3 ms·

In first world countries, the government ("we") takes care of this by paying telcos to deploy access to remote (i.e., unprofitable) areas.

by uzzgx 7y ago

huffmsa 7y ago
Not sustainable. "Government money" (money taken from it's citizenry) eventually runs out. Plus granting a firm a government monopoly on a region is always a bad idea that ultimately hinders the development and deployment of new solutions. Cab medallions in NYC. Fixed price airline tickets. Exclusive right to trade spices west of the prime meridian.
- uzzgx 7y ago
  >Not sustainable. "Government money" (money taken from it's citizenry) eventually runs out. Okay? That doesn't seem to be happening in Europe for example. Everything runs fine. There's internet access in rural areas. The world didn't collapse. >Plus granting a firm a government monopoly on a region is always a bad idea that ultimately hinders the development and deployment of new solutions. It's an auction. And others can choose to deploy afterwards. >Cab medallions in NYC. Fixed price airline tickets. Exclusive right to trade spices west of the prime meridian. Yes, the free market seems to work fine in this case. That's why these Alabamians have 1 Gbps fibre... oh no wait they have no access to the Internet at all. Dammit. Call Ayn Rand
  - huffmsa 7y ago
    > Everything runs fine Ask the Germans about how they feel about underwriting the rest of the EUs poor decisions to make sure that everything is running smoothly.
    - uzzgx 7y ago
      From the fact that you are a libertarian I had already assumed you had no idea about economy, but thanks for confirming it.
    - dhdixncjd 7y ago
      The Germans owe tens billions of dollars to the Greeks due when a final WW2 peace treaty is signed. The billions of dollars are loans the Germans forced the Greeks to grant then during the war and at the end of it were to be paid by de-industrializing Germany by moving the capital goods to Greece. The Germans, not wanting to pay or default, asked the four powers not to grant them a peace treaty when they reunified. The Germans are quite touchy about this, but the fact is, they’re deadbeats. Uzzgx: when lacking arguments launch the ad hominem attacks.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- formercoder 7y ago
  Not always. Certain services, electricity for example, are “natural monopolies”. Once someone is in there, it makes no economic sense for others to compete, this is where government regulated monopolies are the optimal solution.
  - huffmsa 7y ago
    Oh? How's PG&Es monopoly working for California? I'm of the opinion that much smaller grids with high volume solar would do a lot better of a job. Sure the monopoly made sense when it was issued, but once tech catches up to the point of making it obsolete, the incumbent rarely goes down without a fight, delaying the deployment of new technologies, ultimately hurting consumers.
    - thebooktocome 7y ago
      PG&E's problems are due to a change in liability laws combined with decades of poor maintenance. A non-profit government-run utility wouldn't have a profit incentive to skimp on equipment maintenance for decades. It would have other, more interesting problems.
      - huffmsa 7y ago
        The US military skips on maintenance all the damn time. They were running bootleg copies of Windows as recently as 2015 because they don't have the resources or incentives to upgrade. Every office of the executive executive branch is in theory non/not-for-profit but they still manage to waste as much money if not more than a comparable private sector firm. Federal light and power would not go well.
    - ldoughty 7y ago
      For-profit government granted monopolies are a terrible idea. They should be government-run, or watched, and should not choose between providing a service to customers or money to shareholders. I'm not in California, but sounds to me like PG&E maximized profits by reducing maintenance, then when they were really far behind and running into issues, they begged for more money from taxpayers because they could not afford to make up for years of maximizing shareholder and senior management profits... I.e. corporate welfare.. they made lots of profit knowing this would bite them in the rear end, and then want the government to bail them out. It's nearly always win-win when you're that large of a company to pull these shenanigans
- scarface74 7y ago
  How does money “run out”? Are we not collecting more of it every year?
- yowlingcat 7y ago
  Nice touch on the last one. What do you think of a blend of the two? That is, government investments funding private companies?
  - huffmsa 7y ago
    I like to flex my supposedly useless history degree from time to time. How else would I take shots at Julius II? I don't think the government is particularly good at actively promoting things. Too easy to incorrectly optimize. So to best promote investment in private firms, they should find something that currently disincentives it and stop doing that.
    - yowlingcat 7y ago
      Are you sure about that? Even accounting for the historical contribution of the US DOD and public sector to the genesis of the Silicon Valley in the first place?
      - shiftless 7y ago
        "In other news, the military-industrial complex--like all government programs--just grows and grows and grows, while the taxpayers are continuously sucked dry to fund all these marvelous ideas and brilliant schemes concocted by the Really Smart People. More at 11."
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Not sustainable. "Government money" The "lifeline" program [0] has existed since 1985. Granted, it's not perfect. It has often been used by ILECs to harass CLECs. Still, it seems to work. It has already been extended from landline POTS to mobile, mobile "broadband", and fixed "broadband". It may be worth investigating why more Alabamians aren't using this program. [0] https://www.fcc.gov/general/lifeline-program-low-income-consumers https://www.fcc.gov/general/lifeline-program-low-income-cons...
- dpau 7y ago
  China disproves your theory. Over 90% have access to broadband fiber at affordable rates. Sure it's heavily censored and a tool for state propaganda. But the US looks like a third world country in comparison. I agree with the original post, we as Americans should do better.
  - huffmsa 7y ago
    Cheap in terms of dollars. But add in the totalitarianism, censorship, 60m+ dead in the last 50 years, and I don't think you'll find the price to be particularly cheap. I'll take my slower but steadier progress.
    - dpau 7y ago
      You're conflating issues. The question was whether or not government investment in internet infrastructure was possible or sustainable. China proves that it is, even over a huge country with a huge rural population. And they did it within the past decade! The US could do the same, presumably without killing millions of people. And I do mean cheap in terms of local standard of living. 1 year of high speed broadband fiber costs less than $100USD.
      - shiftless 7y ago
        Well then go right ahead and get right on that for us, please. Wait, what? You want to rob ME in order to pay for it? No thanks. If you think your idea is so great, come up with the money to fund it yourself. Stop robbing the world.
- smileysteve 7y ago
  > Plus granting a firm a government monopoly on a region is always a bad idea that ultimately hinders the development and deployment of new solutions. I'd be surprised if these areas weren't already under at&t and charter monopoly.

