Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Oct 30 08:35:14 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / In Musk we trust
habebe
Member
Thu Oct 08 00:28:21
http://www...ady-to-go-after-latest-launch/

Once again Musk does more for Americans than any president.

We have been hearing about rural high-speed for years. Musk is the only one to get it done.

SpaceX has ( with NASA help) revitalized our space industry.

We really count on This guy too much.
habebe
Member
Fri Oct 09 00:21:28
More evidence that if we want a better society , it will come from Musk, and not whoever sits in the WH.

http://www...starlink-and-says-its?amp=true
Seb
Member
Fri Oct 09 02:07:27
Amazing. You just look for a new person to transfer your personality cult to, never thinking about the structural problems that cause the issue.

The reason rural broadband is shit is because you have regional cable monopolies, and the economics of rural broadband provision don't stack up for them.

There's a clear role for the state to fix that: mechanisms include direct investment, regulation, or indeed mega infrastructure project like sticking up satellites.

The reason none of those things happen is a mantra about free markets, the particularly American version that favours producers over consumers. A kind of corporate communism, where capital replaces labour.

So yes, disrupters like musk come along and do what NASA could have done decades ago but would have been blasted to bits for doing (entering the protected sphere of private enterprise), and you think that's great.

But from an industrial perspective, he's simply leveraging the barriers to entry the cable companies have created. And they aren't that scared because they know that his model won't really threaten the bits they care about, but cater to the bits of the market they have already decided are not profitable to serve.

All you have done is achieve two monopoly type markets with incumbent suppliers.

This is cargo cult capitalism, minus the free market competitive element because you've confused ensuring freedom in the market to giving free reign to private capital to, amongst other things, reduce the freedom of consumers to meaningfully choose.







Seb
Member
Fri Oct 09 02:08:23
Sure, Musk's innovations. But today's disrupter is tomorrow's incumbent monopolist.

And it's no substitute for effective governance.
Habebe
Member
Fri Oct 09 02:23:59
"There's a clear role for the state to fix that: mechanisms include direct investment, regulation, or indeed mega infrastructure project like sticking up satellites."

Has it? For that matter has any nation on scale with the size of the US delivered quality High speed to the boonies?

"All you have done is achieve two monopoly type markets with incumbent suppliers."

All ready there are several other companies attempting to do the same, he has just delivered.

"
And it's no substitute for effective governance."

I'll agree with that.However, there are times to play for both good governance and PRI ate industry.

Musk routinley blurrs that line. Very often his companies have aimed at answering incentives that the government has put out, literally almost all of his companies seek out the government as a major consumer.

These satelites already have a dual purpose with the US military looking to use them for both GPS and communication uses.
habebe
Member
Fri Oct 09 02:33:09
My real point is that we rely too much on Musk. I would hope with incentives and such being out there that more musks would pop up.

Because of one man the US is drastically delving back into space exploration.

The US has taken the lead in electric vehicles.Its the most valued car company in the world.

The US is eyeing high speed travel.

And we are about to serve millions of rural users with High speed internet.Something we drastically need and the government has been talking about for decades.

That's a lot from one guy. I realize he employs many people and its not entirley a solo act, but if he were to be struck by lightning tommorow do you think these ventures would be as successful?
Seb
Member
Fri Oct 09 02:38:58
Habebe:

You have delivered roads, telephone and electricity.

What's magic about fibre?
Seb
Member
Fri Oct 09 02:40:40
"literally almost all of his companies seek out the government as a major consumer."

Indeed. You've outsourced some of the risk, in exchange for privatising a good chunk of the public benefit.
Seb
Member
Fri Oct 09 02:48:55
What I'm saying is the reason you've become reliant on one man is predominantly structural.

You've allowed private capital to evade competition so much they don't like to take much risk.

And you've become ideologically opposed to the state doing things directly.

So now you are forced to throw public money at individuals like musk who have access to private capital and high risk tolerances to plug gaps in the market with new monopoly businesses with high barriers to entry.

This is, frankly, insane!

You would be better off either working out how to incentivise a number of competitors to enter a market, and where there are high barriers to entry, look to try and unbundle the high overhead element, subsidise that to create the market, and then withdraw.


