4 ms·

One of the reasons used by Canada's telcos to rationalize Canada's sky-high wireless rates is that it costs them more to build out the networks than it does for

One of the reasons used by Canada's telcos to rationalize Canada's sky-high wireless rates is that it costs them more to build out the networks than it does for other countries. I would hate to give them one more excuse to lean on by having them source this equipment domestically.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
I'm American, but I'd love to see more of our infrastructure projects pseudo-nationalized, personally. Governments manage to build roads and deliver mail just fine, and I don't see why digital infrastructure couldn't have more government financing and involvement as well.
- gen220 6y ago
  Some municipalities have tried to get into the high-bandwidth-ISP-as-a-public-utility business, because they’re too small for $BIG_TELECO to invest in, but they want fiber networks to attract businesses and remote tech workers. It’s mostly been unsuccessful because running a local and profitable ISP is hard. In the few municipalities where they’ve been successful, the big telecom companies have been more successful in lobbying state legislatures to make such municipal enterprises illegal. “It won’t be fair to private businesses to have to compete with a tax-funded local teleco.” It’s a reasonable argument, but it perpetuates the problem. Maybe the solution is for cities to award a prize (say, $2mm) to private ISPs that can offer high bandwidth connections.
  - tirpen 6y ago
    It's not a reasonable argument at all. It's like arguing that the USPS is "not fair" to companies like UPS or FedEx. Or that public buses are not fair to Uber. Or libraries to book stores.
    - gen220 6y ago
      Hey, I agree with you. I was just trying to give context on what’s happening, without passing judgement or inflections my opinion. I guess I would rephrase it as “it’s not a totally unreasonable argument”, i.e. you can understand why it would be persuasive to small c conservatives and libertarians who would otherwise be pro-any-policy-that-attracts-business. It depends on whether you see access to high bandwidth internet as a public utility or not. Arguably it is, because the economics of it don’t make usually make sense for private companies unless that private company is a monopoly.
- sneak 6y ago
  You really don’t want the state being the practical arbiter of whether or not you can connect to the internet. Sure, you might have legal recourse if they decide to unplug your entire political party’s ports one month before an election, but in the meantime, you’ve lost the election. Right now you just go get a different SIM. The state being in direct control of who and how to censor is a loaded gun aimed at the head of a free society.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago

I'm American, but I'd love to see more of our infrastructure projects pseudo-nationalized, personally. Governments manage to build roads and deliver mail just fine, and I don't see why digital infrastructure couldn't have more government financing and involvement as well.

gen220 6y ago
Some municipalities have tried to get into the high-bandwidth-ISP-as-a-public-utility business, because they’re too small for $BIG_TELECO to invest in, but they want fiber networks to attract businesses and remote tech workers. It’s mostly been unsuccessful because running a local and profitable ISP is hard. In the few municipalities where they’ve been successful, the big telecom companies have been more successful in lobbying state legislatures to make such municipal enterprises illegal. “It won’t be fair to private businesses to have to compete with a tax-funded local teleco.” It’s a reasonable argument, but it perpetuates the problem. Maybe the solution is for cities to award a prize (say, $2mm) to private ISPs that can offer high bandwidth connections.
- tirpen 6y ago
  It's not a reasonable argument at all. It's like arguing that the USPS is "not fair" to companies like UPS or FedEx. Or that public buses are not fair to Uber. Or libraries to book stores.
  - gen220 6y ago
    Hey, I agree with you. I was just trying to give context on what’s happening, without passing judgement or inflections my opinion. I guess I would rephrase it as “it’s not a totally unreasonable argument”, i.e. you can understand why it would be persuasive to small c conservatives and libertarians who would otherwise be pro-any-policy-that-attracts-business. It depends on whether you see access to high bandwidth internet as a public utility or not. Arguably it is, because the economics of it don’t make usually make sense for private companies unless that private company is a monopoly.
sneak 6y ago
You really don’t want the state being the practical arbiter of whether or not you can connect to the internet. Sure, you might have legal recourse if they decide to unplug your entire political party’s ports one month before an election, but in the meantime, you’ve lost the election. Right now you just go get a different SIM. The state being in direct control of who and how to censor is a loaded gun aimed at the head of a free society.