7 ms·

> But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem. I think that this is the part that I can't compre

by saulrh 9y ago

> But this is ignoring the whole debate: proponents of net freedom don't consider fast lanes to be a problem. I think that this is the part that I can't comprehend. The railroads misbehaved so badly that the government had to break rail transportation as an industry to kill them. Ninety years later we're still using long-haul semi trailers for everything. Bell's abuse of its monopoly was similarly severe. How do people hold this belief without becoming laughingstock?

ghaff 9y ago
>Ninety years later we're still using long-haul semi trailers for everything. No. There's actually a very healthy cargo rail system and relatively little trucking is truly long haul.
- saulrh 9y ago
  According to the DOT [1] it looks like my intuition is a bit out of date. Right now US freight about even, trucking still a little bit ahead by ton-mile. Ten years ago rail carried 2/3 as much freight as trucks. Last-mile delivery on trucks (from the rail station to the point of use) is taken care of by the unit of measurement (one ton of freight traveling one mile), so I think that those numbers are relatively reasonable. So I'll admit: fair enough, the rail industry is still healthy and carrying a good amount of cargo. I'll withdraw the wording; we do not in fact use long-haul trucks for everything. The fact that trucks are competing with rail at all, however, given the geographical extent of the US and how horrible long-haul trucking is, I believe makes me stand by my claim that the US rail industry was broken and never recovered. It frankly astonishes me that driving something down the highway is even remotely financially effective in comparison to rail freight. And, of course, none of this is relevant to my original point: the railroads abused their powers to an astonishing degree and the government was forced to smash them for the good of the economy. Is it obvious to me that today's ISPs are following in the footsteps of yesterday's railroads and telephones and I don't understand how people convince themselves otherwise. [1] https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_50.html https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu...
  - thinkloop 9y ago
    It's wasn't obvious to me that trucking is much less energy effecient than rail. According to treehugger.com rail achieves "400 ton-miles per gallon whereas trucks currently hover around 130 ton-miles per gallon" [1]. I wonder why that would be - rubber tires vs steel-on-steel? Traffic? There isn't much traffic during the majority of a long-haul and the last few miles have to be done by truck anyway. [1] https://www.treehugger.com/cars/rail-versus-trucking-whos-the-greenest-freight-carrier.html https://www.treehugger.com/cars/rail-versus-trucking-whos-th...
    - hirsin 9y ago
      Braking and acceleration - once you get x tons of anything moving, it generally wants to keep moving. Trains are tens of times longer than trucks, brake significantly less often, and have a lot more horsepower for acceleration.
      - int_19h 9y ago
        The other thing is, you can string wires along the rails relatively easily, and power everything directly with electricity - which offers substantial savings from efficiency of large scale power generation, even accounting for distribution losses. Better yet, you can then use regenerative braking, and feed energy back into the line. I do believe there's some benefit from the tracks themselves as well, though. Surely there's a lot less friction (per ton of weight) between the train wheels and steel rails, than there is between truck tires and the road?
        libertyEQ 9y ago
        >you can string wires along the rails relatively easily, and power everything directly with electricity - Except all freight trains in the US have 6600 HP diesel engines, usually ~6-8 engines per 100 cars from what I've seen (which is mostly coal).
        int_19h 9y ago
transposed 9y ago
I don't think that many people actually do hold this belief. That's why someone had to make a bot to create the illusion.
- rtpg 9y ago
  A bunch of the GOP seems to hold this belief. If there wasn't such a strong movement for net neutrality, I bet a bunch of Democrats would like this as well. I understand there are a lot of lobbyists, but there are many people who sincerely believe the "less regulation and more competition will solve the issues" mantra. I place a lot of the blame on outlets like the Wall Street Journal giving credence to arguments that strip out all context and use fancy words to justify these positions. Doesn't help that other people are afraid to call out their lies because they came from the same social circles. Yes, the "free market + competition makes things cheaper" argument works well when you remove all the reasons why a specific case does not fit the theory perfectly.
  - thinkloop 9y ago
    It's tiring how the dialogue is still so ideological. Every single person agrees that there should be 1 or more regulation. We are just determining their precise character. I wish public discussion would become more nuanced and specific to the issue at hand.
  - jinfiesto 9y ago
    I'm pretty liberal, and I believe that there is some truth to the "less regulation and more competition will solve the issues" mantra. The issue here being that there isn't a real way to inject more competition into the ISP space. Soooo, we are just getting less regulation. Which will inevitably lead to abuses.
    - QAkICoU7IDNkpFu 9y ago
      Break up the biggest ISP's by force.
      - 9y ago

by saulrh 9y ago

ghaff 9y ago

>Ninety years later we're still using long-haul semi trailers for everything. No. There's actually a very healthy cargo rail system and relatively little trucking is truly long haul.