A simple way of getting rural broadband would be simply to threaten that the US govt would build the network itself, including new backbone, allow any network to lease bandwidth, and then sell a franchise to operate and expand the network.

Watch how quickly the private networks will roll out rural bandwidth if their regional monopoly is threatened.

Except of course, they'd rent the necessary congressmen and senators to ensure it never happened.

habebe
Member
Fri Oct 09 02:51:29
Seb, The fact that out government haasnt delivered high speed to rural people ( such as myself) I'm using Hughes net satellite right now. It costs me like 100/month for terribly low speeds compared to what I got in SE PA for $40/month.

Streaming is iffy, download limits etc. but as of now its the best we have.

Government COULD have delivered us HSI, but it hasn't.Both parties have talked about it for years, and what we have is abysmal.

Could they have dime it for the same price? doubtful.
habebe
Member
Fri Oct 09 02:59:10
I'm not JUST talking about the internet.

All those things listed. In theory if this idea of incentives worked so well, how has one man played such a vital role in all of them?

Amd listen, I'm not knocking it. Obama chamged my mind on space exploration.I thought he was nuts to think private industry was the better way forward and leaving NASA to an R and D and assistance role.

But its worked, I think its the best idea Obama had to be honest.

Tesla has taken 2.5 billion from.the government, and built a behemoth.

So far the idea has worked ( he outsourcing you speak of)

But I dont know if it would with out Musk. Would abother Musk step up?
habebe
Member
Fri Oct 09 02:59:11
I'm not JUST talking about the internet.

All those things listed. In theory if this idea of incentives worked so well, how has one man played such a vital role in all of them?

Amd listen, I'm not knocking it. Obama chamged my mind on space exploration.I thought he was nuts to think private industry was the better way forward and leaving NASA to an R and D and assistance role.

But its worked, I think its the best idea Obama had to be honest.

Tesla has taken 2.5 billion from.the government, and built a behemoth.

So far the idea has worked ( he outsourcing you speak of)

But I dont know if it would with out Musk. Would abother Musk step up?
habebe
Member
Fri Oct 09 03:09:56
http://www...dband-gap-michael-mcloughlin-/

The EU set out like 10 years ago to acheive this. Musk.in a much shorter amount of time has accomplished what neither the EU or the US could do. You have to admit, thats impressive.
Seb
Member
Fri Oct 09 03:32:26
Habebe:

"how has one man played such a vital role in all of them?"

I literally just explained how.

In the name of "free market", you've let big companies throttle competition, seek rents, and block govt from doing anything effective to promote competition. Without competition, it's very very easy to offer shit service and ignore catering to entire segments of the market.

The reason your state has failed, when a few decades ago it put men on the moon, built the interstate, and won WW2; is because you have established an entire industry of sock puppets that are paid for by established companies that set out to make sure that govt can't do these things and shouldn't do these things.
Seb
Member
Fri Oct 09 03:32:42
And you vote for them!
Seb
Member
Fri Oct 09 03:46:12
UK has 95% coverage at 50MBs using the unbundling approach and piggybacking off a privatised former nationalised utility.

Seb
Member
Fri Oct 09 03:46:26
Ireland 80% on a similar approach.
hood
Member
Fri Oct 09 04:00:48
Seb is correct on this one. The reason the govt hasn't delivered quality internet to everyone is because they instead rely on shitty rules that allow internet providers to report service for whole swaths of areas by simply offering access at 1 address. This then makes coverage look better than it actually is. Of course, when anyone actually challenges to provide a better product than the incumbent regional ISP monopolies, they bog said challenger down with legal challenges and years-long fights. This is why google quit trying to provide internet.

Beyond that, we pay billions of dollars every year to these ISPs to build out their networks to support rural addresses. And they... don't. After getting paid.


Musk's disruption of space wasn't targeting NASA, it was targeting the contractors that just sit around milking federal contracts. Since NASA really didn't have many other options until recently, they more or less had to play ball and congress was willing to throw money away because the people making the decisions were seeing pork-like benefits. This doesn't exist in telecom - it should be pretty easy to disrupt. After all, it isn't rocket science.

