Groups funded by the Koch brothers are campaigning against municipal broadband(wired.com)
wired.com
Groups funded by the Koch brothers are campaigning against municipal broadband
https://www.wired.com/story/koch-brothers-are-cities-new-obstacle-to-building-broadband
209 comments
The Koch brothers fund libertarian groups, so it shouldn't be surprising to find these groups are against ISPs funded through tax dollars.
exciting to see opportunities [0] popping up for community based networks, it would be interesting to see a rewards based approach to hosting access points for others.
[0] https://nycmesh.net/
[0] https://nycmesh.net/
That's pretty terrible, that outside political interest groups took it upon themselves to meddle in a local community's little vote...
Why was the city able to get it at cost and private companies weren't?
Because the city is a government agency while a private company is not. Conduit space is a limited resource, so the state can't afford to let every interested company piggy back on an existing project. So instead they opened it up to other government agencies who, presumably, would use the fiber to provide some services to the public. There may even be laws preventing the state from allowing private companies to share their infrastructure.
So wouldn't everybody win if the city sold the rights to private company for say $1 million on condition they build out this network?
That's a much harder decision for the state to make -- the state has to evaluate business plans, determine the financial health of bidders, oversee implementation and monitor the business forever to ensure it's meeting the terms of the deal.
While if they give access to local governments, the state only needs to install the fiber -- it's up to the local government to determine how to use it to best serve the public. And in this case, the local government intends to lease the infrastructure to private businesses:
the city would build the infrastructure and lease capacity to private internet-service providers
While if they give access to local governments, the state only needs to install the fiber -- it's up to the local government to determine how to use it to best serve the public. And in this case, the local government intends to lease the infrastructure to private businesses:
the city would build the infrastructure and lease capacity to private internet-service providers
So the point of this is that a small number of super rich people exert massive influence through a series of shell organizations, media campaigns, and think tanks.
If that is true - which it appears to be - are the Koch brothers the only ones?
If that is true - which it appears to be - are the Koch brothers the only ones?
No. There are a bunch of billionaires pushing their various agendas. Billionaire pet-causes is pretty much the only way things change in this country anymore. Democracy is dead, all we have left is billionaires fighting each other.
Democracy is not dead. But you're hundred percent right about Billionaires. Think Tanks are all 100% biased depending on who is funding what. Whether it's a company or a billionaire. Economists, professors, public figures, Historians, everyone is being paid.
The one tool we can wield in this information or rather misinformation age is critical thinking. I no longer follow any pundit. I have nowhere near their knowledge in their respective fields, but I can think and ponder whether their views make sense. Robert Reich, Krugman, Brooks, Shields, Shapiro or whomever. See what slant they are coming from, try to understand if they make sense. Immediately afterwards, read about the same topic from someone on the opposite side of the spectrum. Don't get lost in the doomsday world is ending, other side is evil BS. Then hold an opinion, but don't stick to it. Allow it to be malleable and change and try arguing from the other side constantly. I feel like our own ego is partly what let's us join each tribe of thought and we further reinforce it from reading similar viewpoints because we want to be good and right. Sounds simple, but it's so easy to get caught up in it without taking a step back and just thinking about that thought process.
So, that's how you keep democracy alive. Not through simple education where you reiterate facts, memorize or follow directions, but through improving critical thinking which is slowly worsening in college and high schools. In a conversation with a classmate, we reminisced how in 3rd grade we learned how to spot bias in news articles, practicing for months. I feel like that's disappeared too.
The one tool we can wield in this information or rather misinformation age is critical thinking. I no longer follow any pundit. I have nowhere near their knowledge in their respective fields, but I can think and ponder whether their views make sense. Robert Reich, Krugman, Brooks, Shields, Shapiro or whomever. See what slant they are coming from, try to understand if they make sense. Immediately afterwards, read about the same topic from someone on the opposite side of the spectrum. Don't get lost in the doomsday world is ending, other side is evil BS. Then hold an opinion, but don't stick to it. Allow it to be malleable and change and try arguing from the other side constantly. I feel like our own ego is partly what let's us join each tribe of thought and we further reinforce it from reading similar viewpoints because we want to be good and right. Sounds simple, but it's so easy to get caught up in it without taking a step back and just thinking about that thought process.
So, that's how you keep democracy alive. Not through simple education where you reiterate facts, memorize or follow directions, but through improving critical thinking which is slowly worsening in college and high schools. In a conversation with a classmate, we reminisced how in 3rd grade we learned how to spot bias in news articles, practicing for months. I feel like that's disappeared too.
A good way of validating an idea is to look at empirical evidence, or the results of the application of that idea in other places.
A good example of this is the current tax debate. Republicans claim lowering taxes is a great way to "jump-start" the economy. But if you look at Kansas, a state that has been running that experiment for half a decade, you realize that it's a terrible idea.
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/25/560040131/as-trump-proposes-t...
A good example of this is the current tax debate. Republicans claim lowering taxes is a great way to "jump-start" the economy. But if you look at Kansas, a state that has been running that experiment for half a decade, you realize that it's a terrible idea.
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/25/560040131/as-trump-proposes-t...
> But if you look at Kansas, a state that has been running that experiment for half a decade
But then there are other states, like Florida IIRC, who have also been running that experiment and succeeding. So then the key is to see why one works and the other doesn't.
But then there are other states, like Florida IIRC, who have also been running that experiment and succeeding. So then the key is to see why one works and the other doesn't.
I'm from Florida. Born and raised. I'm not sure what they have been succeeding at. Opioid crisis is rampant, inequality is insane, the education system got worse and worse throughout my education and seems to have gotten worse since I graduated high school and left. Miami is partially underwater every king tide because of rising sea levels and yet under Rick Scott's government the phrase "climate change" is forbidden in emails and correspondence, so people are hamstringed into doing nothing about it. Charter schools have been given tons of leeway and there are tons of accounts of them discriminating against students who are less likely to be academic achievers on the one end of the spectrum (so that their stats look better), and on the other end of the spectrum they neglect and abuse the children in the classrooms.
As an individual it seems great to go work there as opposed to here in CA because there is no state income tax, yet I still make way more money here in CA because there is practically no industry in FL unless you're a lawyer or a doctor.
As an individual it seems great to go work there as opposed to here in CA because there is no state income tax, yet I still make way more money here in CA because there is practically no industry in FL unless you're a lawyer or a doctor.
>>But then there are other states, like Florida IIRC, who have also been running that experiment and succeeding.
Succeeding by what measure?
Succeeding by what measure?
I was wrong: I was thinking of North Carolina[0].
[0] http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454640/north-carolina-...
[0] http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454640/north-carolina-...
> Democracy is dead
According to the article the TPA's (and by extension the Koch's) campaign failed and the KentuckyWired project got the go ahead. Better funded, more powerful opposition lost a merits-based argument and did not get their way. This is an example of democracy working, wouldn't you say?
According to the article the TPA's (and by extension the Koch's) campaign failed and the KentuckyWired project got the go ahead. Better funded, more powerful opposition lost a merits-based argument and did not get their way. This is an example of democracy working, wouldn't you say?
Only temporarily.
Once issues stop getting public attention they try again and usually succeed.
Once issues stop getting public attention they try again and usually succeed.
The article also cites Comcast's campaigns to oppose municipal networks. These campaigns failed too:
https://muninetworks.org/content/totals-are-comcast-spends-9...
They might try again, but then they might lose again. No need to give in to cynicism and apathy just yet.
https://muninetworks.org/content/totals-are-comcast-spends-9...
They might try again, but then they might lose again. No need to give in to cynicism and apathy just yet.
Remember SOPA? people protested it because it allowed to see what people did online.
But what happened this year? ISPs can sell your web history. Now they got net neutrality provisions revoked.
They lost a battle, but they are winning the war.
But what happened this year? ISPs can sell your web history. Now they got net neutrality provisions revoked.
They lost a battle, but they are winning the war.
Note that the recent presidential election was in large part decided by which groups didn't vote. The viewpoint that politicians are all the same, voting doesn't matter etc. is a also a political opinions which benefits certain interests.
Considering that the US election spending reached a billion $ I'm not convinced.
I'd love to one day see a US presidential candidate hand out flyers on Times Square.
I'd love to one day see a US presidential candidate hand out flyers on Times Square.
... why?
I'd like to see less money in politics, either public funding or donations restricted to small individual donors, and I personally think a good candidate for higher office should have worked at least one shit job in their life. But the other extreme is equally absurd.
The President is literally the chief executive of an organization of millions of people. While some good old fashioned down-to-earth-ness is great for knowing what to do, if a Presidential candidate can't manage a large organization efficiently, pick competent subordinates and delegate authority effectively, they ain't never gonna get anything done as President.
The President is like the one race where a two year PR stint managing a few thousand people spread across all fifty states and a few territories is a good interview for the job.
I'd like to see less money in politics, either public funding or donations restricted to small individual donors, and I personally think a good candidate for higher office should have worked at least one shit job in their life. But the other extreme is equally absurd.
The President is literally the chief executive of an organization of millions of people. While some good old fashioned down-to-earth-ness is great for knowing what to do, if a Presidential candidate can't manage a large organization efficiently, pick competent subordinates and delegate authority effectively, they ain't never gonna get anything done as President.
The President is like the one race where a two year PR stint managing a few thousand people spread across all fifty states and a few territories is a good interview for the job.
Was this ever not the case? Look into the history of e.g. how marijuana prohibition came about. I think we are just more aware of it today.
History is more of a battle between the haves and the haves than between the haves and the have-nots.
History is more of a battle between the haves and the haves than between the haves and the have-nots.
Citation needed. Also, is there any reason to believe this isn't how it's always been throughout history? Those with lots of capital set things into motion that impact everyone else?
Corruption at the scale we're currently seeing was pretty much illegal until the Citizen's United ruling. Dark Money groups spent $600 million on senate races in 2016.
The Koch brothers alone were planning on spending nearly $1 billion to influence the election. It's no wonder that congress is racing to pass an historically unpopular tax bill that almost exclusively benefits these very same donors. Hell, Lindsey Graham gave away the game in a response a few weeks ago when asked what would happen if they didn't pass the bill:
> "The party fractures, most incumbents in 2018 will get a severe primary challenge, a lot of them will probably lose, the base will fracture, the financial contributions will stop, other than that it'll be fine!"
The Koch brothers alone were planning on spending nearly $1 billion to influence the election. It's no wonder that congress is racing to pass an historically unpopular tax bill that almost exclusively benefits these very same donors. Hell, Lindsey Graham gave away the game in a response a few weeks ago when asked what would happen if they didn't pass the bill:
> "The party fractures, most incumbents in 2018 will get a severe primary challenge, a lot of them will probably lose, the base will fracture, the financial contributions will stop, other than that it'll be fine!"
How what is described in the article - political group promoting their opinion - is "corruption"? Yes, some rich people may have financed that particular group - as rich people finance a lot of politically active groups - but what's corrupt in that? Did they bribe anyone? Did they break any laws?
Legal corruption is still corruption. But to fix it you have to change the system, not just enforce existing rules. And in order to change the system, you have to have a better system ready and widespread support for it. That's hard.
OK, let me rephrase. How it is "legal corruption"? What's corrupt there in people trying to convince other people in their point of view? Is the "corrupt" part that the people doing the convincing happen to be rich and thus must be evil? What exactly needs fixing here? Should Kochs be banned from political advocacy? Should TPA be prohibited? Should opposition to municipal projects be banned? What exactly here needs fixing?
Ever heard of United Fruit? Read more history and you'll find plenty of examples of the government taking action on behalf of one or a handful of corporations or individuals.
United Fruit (now called Chiquita) was able to exert influence on the Eisenhower administration because the Dulles brothers (Secretary of State and Director of the CIA) had a long work history and direct financial interest in the company, which was outraged that the Guatemalan government planned to force the company to sell its unused land back to the country at the company-assessed price (the company owned >40% of the arable land in the country, which it had claimed was nearly worthless to save on taxes).
The US imposed a military coup on Guatemala which overthrew a democratically elected government and installed a right-wing military junta in its place, after which the military ruled via a succession of corrupt dictators and military puppets, and undertook a horrific genocidal decades-long civil war against armed rebels and rural peasant civilians.
