3 ms·

> …but the Swiss seem to have decided it's worth the investment. West Virginia is 1.5x the size of the entire country of Switzerland. Let that sink in. Texas

> …but the Swiss seem to have decided it's worth the investment. West Virginia is 1.5x the size of the entire country of Switzerland. Let that sink in. Texas is 16x times bigger. The idea that it should be doable in a country that is 100x bigger, with 50 separate states, god knows how many individual counties because it could be done in vastly smaller one is where your problem is.

sschueller 7mo ago
Yet somehow the US did manage to get power to most places... The thing with fiber is that it can go so much longer than copper without any active components. It is also very future proof, you won't be pulling it out of the ground/off the pole for at least 50 years if not longer. If size is such an issue, how did you get power?
- mexicocitinluez 7mo ago
  > Yet somehow the US did manage to get power to most places... You're not conflating 2 different infrastructure processes and ignoring the one took decades, are you? This is like saying "The US has built a road infrastructure why can't it do all light rails?" The irony in your comment is that it government intervention, which is the opposite of a free market.
  - eqvinox 7mo ago
    Who said free market? Swisscom is 51% government. A government-ish entity is IMHO the most efficient way to do this. You can't have 2 road networks, highway systems, or railway networks. You can have, but it is pointless to, 2 water systems or 2 electric grids. Or fire brigades, or police. (criminal, not mall cops) Same applies for fibre in the ground. "Free market" doesn't work when you can't effectively compete.
eqvinox 7mo ago
I'm sorry, but your stance is completely fing ridiculous. First of all, nobody is saying you need to do the entire US in one go by one approach and one provider. Second, the US has about 30× the GDP of Switzerland. Third, have you looked at Swiss geography? They're pulling fiber up the alps to the damn huts. Fourth, they're burying pretty much everything, as I said you don't really have to do that. Fifth, 26 cantons can squabble almost as well as 50 states can. Sixth, you're somehow assuming Switzerland is the only country successfully doing this. Sure, not everyone is doing it to that level, but take a look at Brazil. If you're looking for reasons to fail, you will fail. The only thing your argument really excuses is that it will take longer. But the US doesn't have the political will to even start. (Same for Germany, to some degree, btw.)
- mexicocitinluez 7mo ago
  26 cantons with a functioning federal regulatory mandate isn't remotely comparable to 50 states where broadband regulation has been in a decade long battle over jurisdiction. > Third, have you looked at Swiss geography? They're pulling fiber up the alps to the damn huts. This is apples and oranges. The US is vastly more sparse. I think what is "f'ing ridiculous" is continuing to compare the 2 countries in ways they aren't comparable.
  - eqvinox 7mo ago
    I made 4 other points. > 50 states where broadband regulation has been in a decade long battle over jurisdiction Thanks for making my point, all I'm arguing is that Switzerland had the political will while the US doesn't (yet?) You're essentially arguing the problem exists because the problem exists. It's a political problem, but a solvable one. Pretending that it isn't solvable really doesn't help.
    - mexicocitinluez 7mo ago
      I don't have to refute all your points to prove it's impossible. > It's a political problem, but a solvable one. Pretending that it isn't solvable really doesn't help. Pretending like you hvae any clue how the US works doesn't help either. There are over 3,000 different counties in the US all with different rules around right-away (which could be one of like 6 different jurisdictions). There are quite literally hundreds of ISPs in the US. And even if one did want to build in NYC for instance, it would be have to interact with dozens of jurisdictions that don't magically go away with a strengthened FCC. And again, you're totally ignoring the physical geography of the land. So how exactly does that work at a legislative level? Forcing ISP in which communities specifically? Then, it not only becomes a political, but fiscal issue as well. Which is why saying "it's a political problem" is grossly over-simplifying the situation.

sschueller 7mo ago

Yet somehow the US did manage to get power to most places... The thing with fiber is that it can go so much longer than copper without any active components. It is also very future proof, you won't be pulling it out of the ground/off the pole for at least 50 years if not longer. If size is such an issue, how did you get power?

mexicocitinluez 7mo ago
> Yet somehow the US did manage to get power to most places... You're not conflating 2 different infrastructure processes and ignoring the one took decades, are you? This is like saying "The US has built a road infrastructure why can't it do all light rails?" The irony in your comment is that it government intervention, which is the opposite of a free market.
- eqvinox 7mo ago
  Who said free market? Swisscom is 51% government. A government-ish entity is IMHO the most efficient way to do this. You can't have 2 road networks, highway systems, or railway networks. You can have, but it is pointless to, 2 water systems or 2 electric grids. Or fire brigades, or police. (criminal, not mall cops) Same applies for fibre in the ground. "Free market" doesn't work when you can't effectively compete.

eqvinox 7mo ago

I'm sorry, but your stance is completely fing ridiculous. First of all, nobody is saying you need to do the entire US in one go by one approach and one provider. Second, the US has about 30× the GDP of Switzerland. Third, have you looked at Swiss geography? They're pulling fiber up the alps to the damn huts. Fourth, they're burying pretty much everything, as I said you don't really have to do that. Fifth, 26 cantons can squabble almost as well as 50 states can. Sixth, you're somehow assuming Switzerland is the only country successfully doing this. Sure, not everyone is doing it to that level, but take a look at Brazil. If you're looking for reasons to fail, you will fail. The only thing your argument really excuses is that it will take longer. But the US doesn't have the political will to even start. (Same for Germany, to some degree, btw.)

mexicocitinluez 7mo ago
26 cantons with a functioning federal regulatory mandate isn't remotely comparable to 50 states where broadband regulation has been in a decade long battle over jurisdiction. > Third, have you looked at Swiss geography? They're pulling fiber up the alps to the damn huts. This is apples and oranges. The US is vastly more sparse. I think what is "f'ing ridiculous" is continuing to compare the 2 countries in ways they aren't comparable.
- eqvinox 7mo ago
  I made 4 other points. > 50 states where broadband regulation has been in a decade long battle over jurisdiction Thanks for making my point, all I'm arguing is that Switzerland had the political will while the US doesn't (yet?) You're essentially arguing the problem exists because the problem exists. It's a political problem, but a solvable one. Pretending that it isn't solvable really doesn't help.
  - mexicocitinluez 7mo ago
    I don't have to refute all your points to prove it's impossible. > It's a political problem, but a solvable one. Pretending that it isn't solvable really doesn't help. Pretending like you hvae any clue how the US works doesn't help either. There are over 3,000 different counties in the US all with different rules around right-away (which could be one of like 6 different jurisdictions). There are quite literally hundreds of ISPs in the US. And even if one did want to build in NYC for instance, it would be have to interact with dozens of jurisdictions that don't magically go away with a strengthened FCC. And again, you're totally ignoring the physical geography of the land. So how exactly does that work at a legislative level? Forcing ISP in which communities specifically? Then, it not only becomes a political, but fiscal issue as well. Which is why saying "it's a political problem" is grossly over-simplifying the situation.