Musk providing the first quality satellite internet service is a function of Musk being the first to make launching satellites comparatively inexpensive. It isn't some unimaginable mystery to provide quality internet. You just get certain people decrying socialism whenever anyone suggests that the shitty ISPs could be easily bested in quality and price by even local-government-owned ISP services.
jergul
large member
Fri Oct 09 04:01:16
habebe
Students of history know that there is a divide between understanding society from a structural or heroic leader perspective.

Did Napoleon change Europe, or was it the industrial revolution?

You are looking for Napoleon. I am waiting for structural development.
Habebe
Member
Fri Oct 09 04:40:13
Seb, Well., for starters, I was thinking more along the lines of not just* starlink, but lets go there.

The UK is not comparable to the US in terms of rural communities. NJ has 99% coverage. Perhaps this is an area in which a private/public partnership works better. If a soley public works program was the way to go than the EU should have great coverage all over, including its rural areas.

It soon will, but from musk likely.

Im not denying that US laws have unfairly favored large companies at the expense of rural communities. I did a thread before about this, they effectivley banned small communities from providing local goverbment ISPs.
habebe
Member
Fri Oct 09 04:51:45
Now SpaceX is different, but directly linked to this obviously.

And again, on this board I openly posted that this probably was a bad idea, I was on the fence but leaning against it. In retrospect it was probably Obama's smartest move.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Oct 09 05:13:06
Do we have actual comparative numbers on this?

The UK 95% coverage is bad example for the same reason per capita death due to covid isn’t a good figure to compre how well countries are dealing with that problem. The things you call ”rural”... it is rural in name only, relative your Islands urban centers, compared witg the USA, Canada or even Sweden. Not so much. So, perhaps Canada would be a good comparison with the USA in this regard.
habebe
Member
Fri Oct 09 05:24:05
Nim, Most of Canadas population is right on the border of the US.

Rural is not a ubiquitous term of course.

Even in the states. Im not sure if people realize just how underdeveloped the US south is.Im talking dirt roads with little to any connection to the city in regards to utilities. Yea electricity and phone service, but thats it and phome service today mainly means cell. It's literally not much further ahead from a 3rd world country in many aspects ( The UN even condemned it)
habebe
Member
Fri Oct 09 05:39:49
Also in terms of ability to reach rural communities no matter where Starlink won't be beat anytime soon.

They are only in beta tests now and only cover the northern US and Canada. But they have been launching at a breakneck speed and in a few years will be able to reach even rural African communities.It doesnt get much more rural than that. Now we will see how price effects things though.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Oct 09 06:12:34
Habebe
I understand, there are places like that in Europe as well, the eastern parts. We who have come to understand something about America, understand that there is a lot of variation.
Habebe
Member
Fri Oct 09 06:26:18
Oh I imagine its not too far off from some old soviet nations.

Coming from a suburb of Philly that has incomes in the 60-120k range , its been quite a culture shock. On the upside there has been a lot of growth in the last 15 years Ive been coming down here. It's one of the few places in the US that manufacturing thrives.Mostly because of the cost of doing business is cheap as are wages.
The Children
Member
Fri Oct 09 07:56:00
da year is 2016.

when asked when hypaloops will be ready, the answer was:

"The Hyperloop, Elon Musk's vision of launching humans through pods inside a high-speed transportation system, could be ready for passengers by 2018,"

SNAKESOILS

Seb
Member
Fri Oct 09 08:12:51
Hood:

And the thing is, NASA had been deliberately prevented from building is own systems because "it will foster innovation" if they are forced to get the private market to do the do.

It's just a giant rent seeking exercise for incumbents.
Seb
Member
Fri Oct 09 08:16:36
Habebe:

"If a soley public works program was the way to go than the EU should have great coverage all over, including its rural areas"

That's based on a fundamentally sloppy and inaccurate understanding of both the EU (it's not analogous to the federal govt and it doesn't really directly commission public works in the way a national govt would, it actually works a lot more like how the "market led" approach the US federal govt pretends to take does, but without as much corruption by political and corporate forces) but also European States, which operate a range of models from direct state led projects to full on market led approaches.



Seb
Member
Fri Oct 09 08:27:41
Nim:

There's a reason though, that you have to look to Eastern Europe.

The problem isn't engineering difficulty of laying cable to a remote places is just too challenging. It's easy.

It's the economics of the cost of doing so Vs the population density and thus revenue it can support.