But I don’t think that’s quite the same situation as the Koch Brothers today. For one thing, all the consequences were borne by poor foreigners.
The US imposed a military coup on Guatemala which overthrew a democratically elected government and installed a right-wing military junta in its place, after which the military ruled via a succession of corrupt dictators and military puppets, and undertook a horrific genocidal decades-long civil war against armed rebels and rural peasant civilians.
But I don’t think that’s quite the same situation as the Koch Brothers today. For one thing, all the consequences were borne by poor foreigners.
> all the consequences were borne by poor foreigners
What about all the American fruit farmers that compete with bananas? There's always side-effects. Now Americans eat more bananas than apples and oranges combined.
What about all the American fruit farmers that compete with bananas? There's always side-effects. Now Americans eat more bananas than apples and oranges combined.
Hopefully they lose anyway if it's that unpopular.
Probably not -- The version that emerged from the conference committee included a provision that wasn't in either the House or Senate bill -- but coincidentally would result in a tax cut of over a million dollars per year to the Senator that was previously holding out. He then announced that he would now support the bill.
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/last-minute-real-es...
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/last-minute-real-es...
I mean lose at the polls.
Yeah. Pre-enlightnment...
Are you from the US? If so your comment reads like you have Stockholm syndrome.
Are you from the US? If so your comment reads like you have Stockholm syndrome.
No, but they are a common punchbag for articles like this. In this case, Kochs probably had no idea what TPA is doing and exercised no control whatsoever over their actions in any way, they just gave money to a fund that gave money to ideologically affiliated fund that gave money to ideologically affiliated fund that gave money to TPA. But of course that doesn't make a good headline.
So now we accept that the brilliant billionaire businessmen don't know where their money is going? So their not evil just clueless - highly doubtful.
> So now we accept that the brilliant billionaire businessmen don't know where their money is going
Of course. When you donate to a fund, you are not going to track the destination of every cent, it's enough that you trust the managers of the fund that they will direct money to the causes which are ideologically aligned with what they think is right. They may request general report from time to time (like "gave X% to libertarian small-govt groups", etc.) but they certainly wouldn't micromanage every associated organization. Just as I, when donating to, say, Red Cross, don't go and see every project they are doing. I just trust they'd do the right thing with my money, based on what I know about them as an organization.
Brilliant businessmen are rarely brilliant because they know what which cent in their business is doing. More often, they are brilliant because they organize their business in a way that they don't need to know, they just hire right people, build right structures and delegate to them.
> So their not evil just clueless - highly doubtful.
They are neither evil nor clueless. Just as I am not "clueless" because I donate to dozens of organizations without knowing minute details of what they are doing. I just know that they are organizations that do things I support or would support, and trust them to figure out specific details of how to use my money. If I ever learn they are not doing a good job, I'll stop donating to them, that's all.
Of course. When you donate to a fund, you are not going to track the destination of every cent, it's enough that you trust the managers of the fund that they will direct money to the causes which are ideologically aligned with what they think is right. They may request general report from time to time (like "gave X% to libertarian small-govt groups", etc.) but they certainly wouldn't micromanage every associated organization. Just as I, when donating to, say, Red Cross, don't go and see every project they are doing. I just trust they'd do the right thing with my money, based on what I know about them as an organization.
Brilliant businessmen are rarely brilliant because they know what which cent in their business is doing. More often, they are brilliant because they organize their business in a way that they don't need to know, they just hire right people, build right structures and delegate to them.
> So their not evil just clueless - highly doubtful.
They are neither evil nor clueless. Just as I am not "clueless" because I donate to dozens of organizations without knowing minute details of what they are doing. I just know that they are organizations that do things I support or would support, and trust them to figure out specific details of how to use my money. If I ever learn they are not doing a good job, I'll stop donating to them, that's all.
So, the headline is hyperbolic because the Kochs didn't make the decision, but ...
"More often, they are brilliant because they organize their business in a way that they don't need to know, they just hire right people, build right structures and delegate to them"
Which implies that they did in fact want this, even if you ignore all their other constant political gamesmanship for ends such as these.
Seems like we are having our cake and eating it too.
"More often, they are brilliant because they organize their business in a way that they don't need to know, they just hire right people, build right structures and delegate to them"
Which implies that they did in fact want this, even if you ignore all their other constant political gamesmanship for ends such as these.
Seems like we are having our cake and eating it too.
> So, the headline is hyperbolic because the Kochs didn't make the decision, but ...
And by "hyperbolic" you mean "complete fiction". It's like saying "Soros is to blame for political violence in US" because some of Soros funds have found way to Antifa groups, which are known to be violent.
> Which implies that they did in fact want this
Opposing government taking over infrastructure? Sure did, they are known for their libertarian views. Opposing specific municipal project? They probably had no idea it exists. If they did, I could plausibly imagine they might oppose it, but it's not the reason to put words in their mouth and describe something they didn't as something they did.
> if you ignore all their other constant political gamesmanship for ends such as these.
By using term "gamesmanship" you imply there is something nefarious in voicing their opinion and supporting causes they consider just by means like donating their own money and trying to explain to people their point of view by using their own money. I wonder do you deny this right to every US person or just ones that disagree with you or just ones that have money and disagree with you?
> Seems like we are having our cake and eating it too.
Not sure what you mean by "cake" here. The situation is simple - Kochs are known libertarians and donate to tons of libertarian causes. TPA is one of the "small government" groups that got some money under it, through network of affiliates. They opposed specific municipal project, as they think it is better to be done privately and not by government. Wired tried to present this completely mundane political occurrence as a nefarious plan by a shady billionaires to deprive us of Internet (no doubt in service of their ultimate goal of enslaving us all). Shame on the Wired for doing this hack job. End of story.
And by "hyperbolic" you mean "complete fiction". It's like saying "Soros is to blame for political violence in US" because some of Soros funds have found way to Antifa groups, which are known to be violent.
> Which implies that they did in fact want this
Opposing government taking over infrastructure? Sure did, they are known for their libertarian views. Opposing specific municipal project? They probably had no idea it exists. If they did, I could plausibly imagine they might oppose it, but it's not the reason to put words in their mouth and describe something they didn't as something they did.
> if you ignore all their other constant political gamesmanship for ends such as these.
By using term "gamesmanship" you imply there is something nefarious in voicing their opinion and supporting causes they consider just by means like donating their own money and trying to explain to people their point of view by using their own money. I wonder do you deny this right to every US person or just ones that disagree with you or just ones that have money and disagree with you?
> Seems like we are having our cake and eating it too.
Not sure what you mean by "cake" here. The situation is simple - Kochs are known libertarians and donate to tons of libertarian causes. TPA is one of the "small government" groups that got some money under it, through network of affiliates. They opposed specific municipal project, as they think it is better to be done privately and not by government. Wired tried to present this completely mundane political occurrence as a nefarious plan by a shady billionaires to deprive us of Internet (no doubt in service of their ultimate goal of enslaving us all). Shame on the Wired for doing this hack job. End of story.
[deleted]
Nope. A lot revolves around them, but there are plenty of ultra-rich ideologues pushing their agenda this way. You can find some good investigative research on this in "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer, which details a lot of the history behind dark money influencing politics, and the ideals these guys are trying to advance.
The Mercers are another influential family she's written about [0]
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/27/the-reclusive-...
The Mercers are another influential family she's written about [0]
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/27/the-reclusive-...
> If that is true - which it appears to be - are the Koch brothers the only ones?
Nope. There are e.g. Tom Steyer [0], Sheldon Adelson [1] and many others, both left & right (and the Kochs aren't really 'right' anyway — they're much more libertarian than they are conservative, supporting homosexual marriage &c.). Billionaires have the same right to free speech that paupers have, but they've got rather a lot more money to spend speaking than others do. Personally, I suspect that a lot of the anti-Citizens-United animus comes from billionaires (or employees of billionaires) annoyed at the competition: they don't want poorer citizens to band together to fund political speech.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Adelson
Nope. There are e.g. Tom Steyer [0], Sheldon Adelson [1] and many others, both left & right (and the Kochs aren't really 'right' anyway — they're much more libertarian than they are conservative, supporting homosexual marriage &c.). Billionaires have the same right to free speech that paupers have, but they've got rather a lot more money to spend speaking than others do. Personally, I suspect that a lot of the anti-Citizens-United animus comes from billionaires (or employees of billionaires) annoyed at the competition: they don't want poorer citizens to band together to fund political speech.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Adelson
No, George Soros does a lot of this from a Democrat/left-wing perspective.
Pathetic state of affairs for this website when you get downvoted for saying a fact.
I'm not even making a value judgement. You get left wing billionaires and right wing ones. They all have their pet political causes.
It is just an author's way to say 'I am a left winger'. If the author wanted to say 'I am a right winger' George Soros would take the role of the evil billionaire villain. Every group has its own enemies that help them strengthen their identity.
Not long after I moved to Kansas in 2012, I received a postcard supporting some tea party idiot for the legislature. Was a four color printing on thick glossy paper. Paid for by the Koch's PAC Americans for Prosperity. I kept getting these cards every other day until the primary. By comparison, the campaign materials for the other candidates were clearly run off of someone's photocopy machine.
The cards, and bigger publications, started up again before the general. This is in a small rural district. This entire process was repeated across the state and was accompanied by constant television advertising. Led to Brownback getting enough support so he could get his infamous, and disastrous, tax cuts through the previously hostile legislature. Tax cuts strongly supported by the Kochs.
2014 and 2016 saw a repeat of this advertising blitz.
When the Democrats get angry at the Kochs, it's for good reasons. When I saw AFP interfering in something as small as my tiny district, I thought it was quite creepy. Soros's funding hasn't been even remotely as large nor as pervasive.
The cards, and bigger publications, started up again before the general. This is in a small rural district. This entire process was repeated across the state and was accompanied by constant television advertising. Led to Brownback getting enough support so he could get his infamous, and disastrous, tax cuts through the previously hostile legislature. Tax cuts strongly supported by the Kochs.
2014 and 2016 saw a repeat of this advertising blitz.
When the Democrats get angry at the Kochs, it's for good reasons. When I saw AFP interfering in something as small as my tiny district, I thought it was quite creepy. Soros's funding hasn't been even remotely as large nor as pervasive.
I understand the issues around campaign finance reform but what you are describing is one of the most transparent and open activism that is imaginable. They most likely target smaller elections where it is possible to swing results just by running a decent campaign with a setup that is easily scalable and reproducable across many districts.
Surely there's some underlying facts involved in this? I mean, if Koch is actually funding it and Soros isn't you can't just switch them.
No, but journalists set their priorities by what they are spending their time on. If you have some politically activist billionaires who invest in advocacy groups, you will always find some topic that angers your audience. The right just pushes the narrative that Sorros wants to regulate the Internet and funding all the Net Neutrality campaigns.
> No, but journalists set their priorities by what they are spending their time on. If you have some politically activist billionaires who invest in advocacy groups, you will always find some topic that angers your audience. The right just pushes the narrative that Sorros wants to regulate the Internet and funding all the Net Neutrality campaigns.
What does he gain from it? Motive is the determinant between activism and greed.
What does he gain from it? Motive is the determinant between activism and greed.
What if a taxpayer could care less? Is it fair to take their money to build something they don't want/need?
If the network build-out was completely supported by people that were going to buy service I think that's awesome.
I think in the case where it's subsidized by non-participants or non-subscribers there are some moral and ethical issues about using taxpayer money.
If the network build-out was completely supported by people that were going to buy service I think that's awesome.
I think in the case where it's subsidized by non-participants or non-subscribers there are some moral and ethical issues about using taxpayer money.
The city does a lot of things I don't really care about and doesn't directly affect me. Is it fair to use my tax money to provide library services when I haven't stepped foot in a library in decades? If the library was completely supported by people that use it, that would be awesome.
(substitute "library" with any service the city provides that you don't use directly)
(substitute "library" with any service the city provides that you don't use directly)
I have yet to have the fire department assist me in either an accident, or fire.. We should turn them into a private company! (hint, that is how fire departments started out, and it caused so many problems, the cities took them over!)
Even with government sponsored services you can get into situations where firefighters will watch your house burn down (and protect neighboring houses from catching on fire from your house) if you don't pay their fire protection fee:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/t/no-pay-...
