3 ms·

This is a little bit of my ignorance to public works and how much these companies invest in infrastructure. Please correct me. But the way I understand it, the

This is a little bit of my ignorance to public works and how much these companies invest in infrastructure. Please correct me. But the way I understand it, the ISP pays for right of way access to the city/county/state to put in infrastructure to deliver internet access, right? They also pay for the labor/material cost to get the work done, right? If we really want net neutrality and a stop to the pseudo monopolies, wouldn't the municipality have to buy the infrastructure from the private company?

phkahler 6y ago
Or install and maintain it's own infrastructure. With all the upgrading that's gone on for the last 25 years it probably would have been bad, but now progress is slowing and it seems more appropriate.
- supergeek133 6y ago
  Sure, this is another thing, but I just keep going back to all the trouble Google Fiber had to make them stop.
ViViDboarder 6y ago
> If we really want net neutrality and a stop to the pseudo monopolies, wouldn't the municipality have to buy the infrastructure from the private company? Not necessarily. From a legal perspective, no. Laws could be passed mandating someone as long as it’s not unconstitutional. Additionally, there are two different things you’re conflating here. First is the forcing of someone who is grated a limited monopoly to lease their infrastructure to competitors. The infrastructure doesn’t have to be public to mandate some kind of sharing. The company that seeds the investment still gets some form of limited exclusivity and gets to charge competitors a (regulated) fee for their use. Net Neutrality is different. It’s stating that the service you provide must be neutral in nature. This doesn’t seem directly relevant to an investment in infrastructure. It’s just consumer protections because these companies are grated limited monopolies. In my mind, any further public sale of spectrum, copper, fiber access should come with a neutrality clause. If any traffic they want to send over the new property must be neutral, then it could start to change things without help from our toothless FCC.
- supergeek133 6y ago
  OK I see what you're getting at. But yea my concern has always been with the "existing" investment. So say I'm Comcast and I've invested $X millions into laying infrastructure, it seems "unfair" to me to just come commandeer that investment in the name of net neutrality. Especially if you're going to expect me to further invest and/or maintain the existing. So I understand your perspective around expansion (e.g., limited/time exclusivity or a usage fee). But I still think the infrastructure cost (adding, maintaining, upgrading) is probably one of their larger costs? No?
- donmcronald 6y ago
  > In my mind, any further public sale of spectrum, copper, fiber access should come with a neutrality clause. If any traffic they want to send over the new property must be neutral, then it could start to change things without help from our toothless FCC. Or take it a step further and include a requirement for infrastructure sharing at regulated rates. Selling exclusive access to the rights of way for an essential service is a type of regressive taxation. The government reduces the tax revenue needed, but the costs get passed along to the public at flat rates. The poorer you are, the higher the relative cost for that infrastructure. It should be illegal to sell exclusive access to infrastructure related resources because it’s a system designed to benefit the wealthy more than anyone else.

phkahler 6y ago

Or install and maintain it's own infrastructure. With all the upgrading that's gone on for the last 25 years it probably would have been bad, but now progress is slowing and it seems more appropriate.

supergeek133 6y ago
Sure, this is another thing, but I just keep going back to all the trouble Google Fiber had to make them stop.

ViViDboarder 6y ago

> If we really want net neutrality and a stop to the pseudo monopolies, wouldn't the municipality have to buy the infrastructure from the private company? Not necessarily. From a legal perspective, no. Laws could be passed mandating someone as long as it’s not unconstitutional. Additionally, there are two different things you’re conflating here. First is the forcing of someone who is grated a limited monopoly to lease their infrastructure to competitors. The infrastructure doesn’t have to be public to mandate some kind of sharing. The company that seeds the investment still gets some form of limited exclusivity and gets to charge competitors a (regulated) fee for their use. Net Neutrality is different. It’s stating that the service you provide must be neutral in nature. This doesn’t seem directly relevant to an investment in infrastructure. It’s just consumer protections because these companies are grated limited monopolies. In my mind, any further public sale of spectrum, copper, fiber access should come with a neutrality clause. If any traffic they want to send over the new property must be neutral, then it could start to change things without help from our toothless FCC.

supergeek133 6y ago
OK I see what you're getting at. But yea my concern has always been with the "existing" investment. So say I'm Comcast and I've invested $X millions into laying infrastructure, it seems "unfair" to me to just come commandeer that investment in the name of net neutrality. Especially if you're going to expect me to further invest and/or maintain the existing. So I understand your perspective around expansion (e.g., limited/time exclusivity or a usage fee). But I still think the infrastructure cost (adding, maintaining, upgrading) is probably one of their larger costs? No?
donmcronald 6y ago
> In my mind, any further public sale of spectrum, copper, fiber access should come with a neutrality clause. If any traffic they want to send over the new property must be neutral, then it could start to change things without help from our toothless FCC. Or take it a step further and include a requirement for infrastructure sharing at regulated rates. Selling exclusive access to the rights of way for an essential service is a type of regressive taxation. The government reduces the tax revenue needed, but the costs get passed along to the public at flat rates. The poorer you are, the higher the relative cost for that infrastructure. It should be illegal to sell exclusive access to infrastructure related resources because it’s a system designed to benefit the wealthy more than anyone else.