The UK has areas like this too. Everywhere does. There are towns that have had to fight BT in court to get themselves linked up; others that had to do it themselves, until the govt stepped in.

The way you address the problem is subsidies. Either you force that cost onto the taxpayer, or the general user base of the utility. There are better and worse ways to do that in terms of distortion.

This requires good governance that considers connectivity a public good worth prioritising. That's all.

The fact the US is a big country is not really that relevant. I've spent time in the US aswell. You want to see a real engineering challenge for broadband roll out? Try Costa Rica. Putting cables and comms towers to get coverage across a mountains and jungles. Pretty amazing stuff.
Seb
Member
Fri Oct 09 08:29:35
I'll tell you something, if us cable cos thought that starling could offer high enough bandwidth to an appreciable share of their existing customer base (it can't and likely never will) they'd have broadband coverage for ritual areas addressed in under three years.
Seb
Member
Fri Oct 09 08:29:47
Starlink
Habebe
Member
Fri Oct 09 09:15:18
Seb, It never will compete with tjings like good or Comcast. Its not meant to, with its wide coverage it is going for an underserved market as well as the US military for side cash.

"That's based on a fundamentally sloppy and inaccurate understanding of both the EU"

That was sort of my point, you always want to compare individual European nations to the federation of states that is the US, when a not perfect but closer comparison is the EU.In size, population and having a mix of developed and underdeveloped areas.

You say size/distance is not a problem, but it is, it definitley increases cost and while Im sure jungles.are difficult to traverae and lay cable , hat doesn't really have anything to do with this.

Rural even within the US has sifferent meanings. In the South for example it usualy means things like no city water, gas or internet other than satellite. While up north Ive actually lived in much more rural areas and we still had all of that.
Habebe
Member
Fri Oct 09 09:18:55
You also bring up good governance, this was in larfe paet due to good governance as we've already gone over.

This is a rather cost effective way that so far* has worked great.The US and Canada will habe the highest coverage of high speed in the world.

Now I realize, SK for example has full coverage and at much fastwr speeds but in a short period of time this is a huge upgrade.
hood
Member
Fri Oct 09 09:50:27
"And the thing is, NASA had been deliberately prevented from building is own systems because "it will foster innovation" if they are forced to get the private market to do the do.

It's just a giant rent seeking exercise for incumbents."

Yes. Anyone who thought NASA was to blame for the space stagnation doesn't understand just how much of their money they don't spend in relation to rockets. Congress spent a large portion of their rocket ship expenses throughout the 90s, 00s, 10s.
habebe
Member
Fri Oct 09 12:19:51
http://www...weapons-by-rockets-2020-10?amp

The US military and Elon Musk are planning a 7,500-mph rocket that can deliver weapons anywhere in the world in an hour

Seen this for the first time today, he has gotten several big military contracts lately. Not on the scale.of.boeing or Lockheed, but still.
Seb
Member
Fri Oct 09 13:27:52
Habebe:

"That was sort of my point, you always want to compare individual European nations to the federation of states that is the US,"

You brought up the comparison!

"http://www...dband-gap-michael-mcloughlin-/

The EU set out like 10 years ago to acheive this. Musk.in a much shorter amount of time has accomplished what neither the EU or the US could do. You have to admit, thats impressive."

"when a not perfect but closer comparison is the EU."

In this case it is not at all appropriate. The EU doesn't have tax raising powers, can't borrow, and has no direct executive power. It has regulatory power, but not in this area directly.

It can be a vehicle for expressing joint goals in this area, little more.

It is a terrible, terrible comparison to the federal govt of the US.


"You say size/distance is not a problem, but it is, it definitley increases cost and while Im sure jungles.are difficult to traverae and lay cable , hat doesn't really have anything to do with this."

Do you think it is more or less expensive to lay cables and maintain them across tropical jungles up the sides of mountains that are regularly hit with torrential flooding, landslides and earthquakes?


The point I'm making is that it isn't the engineering difficulty, or really the cost. It is the determination by the cable companies that it isn't worth the effort.

So there are two options:

1. you accept rural communities aren't valuable enough for broadband - economically this is actually more a function of the fact that the cable company can't make enough money of each individual subscription to cover the investment, and they won't raise their existing prices to cover it (any scope to raise subscription prices will go straight into profit, not investing in coverage).