saulrh 9y ago
According to the DOT [1] it looks like my intuition is a bit out of date. Right now US freight about even, trucking still a little bit ahead by ton-mile. Ten years ago rail carried 2/3 as much freight as trucks. Last-mile delivery on trucks (from the rail station to the point of use) is taken care of by the unit of measurement (one ton of freight traveling one mile), so I think that those numbers are relatively reasonable. So I'll admit: fair enough, the rail industry is still healthy and carrying a good amount of cargo. I'll withdraw the wording; we do not in fact use long-haul trucks for everything. The fact that trucks are competing with rail at all, however, given the geographical extent of the US and how horrible long-haul trucking is, I believe makes me stand by my claim that the US rail industry was broken and never recovered. It frankly astonishes me that driving something down the highway is even remotely financially effective in comparison to rail freight. And, of course, none of this is relevant to my original point: the railroads abused their powers to an astonishing degree and the government was forced to smash them for the good of the economy. Is it obvious to me that today's ISPs are following in the footsteps of yesterday's railroads and telephones and I don't understand how people convince themselves otherwise. [1] https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_50.html https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu...
- thinkloop 9y ago
  It's wasn't obvious to me that trucking is much less energy effecient than rail. According to treehugger.com rail achieves "400 ton-miles per gallon whereas trucks currently hover around 130 ton-miles per gallon" [1]. I wonder why that would be - rubber tires vs steel-on-steel? Traffic? There isn't much traffic during the majority of a long-haul and the last few miles have to be done by truck anyway. [1] https://www.treehugger.com/cars/rail-versus-trucking-whos-the-greenest-freight-carrier.html https://www.treehugger.com/cars/rail-versus-trucking-whos-th...
  - hirsin 9y ago
    Braking and acceleration - once you get x tons of anything moving, it generally wants to keep moving. Trains are tens of times longer than trucks, brake significantly less often, and have a lot more horsepower for acceleration.
    - int_19h 9y ago
      The other thing is, you can string wires along the rails relatively easily, and power everything directly with electricity - which offers substantial savings from efficiency of large scale power generation, even accounting for distribution losses. Better yet, you can then use regenerative braking, and feed energy back into the line. I do believe there's some benefit from the tracks themselves as well, though. Surely there's a lot less friction (per ton of weight) between the train wheels and steel rails, than there is between truck tires and the road?
      - libertyEQ 9y ago
        >you can string wires along the rails relatively easily, and power everything directly with electricity - Except all freight trains in the US have 6600 HP diesel engines, usually ~6-8 engines per 100 cars from what I've seen (which is mostly coal).
        int_19h 9y ago

transposed 9y ago

I don't think that many people actually do hold this belief. That's why someone had to make a bot to create the illusion.

rtpg 9y ago
A bunch of the GOP seems to hold this belief. If there wasn't such a strong movement for net neutrality, I bet a bunch of Democrats would like this as well. I understand there are a lot of lobbyists, but there are many people who sincerely believe the "less regulation and more competition will solve the issues" mantra. I place a lot of the blame on outlets like the Wall Street Journal giving credence to arguments that strip out all context and use fancy words to justify these positions. Doesn't help that other people are afraid to call out their lies because they came from the same social circles. Yes, the "free market + competition makes things cheaper" argument works well when you remove all the reasons why a specific case does not fit the theory perfectly.
- thinkloop 9y ago
  It's tiring how the dialogue is still so ideological. Every single person agrees that there should be 1 or more regulation. We are just determining their precise character. I wish public discussion would become more nuanced and specific to the issue at hand.
- jinfiesto 9y ago
  I'm pretty liberal, and I believe that there is some truth to the "less regulation and more competition will solve the issues" mantra. The issue here being that there isn't a real way to inject more competition into the ISP space. Soooo, we are just getting less regulation. Which will inevitably lead to abuses.
  - QAkICoU7IDNkpFu 9y ago
    Break up the biggest ISP's by force.
    - 9y ago