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/t/no-pay-...
> (substitute "library" with any service the city provides that you don't use directly)
The military
The military
Some people aren't connected to the city's water supply does that mean the city shouldn't have built out the water system? The same could be said for schools, libraries, public transportation, etc.
You have to pay to be connected to city water / sewer. They will dig the mains and maintain it but you have to connect to it.
And no one is talking about free internet access. Even if you choose not to connect. Your tax dollars still went to build out the infrastructure in either case.
Correct title would be "A non-profit, financed among others by Koch brothers, opposes all kinds of government spending and meddling with private economics, including, in one case, spending on municipal internet".
Do people really believe that infrastructure is not the purview of the government?
Roads, water, electrical, internet, etc. should all be built out first on a municipal level, then the state should connect those municipalities, then the federal government should connect those states. The various levels of government do not need to (should not?) be the ones to operate this infrastructure, but I absolutely believe that to foster competition they should build it out and lease it to others (and such an operational lease should never be exclusive / too long-term)
Is there a good argument against this? Who doesn't think the US Highway System has been great for our economy? Who doesn't think a US Internet System would be great for our economy too?
Roads, water, electrical, internet, etc. should all be built out first on a municipal level, then the state should connect those municipalities, then the federal government should connect those states. The various levels of government do not need to (should not?) be the ones to operate this infrastructure, but I absolutely believe that to foster competition they should build it out and lease it to others (and such an operational lease should never be exclusive / too long-term)
Is there a good argument against this? Who doesn't think the US Highway System has been great for our economy? Who doesn't think a US Internet System would be great for our economy too?
> Do people really believe that infrastructure is not the purview of the government?
Well, the people behind these Koch-funded groups do. They believe that nothing is the purview of government, or at least nothing that can be monopolised and exploited for profit.
I think the purview of government is primarily to protect the people against this kind of monopolisation and exploitation. Privatised infrastructure is fine with me as long as it doesn't hurt people's access to it. But in this case, the government is clearly responding to a lack of access.
Well, the people behind these Koch-funded groups do. They believe that nothing is the purview of government, or at least nothing that can be monopolised and exploited for profit.
I think the purview of government is primarily to protect the people against this kind of monopolisation and exploitation. Privatised infrastructure is fine with me as long as it doesn't hurt people's access to it. But in this case, the government is clearly responding to a lack of access.
Do they really believe that, or do they simply need us to believe that so they can keep pillaging the country?
There was a great Freakonomics podcast[0] where they interviewed a Koch brother. It seems like they truly believe that is what would be best for the country. They are Libertarians and believe in it's tenets to their core.
[0] http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-...
[0] http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-...
That's pretty much my take on the Kochs as well. They seem to contribute to things they believe in, which incidentally includes public radio stations and hospitals [0]. You may not like their politics--and many do not--but so far everything I have read or heard about them supports the notion they are sincere in their beliefs.
The problem is not so much the Kochs as the fact that we've permitted a political system to arise in the US that allows a disproportionate amount of wealth to flow to a relatively small number of people and to allow those lucky few an outsized influence on the evolution of said system. Those two things are not unconnected.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/06/26/t...
The problem is not so much the Kochs as the fact that we've permitted a political system to arise in the US that allows a disproportionate amount of wealth to flow to a relatively small number of people and to allow those lucky few an outsized influence on the evolution of said system. Those two things are not unconnected.
[0] https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/06/26/t...
Upton Sinclair's "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." still holds true here.
Read Jane Meyer's Dark Money.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/books/review/dark-money-b...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/books/review/dark-money-b...
I think they would agree that infrastructure falls to the government... the disagreement arises in what "government" means. Their views seem more aligned with feudalism/monarchism, subjugating the public by convincing citizens to surrender key infrastructure to privatized rule.
Rich people can't create monopolies and rent seek as easily if government does the basic infrastructure well.
Peter Thiel gives the example of not wanting to open a restaurant in San Francisco because there is too much competition for it to be successful and you constantly have to work at it for little reward.
Of course the reality is that a successful San Francisco restaurant makes millions of dollars per year. Too little for Peter Thiel to be interested in but for most of us that would be considered extremely successful. The same can be true of websites and the Internet, ala Indie hackers.
Peter Thiel gives the example of not wanting to open a restaurant in San Francisco because there is too much competition for it to be successful and you constantly have to work at it for little reward.
Of course the reality is that a successful San Francisco restaurant makes millions of dollars per year. Too little for Peter Thiel to be interested in but for most of us that would be considered extremely successful. The same can be true of websites and the Internet, ala Indie hackers.
>Of course the reality is that a successful San Francisco restaurant makes millions of dollars per year.
Selection bias anyone? Of course a 'successful' $X makes money, it wouldn't be successful otherwise. That tells us nothing on how many restaurants had to fail in relation to the ones that did well. From a hypothetical investor's point of view if 1 out of 10 restaurants does well enough to earn a payback and you would have to put $1 million in each one to get it started, then the one that succeeds has to profit at least $10 million for the investor alone. Yea, seems like a pretty high risk environment.
Selection bias anyone? Of course a 'successful' $X makes money, it wouldn't be successful otherwise. That tells us nothing on how many restaurants had to fail in relation to the ones that did well. From a hypothetical investor's point of view if 1 out of 10 restaurants does well enough to earn a payback and you would have to put $1 million in each one to get it started, then the one that succeeds has to profit at least $10 million for the investor alone. Yea, seems like a pretty high risk environment.
Both your analysis and Peter Thiel's are coming from that weird place where becoming filthy rich is the only marker of success, rather than opening a business, building its loyal clientele by offering a valuable service they appreciate, employing people which helps their own lives grow and being able to support your own self from all that.
What the f would Peter Thiel know about the joy derived from feeding someone good food?
What the f would Peter Thiel know about the joy derived from feeding someone good food?
> Both your analysis and Peter Thiel's are coming from that weird place where becoming filthy rich is the only marker of success
Actually, it looked like his analysis was for what was required to break even, on the average. Invest 10 million (across 10 companies), get back 10 million in profit from the 1 (of 10) that succeeds.
Actually, it looked like his analysis was for what was required to break even, on the average. Invest 10 million (across 10 companies), get back 10 million in profit from the 1 (of 10) that succeeds.
I am trying to point out the ludicrous attempt to apply tech venture capital strategy to starting restaurants.
There is no way anyone is going to open ten restaurants simultaneously, fail at 9 of them and earn 9 million in first-year net profit from the 10th. That's not how opening or operating restaurants works.
There is no way anyone is going to open ten restaurants simultaneously, fail at 9 of them and earn 9 million in first-year net profit from the 10th. That's not how opening or operating restaurants works.
Instead one person opens one restaurant and they have a 90% chance of failing. That's so much worse!
I think you have that wrong, 90% of people fail at opening and operating restaurants.
Some folks have a very high success rate.
I think the failure rate I’d restaurants is more tied to the types of folks who open restaurants than the business model.
Some folks have a very high success rate.
I think the failure rate I’d restaurants is more tied to the types of folks who open restaurants than the business model.
There are many other things one can derive joy from that don't require putting in 90-hour workweeks, won't cause crazy levels of stress and aren't likely to result in boatloads of debt.
Sure, if sufficient care, attention, and elbow grease made it a near certainty that even a halfway competent owner/manager could take out, say, $100k per year to live on, then you might have a reason to be a little indignant toward Thiel.
The restaurant market is notoriously fickle with considerable risk of ruin. Between opening a restaurant and building its clientele is a lot of uncertainty. It’s easy to look at the surviving restaurants and think that anyone could make a comfortable living at it. The economist must consider both the seen and the unseen — of which the latter in this case is all the restaurants that started and failed.
The restaurant market is notoriously fickle with considerable risk of ruin. Between opening a restaurant and building its clientele is a lot of uncertainty. It’s easy to look at the surviving restaurants and think that anyone could make a comfortable living at it. The economist must consider both the seen and the unseen — of which the latter in this case is all the restaurants that started and failed.
> filthy rich is the only marker of success
it's the only marker that others judge you by.
it's the only marker that others judge you by.
Said the king, before the guillotine fell and decapitated him
I think his line of thinking is more like, why spend so much time trying to get X to work, when I can just do Y and make the same amount of money? Unless you really really want to run a successful restaurant, he's not wrong.
If it takes 1/10th the effort to run a cleaning business and make $1m a year, vs a tech business, would you do it? Some people would, others won't. Operating in a space with (not just normal but) extreme cut throat competition can get tiring after a while as well.
If it takes 1/10th the effort to run a cleaning business and make $1m a year, vs a tech business, would you do it? Some people would, others won't. Operating in a space with (not just normal but) extreme cut throat competition can get tiring after a while as well.
And even if you really want to run a successful restaurant, capital doesn't give a fuck. Banks won't lend you more money because you have a passion. Investors won't either.
Drugs cartels seem to emerge without government assistance.
"Do people really believe that infrastructure is not the purview of the government?"
I don't think anyone is arguing that the government shouldn't be responsible for certain infrastructure, it's the degree to which the government should be involved, and what its role should be. If I put on my more conservative hat for a minute to make an argument, I think the idea is that the government should be somewhat of a last resort for things, and that less is more when it comes to government involvement.
Part of the reason for that is that once the government is involved, it changes the incentive structure quite a bit. Using other infrastructure projects (e.g. roads, bridges, etc) for examples that others have pointed out, they're a great way to raise taxes earmarked for those projects, but then that's when politicians start to play games and move money around to their own projects, and now the roads are falling apart, so we need to raise taxes to pay for the roads!
It's also somewhat tricky because once something is a government project, it's basically that forever. It's fairly rare for something to go back to the private sector once it has become a government program. What is more likely is that the solution is more government involvement, and that's something that conservatives tend to view as a bad thing.
Obviously I'm not speaking for all conservatives, and this isn't even necessarily my own viewpoint, but I wanted to push back against the idea that "conservatives just want what's worst".
I don't think anyone is arguing that the government shouldn't be responsible for certain infrastructure, it's the degree to which the government should be involved, and what its role should be. If I put on my more conservative hat for a minute to make an argument, I think the idea is that the government should be somewhat of a last resort for things, and that less is more when it comes to government involvement.
Part of the reason for that is that once the government is involved, it changes the incentive structure quite a bit. Using other infrastructure projects (e.g. roads, bridges, etc) for examples that others have pointed out, they're a great way to raise taxes earmarked for those projects, but then that's when politicians start to play games and move money around to their own projects, and now the roads are falling apart, so we need to raise taxes to pay for the roads!
It's also somewhat tricky because once something is a government project, it's basically that forever. It's fairly rare for something to go back to the private sector once it has become a government program. What is more likely is that the solution is more government involvement, and that's something that conservatives tend to view as a bad thing.
Obviously I'm not speaking for all conservatives, and this isn't even necessarily my own viewpoint, but I wanted to push back against the idea that "conservatives just want what's worst".
> once something is a government project, it's basically that forever
Hardly. In my lifetime the UK government has privatised electricity, water, gas, telephones, British Aerospace, British Steel, British Petroleum, Rolls Royce, Rover, British Airways, railways, coal mining, and Royal Mail. Experiments have been made with roads, bridges, schools and hospitals.
Success of these has varied. The utilities make a big profit while people struggle to pay utility bills: https://www.ft.com/content/ef488dc0-9168-11e7-a9e6-11d2f0ebb...
BAe and BA are still in business. British Steel were owned by Tata for years and the few remaining sites are now spun off and trading under the original name. BP are making a profit except when they spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The railways are a mess. Rover were looted by their directors who narrowly escaped jail.
Hardly. In my lifetime the UK government has privatised electricity, water, gas, telephones, British Aerospace, British Steel, British Petroleum, Rolls Royce, Rover, British Airways, railways, coal mining, and Royal Mail. Experiments have been made with roads, bridges, schools and hospitals.
Success of these has varied. The utilities make a big profit while people struggle to pay utility bills: https://www.ft.com/content/ef488dc0-9168-11e7-a9e6-11d2f0ebb...
BAe and BA are still in business. British Steel were owned by Tata for years and the few remaining sites are now spun off and trading under the original name. BP are making a profit except when they spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The railways are a mess. Rover were looted by their directors who narrowly escaped jail.