In reality the net value released from putting rural areas on broadband is a net plus, it's just not going to the broadband provider, so they wont invest.

2. You step in to address the market failure to require it by regulation, or subsidy.

jergul
large member
Sat Oct 10 07:12:50
http://edi...-launch-traffic-scn/index.html

Yah, that is not sustainable, or if sustainable, it is sustainable by established actors locking out newcomers to keep the volume of LEO objects below thresholds.
Habebe
Member
Sat Oct 10 07:47:38
"In this case it is not at all appropriate. The EU doesn't have tax raising powers, can't borrow, and has no direct executive power. It has regulatory power, but not in this area directly.

It can be a vehicle for expressing joint goals in this area, little more."

Well, in this case that sou ds like poor governance. Obviously in this regard its better for a public/private partnership to address this issue. The results speak for themselves.The EU did set goals of having broadband by now that it hasnt met, nor is it very close too, perhaps Starlink can help them out.

As for your two choices, you forget the third that is working so far.

You have a very rigid mindset on how things can be done.
Habebe
Member
Sat Oct 10 07:55:58
Jergul, Obviously there will be a physical limitation at some point. The UK/India bought oneweb, they're supposed to be the next best thing, but who knows. Pays to be one od the first I guess.

This is a niche business. It will not replace cable/fios. But for those people who lack access to them, this is great.

For impoverished people likely it will be subsidized like regular internet, if your poor in the states usually you get internet for like $10/ month, it varies from place to place.
Seb
Member
Sat Oct 10 12:15:04
Habebe:

No, not really. Lack of rural broadband in the EU is not a question of a lack of centralisation or mechanisms to spread investment.

The point I'm making is that the you can't compare the US as a whole (consisting of both federal and state level govt) to just the EU as an institution. Particularly on this issue as the bulk of the responsibility lies with member states.

You were the one that wanted to compare the US to the EU, and that's ok. But then you can't insist that the EU member states be excluded as incomparable, and try to compare to just the EU commission.

Seb
Member
Sat Oct 10 12:16:13
Habebe:

The UK brought oneweb for the spectrum rights. We want to use it as poor man's gps
Habebe
Member
Sat Oct 10 23:06:12
"Particularly on this issue as the bulk of the responsibility lies with member states."

You do realize that's generally how the US operates.You seem to prefer federal authority and just in this case.

Aa for oneweb, is that the same for India?

I guess they could juat use starlink fot internet in rural areas.
Forwyn
Member
Sat Oct 10 23:27:22
"The reason rural broadband is shit is because you have regional cable monopolies, and the economics of rural broadband provision don't stack up for them.

There's a clear role for the state to fix that"

Classic Seb. A problem created by government is a problem for government to fix
jergul
large member
Sat Oct 10 23:30:47
Forwyn
That is generally how normal humans view it. The entity causing the problem has a responsibility for fixing it.

Habebe
5G will do more for internet bandwidth than starlink will.
habebe
Member
Sun Oct 11 00:07:23
And NOT* just in this case.*

To Sen and his preference toward federal and or higher authorities.

Jergul, 5g as I understand it will mostly connect existing communications more closely and will likley use Starlink.

point blank, Starlink is the first to offer this fast of a service to this vast of an area for this low of a price.
Dukhat
Member
Sun Oct 11 00:35:16
"A problem created by government is a problem for government to fix."

Classic Forwyn. Blaming everything on the government no matter what. Said the guy making less than 6 figures raising a family of 4. Cucks gonna get cucked.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Oct 11 01:45:11
There is far more evidence of local utility monopolies being directly caused by government than there is of Cuckhat being a billionaire.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 11 02:34:57
Forwyn
We know local utility monopolies are due to government regulations.

The answer is more regulations. Decoupling infrastructure from services is generally how its done.

Giving an infrastructure monopoly that service providers can compete on.

Government mandates that fiber be provided in a State for example. Specifiying 95% penetration within some years and also specifying that the fiber owner cannot sell services directly to end users.
hood
Member
Sun Oct 11 02:57:31
The lack of good internet in rural areas is not, in any way, due to government regulating private business. The suggestion of such is immensely retarded. Pure economics is why low population areas don't have good internet.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 11 03:03:20
Hood
Not supplying rural customers should not have been an option. Government regulated private business incorrectly.
habebe
Member
Sun Oct 11 03:07:45
Jergul, "Giving an infrastructure monopoly that service providers can compete on."

