3 ms·

GP said, "if right of ways were reasonable." In the context of internet connectivity, I interpret a reasonable right-of-way policy being collectively-owned fib

GP said, "if right of ways were reasonable." In the context of internet connectivity, I interpret a reasonable right-of-way policy being collectively-owned fiber which can be shared. We don't say, "everybody who wants a road should build their own road along this path" we just build the damn road and share it.

infecto 3y ago
I do not believe your interpretation is correct or what most others would assume to be the case but hey I could be wrong. Right of way being reasonable means that the owner of the transmission lines did not charge unreasonable fees or requirements for using the same poles to run fiber. And you are partly wrong on your last part, yes of course each individual is not building their own road but again, roads are natural monopolies, everyone wants a road of at least some minimum quality (dirt). Additionally it would be near impossible to get "right of way" to build your own road. In rural areas roads are indeed just dirt and to get it paved would require some majority of the individuals living out there to pay for it, YMMV depending on local rules. Since its a road its easier to get a majority to agree to to pack it with gravel or pave it, everyone that lives down that road is driving on it. I am not arguing that internet is or is not a right that everyone should have but that it is not always a natural monopoly, some people maybe don't want it, some have cell service, some are using Dish, maybe there are some cable connections available in certain areas. So yes, each individual does not build their own road but often in rural areas the burden for that road is shared and often stays as a dirt road because of it.
- couchand 3y ago
  Your liberatarian dreamland example (though not reflective of any rural [public development] area for the last few decades that I'm aware of) is a perfect illustration of my point. Even those areas with private roads [private developments generally] only have a single private road that everyone shares on a given route. The argument why is that it's a natural monopoly. But what does that mean? It means high barriers to entry (often infrastructure) mean the first mover has an overwhelming advantage. Isn't that precisely the case with fiber, as you yourself were arguing? So is provisioned fiber a sufficient barrier to entry to qualify as a natural monopoly or is it not? Please clarify.
  - infecto 3y ago
    Sorry I am not a "libertarian", republican or even a democrat but can we please try our best to keep politics out of this discussion, its such a low brow way to share your point. I simply pointed out that when it comes to building infrastructure, right of way typically means the ability to build said infrastructure using someone's property. That could be land rights, rights to the transmission pole, rights underground etc. Additionally I was simply pointing out that people may be served by other forms of internet connectivity already (including starlink). That is all, nothing about politics, sorry to have ruffled your feathers.
    - couchand 3y ago
      I didn't mean to imply your own political beliefs, merely describe the character of the example given. It is certainly the case that (in the old US of A at least) we seem to make a sport of trying to tear up our roads as frequently as possible so that each individual utility can separately work on the same shared space, to the detriment of those living in the area. Is that an ideal way to organize infrastructure projects? No, of course not! It would be much better if we all coordinated to commonly achieve our shared goals rather than stepping on each other in a vain race to the top! Oh well, a man can dream.

infecto 3y ago

I do not believe your interpretation is correct or what most others would assume to be the case but hey I could be wrong. Right of way being reasonable means that the owner of the transmission lines did not charge unreasonable fees or requirements for using the same poles to run fiber. And you are partly wrong on your last part, yes of course each individual is not building their own road but again, roads are natural monopolies, everyone wants a road of at least some minimum quality (dirt). Additionally it would be near impossible to get "right of way" to build your own road. In rural areas roads are indeed just dirt and to get it paved would require some majority of the individuals living out there to pay for it, YMMV depending on local rules. Since its a road its easier to get a majority to agree to to pack it with gravel or pave it, everyone that lives down that road is driving on it. I am not arguing that internet is or is not a right that everyone should have but that it is not always a natural monopoly, some people maybe don't want it, some have cell service, some are using Dish, maybe there are some cable connections available in certain areas. So yes, each individual does not build their own road but often in rural areas the burden for that road is shared and often stays as a dirt road because of it.

couchand 3y ago
Your liberatarian dreamland example (though not reflective of any rural [public development] area for the last few decades that I'm aware of) is a perfect illustration of my point. Even those areas with private roads [private developments generally] only have a single private road that everyone shares on a given route. The argument why is that it's a natural monopoly. But what does that mean? It means high barriers to entry (often infrastructure) mean the first mover has an overwhelming advantage. Isn't that precisely the case with fiber, as you yourself were arguing? So is provisioned fiber a sufficient barrier to entry to qualify as a natural monopoly or is it not? Please clarify.
- infecto 3y ago
  Sorry I am not a "libertarian", republican or even a democrat but can we please try our best to keep politics out of this discussion, its such a low brow way to share your point. I simply pointed out that when it comes to building infrastructure, right of way typically means the ability to build said infrastructure using someone's property. That could be land rights, rights to the transmission pole, rights underground etc. Additionally I was simply pointing out that people may be served by other forms of internet connectivity already (including starlink). That is all, nothing about politics, sorry to have ruffled your feathers.
  - couchand 3y ago
    I didn't mean to imply your own political beliefs, merely describe the character of the example given. It is certainly the case that (in the old US of A at least) we seem to make a sport of trying to tear up our roads as frequently as possible so that each individual utility can separately work on the same shared space, to the detriment of those living in the area. Is that an ideal way to organize infrastructure projects? No, of course not! It would be much better if we all coordinated to commonly achieve our shared goals rather than stepping on each other in a vain race to the top! Oh well, a man can dream.