> Success of these has varied. The utilities make a big profit while people struggle to pay utility bills
That kind of thinking absolutely kills infrastructure investment. To use British Telecom as an example. After privatization, BT kept its monopoly on the last mile, but rates were set to ensure that it was quite profitable. (About as profitable as say Time Warner in the US.) That ensures that BT had the incentive to invest and keep pushing fiber deeper into its network. Today, broadband speeds in the UK are significantly faster than in say France. But it also results in huge political backlash. “BT makes 20% profits while people can’t pay their utility bills!”
That kind of thinking absolutely kills infrastructure investment. To use British Telecom as an example. After privatization, BT kept its monopoly on the last mile, but rates were set to ensure that it was quite profitable. (About as profitable as say Time Warner in the US.) That ensures that BT had the incentive to invest and keep pushing fiber deeper into its network. Today, broadband speeds in the UK are significantly faster than in say France. But it also results in huge political backlash. “BT makes 20% profits while people can’t pay their utility bills!”
Except that Profits = income - Expenses (in simplified form).
So, that 20% Profit you mention is money NOT spent on infrastructure investments.
So, that 20% Profit you mention is money NOT spent on infrastructure investments.
Sure. But it’s money that motivates BT to spend money on infrastructure investments. No matter how you structure your infrastructure markets, ensuring adequate investment is the single most important thing. You can do this with markets or quasi markets, or you can do it through government agency decision making. With the former, you need to ensure attractive returns on investment. Not merely bare profit, but enough profit so that the billions of dollars don’t get invested elsewhere. Having the government make the decisions doesn’t magically eliminate the issue of ensuring adequate investment. It makes it even harder! With the government is on the hook for making investments, you’re always subject to pressure from other priorities. There is a reason roads and bridges and water systems in the US are crumbling. We’ve dramatically underinvested.
Your examples illustrate perfectly how government regulation establishes monopolies and cronyism
And Standard Oil, Alcoa and Carnegie Steel/U.S. Steel demonstrate how lack of government regulations establish monopolies and cronyism...
Not "regulation" in this case, but actual state owned enterprises?
Isn't the obvious objection in this case that the incentive structure at the moment is terrible? Hence the lack of competition in most markets? Without needing to endorse one philosophy or the other, I'd say the telecom system in the US is a failure (for ordinary customers, it's been a ringing success for the telcos), and municipal broadband is worth a try (being less terrible than Comcast & Co is a fairly low bar...).
> Do people really believe that infrastructure is not the purview of the government?
Sure. Lots of people do. Japan’s railroads, subways, and many highways, are private. Water utilities in France are mostly private, as are most of its highways. Almost all electrical systems in the US and Europe were privatized in the 1980s and 1990s.
Would public internet infrastructure have been better in the US? Our internet speeds in the US are faster than our big EU competitors: UK, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy. That’s pretty much the only piece of infrastructure you can say that for. Our subways aren’t better. Our roads aren’t better. Our regional trains aren’t better. But our internet service is better.
It’s not a philosophical question, but an economic one. How do you ensure adequate spending on very expensive infrastructure. Japan does it for rail by making rail companies private and allowing them to use land grants to enter retail leasing markets. (Japanese railways own lots of the land around stations and are the landlord for the associated retail establishments.) Many European countries have the political discipline to ensure adequate funding for public infrastructure. Both models can work.
But we already know that in the US we don’t have the political discipline to properly fund infrastructure. Infrastructure gets attacked from the right, who don’t want to pay taxes. But it also from the left, who want to use infrastructure as leverage for social issues. For example, in Stockholm, the publicly owned (but completely privately funded) dark fiber utility took 16-17 years to cover 90% of the city. There was no mandate to build in historically disadvantaged neighborhoods or anything like that—build out was based on demand. That approach is completely illegal in most US cities.
Sure. Lots of people do. Japan’s railroads, subways, and many highways, are private. Water utilities in France are mostly private, as are most of its highways. Almost all electrical systems in the US and Europe were privatized in the 1980s and 1990s.
Would public internet infrastructure have been better in the US? Our internet speeds in the US are faster than our big EU competitors: UK, Germany, France, Spain, and Italy. That’s pretty much the only piece of infrastructure you can say that for. Our subways aren’t better. Our roads aren’t better. Our regional trains aren’t better. But our internet service is better.
It’s not a philosophical question, but an economic one. How do you ensure adequate spending on very expensive infrastructure. Japan does it for rail by making rail companies private and allowing them to use land grants to enter retail leasing markets. (Japanese railways own lots of the land around stations and are the landlord for the associated retail establishments.) Many European countries have the political discipline to ensure adequate funding for public infrastructure. Both models can work.
But we already know that in the US we don’t have the political discipline to properly fund infrastructure. Infrastructure gets attacked from the right, who don’t want to pay taxes. But it also from the left, who want to use infrastructure as leverage for social issues. For example, in Stockholm, the publicly owned (but completely privately funded) dark fiber utility took 16-17 years to cover 90% of the city. There was no mandate to build in historically disadvantaged neighborhoods or anything like that—build out was based on demand. That approach is completely illegal in most US cities.
Do you have a source on the US vs. the rest Internet speeds? That's not my impression from end user experience in those countries.
See: https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/state-of-t....
To use a concrete example, 500/200 fiber through Orange in France is about $63/month after the one-year promo period: https://boutique.orange.fr/internet/offres-fibre/jet. The closest FiOS plan is ~$80/month after the promo period for symmetric gigabit. So we're somewhat more expensive, for somewhat faster speeds. Affordability-wise, it's about the same, considering the much higher household income in the U.S.
But if you visited say Baltimore and Paris, you wouldn't realize that. "France has fiber and Maryland doesn't," you'd conclude. Population distribution in the two places is very different: most people in the U.S., especially the folks who can afford higher tiers of internet service, live outside the core cities. While Baltimore has crappy internet choices, most of Maryland lives outside Baltimore, and has fiber. Indeed, Maryland is in the top-5, just behind Sweden and way ahead of France in Akamai's tests.
To use a concrete example, 500/200 fiber through Orange in France is about $63/month after the one-year promo period: https://boutique.orange.fr/internet/offres-fibre/jet. The closest FiOS plan is ~$80/month after the promo period for symmetric gigabit. So we're somewhat more expensive, for somewhat faster speeds. Affordability-wise, it's about the same, considering the much higher household income in the U.S.
But if you visited say Baltimore and Paris, you wouldn't realize that. "France has fiber and Maryland doesn't," you'd conclude. Population distribution in the two places is very different: most people in the U.S., especially the folks who can afford higher tiers of internet service, live outside the core cities. While Baltimore has crappy internet choices, most of Maryland lives outside Baltimore, and has fiber. Indeed, Maryland is in the top-5, just behind Sweden and way ahead of France in Akamai's tests.
Our max may be higher but I too would like to see that our average is higher because I rarely get the speeds I pay for.
First I'm not sure of the yardstick you are using to measure. There is still a not insignificant minority with no internet access at all in the US and further lots of people are stuck with truly mediocre dsl at speeds we no longer consider broadband.
Lets start with Germany.
Internet (60 Mbps or More, Unlimited Data, Cable/ADSL) 25.92 € or 30.59 usd
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?cou...
United States
Internet (60 Mbps or More, Unlimited Data, Cable/ADSL) 56.60 $
Further in the US only 80% of households had a broadband connection at home or access to a smartphone with data.
In Germany its 98.
In summery the internet is almost twice as expensive in the US and lots of people don't even have access to it.
We could go through all the countries you listed and see if we could find even one where your assertion is correct but I feel like that would be a waste of my and your time because its not clear that being able to find even one nation in all of Europe worse than the US would prove that private competition has served the US well. It hasn't.
Lets start with Germany.
Internet (60 Mbps or More, Unlimited Data, Cable/ADSL) 25.92 € or 30.59 usd
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_result.jsp?cou...
United States
Internet (60 Mbps or More, Unlimited Data, Cable/ADSL) 56.60 $
Further in the US only 80% of households had a broadband connection at home or access to a smartphone with data.
In Germany its 98.
In summery the internet is almost twice as expensive in the US and lots of people don't even have access to it.
We could go through all the countries you listed and see if we could find even one where your assertion is correct but I feel like that would be a waste of my and your time because its not clear that being able to find even one nation in all of Europe worse than the US would prove that private competition has served the US well. It hasn't.
See Akamai’s Q1 2017 numbers, where the US breaks into the top 10 for average connection speeds: https://www.fastmetrics.com/internet-connection-speed-by-cou....
The whole report is here: https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/state-of-t.... Other interesting statistics: 48% of American connections are above 15 mbps; in Germany its 33%. Maryland, which has almost exactly the same population density as Germany, is at 60%.
The whole report is here: https://www.akamai.com/fr/fr/multimedia/documents/state-of-t.... Other interesting statistics: 48% of American connections are above 15 mbps; in Germany its 33%. Maryland, which has almost exactly the same population density as Germany, is at 60%.
I don't think measuring the average speed is even remotely a meaningful measure.
Imagine
scenario 1
3 users with gigabit 4 users have dialup 3 users have nothing
Scenario 2:
4 users with gigabit 6 users with nothing
Scenario 3: 10 users have 50 Mbps
In scenario 1 the average is 300 even though only 30% of people have real internet access and 70% either can barely send email or have nothing at all. Scenario 2 is even better at 400 even though most people have nothing.
Another way to look at it is that one person with gigabit is as good as numerically as 20 people with real internet or 100 people with basic internet.
Imagine
scenario 1
3 users with gigabit 4 users have dialup 3 users have nothing
Scenario 2:
4 users with gigabit 6 users with nothing
Scenario 3: 10 users have 50 Mbps
In scenario 1 the average is 300 even though only 30% of people have real internet access and 70% either can barely send email or have nothing at all. Scenario 2 is even better at 400 even though most people have nothing.
Another way to look at it is that one person with gigabit is as good as numerically as 20 people with real internet or 100 people with basic internet.
The whole networking infrastructure is privatized as well though in Germany (since 1995) - so it doesn't support the argument that private competition is somehow better, since both have it.
While in general I agree that competition is great - I don't think that applies to the last mile (from the next PoP to the customer).
While in general I agree that competition is great - I don't think that applies to the last mile (from the next PoP to the customer).
> Is there a good argument against this?
I think one of the main issues is having a company that has spent millions, sometimes billions of dollars building out their infrastructure. Then you have the government come in, build out a competing infrastructure with tax payers money.
As a business, you're now having to compete with an entity that has unlimited budget resources, can build out wherever they want, grant contracts and favorable leasing options to whichever businesses they want to and quite easily put you out of business.
When you have to compete with a government entity as a business, you will always be at a disadvantage. In essence, governments don't foster competition, they basically do away with it, pick the winners they want to and then monopolize it and push other companies out.
I think one of the main issues is having a company that has spent millions, sometimes billions of dollars building out their infrastructure. Then you have the government come in, build out a competing infrastructure with tax payers money.
As a business, you're now having to compete with an entity that has unlimited budget resources, can build out wherever they want, grant contracts and favorable leasing options to whichever businesses they want to and quite easily put you out of business.
When you have to compete with a government entity as a business, you will always be at a disadvantage. In essence, governments don't foster competition, they basically do away with it, pick the winners they want to and then monopolize it and push other companies out.
>Who doesn't think the US Highway System has been great for our economy?
When one considers the hidden costs of increased urban sprawl, reliance on automobiles, and the associated increase in pollution, it isn't so clear. If roads were privatized then the true costs would be more clear.
When one considers the hidden costs of increased urban sprawl, reliance on automobiles, and the associated increase in pollution, it isn't so clear. If roads were privatized then the true costs would be more clear.
Are you arguing that privatization of an industry is likely to result in better management of its externalities?
Yes, what you are describing is basically the UK railway. Network rail (government) subcontract out maintainence and build to the private companies (Alstom etc..) and then lease track access to private companies (Virgin trains etc...). The UK has possibly the most overpriced railway in the world, at least in this instance it fair to say 'it didnt work' unless you want to pay 300usd to get from london to glasgow in economy.
