I know of requires permanence in the definition of ownership.

rayiner 9y ago

> I do see where he's coming from though but I don't know how to counter those arguments as I don't know the history of how all the fiber got laid and who actually "owns" any of it. It seems like the phone lines or water that it's a public good at this point. It depends on who laid the fiber. In the context of cable companies like Comcast, almost all of the fiber was built with private money. Cable companies were historically not regulated as telecommunications carriers, which means they didn't get whatever subsidies were available for deploying telephone service to various places. In fact, the opposite is true. Municipalities generally treat cable-company contracts as a way to get freebies. A standard contract will require the company to pay 5% of gross revenues to the municipality, plus various goodies (wiring up municipal buildings with fiber, lump-sum contributions, etc.) That is on top of the rental fees paid to the power or telephone company for space on the poles. That is very different from how, for example, water and sewer lines are built. In almost every county, water and sewer lines are paid for by mandatory fees paid to the county when you build a house. Most people don't realize it because it gets rolled into the price of the house. But in the county where I live, for example, the builder pays about $25,000 to the county in fees to hook up to the public water/sewer system.

JBlue42 9y ago
Thanks, that was educational. I had no idea about those fees and the like. Since he came from a construction background, maybe he's more familiar with all that.

FireBeyond 9y ago

> My colleague argues that it's ok for Time Warner Spectrum/Comcast to control specific areas and districts because they laid the pipe and own the last mile (when they've decided to). They've been paid, multiple times, by varying levels of government, large subsidies with the specific mandate to improve service, increase maintenance, and so on. And multiple times they've accepted this money and done literally nothing with it. To the extent that Charter (I think?) was recently spanked by NY for selling packages of 50mbps, 100mbps and above... while supplying modems that were physically incapable of more than ~20mbps.

JBlue42 9y ago
I wasn't aware of that. I know that a lot of folks around here aren't fans of the government, but isn't this what a stronger FCC would be good for? I guess as long as the right person was appointed to the chair.

chadgeidel 9y ago

"They laid the pipe" With how much in original federal subsidies? How much in annual federal subsidies? How much is the protection of monopoly provider in certain areas worth? They (Comcast) aren't running their business with ONLY their dollars.

s73ver_ 9y ago

I, for one, don't give a shit that they think they own it. I care about the level of service, and I'm entirely in favor of eminent domain to just take it, since they've proven they can't provide service worth a damn.

JBlue42 9y ago
I agree somewhat but I doubt in today's political climate (esp. this administration) you would get anyone advocated for local or federal level control since the People seem to distrust any gov't and its ability to do a job (despite things continuing to function to an ok degree).
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  You are, of course, entirely right.
  - JBlue42 9y ago
    Honestly, I think all the "anti-government" people I've come across (normal ones, not moneyed SV people) would be ok if they could legitimately see and hear about how their local, state, and federal tax dollars are at work in some easy way. The news doesn't cover it, and probably can't, well enough, but the data has to be there because it's public. And also, taxes are the number one thing people want to complain about.
    - libertyEQ 9y ago
      One of the founding principles of the US was individual liberty. The more the government is involved, the less liberty is possible. Now, most "anti-government" people I know differentiate between federal and state/local and it is the strong federal government we object to. Centralizing power is dangerous (as we've seen with social networks) because when some group of people whose ethics you strongly disagree with take control, you have no choice except to leave. Cannabis is currently legal in 5 states despite being illegal at the federal level. These topics were extensively discussed in the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers over 200 years ago, and I would suggest everyone read them.