In first world countries, the government ("we") takes care of this by paying telcos to deploy access to remote (i.e., unprofitable) areas.

by uzzgx 7y ago

In first world countries, the government ("we") takes care of this by paying telcos to deploy access to remote (i.e., unprofitable) areas.

huffmsa 7y ago

Not sustainable. "Government money" (money taken from it's citizenry) eventually runs out. Plus granting a firm a government monopoly on a region is always a bad idea that ultimately hinders the development and deployment of new solutions. Cab medallions in NYC. Fixed price airline tickets. Exclusive right to trade spices west of the prime meridian.

uzzgx 7y ago
>Not sustainable. "Government money" (money taken from it's citizenry) eventually runs out. Okay? That doesn't seem to be happening in Europe for example. Everything runs fine. There's internet access in rural areas. The world didn't collapse. >Plus granting a firm a government monopoly on a region is always a bad idea that ultimately hinders the development and deployment of new solutions. It's an auction. And others can choose to deploy afterwards. >Cab medallions in NYC. Fixed price airline tickets. Exclusive right to trade spices west of the prime meridian. Yes, the free market seems to work fine in this case. That's why these Alabamians have 1 Gbps fibre... oh no wait they have no access to the Internet at all. Dammit. Call Ayn Rand
- huffmsa 7y ago
  > Everything runs fine Ask the Germans about how they feel about underwriting the rest of the EUs poor decisions to make sure that everything is running smoothly.
  - uzzgx 7y ago
    From the fact that you are a libertarian I had already assumed you had no idea about economy, but thanks for confirming it.
  - dhdixncjd 7y ago
    The Germans owe tens billions of dollars to the Greeks due when a final WW2 peace treaty is signed. The billions of dollars are loans the Germans forced the Greeks to grant then during the war and at the end of it were to be paid by de-industrializing Germany by moving the capital goods to Greece. The Germans, not wanting to pay or default, asked the four powers not to grant them a peace treaty when they reunified. The Germans are quite touchy about this, but the fact is, they’re deadbeats. Uzzgx: when lacking arguments launch the ad hominem attacks.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
formercoder 7y ago
Not always. Certain services, electricity for example, are “natural monopolies”. Once someone is in there, it makes no economic sense for others to compete, this is where government regulated monopolies are the optimal solution.
- huffmsa 7y ago
  Oh? How's PG&Es monopoly working for California? I'm of the opinion that much smaller grids with high volume solar would do a lot better of a job. Sure the monopoly made sense when it was issued, but once tech catches up to the point of making it obsolete, the incumbent rarely goes down without a fight, delaying the deployment of new technologies, ultimately hurting consumers.
  - thebooktocome 7y ago
    PG&E's problems are due to a change in liability laws combined with decades of poor maintenance. A non-profit government-run utility wouldn't have a profit incentive to skimp on equipment maintenance for decades. It would have other, more interesting problems.
    - huffmsa 7y ago
      The US military skips on maintenance all the damn time. They were running bootleg copies of Windows as recently as 2015 because they don't have the resources or incentives to upgrade. Every office of the executive executive branch is in theory non/not-for-profit but they still manage to waste as much money if not more than a comparable private sector firm. Federal light and power would not go well.
  - ldoughty 7y ago