Note that the system was fully private for a while (Railtrack PLC), until they went bankrupt. I think it's going to be expensive whether it's public or private, for complex reasons probably related to "legacy" hardware. If it was fully deregulated then the operators would immediately shut down all the tracks within 100 miles of London to build houses on them.
I believe all European countries are required to have separate track and train operators for railways with some structure for competition in rail. It's just that most of them manage it better than the UK.
The UK telecoms industry was privatised and has ended up with BT Openreach operating most of the wires, leased out with local loop unbundling (LLU) to a variety of broadband providers. It works OK although not brilliantly.
I believe all European countries are required to have separate track and train operators for railways with some structure for competition in rail. It's just that most of them manage it better than the UK.
The UK telecoms industry was privatised and has ended up with BT Openreach operating most of the wires, leased out with local loop unbundling (LLU) to a variety of broadband providers. It works OK although not brilliantly.
In Japan the railway companies (which are pseudo private in the way a lot of things are in Japan) run the railways effectively at or below cost and the profits are made on property development and leasing on the surrounding land.
In the UK the railway companies try to run profits on railway operation while the taxpayer subsidizes them and the surrounding land is owned by property developers who are making profits that are staggering.
The Conservative government is also doing stuff like donating 38 million pounds to govia thameslink in profit compensation for a strike they triggered.
It's taxpayers and passengers subsidizing property developers' and TOC profits, and the government/TOCs seems to be trying to get the TOC wage bills down so that TOCs and property developers can make even more.
In the UK the railway companies try to run profits on railway operation while the taxpayer subsidizes them and the surrounding land is owned by property developers who are making profits that are staggering.
The Conservative government is also doing stuff like donating 38 million pounds to govia thameslink in profit compensation for a strike they triggered.
It's taxpayers and passengers subsidizing property developers' and TOC profits, and the government/TOCs seems to be trying to get the TOC wage bills down so that TOCs and property developers can make even more.
No, the most sucessful train company in Europe, the swiss doesn’t. And those who have go e for separate companies have just bad experience with it. This separation is mostly ideologially driven with no proven benefits. Right wing parties will push through anything their economic text books say is smart regardless of pracrical results and experiences.
Switzerland is part of the Single Market but not part of the EU or EEA, just to complicate matters. I agree with the rest of what you're saying.
"I believe all European countries are required to have separate track and train operators for railways with some structure for competition in rail."
Not really, in some countries the railway and train operators is the same company, strongly controlled by the government and operating without big problems.
It's my understanding that the problems in the UK started when they stopped using that model.
Not really, in some countries the railway and train operators is the same company, strongly controlled by the government and operating without big problems.
It's my understanding that the problems in the UK started when they stopped using that model.
100 times better than the states where local monopolies where allowed to remain and you get insane things like receiver plays for mobile.
And it went bankrupt at the cost of fixing some fundamental problems that contributed to at least two nasty rail accidents. The government decided it didn't want to continue to be responsible for the maintenance. Would rather feed subsidies to a company that would take the heat for issues.
> The UK has possibly the most overpriced railway in the world
The UK railway is still subsidised by the tax payer -- while some routes like Manchester-London make a profit, this profit is reinvested into loss making routes like the Welsh Valleys which help keep communities alive (the operating companies take about 3%, so a £100 ticket without a private company taking money would at cheapest be £97)
There is plenty of competition on the Glasgow-London route, including two Coach companies, Plane - multiple companies and routes, driving, two direct train companies (albeit with similar branding) and a third overnight.
The $240 peak time one way fare comes out at 58 cents per mile. It's valid on any train, just walk up and go.
For almost all trains it's actually $183 return, or 22 cents per mile - valid on any train other than the first arrival into London in the morning and the first couple out of London in the morning.
A train from Washington to New York will set you back $1.14 per mile, with less flexibility.
The UK railway is still subsidised by the tax payer -- while some routes like Manchester-London make a profit, this profit is reinvested into loss making routes like the Welsh Valleys which help keep communities alive (the operating companies take about 3%, so a £100 ticket without a private company taking money would at cheapest be £97)
There is plenty of competition on the Glasgow-London route, including two Coach companies, Plane - multiple companies and routes, driving, two direct train companies (albeit with similar branding) and a third overnight.
The $240 peak time one way fare comes out at 58 cents per mile. It's valid on any train, just walk up and go.
For almost all trains it's actually $183 return, or 22 cents per mile - valid on any train other than the first arrival into London in the morning and the first couple out of London in the morning.
A train from Washington to New York will set you back $1.14 per mile, with less flexibility.
Im not sure I understand your 3% point, are you saying Virgin pay more into Network Rail on the WCL and this wouldnt happen if government owned/controlled?
Interestingly, I can take a 3.5-4hr train from Penang to Kuala Lumpur for $12, made by Siemens I believe, traveling faster than the Pendolino/Voyagers, and with a similar level of comfort (I do think the seats are bit narrower though), so in comparison I consider the UK crazy priced unless you get some off-peak deal (still not great).
I suspect if still subsidized then it's probably very inefficient, I dont know but I certainly dont feel good paying the train ticket prices in the UK even the off-peak saver.
Interestingly, I can take a 3.5-4hr train from Penang to Kuala Lumpur for $12, made by Siemens I believe, traveling faster than the Pendolino/Voyagers, and with a similar level of comfort (I do think the seats are bit narrower though), so in comparison I consider the UK crazy priced unless you get some off-peak deal (still not great).
I suspect if still subsidized then it's probably very inefficient, I dont know but I certainly dont feel good paying the train ticket prices in the UK even the off-peak saver.
Nothing to do with the trains themselves, everything to do with the tracks and their maintenance. There's a pie chart in that PDF I linked elsewhere which shows that about 50% of the cost is network rail, 30% staff and 20% train leasing. I suspect the UK could maintain it for a lot less if it could pay Malay wages for the track maintenance and train staff.
UK railways have been chronically mismanaged for years. Better comparison would be against other European countries.
UK railways have been chronically mismanaged for years. Better comparison would be against other European countries.
>I suspect the UK could maintain it for a lot less if it could pay Malay wages for the track maintenance and train staff.
They could probably also do it by whacking the extremely wealthy landowners surrounding major train stations with an extra tax.
After all, if the train station made your land valuable, you should be paying for that. In Japan this helps pay for infrastructure. It's practically criminal that in the UK it does not.
They could probably also do it by whacking the extremely wealthy landowners surrounding major train stations with an extra tax.
After all, if the train station made your land valuable, you should be paying for that. In Japan this helps pay for infrastructure. It's practically criminal that in the UK it does not.
Indeed, a land value tax would be very equitable. If society needs to build a power plant near you, which lowers the value of your land, then at least you don't have to pay as much in tax. If they build a new transport hub nearby, which triples the value, then you have to pay more.
Fair points. What would be the benchmark country in your opinion?
I'm hardly an expert, but Germany and Japan are the obvious examples to look for best practices. Really the UK comes off badly compared to most European countries. Worth noting that Abelio (Dutch state-owned) and DB Freight (German state-owned) operate in the UK.
(anyone in the age range eligible for InterRail, I would highly recommend spending a month travelling the railways of Europe)
(anyone in the age range eligible for InterRail, I would highly recommend spending a month travelling the railways of Europe)
Germany subsidies its rail network by €17b a year. The UK subsidises by €4b.
In the UK we have decided to go for lower taxes and lower subsidies. We do that while still subsidising lines that are good for the country but not profitable (old mining towns in south wales which would collapse if people couldn't commute to Cardiff etc, cornish rurual lines which attract tourism and offer transport for local residents who may not have 1 car per adult, etc). This means that on the profitable lines which would make commercial sense (say Manchester to London, or some London commuter lines) we have to charge more.
Remember commuter tickets are twice the price of business tickets - as they are paid after income tax (which varies from 33% to 60%). When I was offered a job based in the office, I wanted an extra £10k a year for the commute -- £2200 for the ticket, £3300 for the extra tax to pay for that ticket, and £5k for the time out of my day. They decided that I didn't actually need to be based in an office after all, and I go (to that one) about once every 3 months, which costs them £20 return (but would cost me £45).
This is offset by the massive discounts. A season ticket from Nuneaton to London, 206 miles a day, about 1 hour in each direction, is £9000 a year, for 230+ days of travel, or 47,000 miles. 19p per mile. If you're willing to take a little longer and travel on London Midland it's £6500 per year, 14p per mile.
On the other hand, a day trip from Nuneaton is £154 in peak time, £104 on the slower train. That's 74p per mile - 3.5 times the price of the commuter.
In the UK we have decided to go for lower taxes and lower subsidies. We do that while still subsidising lines that are good for the country but not profitable (old mining towns in south wales which would collapse if people couldn't commute to Cardiff etc, cornish rurual lines which attract tourism and offer transport for local residents who may not have 1 car per adult, etc). This means that on the profitable lines which would make commercial sense (say Manchester to London, or some London commuter lines) we have to charge more.
Remember commuter tickets are twice the price of business tickets - as they are paid after income tax (which varies from 33% to 60%). When I was offered a job based in the office, I wanted an extra £10k a year for the commute -- £2200 for the ticket, £3300 for the extra tax to pay for that ticket, and £5k for the time out of my day. They decided that I didn't actually need to be based in an office after all, and I go (to that one) about once every 3 months, which costs them £20 return (but would cost me £45).
This is offset by the massive discounts. A season ticket from Nuneaton to London, 206 miles a day, about 1 hour in each direction, is £9000 a year, for 230+ days of travel, or 47,000 miles. 19p per mile. If you're willing to take a little longer and travel on London Midland it's £6500 per year, 14p per mile.
On the other hand, a day trip from Nuneaton is £154 in peak time, £104 on the slower train. That's 74p per mile - 3.5 times the price of the commuter.
I don't think many people are happy with the way that Abelio has been operating Scotrail.
There's a constant claim from the left that train fares in the UK are overpriced because the train operating companies take a profit of about 3% of the revenue.
There is a profit margin to be made on any savings, I'm sure that if Stagecoach or First or whoever could cut costs enough to make more money they would. We have very old infrastructure, laid down in the mid 19th centuries, and very crowded lines. Building a new line is a mammoth task, and expensive, as we've seen from HS2. Rail staff are hardly cheap too - a virgin trains driver earns £51k, top 10% of earnings in the country.
There is a profit margin to be made on any savings, I'm sure that if Stagecoach or First or whoever could cut costs enough to make more money they would. We have very old infrastructure, laid down in the mid 19th centuries, and very crowded lines. Building a new line is a mammoth task, and expensive, as we've seen from HS2. Rail staff are hardly cheap too - a virgin trains driver earns £51k, top 10% of earnings in the country.
I pay £11 per day for my 35 min commute into central Edinburgh (I work from home a lot so season tickets don't make much sense) and given that parking in Edinburgh would be £25 a day £11 a day looks like a bargain given that the station I commute from in Fife is 10 mins drive away from where I live and has free parking always available.
That doesn't sound too bad, but I don't think that's representational of most routes and hence most travelers, in that if you stand outside Euston, Glasgow or Edinburgh before 8.30am and ask people what they paid to get to work and if they considered it value for money you would likely get a lot of expletives
However they don't take commuter bus services, or drive, or ride a bike, or move closer to the office, or change job location, or change job times.
The media has driven this culture of people believing in 'rip off Britain'. If people were commuting 100 miles a day for the cost of a cup of coffee they'd still say it was a rip off (although oddly it would be the commute, not the £4 latte)
The media has driven this culture of people believing in 'rip off Britain'. If people were commuting 100 miles a day for the cost of a cup of coffee they'd still say it was a rip off (although oddly it would be the commute, not the £4 latte)
I suspect I would be much less happy with the service if it wasn't for the fact that I am far enough out from Edinburgh so that the train is relatively empty so I can pretty much always get a seat (and a window seat on the side with the best views).
Two stops in from where I get on the train fills up dramatically and there are often people standing.
Two stops in from where I get on the train fills up dramatically and there are often people standing.
> the operating companies take about 3%
I've heard this before but I'm not sure I believe it. They have a pretty huge incentive to make it seem like they aren't making a lot of profit, and it is easy for them to do so (just like Hollywood accounting).
I've heard this before but I'm not sure I believe it. They have a pretty huge incentive to make it seem like they aren't making a lot of profit, and it is easy for them to do so (just like Hollywood accounting).
