4 ms·

in a libertarian world who owns the cables to your house? How does someone with a better idea/business model get new cables out to everyones house?

by jshen 16y ago

warrenwilkinson 16y ago
Who needs to own cables? You could rent cable in some areas, rent satallite for others, build short range wireless towers in others, use laser transmission here, build above ground infrastructure there, channel packets through power cables here, and phone lines there, and speed it up with local caching here, here and here. Technology changes, don't expect the ISP killer to look like an ISP. Just as the land-line phone killer in no way looked like a better land line phone provider.
- zachrose 16y ago
  s/cables/infrastructure/g
- jshen 16y ago
  Who would you rent them from? In a libertarian world who should have owned the cables for the past 20 years? How would competition happen when the cost of running new cables all around the country is extremely high?
  - warrenwilkinson 16y ago
    As with everything, if you want something you either buy it or build it. If the cost to use existing infrastructure is too high, demand for alternatives will grow. If this demand can supplied, great, if it can't, then nothing can be done by market or government. You've correctly pegged me as a Libertarian =), but I don't know who should be the title holders of the existing infrastructure.
    - jshen 16y ago
      The point is that a new business can't dig up everyones backyard if they think the current phone companies are doing a bad job, even if there is demand. I don't see how the libertarian model can work in this case.
      - warrenwilkinson 16y ago
        Can I give you a link? http://server.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?Category=26&id=377 http://server.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?Ca... Mary Ruwart (2008 Libertarian Party presidental nomination) answers a very similar question about roads. The short answer is: Most of the infrastructure would be built and maintained by the people who lived next to them. A university and some nearby business(es) might build a high speed connection. Then some adjacent neighborhoods might tie in. As low-cost regional hubs grow, entrepreneurs might focus on cost effective inter-regional infrastructure.
bane 16y ago
libertarianism is often a placeholder for "a world where everybody has virtually unlimited piles of money for which they can pay for basic services like clean water or a functioning local road system"
- webXL 16y ago
  No, libertarians understand the allocation of scarce resources. Politicians, on the other hand, act as if taxpayers have "virtually unlimited piles of money for which they can pay for basic services like clean water or a functioning local road system". With $14 Trillion of mounting debt, you can continue to bury your head in the sand and pretend the wealthy will somehow be able to pay for it all and everything will be alright, OR you can perhaps use reason and facts to ascertain that government pyramid schemes (SS and Medicare), unnecessary wars, and corporate welfare (Ethanol subsidies!) have a little bit more to do with the problem than libertarian thinking.
  - jshen 16y ago
    We had surpluses under Clinton. What's changed since then? I can only think of a few major changes, the bush tax cuts, the wars, medical costs rose, and derivatives finally collapsed. I don't think taxpayers have unlimited money, but I do think the super rich should pay more on capital gains which makes their tax rate lower than mine!
    - webXL 16y ago
      More on capital gains?? If I buy 1 share of GOOG with my after-tax income, and someone buys it from me for a $100 more with their after-tax income, why should the government get a cut of that, let alone more of a cut? And I don't think they have a lower rate. The super-rich (top 1%) already pay 38% of all tax revenue, but they only earn 20% of total income (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html). You can only squeeze them so much before they leave. Ask Mayor Bloomberg.
      - 16y ago
smokeyj 16y ago
Why not just use a different ISP over the same cables? The cables could be maintained by a "home owner association" type license that connects you to a main tower or something similar. Is the only possible way to connect to the internet by a State granted monopoly? I don't think so, but I feel our creativity has been shot because this is how it's worked for years.
- jshen 16y ago
  So if I want a faster connection I'd have to gather a quorum of people who live in my area and convince them to force everyone in the area to chip in the money required to upgrade the cables? When my internet is down and the ISP claims the cables are bad who do I call? Myself?
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]

in a libertarian world who owns the cables to your house? How does someone with a better idea/business model get new cables out to everyones house?

by jshen 16y ago

in a libertarian world who owns the cables to your house? How does someone with a better idea/business model get new cables out to everyones house?

warrenwilkinson 16y ago

Who needs to own cables? You could rent cable in some areas, rent satallite for others, build short range wireless towers in others, use laser transmission here, build above ground infrastructure there, channel packets through power cables here, and phone lines there, and speed it up with local caching here, here and here. Technology changes, don't expect the ISP killer to look like an ISP. Just as the land-line phone killer in no way looked like a better land line phone provider.

zachrose 16y ago
s/cables/infrastructure/g
jshen 16y ago
Who would you rent them from? In a libertarian world who should have owned the cables for the past 20 years? How would competition happen when the cost of running new cables all around the country is extremely high?
- warrenwilkinson 16y ago
  As with everything, if you want something you either buy it or build it. If the cost to use existing infrastructure is too high, demand for alternatives will grow. If this demand can supplied, great, if it can't, then nothing can be done by market or government. You've correctly pegged me as a Libertarian =), but I don't know who should be the title holders of the existing infrastructure.
  - jshen 16y ago
    The point is that a new business can't dig up everyones backyard if they think the current phone companies are doing a bad job, even if there is demand. I don't see how the libertarian model can work in this case.
    - warrenwilkinson 16y ago
      Can I give you a link? http://server.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?Category=26&id=377 http://server.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?Ca... Mary Ruwart (2008 Libertarian Party presidental nomination) answers a very similar question about roads. The short answer is: Most of the infrastructure would be built and maintained by the people who lived next to them. A university and some nearby business(es) might build a high speed connection. Then some adjacent neighborhoods might tie in. As low-cost regional hubs grow, entrepreneurs might focus on cost effective inter-regional infrastructure.

bane 16y ago

libertarianism is often a placeholder for "a world where everybody has virtually unlimited piles of money for which they can pay for basic services like clean water or a functioning local road system"

webXL 16y ago
No, libertarians understand the allocation of scarce resources. Politicians, on the other hand, act as if taxpayers have "virtually unlimited piles of money for which they can pay for basic services like clean water or a functioning local road system". With $14 Trillion of mounting debt, you can continue to bury your head in the sand and pretend the wealthy will somehow be able to pay for it all and everything will be alright, OR you can perhaps use reason and facts to ascertain that government pyramid schemes (SS and Medicare), unnecessary wars, and corporate welfare (Ethanol subsidies!) have a little bit more to do with the problem than libertarian thinking.
- jshen 16y ago
  We had surpluses under Clinton. What's changed since then? I can only think of a few major changes, the bush tax cuts, the wars, medical costs rose, and derivatives finally collapsed. I don't think taxpayers have unlimited money, but I do think the super rich should pay more on capital gains which makes their tax rate lower than mine!
  - webXL 16y ago
    More on capital gains?? If I buy 1 share of GOOG with my after-tax income, and someone buys it from me for a $100 more with their after-tax income, why should the government get a cut of that, let alone more of a cut? And I don't think they have a lower rate. The super-rich (top 1%) already pay 38% of all tax revenue, but they only earn 20% of total income (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html). You can only squeeze them so much before they leave. Ask Mayor Bloomberg.
    - 16y ago

smokeyj 16y ago

Why not just use a different ISP over the same cables? The cables could be maintained by a "home owner association" type license that connects you to a main tower or something similar. Is the only possible way to connect to the internet by a State granted monopoly? I don't think so, but I feel our creativity has been shot because this is how it's worked for years.

jshen 16y ago
So if I want a faster connection I'd have to gather a quorum of people who live in my area and convince them to force everyone in the area to chip in the money required to upgrade the cables? When my internet is down and the ISP claims the cables are bad who do I call? Myself?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]