This is something we actually agree on. France IIRC did this pretty well with thr internet.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Oct 11 03:13:13
lol @ hood

Rural customers be like: "I can choose one broadband provider, explicitly granted a monopoly by municipal and state government, or satellite internet"

hood be like: dOn'T bE rEtArDeD, iT's JuSt PoPuLaTiOn DeNsItY
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 11 03:13:16
Its a common practice in numerous industries.
habebe
Member
Sun Oct 11 03:23:00
Where I live I have the option of Viasat or Hughes net ( both satellite)

What sucks is that half a mile up the road can get all the city amenities of public water, NG, internet etc.

I.get electricity. I gues landlime service too, I havnt had land line forever.
habebe
Member
Sun Oct 11 03:26:51
Remember back in the day when you had like a million Isis ( maybe an exaggeration, but you get it)

I used to get internet from.a small business like 15 minutes away. EZ link or EZ net, something like that.
habebe
Member
Sun Oct 11 03:29:09
EZ pages, thats it.

http://www...2-06-25-3401813-story,amp.html
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Oct 11 03:39:57
I still can’t find any stats that shows the USA as backwards, thet are top 10 as good as UK and Sweden.
hood
Member
Sun Oct 11 03:53:29
Forwyn, no private entity is going to build quality internet infrastructure for rural America, regardless of municipal or state rules. These companies have been getting paid with government money to do it for the past how many years, and they still haven't done shit. States have even had to fucking sue them to try and get something built.

Now, you want to talk about the burbs, the towns with low 5 digits worth of residents, sure, regulations are probably fucking with them. Regulations are certainly fucking with city internet infrastructure. But the boonies? The 1 stoplight towns? The only force preventing them from having quality land based internet is the economics and how expensive the initial costs of laying cable/fiber.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Oct 11 04:00:45
That's fair. People aren't getting fiber in a 150 pop town.

But almost two dozen states have banned municipal broadband projects. That's a lot of burbs and medium-sized cities.
Seb
Member
Sun Oct 11 05:07:06
Habebe:

Competition policy is explicitly a federal responsibility though; whereas in the EU it's split.
Seb
Member
Sun Oct 11 05:08:57
Forwyn:

The problem isn't created by govt; and to the extent that it is (ineffective competition policy) yes, normally you would look to the source of the problem to fix it, no?
Seb
Member
Sun Oct 11 05:11:42
Habebe:

I literally told you unbundling was the way to do it, pointed to the success Ireland and the UK have had with that model, and you did it was not comparable.
Seb
Member
Sun Oct 11 05:21:31
Forwyn:

"But almost two dozen states have banned municipal broadband projects. That's a lot of burbs and medium-sized cities."

Yeah, and those states, who is pushing these bans? Local Telco monopolies. It would be interesting to see which party was in power when the measure was put through and if there is a correlation.

This is the point I'm making: the warped "govt bad, companies good" interpretation of free markets is precisely the problem.

You've collectively determined that a free market requires the govt to absurdly step back from any intervention on behalf on consumers, even in areas where there are natural monopolies, and let incumbents strangle competition.

Seb
Member
Sun Oct 11 05:27:00
Looking at the justification for some of these bans, it boils down to the local monopoly saying it needs to be protected from unfair competition.

Hilarious. The response should be "naff off", or preferably forced unbundling.

But that later option would be most effective at national not local level as the networks cross state lines.
Pillz
Member
Sun Oct 11 05:52:19
Imagine being from the UK and talking about effective governance

Lmao
Seb
Member
Sun Oct 11 05:53:57
Pillz:

Watching it being dismantled by lunatics and idiots is instructive.

Funny thing is pillz, you support the guys dismantling it.
Habebe
Member
Sun Oct 11 06:53:34
Seb,I don't think we disagree on what is possible* through government. We disagree on what is plasuible and partially by what means are preferred.

In this case particularly Im actually not sure why* you disagree with the US method of public/private partnership.You seem to be in favor of more a government only approach.
hood
Member
Sun Oct 11 10:18:01
"almost two dozen states have banned municipal broadband projects."