Well if you believe that Labour, Coalition and Tory governments have all conspired with all the train companies to somehow hide profits from the public and from their shareholders, that's not really something I can argue with.
I could fly Glasgow-London for far cheaper than the train ticket. Yet an airplane is far more expensive to operate.
I wonder why that is.
I wonder why that is.
No, the railway "permanent way" is far more expensive to operate. That's the problem. The UK railway network has rather a lot of 100+ year old bridges in it, along with some less ancient but still pretty old signalling equipment.
(extremely high detail PDF on costs: http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/4933/toc-bench...)
(extremely high detail PDF on costs: http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/4933/toc-bench...)
The airplane gets tax-free fuel to burn and doesn’t have to pay for environmental damage it creates.
That (plane operating costs > rail operating costs) may not be the case when you take into account the cost of maintaining the physical infrastructure (hundreds of miles of railroad) compared to that of airports (a few hundred metres of tarmac).
Not to mention that there are only two stopping points (London / Glasgow airports) where as a train needs to stations all over the place.
True. But if Heathrow you'll pay 20gbp (or is it 25gbp now?) on Heathrow Express to get from central London to the airport unless you take the slow tube.
From Heathrow the options are
Heathrow Express - Heathrow Connect - Bus to Hayes+Harlington then train - Picadilly line - Coach - Uber - Taxi
Only one of those options is for mugs, and it's not the Heathrow Express.
However from Glasgow you can also fly to Gatwick, or City if you want to avoid thiefrow.
However comparing the cost of a non-flexible ticket from Glasgow to London with a flexible train ticket is ingenuous at best.
Heathrow Express - Heathrow Connect - Bus to Hayes+Harlington then train - Picadilly line - Coach - Uber - Taxi
Only one of those options is for mugs, and it's not the Heathrow Express.
However from Glasgow you can also fly to Gatwick, or City if you want to avoid thiefrow.
However comparing the cost of a non-flexible ticket from Glasgow to London with a flexible train ticket is ingenuous at best.
> unless you take the slow tube.
That's competition, no?
That's competition, no?
Is the slow tube the one that takes an hour?
> A train from Washington to New York will set you back $1.14 per mile, with less flexibility.
The trip is approximately 226 miles. With sufficient advance purchase, the Northeast Regional coach fare is $49 each way and the Acela is $168 each way. I have never seen an NER fare greater than $200 each way. How did you arrive at $1.14 per mile at all, let alone thinking it's typical?
The trip is approximately 226 miles. With sufficient advance purchase, the Northeast Regional coach fare is $49 each way and the Acela is $168 each way. I have never seen an NER fare greater than $200 each way. How did you arrive at $1.14 per mile at all, let alone thinking it's typical?
I looked at the next train they were selling a ticket, which was the closest I could come to the flexibility you get on a £182 ($240) London to Glasgow ticket that came close to the "$300" mentioned by the OP.
I've checked again for tomorrow morning, $295. Perhaps I'm using the site wrong: https://imgur.com/TnuOGt3
295/226 is $1.30 per mile.
I'm ignoring the slower trains, non flexibile, booking in advance etc, as that wasn't what was raised. There are slower options for London-Glasgow that are nowhere near the full price (for example £57 tomorrow morning if you go via Edinburgh - saving £130).
I've just checked my emails - last time I took this train (albeit from NY to Washington), in March 2013, it was $498 for 2 tickets - $249 each.
This is for a far less flexible ticket than I get in the UK. For my $240 I can travel London to Birmingham, have the day there, and then continue to Manchester, have a meal and stay in a hotel overnight, then get a train from Manchester to Glasgow the next morning.
Washington to New York is half the distance, and nearly twice the price, as London to Glasgow.
I've checked again for tomorrow morning, $295. Perhaps I'm using the site wrong: https://imgur.com/TnuOGt3
295/226 is $1.30 per mile.
I'm ignoring the slower trains, non flexibile, booking in advance etc, as that wasn't what was raised. There are slower options for London-Glasgow that are nowhere near the full price (for example £57 tomorrow morning if you go via Edinburgh - saving £130).
I've just checked my emails - last time I took this train (albeit from NY to Washington), in March 2013, it was $498 for 2 tickets - $249 each.
This is for a far less flexible ticket than I get in the UK. For my $240 I can travel London to Birmingham, have the day there, and then continue to Manchester, have a meal and stay in a hotel overnight, then get a train from Manchester to Glasgow the next morning.
Washington to New York is half the distance, and nearly twice the price, as London to Glasgow.
> I've just checked my emails - last time I took this train (albeit from NY to Washington), in March 2013, it was $498 for 2 tickets - $249 each.
That price is far from typical for this service. The prices I quoted are what I just pulled off amtrak.com for a Friday NY-DC train on 12JAN18. A couple months ago I purchased a ticket from Fredericksburg (south of DC) to NY with only a few days in advance for only $130. Thee ten-trip option my sibling poster mentioned gives you the same flexibility you mention there. Please do not base your idea of the cost of rail travel in the NE US based on one very overpriced trip.
Edit:
Just saw your screenshot. That $295 is for the Acela (which is premium service). I just ran the same search, and midday trains are running about $152 for the NER and $168 for the Acela. The one you chose is literally the most expensive non-first class ticket you could book tomorrow.
That price is far from typical for this service. The prices I quoted are what I just pulled off amtrak.com for a Friday NY-DC train on 12JAN18. A couple months ago I purchased a ticket from Fredericksburg (south of DC) to NY with only a few days in advance for only $130. Thee ten-trip option my sibling poster mentioned gives you the same flexibility you mention there. Please do not base your idea of the cost of rail travel in the NE US based on one very overpriced trip.
Edit:
Just saw your screenshot. That $295 is for the Acela (which is premium service). I just ran the same search, and midday trains are running about $152 for the NER and $168 for the Acela. The one you chose is literally the most expensive non-first class ticket you could book tomorrow.
If I was going at midday I'd get a $80 London to Glasgow ticket. The comparison was as close as possible to the fully flexible any train any time Glasgow/Euston high speed route that sitepodmatt brought up. It's still not as flexible as a UK train - you can't stop off in Phillidelphia for a few hours on your way you New York for example, can you even buy a ticket 5 minutes before the train leaves on that train?
I still don't see his $300 ticket, the only thing I can think of is that he's looking at a return ticket, but then that doubles the price on the Accela.
I still don't see his $300 ticket, the only thing I can think of is that he's looking at a return ticket, but then that doubles the price on the Accela.
I was about to chime in similarly; a ten-ride ticket for NYP->POU is $0.38 per mile and you can take any train without reservations; an off-peak MTA ticket for the same leg costs $0.21 per mile. $1.14 per mile sounds high.
Those prices are a bit high for typical UK season tickets. 85 miles Poughkeepsie to NY 90 minutes, similar distance + time and number of trains per day to Salisbury to London (88 miles). A weekly season there (so 10 trips) will set you back £131, or $175, 20c/mile, half the price of Poughkeepsie to New York.
$0.38 / mile is the long-distance rail (Amtrak); the commuter rail line is $0.20 / mile (off-peak 10-ride or 10 rides on a weekly pass anytime).
"a ten-ride ticket for NYP->POU is $0.38 per mile"
I'm only going on what you said.
MTA.info says this ride is 247.50 for a 10 trip ticket, with a trip of 85 miles that would be 247.50 for 850 miles, or 30c/mile.
From what I can see when doing a like-for-like comparison between the UK and the northeast US, the US is surprisingly pricier than the UK.
Now to be fare the Salisbury weekly season is valid for 10 journeys (or even 40), but only over 7 days, where as the Poughkeepsie one is a carnet, you can do 3 days one week, 2 days the next, and that's better, but for the Monday-to-Friday person, I'd rather be paying the Salisbury-London fare than the Poughkeepsie-NYC fare. (I'd rather be going into NYC, just without the fare)
I'm only going on what you said.
MTA.info says this ride is 247.50 for a 10 trip ticket, with a trip of 85 miles that would be 247.50 for 850 miles, or 30c/mile.
From what I can see when doing a like-for-like comparison between the UK and the northeast US, the US is surprisingly pricier than the UK.
Now to be fare the Salisbury weekly season is valid for 10 journeys (or even 40), but only over 7 days, where as the Poughkeepsie one is a carnet, you can do 3 days one week, 2 days the next, and that's better, but for the Monday-to-Friday person, I'd rather be paying the Salisbury-London fare than the Poughkeepsie-NYC fare. (I'd rather be going into NYC, just without the fare)
NYP is New York Penn Station, the Amtrak station. Metro North leaves New York out of Grand Central Terminal. Sorry; the phrasing, while unambiguous to someone commuting from the Hudson Valley, was definitely confusing to most everyone else.
Metro North also sells a weekly pass for $166.75. Unlimited rides during a calendar week. The 10-ride ticket has two prices, for peak and off-peak. Peak-hour 10-ride is $247.50, as you said; off-peak is $157.25.
Very few people actually buy a weekly pass on Metro North; either you are commuting infrequently (eg, weekend commutes) in which case you want a 10-ride ticket, or you are commuting daily, in which case you want a monthly ticket. A monthly pass between Poughkeepsie and GCT is $521. If you commute 20 days per calendar month, your per-mile cost is $0.16 / mile.
(Metro North fare information here: http://web.mta.info/mnr/html/planning/faresMar2017/hhfares_m...)
Metro North also sells a weekly pass for $166.75. Unlimited rides during a calendar week. The 10-ride ticket has two prices, for peak and off-peak. Peak-hour 10-ride is $247.50, as you said; off-peak is $157.25.
Very few people actually buy a weekly pass on Metro North; either you are commuting infrequently (eg, weekend commutes) in which case you want a 10-ride ticket, or you are commuting daily, in which case you want a monthly ticket. A monthly pass between Poughkeepsie and GCT is $521. If you commute 20 days per calendar month, your per-mile cost is $0.16 / mile.
(Metro North fare information here: http://web.mta.info/mnr/html/planning/faresMar2017/hhfares_m...)
Actually, since there is confusion, going back to the very beginning --
For the train route I myself am familiar with, the line between New York and Poughkeepsie, two different train systems serve the route, Amtrak (the company that does the nation-wide train service in the United States) and Metro North, a commuter-rail line associated with New York's MTA, via their Hudson Line.
I started with the Amtrak costs because the New York <-> DC train is an Amtrak train; most daily commuters will be using the Metro North, as it is cheaper.
For the train route I myself am familiar with, the line between New York and Poughkeepsie, two different train systems serve the route, Amtrak (the company that does the nation-wide train service in the United States) and Metro North, a commuter-rail line associated with New York's MTA, via their Hudson Line.
I started with the Amtrak costs because the New York <-> DC train is an Amtrak train; most daily commuters will be using the Metro North, as it is cheaper.
Part of the problem is that you can't have "real" competition, e.g. two train companies can't operate competing franchises on the same line, at the same time. I get terrible service and pay high fares on my Southern Railways route, but I can't opt to use a different carrier without moving house. But if my broadband provider decides to raise their prices by 5% next year, I can move to a different provider with a single phone call and a few minutes of downtime.
Most people in the country can not realistically switch internet providers. Even when you have a choice you're often limited to two.
lhopki01's point is that we suspect you are talking about USA in your post, where the GP was talking about the UK, which has a much healthier market for high-speed internet.
To be fair this might not be obvious, if you missed the context of the thread and unless you are familiar with "Southern Railways".
To be fair this might not be obvious, if you missed the context of the thread and unless you are familiar with "Southern Railways".
Which country? If you have a phone line to your house you can pick between more than 2.
Under what circumstances do most people only have a choice of two.
Under what circumstances do most people only have a choice of two.
Switching to DSL is not a realistic option when most of the country has broadband.
> Switching to DSL is not a realistic option when most of the country has broadband.
DSL is broadband. I've been using DSL for over 17 years (and, while away from home, using combinations of cable & satellite), and I watch plenty of TV & listen to plenty of music on it. It really does work great for me.
DSL is broadband. I've been using DSL for over 17 years (and, while away from home, using combinations of cable & satellite), and I watch plenty of TV & listen to plenty of music on it. It really does work great for me.
