11 ms·

I can't help but wonder if the fate of Internet infrastructure will follow that of transport infrastructure (Build-operate-transfer : http://en.wikipedia.org/wi

by jbza 12y ago

I can't help but wonder if the fate of Internet infrastructure will follow that of transport infrastructure (Build-operate-transfer : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build-operate-transfer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Build-operate-transfer) Based off history, it seems that private ownership of common property is doomed to fail.

zo1 12y ago
"Based off history" Haven't read/heard much on this... Curious of examples? "private ownership of common property" Bit of an oxymoron you got going there. If something is privately owned, it can't be common(public) property by definition. Even so, we have yet to establish that internet infrastructure is somehow "common/public property". I'm curious how you think that's the case (that internet infrastructure is public property)?
- netcan 12y ago
  I think he means privatisation of services traditionally public, in the vast majority of historical periods and places. Ports are an old example roads are another. Transport infrastructure is historically most commonly expanded and enhanced as the state gets stronger and wealthier, and as it becomes more empire than state.
- _ak 12y ago
  The classic historic example is the Commons and their subsequent enclosure in England. Common land that was free to be used by commoners for centuries was suddenly divided up and enclosed, often enough by force, and even went so far as prople rioting and revolting over it because people were robbed of a big part of their livelihood.
- smsm42 12y ago
  I think it gets to the fact that if enough people need to use private property, it is started to be considered as "common" and private property rights get eroded to the point that it can not be considered private anymore. Like "too big to fail", "too big to be controlled by anybody but the government" is a popular thing. Now, the nominal ownership may be or not be private, but with enough regulation the difference would be only in profit sharing arrangements and not in actual control over the property. So when the parent post says "doomed to fail", it's not because there's something inherently faulty in private property. It's because people can't tolerate the perceived absence of control over such big things.

by jbza 12y ago

zo1 12y ago

"Based off history" Haven't read/heard much on this... Curious of examples? "private ownership of common property" Bit of an oxymoron you got going there. If something is privately owned, it can't be common(public) property by definition. Even so, we have yet to establish that internet infrastructure is somehow "common/public property". I'm curious how you think that's the case (that internet infrastructure is public property)?

netcan 12y ago
I think he means privatisation of services traditionally public, in the vast majority of historical periods and places. Ports are an old example roads are another. Transport infrastructure is historically most commonly expanded and enhanced as the state gets stronger and wealthier, and as it becomes more empire than state.
_ak 12y ago
The classic historic example is the Commons and their subsequent enclosure in England. Common land that was free to be used by commoners for centuries was suddenly divided up and enclosed, often enough by force, and even went so far as prople rioting and revolting over it because people were robbed of a big part of their livelihood.
smsm42 12y ago
I think it gets to the fact that if enough people need to use private property, it is started to be considered as "common" and private property rights get eroded to the point that it can not be considered private anymore. Like "too big to fail", "too big to be controlled by anybody but the government" is a popular thing. Now, the nominal ownership may be or not be private, but with enough regulation the difference would be only in profit sharing arrangements and not in actual control over the property. So when the parent post says "doomed to fail", it's not because there's something inherently faulty in private property. It's because people can't tolerate the perceived absence of control over such big things.