    For-profit government granted monopolies are a terrible idea. They should be government-run, or watched, and should not choose between providing a service to customers or money to shareholders. I'm not in California, but sounds to me like PG&E maximized profits by reducing maintenance, then when they were really far behind and running into issues, they begged for more money from taxpayers because they could not afford to make up for years of maximizing shareholder and senior management profits... I.e. corporate welfare.. they made lots of profit knowing this would bite them in the rear end, and then want the government to bail them out. It's nearly always win-win when you're that large of a company to pull these shenanigans
scarface74 7y ago
How does money “run out”? Are we not collecting more of it every year?
yowlingcat 7y ago
Nice touch on the last one. What do you think of a blend of the two? That is, government investments funding private companies?
- huffmsa 7y ago
  I like to flex my supposedly useless history degree from time to time. How else would I take shots at Julius II? I don't think the government is particularly good at actively promoting things. Too easy to incorrectly optimize. So to best promote investment in private firms, they should find something that currently disincentives it and stop doing that.
  - yowlingcat 7y ago
    Are you sure about that? Even accounting for the historical contribution of the US DOD and public sector to the genesis of the Silicon Valley in the first place?
    - shiftless 7y ago
      "In other news, the military-industrial complex--like all government programs--just grows and grows and grows, while the taxpayers are continuously sucked dry to fund all these marvelous ideas and brilliant schemes concocted by the Really Smart People. More at 11."
jessaustin 7y ago
Not sustainable. "Government money" The "lifeline" program [0] has existed since 1985. Granted, it's not perfect. It has often been used by ILECs to harass CLECs. Still, it seems to work. It has already been extended from landline POTS to mobile, mobile "broadband", and fixed "broadband". It may be worth investigating why more Alabamians aren't using this program. [0] https://www.fcc.gov/general/lifeline-program-low-income-consumers https://www.fcc.gov/general/lifeline-program-low-income-cons...
dpau 7y ago
China disproves your theory. Over 90% have access to broadband fiber at affordable rates. Sure it's heavily censored and a tool for state propaganda. But the US looks like a third world country in comparison. I agree with the original post, we as Americans should do better.
- huffmsa 7y ago
  Cheap in terms of dollars. But add in the totalitarianism, censorship, 60m+ dead in the last 50 years, and I don't think you'll find the price to be particularly cheap. I'll take my slower but steadier progress.
  - dpau 7y ago
    You're conflating issues. The question was whether or not government investment in internet infrastructure was possible or sustainable. China proves that it is, even over a huge country with a huge rural population. And they did it within the past decade! The US could do the same, presumably without killing millions of people. And I do mean cheap in terms of local standard of living. 1 year of high speed broadband fiber costs less than $100USD.
    - shiftless 7y ago
      Well then go right ahead and get right on that for us, please. Wait, what? You want to rob ME in order to pay for it? No thanks. If you think your idea is so great, come up with the money to fund it yourself. Stop robbing the world.
smileysteve 7y ago
> Plus granting a firm a government monopoly on a region is always a bad idea that ultimately hinders the development and deployment of new solutions. I'd be surprised if these areas weren't already under at&t and charter monopoly.