Depends on the wire length and quality. A whole lot of DSL connections can't even handle a single 1080p stream, or good quality 720p.
Again which country are you talking about? The majority of UK broadband is ADSL2+. There is cable in some areas but not all. In all areas with phone lines there are multiple providers giving around 20Mb/s. They all use the same phone lines because of local loop unbundling. In areas with fibre to the cabinet there are again multiple providers all using the same fibre. The only service in the UK that doesn't have local loop unbundling is cable.
"In all areas with phone lines there are multiple providers giving around 20Mb/s."
I don't know about the rest of the UK but I don't think that is the case in Scotland - once you are any distance from a city or town the speeds can drop dramatically and that's not even in the Highlands or Islands. Certainly when we were looking at houses about a year ago there were quite upmarket new houses in Perthshire that had no broadband at all.
I don't know about the rest of the UK but I don't think that is the case in Scotland - once you are any distance from a city or town the speeds can drop dramatically and that's not even in the Highlands or Islands. Certainly when we were looking at houses about a year ago there were quite upmarket new houses in Perthshire that had no broadband at all.
Are there non-subsidized railways that break even, what's their quality?
The problem with rails is the same with roads.
Yes, AnCaps/Libertarians/Voluntarists/goldbugs think that "yeah, if the State weren't meddling in the market, people would form a corporation to build a [toll] road/rail", but of course, the same network effects would lead to very fine roads between major population centers and abso-fucking-lutely nothing else, because why would anyone connect a mining town in Wyoming anywhere? The mining company will use big all-terrain vehicles on dirt roads and that's it. Maybe they'll lay a track for the coal itself.
And I'd even argue, that yes, even if rail operates at a net loss according to GAAP, that doesn't mean socially it is a negative. The same applies to broadband.
However, maybe ... maaaybe not everyone should live so far from each other, so infrastructure TCO and commute times and energy use (and GHG emissions) would be lower.
The problem with rails is the same with roads.
Yes, AnCaps/Libertarians/Voluntarists/goldbugs think that "yeah, if the State weren't meddling in the market, people would form a corporation to build a [toll] road/rail", but of course, the same network effects would lead to very fine roads between major population centers and abso-fucking-lutely nothing else, because why would anyone connect a mining town in Wyoming anywhere? The mining company will use big all-terrain vehicles on dirt roads and that's it. Maybe they'll lay a track for the coal itself.
And I'd even argue, that yes, even if rail operates at a net loss according to GAAP, that doesn't mean socially it is a negative. The same applies to broadband.
However, maybe ... maaaybe not everyone should live so far from each other, so infrastructure TCO and commute times and energy use (and GHG emissions) would be lower.
Have a look at Thailand for the effects of way-less effective regulation.
Street furniture and cables all over the pedestrian areas and cars and bikes everywhere else. Huge concrete overpasses, litter and pollution.
Street furniture and cables all over the pedestrian areas and cars and bikes everywhere else. Huge concrete overpasses, litter and pollution.
In the railway context I believe SRT is government operated including track and trains so they follow a mandate rather then regulation. I took a new train from BKK to Hua Hin a few months ago, quite a pleasant ride to be fair. The cables are a problem, but I suspect it led to faster broadband and FFTH rollout, to give an example I was one of the first True customers and they ran a coaxial cable about 0.25km to the house, it took less than two hours, you couldnt do that if it was underground. Sometimes these things work.
Government maintained track system that lease track access to private companies is problematic system because of several points where that relationship breaks.
1: Rail maintenance dictate quality, but is shared between all competitors.
2: Rail is located on ground owned by the government. There is no practical or legal option to operate a private rail network.
3: Lack of distinguishable features to compete, high barrier to entry, and a limited number of companies create an environment thats prime for oligopolies. High price, low service.
In contrast to Internet service providers which:
1: Quality of service is generally not dictated by the back bone network.
2: Government tend to grant permission and funding to the first ISP that want to dig into government land to plant cables, but then deny completion afterwards and allow natural monopolies of those that were first.
3: Low barrier to entry could allow for many ISP.
1: Rail maintenance dictate quality, but is shared between all competitors.
2: Rail is located on ground owned by the government. There is no practical or legal option to operate a private rail network.
3: Lack of distinguishable features to compete, high barrier to entry, and a limited number of companies create an environment thats prime for oligopolies. High price, low service.
In contrast to Internet service providers which:
1: Quality of service is generally not dictated by the back bone network.
2: Government tend to grant permission and funding to the first ISP that want to dig into government land to plant cables, but then deny completion afterwards and allow natural monopolies of those that were first.
3: Low barrier to entry could allow for many ISP.
> 1: Quality of service is generally not dictated by the back bone network.
If by that you mean that it is not the only thing that matters, then yes. But if the backbone is bottlenecked then of course quality will suffer.
> 2: Government tend to grant permission and funding to the first ISP that want to dig into government land to plant cables, but then deny completion afterwards and allow natural monopolies of those that were first.
Is that actually the case? Getting a dedicated line between any two buildings tends to be no problem, so why would doing the same on a larger scale be a problem all of a sudden?
> 3: Low barrier to entry could allow for many ISP.
That's only really possible if the last mile can be leased from either the municipal or some other company (sort of like the government maintained track system). Otherwise the barrier is exactly this last mile, which is the most expensive part of the whole thing (which is also why a lot of small rural ISPs use wireless as last mile access instead of wired connections).
If by that you mean that it is not the only thing that matters, then yes. But if the backbone is bottlenecked then of course quality will suffer.
> 2: Government tend to grant permission and funding to the first ISP that want to dig into government land to plant cables, but then deny completion afterwards and allow natural monopolies of those that were first.
Is that actually the case? Getting a dedicated line between any two buildings tends to be no problem, so why would doing the same on a larger scale be a problem all of a sudden?
> 3: Low barrier to entry could allow for many ISP.
That's only really possible if the last mile can be leased from either the municipal or some other company (sort of like the government maintained track system). Otherwise the barrier is exactly this last mile, which is the most expensive part of the whole thing (which is also why a lot of small rural ISPs use wireless as last mile access instead of wired connections).
Virgin Trains at least are nice and if you book well in advance very reasonable deals are to be had. We paid ~42 quid from London to Manchester in first class, one way. Alas we bought the tickets month' in advance and, of course, non-refundable.
For shits and giggles I tried to figure out what the same ride costs like when you buy the ticket 30 minutes in advance. And there we come to 280£ each, which is completely ridiculous. It's not that good (2nd ist still ~90quid)
Now, don't get me started on Northern. Filthy, Expensive, Clueless and slathered with a heavy dose of disorganisation.
I think you can honestly say that privatizing trains in the UK was an experiment going horribly wrong.
For shits and giggles I tried to figure out what the same ride costs like when you buy the ticket 30 minutes in advance. And there we come to 280£ each, which is completely ridiculous. It's not that good (2nd ist still ~90quid)
Now, don't get me started on Northern. Filthy, Expensive, Clueless and slathered with a heavy dose of disorganisation.
I think you can honestly say that privatizing trains in the UK was an experiment going horribly wrong.
Would your solution be better for most people on average? Probably.
Would anyone have unlimited gigabit internet access for $70 a month (like I do)? Probably not.
So yeah, I realize the hypocrisy of being willing to pay taxes to help the less fortunate but not being willing to give up my precious gigabit service to help the less connected.
Would anyone have unlimited gigabit internet access for $70 a month (like I do)? Probably not.
So yeah, I realize the hypocrisy of being willing to pay taxes to help the less fortunate but not being willing to give up my precious gigabit service to help the less connected.
More socialist leaning countries privatize infrastructure. For example Ontario power generation.
Is there conclusive evidence that privatization is worse?
It seems like an age old question. That there are positives and negatives. It's also politically expedient as it raises money.
Is there conclusive evidence that privatization is worse?
It seems like an age old question. That there are positives and negatives. It's also politically expedient as it raises money.
Big difference between privatising the parts of the system that are a natural monopoly and those that aren't.
Privatising the power cables going to people's homes is a dumb move - you won't get the benefits of the free market, as there's no competition between suppliers.
But once the cables are in the ground, competition between multiple power suppliers might be possible - so long as customers can compare prices and switch suppliers easily; and the power plants aren't incentivised to cut long-term investments and imperil the country's energy security.
Privatising the power cables going to people's homes is a dumb move - you won't get the benefits of the free market, as there's no competition between suppliers.
But once the cables are in the ground, competition between multiple power suppliers might be possible - so long as customers can compare prices and switch suppliers easily; and the power plants aren't incentivised to cut long-term investments and imperil the country's energy security.
This guy gets it. Privatisation on its own does not magically improve services and cut costs. Competition can do so. But privatisation without competition is just a monopoly license to print money.
There's rarely any political push to privatize things that aren't natural monopolies though, precisely because nobody is going to make bank on that.
In practice almost every privatization is simply an exchange where the new owner pays the government $x to help solve its "debt problem" (because the government may one day be rendered insolvent by running out of the cash it it prints).
Then, the public gets soaked for $nx where n is usually at least > 2 and the government officials behind the privatization get some really lucrative jobs and speaking engagements after they leave office.
In practice almost every privatization is simply an exchange where the new owner pays the government $x to help solve its "debt problem" (because the government may one day be rendered insolvent by running out of the cash it it prints).
Then, the public gets soaked for $nx where n is usually at least > 2 and the government officials behind the privatization get some really lucrative jobs and speaking engagements after they leave office.
> It's also politically expedient as it raises money.
You don't get that money for nothing. You're selling part of the nation's infrastructure, that was paid for by taxpayers, to now be exploited for profit. The taxpayers end up paying twice.
It's better to keep the essential infrastructure nationalised, and allow private parties to use it.
You don't get that money for nothing. You're selling part of the nation's infrastructure, that was paid for by taxpayers, to now be exploited for profit. The taxpayers end up paying twice.
It's better to keep the essential infrastructure nationalised, and allow private parties to use it.
> You're selling part of the nation's infrastructure, that was paid for by taxpayers, to now be exploited for profit
Maybe. If it's taxpayer funded infrastructure, it doesn't perpetuate itself by self determination. It must be maintained with more tax dollars.
Assuming the cost is equal whether it's privatized vs. state-owned, then it all boils down to a matter of ideological preference. Some object to others making a profit off of a public good. There may or may not be merit to those arguments, but they're completely orthogonal to whether or not there are costs associated with their maintenance, because there always are.
The taxpayers always end up paying twice.
Maybe. If it's taxpayer funded infrastructure, it doesn't perpetuate itself by self determination. It must be maintained with more tax dollars.
Assuming the cost is equal whether it's privatized vs. state-owned, then it all boils down to a matter of ideological preference. Some object to others making a profit off of a public good. There may or may not be merit to those arguments, but they're completely orthogonal to whether or not there are costs associated with their maintenance, because there always are.
The taxpayers always end up paying twice.
If costs are equal, the private for-profit entity is more expensive, because it wants to make profit. If it bought the infrastructure, it wants to recoup that investment.
Apologies. I intended "costs" to mean "costs to consumer".
Sure, if the costs to the consumer is equal, it doesn't matter much. But I think that's unlikely. In a privatised versus nationalised comparison, I think the costs to the consumer are either going to be higher if it's an area where competition doesn't work efficiently (monopolies, duopolies, cartels), or lower if it's an area where competition does work efficiently (a transparent market with many suppliers).
> It's also politically expedient as it raises money.
Raises is a very positive sounding word.
Would it be better to couch that sentiment in terms of who's getting shafted (it extracts money from) or who's getting rich (it redirects wealth to)?
Raises is a very positive sounding word.
Would it be better to couch that sentiment in terms of who's getting shafted (it extracts money from) or who's getting rich (it redirects wealth to)?
At the local level, I could deal with private ownership. But if and only if there were strict regulations in place and an oversight body. But, at that point, would it really save local residents money anyway?
The closer that the government is to me, I more that I can control it (albeit with much frustration sometimes). But, private ownership, I can't control.
The closer that the government is to me, I more that I can control it (albeit with much frustration sometimes). But, private ownership, I can't control.
[deleted]
> Is there a good argument against this?