A lot of this legislation has been sponsored and pushed by the incumbent ISPs or trade/lobby groups representing said ISPs.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 11 10:26:02
Habebe
"Partnership" is a ludicrous concept. Do you think footballplayers and referees should be in partnership?

Government regulates (sets conditions), and fines violations.

The problem you are often running into is that the conditions are poorly written and are not self-enforcing (IF rollout as not as agreed when agreed, then a 1 million dollar/day fine is triggered until compliance is achieved)
Habebe
Member
Sun Oct 11 11:06:24
Jergul,Terrible metaphor.
Habebe
Member
Sun Oct 11 11:07:54
Also, Hood is actually right in this. Comcast/Verizon/ATT etc. Are probably the only ones lobbying against these.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Oct 11 11:10:41
"the warped "govt bad, companies good" interpretation of free markets is precisely the problem."

Except that government created the problem by granting telecoms exclusive rights to certain areas.

Clearly you've misread this as an endorsement for incumbent telecoms; it's not.

But they're not the ones that would arrest a construction crew for laying fiber under an enforced monopoly.
jergul
large member
Sun Oct 11 14:03:15
habebe
Its a good metaphor.

Normative (what I think): Government's job is to regulate and enforce regulations.

The reason you lack rural services is because Government failed on one or both counts.

If companies are given infrastructure monopolies (to avoid duplication of effort) then they should be required to access all residents in that monopoly.

Its like that here. The last 5% are pretty expensive per person, but it does not matter as that cost is part of the whole.
Seb
Member
Sun Oct 11 15:58:56
Forwyn:

Legislators did that. Because they distrust the idea of publicly run institutions, and pretend to dislike the idea of regulation (even when the goal of such regulation is to foster competition).
Seb
Member
Sun Oct 11 16:04:46
Habebe:

I can't speak to the ghosts that haunt your own imagination.

I've suggested an optimal solution:

Require carrier's to have the required reach, and require them also not to sell ISP services or limit ISPs from use of their infra, instead charge flat fees to end users. You might as well do this at national level

The state not need be involved beyond that.

An alternative model if carrier's still fail to lay fibre is for the state to do so and tax infrastructure owners to pay for it so that costs are spread across the full user base.

Or allow municipal or other orgs to do so, though this will likely result in uneconomic concentration of the cost burden.

Seb
Member
Sun Oct 11 16:06:29
N.b. you actually agreed with this point when put by jergul.


I suspect what you are allergic to is the making explicit that the state has a role here to intervene in markets.

What jergul and I said is identical in meaning. What you object to is being the taboo.
Pillz
Member
Sun Oct 11 17:46:24
Exactly what portion of British history demonstrates an ability to govern effectively?

Because it is a long and depressing read in failure and ineptitude and self cuckoldry
Forwyn
Member
Sun Oct 11 22:14:26
"Legislators did that. Because they distrust the idea of publicly run institutions, and pretend to dislike the idea of regulation (even when the goal of such regulation is to foster competition)."

Legislators buy in to special interests, and we expect them to then solve that problem? Lol
Seb
Member
Mon Oct 12 02:03:23
Forwyn:

They can only do that because chumps like you have bought so heavily into the idea that the state can't do anything and shouldn't do anything, thst you elect the kind of people to legislature that would rather take lobbyist cash and felt on that to get reelected than actually deliver public value.

It's a kind of collective insanity.
Seb
Member
Mon Oct 12 02:06:04
Ok, let's put it this way:

There are models of public delivery or regulation that could fix this problem and have fixed this problem elsewhere.

Your public sector couldn't implement them, because as a society you've crippled it, stuffed it full of politicians that behave in a way that most democracies would describe as corrupt, supporting large companies engaging in anti competitive practices; and convinced yourself that's normal and anything else is impossible, and would be an affront to "the free market".
habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 02:25:35
"There are models of public delivery or regulation that could fix this problem and have fixed this problem elsewhere."

First off where?

If the problem being solved is how to cover nearly everyone with unlimited high speed internet, where has this other model worked?

I agree with you that in general that sounds like a pretty good way to go. I've long been a supporter of something similar that would force big telecom companies to lease use of their infrastructure.

