3 ms·

> When telephone systems were invented, lots of telephone companies sprang up and ran wires everywhere. They did and cities ended up looking like this http://i

by lovich 2y ago

> When telephone systems were invented, lots of telephone companies sprang up and ran wires everywhere. They did and cities ended up looking like this http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--91pqSjxr--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/xvcknezbz7ir9lhbbicu.jpg http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--91pqSjxr... There is not enough space to dedicate to electrical and internet wiring with a competition model like this. The physical space is a natural monopoly. What should be done is to treat the wiring as a utility but allow for unlimited competition on the actual service, which is how the UK operates their internet service iirc

WalterBright 2y ago
Which proves my point. It was not cost that prevents multiple sets of wires being laid. It's regulation, and frankly rather poor management by the government. For example, a road nearby was widened for bike lanes. While they were at it, a trench was dug before the repaving to enlarge the water/sewer pipes. I emailed the people in charge that they should consider burying the power lines, too. The power lines ran on telephone poles along the road, and the poles were festooned with wires. The power lines regularly get dismantled by trees and wind storms. Laying wire in an existing trench is cheap as dirt. Digging a trench and laying wire and repaving costs about a million dollars a mile (I was told this a few years ago by a power employee). The reply I received was they'd already made the plans and couldn't be bothered.
- lovich 2y ago
  >Which proves my point. It was not cost that prevents multiple sets of wires being laid. It's regulation, and frankly rather poor management by the government. Do you look at the picture I linked, and think this is a preferable end state over some extra regulatory cost? That you would rather have those sets of cables all over the place and think the government is preventing this better state? If you do, that's an opinion you can have, but I also think we have fundamentally different views of the world.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    > Do you look at the picture I linked, and think this is a preferable end state over some extra regulatory cost? That you would rather have those sets of cables all over the place and think the government is preventing this better state? Yes, I saw the picture. It means it is not prohibitively expensive to run multiple wires. Yes, it is unsightly. But there are many, many ways to run multiple signals today. Technology has advanced a great deal. For example, one trench or pipe can provide space for a large number of wires. The community can provide a pipe for such purposes, like they provide pipes for other purposes. Or the providers can agree to share a wire. Or use microwaves. Or the cell towers. Or Starlink. And on and on.
    - vineyardmike 2y ago
      > For example, one trench or pipe can provide space for a large number of wires. The community can provide a pipe for such purposes, like they provide pipes for other purposes. Congrats on describing municipal broadband while arguing against government involvement.
      - Gormo 2y ago
        Nothing in the preceding comment remotely resembles any proposal for municipal broadband. Even if a municipal government were doing the work he assigns to "the community", that work consists of maintaining a system of conduit within which other parties can run their own fiber lines connected to their own networks, and wouldn't at all imply that the municipality would own or operate any of the physical network infrastructure, nor operate ISP services. And there's no necessity that role of "the community" be handed off to a municipal government, either. People can and do solve complex coordination problems without relying on political authority all the time -- "the community" could easily be a non-profit organization, a mutual owned by local residents, or just a series of reciprocal agreements to maintain the baseline infrastructure needed for other parties to run cables, without any municipal government being involved. The idea that any non-trivial coordination problem can only be solved by centralized political authority is one of the principal drivers of corruption and stagnation in modern society, and is itself one of the main causes of competitive markets degenerating into monopolies or oligopolies.

by lovich 2y ago

WalterBright 2y ago

Which proves my point. It was not cost that prevents multiple sets of wires being laid. It's regulation, and frankly rather poor management by the government. For example, a road nearby was widened for bike lanes. While they were at it, a trench was dug before the repaving to enlarge the water/sewer pipes. I emailed the people in charge that they should consider burying the power lines, too. The power lines ran on telephone poles along the road, and the poles were festooned with wires. The power lines regularly get dismantled by trees and wind storms. Laying wire in an existing trench is cheap as dirt. Digging a trench and laying wire and repaving costs about a million dollars a mile (I was told this a few years ago by a power employee). The reply I received was they'd already made the plans and couldn't be bothered.

lovich 2y ago
>Which proves my point. It was not cost that prevents multiple sets of wires being laid. It's regulation, and frankly rather poor management by the government. Do you look at the picture I linked, and think this is a preferable end state over some extra regulatory cost? That you would rather have those sets of cables all over the place and think the government is preventing this better state? If you do, that's an opinion you can have, but I also think we have fundamentally different views of the world.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > Do you look at the picture I linked, and think this is a preferable end state over some extra regulatory cost? That you would rather have those sets of cables all over the place and think the government is preventing this better state? Yes, I saw the picture. It means it is not prohibitively expensive to run multiple wires. Yes, it is unsightly. But there are many, many ways to run multiple signals today. Technology has advanced a great deal. For example, one trench or pipe can provide space for a large number of wires. The community can provide a pipe for such purposes, like they provide pipes for other purposes. Or the providers can agree to share a wire. Or use microwaves. Or the cell towers. Or Starlink. And on and on.
  - vineyardmike 2y ago
    > For example, one trench or pipe can provide space for a large number of wires. The community can provide a pipe for such purposes, like they provide pipes for other purposes. Congrats on describing municipal broadband while arguing against government involvement.
    - Gormo 2y ago
      Nothing in the preceding comment remotely resembles any proposal for municipal broadband. Even if a municipal government were doing the work he assigns to "the community", that work consists of maintaining a system of conduit within which other parties can run their own fiber lines connected to their own networks, and wouldn't at all imply that the municipality would own or operate any of the physical network infrastructure, nor operate ISP services. And there's no necessity that role of "the community" be handed off to a municipal government, either. People can and do solve complex coordination problems without relying on political authority all the time -- "the community" could easily be a non-profit organization, a mutual owned by local residents, or just a series of reciprocal agreements to maintain the baseline infrastructure needed for other parties to run cables, without any municipal government being involved. The idea that any non-trivial coordination problem can only be solved by centralized political authority is one of the principal drivers of corruption and stagnation in modern society, and is itself one of the main causes of competitive markets degenerating into monopolies or oligopolies.