That still does not solve the problem that Starlink does. What Starlink is doing is similar to the Tennesee valley authority ( I thinknthats what it was called) where landline phine service was given to everyone.

The difference is that Starlink covers everyone seemingly more efficiently and definitley more rapidly.

It also has several other benefits as its global instead of national and has other uses like we have seen with military applications for example.

On a similar note the US notary just gave Musk another contract to ship 80 ton payloads anywhere in the world in less than an hour.

Your approach has benefits, and I still think its useful. However it doesn't seem to solve the same problem. My concern with the incentive approach is that without Musk In not sure how effective it would have been, would some other company have been able to step up as effectivley.
habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 02:42:09
ATT has stepped up their rural game a little bit. Finally offering 250gb/month at $50 using 4g.

But it has a weak coverage map.
habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 02:42:31
http://www.att.com/internet/fixed-wireless/
Seb
Member
Mon Oct 12 04:00:10
Habebe:

I gave some examples above.

"The difference is that Starlink covers everyone seemingly more efficiently and definitley more rapidly."

At lower bandwidth, and a fixed ceiling on total traffic.

It's a sticking plaster compared to fibre.

Habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 04:26:48
At lower bandwidth compared to fios, not compared to what is currently available in those areas.

Its high enough bandwidth to handle all the important things to rural people.

Zoom like calls, for everything from telehealth to staying in touch with loved ones.

Basic surfing.

Media streaming. Even Gaming.

This opens up a new world many people.
Habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 04:26:49
At lower bandwidth compared to fios, not compared to what is currently available in those areas.

Its high enough bandwidth to handle all the important things to rural people.

Zoom like calls, for everything from telehealth to staying in touch with loved ones.

Basic surfing.

Media streaming. Even Gaming.

This opens up a new world many people.
jergul
large member
Mon Oct 12 04:37:29
The solution infrastructure providers use here varies. It does not have to pull cables to every hamlet. But it does have to offer connection using some form of comparable technology.

Note that this is true for copper cables (broadband). Fiber is optional and is open to free competition.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Oct 12 04:39:22
I don't think giving rural America better Internet connection so they can watch more Alex Jones videos and consume conspiracy theories on Youtube and 8chan, is is actually a terrible idea.
jergul
large member
Mon Oct 12 04:39:26
You realise that the cost of supplying ever rural citizen with broadband is pretty low if they already have a phoneline, right?

I don't really get why companies don't just do that instead of exposing their monopoly to the Ma Bell treatment.
Habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 04:42:11
Seb, I get that in a morw pwrdwct world the unbundling approach alone may work. In the real world it had been bogged down by not just economic factors but also political.

The end result is that Starlink will be able to offer moderately. High spees internwt at a moderate cost to prettt much every corner of the world well before traditional methods delivered.

Habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 04:46:12
Jergul, ATT for whatever reason is thw only one to offer DSL in the area, and they won't offer it to where I live. They only offer phone service.

Even 4g is only offered here with severe limits like 20gb a month at which point you have to pay through the nose per GB over.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Oct 12 04:54:09
Some comparative numbers on fiber optics access.

http://www...ull-fibre-broadband-cover.html
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Oct 12 04:57:05
Sweden 94%
USA 31 %
UK 12 %

You guys suck.
Habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 05:04:19
Agreed. Which is why Starlink will do much better in the US ( maybe the UK?) Than Sweden.

Unless of course Sweden has really bad on the go internet, which I highly doubt. Weden probably has broader 4g/5g coverage, maybe even better rates.
Habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 05:05:14
How can such a small country( UK) have only 12% coverage?
jergul
large member
Mon Oct 12 05:06:52
Fibre optics is a different beast. I don't consider that a basic necessity for anyone who is not me.
Seb
Member
Mon Oct 12 05:17:31
UK has 95% + coverage with 50mbs broadband.

Fibre roll out is slow due to telcos sweating existing assets, particularly the local loop. I.e. the fibre is there, but not to the front door.
Habebe
Member
Mon Oct 12 05:28:56
I actually used to hang fios im Doylestown for Verizon 15 years ago.

Seb, Test runs of starlink show speeds of 36-60 mbs. The goal is 100mbs.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Oct 12 06:32:21
"50mbs broadband"

lél look at what the pleb call "broadband".
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share