Yes. The infrastructure in and around NYC. All the bridges need to be replaced (you can literally see the water below through them), the subway system is in tatters, Penn station is a mess of train derailments and constant delays, and the whole thing is unbelievably expensive.
It's a textbook case of short-sightedness, mismanagement, and rent seeking from private parties.
A govt internet would work ok for a few years until it was driven into the ground by lack of innovation and special interests. With this model we'd all still be connecting to the internet via 56k modems.
And because it's a government enforced monopoly, we'd have no choice.
Yes. The infrastructure in and around NYC. All the bridges need to be replaced (you can literally see the water below through them), the subway system is in tatters, Penn station is a mess of train derailments and constant delays, and the whole thing is unbelievably expensive.
It's a textbook case of short-sightedness, mismanagement, and rent seeking from private parties.
A govt internet would work ok for a few years until it was driven into the ground by lack of innovation and special interests. With this model we'd all still be connecting to the internet via 56k modems.
And because it's a government enforced monopoly, we'd have no choice.
Municipal broadband exists because the lack of competition in the private sector has lead to "lack of innovation" and "special interests". The muni broadband projects fill in these gaps since multi-hundred billion dollar companies can't seem to roll out service at greater than 10MBps. Muni broadband is competition to a monopoly, not a monopoly itself.
I downvoted you because you relied on an analogy to train and subway infrastructure instead of looking at existing municipal broadband plans that have existed for more than "a few years."
For example, the municipal broadband in Wilson, NC, was grandfathered in because it existed before the NC state legislature wrote a law to prevent municipal broadband. It's existed for around 10 years. Rather than being stagnant, that plan delivers some of the fastest internet in the country with reportedly easy setup and decent pricing.
If you had made your argument citing municipal broadband plans in the U.S. which give worse-than-average speeds and pricing, I wouldn't have downvoted you.
For example, the municipal broadband in Wilson, NC, was grandfathered in because it existed before the NC state legislature wrote a law to prevent municipal broadband. It's existed for around 10 years. Rather than being stagnant, that plan delivers some of the fastest internet in the country with reportedly easy setup and decent pricing.
If you had made your argument citing municipal broadband plans in the U.S. which give worse-than-average speeds and pricing, I wouldn't have downvoted you.
Here's a more complete, if a bit dated, analysis.
https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/6611-report-municipal-f...
I would say that Greenlight in Wilson is still fast because of the relatively recent infrastructure build out. The question of whether they are stagnant are not won't be answered until the next build out is required.
The project was financed by bonds with the infrastructure as collateral. Since Wilson's bond has a balloon payment due in 2033, any new infrastructure would probably require rolling over that debt in addition to the new infrastructure costs. Given the low positive cash flow, it remains to be seen whether they will be able to keep up with future infrastructure demands, whether driven by streaming VR or other services. They are also deriving significant revenue from cable television and landline phone services, both of which are potentially negative growth service areas over the next 15 years.
The peculiar advantage of municipal broadband is that municipalities are usually not rural, they can take advantage of the higher density installation locations which most providers want. Many of the monopoly contracts issued by various localities to providers came with the caveat that everyone in the county needed to get access to the service. To be fair, the higher costs for more rural installations should translate into higher prices for rural customers, but that would reduce demand.
So, it is certainly worth trying more of these muni-broadband projects, as this obviously is not yet a solved problem. My only plea would be that we don't give anyone a monopoly on putting wires in the ground, whether a private company or a government entity, whoever wants to safely lay cable should be given a permit.
I would say that Greenlight in Wilson is still fast because of the relatively recent infrastructure build out. The question of whether they are stagnant are not won't be answered until the next build out is required.
The project was financed by bonds with the infrastructure as collateral. Since Wilson's bond has a balloon payment due in 2033, any new infrastructure would probably require rolling over that debt in addition to the new infrastructure costs. Given the low positive cash flow, it remains to be seen whether they will be able to keep up with future infrastructure demands, whether driven by streaming VR or other services. They are also deriving significant revenue from cable television and landline phone services, both of which are potentially negative growth service areas over the next 15 years.
The peculiar advantage of municipal broadband is that municipalities are usually not rural, they can take advantage of the higher density installation locations which most providers want. Many of the monopoly contracts issued by various localities to providers came with the caveat that everyone in the county needed to get access to the service. To be fair, the higher costs for more rural installations should translate into higher prices for rural customers, but that would reduce demand.
So, it is certainly worth trying more of these muni-broadband projects, as this obviously is not yet a solved problem. My only plea would be that we don't give anyone a monopoly on putting wires in the ground, whether a private company or a government entity, whoever wants to safely lay cable should be given a permit.
Au contraire, we'd be connecting to the internet with _extremely_ expensive equipment. See https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/why-a-one-room-w...
The issue there was the top-down approach, which is almost never efficient.
I'm suggesting a bottom-up approach. Municipalities themselves paying for what they need. Then states paying for what they need. Then federal.
I'm suggesting a bottom-up approach. Municipalities themselves paying for what they need. Then states paying for what they need. Then federal.
Isn't MTA semi-private???
I lived in chicago, they did some maintenance work on the street in front of my house but improperly installed the manhole cover. Now evertime a car passed over the manhole cover it made a loud thud. This is moderately busy street and there would be lound noise all day long, I was jolted out of sleep several times because of this.
I called 311 who said they will look it into it. I called them again couple of weeks after that, some person rudely asked me to call local alderman instead. I called alderman who said they noted down the complaint, called them many times in the following months. After a while a they said its comed( electric company) fault and I should call them. I called comed, they asked me to call local city office. I took time off from work and went upto local city office and they said I should call 311 for complaints of this nature.
Sorry, I don't want govt anything. If something goes wrong you are at mercy of some govt employees who have no motivation or sympathy towards your problems.
People who know govt officials like alderman ect get things done but everyone else is out of luck, just roll the dice and hope it fixed.
Edit: why the downvotes? I think this is a on topic response to parents comment about how well govt maintains roads. You should come to chicago and look at the roads in working class neighborhoods. People are ok with poorer people getting horrible internet cos they can't raise enough taxes to fix their internet infrastructure. Its horrible, if you take CTA in chicago underground in winter, you'll see drops of water ( is it water?) drip on your head from leaky ceilings.
I called 311 who said they will look it into it. I called them again couple of weeks after that, some person rudely asked me to call local alderman instead. I called alderman who said they noted down the complaint, called them many times in the following months. After a while a they said its comed( electric company) fault and I should call them. I called comed, they asked me to call local city office. I took time off from work and went upto local city office and they said I should call 311 for complaints of this nature.
Sorry, I don't want govt anything. If something goes wrong you are at mercy of some govt employees who have no motivation or sympathy towards your problems.
People who know govt officials like alderman ect get things done but everyone else is out of luck, just roll the dice and hope it fixed.
Edit: why the downvotes? I think this is a on topic response to parents comment about how well govt maintains roads. You should come to chicago and look at the roads in working class neighborhoods. People are ok with poorer people getting horrible internet cos they can't raise enough taxes to fix their internet infrastructure. Its horrible, if you take CTA in chicago underground in winter, you'll see drops of water ( is it water?) drip on your head from leaky ceilings.
People run into the same wall dealing with support for any company.
I get good customer service from comcast, amazon, costco ect.
Are you seriously saying thats typical of any company and that you have to personally know some exec in that company to get things done?
Are you seriously saying thats typical of any company and that you have to personally know some exec in that company to get things done?
> I get good customer service from comcast
There's an entire subreddit out there who would like to hear from you on this subject...
There's an entire subreddit out there who would like to hear from you on this subject...
sure comcast might suck but to say you have to deal with this at "any company" is not a valid response.
If amazon ever did something like this to me, I would never shop there any longer. Problem solved. Now who I turn to if govt refuses to listen to me. Interacting with Govt is a horrible experience almost every single time. You just have to "deal with it" if you don't get help.
Your internet experience will depend on how much your neighbors think internet is the priority given limited funds.
If amazon ever did something like this to me, I would never shop there any longer. Problem solved. Now who I turn to if govt refuses to listen to me. Interacting with Govt is a horrible experience almost every single time. You just have to "deal with it" if you don't get help.
Your internet experience will depend on how much your neighbors think internet is the priority given limited funds.
Most people in the US are stuck with only one choice of broadband Internet providers, and those who are lucky might have two options[1].
The difference between Comcast and Amazon/Costco is that when Amazon provides sub par customer service you have the option to shop elsewhere. The reason Comcast can be so well known for providing terrible support is because there is no alternative, your only other option is to choose a dial-up provider and sacrifice a consistent Internet connection.
1. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br...
The difference between Comcast and Amazon/Costco is that when Amazon provides sub par customer service you have the option to shop elsewhere. The reason Comcast can be so well known for providing terrible support is because there is no alternative, your only other option is to choose a dial-up provider and sacrifice a consistent Internet connection.
1. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-br...
I am not arguing that comcast is good.
I am disagreeing with "Govt monochoice is better than private monochoice" . Govt can be equally brutal and inefficient and often is. Whats a govt employee's motivating to fix your internet in a timely manner?
Also I have a tangential question, whats stopping comcast from charging $500/month for internet?
I am disagreeing with "Govt monochoice is better than private monochoice" . Govt can be equally brutal and inefficient and often is. Whats a govt employee's motivating to fix your internet in a timely manner?
Also I have a tangential question, whats stopping comcast from charging $500/month for internet?
They are a barrier to further civilisation.
As a libertarian I think that government should not do commercial projects like this fiber optical network. But then I raise a question - why private companies do not make such fiber networks? And it is obvious that it is not about cost. Google has plenty of money to invest (is YouTube already profitable or still burning 1 million USD a day?), but still they struggle with their fiber network.
I have a live example I live in Lithuania. Until 1998 Lithuania had one monopolist telecommunication company owned by government. But in 1998 our government sold this monopole company (about 95% of shares) to Swedish company Telia, but at the same time they passed the laws to liberalize telecommunication market. Theoretically Telecom was obligated to allow usage part of their communication infrastructure to other competitors, but as monopoly they set such high prices, that for other companies it was cheaper to build their own networks. And laws allowed to build network for everyone. And that's where libertarian dream came true - even monopoly could not limit expansion of private networks when there laws allowed that. Soon there appeared many amateur networks that used simple UTP cables or wi-fi to connect to each other, some of them joined forces together and become companies who sold internet connection to neighborhood homes. That's how suddenly there appeared lots of small ISP's. Soon they understood that they cannot rely on UTP cables or wi-fi, so they started building fiber cable networks in largest cities. And keep in mind, that in 1998 - 2000 when those companies have appeared, the Lithuania was quite poor country who has just escaped USSR. It had a GDP only of 11 billion USD; average salary was about 150 USD/month, so you can imagine that average customer could not pay for internet a lot. That small fiber optical ISPs didn't had big investors behind their back, tons of money to invest, but still they managed to buy equipment on word prices and expand their networks. And now here in Lithuania we have plenty of ISP's who offers 100 - 300 mbps fiber connection to almost every home that needs it.
So I think real problem in USA is not about the money, it's about the laws that limit competition. And building government network would not solve this issue - building municipal networks is just the fight against the consequences, not the causes.
P.S. Lithuanian capital Vilnius has population of 650 000, so it is quite similar to the case described in this article.
I have a live example I live in Lithuania. Until 1998 Lithuania had one monopolist telecommunication company owned by government. But in 1998 our government sold this monopole company (about 95% of shares) to Swedish company Telia, but at the same time they passed the laws to liberalize telecommunication market. Theoretically Telecom was obligated to allow usage part of their communication infrastructure to other competitors, but as monopoly they set such high prices, that for other companies it was cheaper to build their own networks. And laws allowed to build network for everyone. And that's where libertarian dream came true - even monopoly could not limit expansion of private networks when there laws allowed that. Soon there appeared many amateur networks that used simple UTP cables or wi-fi to connect to each other, some of them joined forces together and become companies who sold internet connection to neighborhood homes. That's how suddenly there appeared lots of small ISP's. Soon they understood that they cannot rely on UTP cables or wi-fi, so they started building fiber cable networks in largest cities. And keep in mind, that in 1998 - 2000 when those companies have appeared, the Lithuania was quite poor country who has just escaped USSR. It had a GDP only of 11 billion USD; average salary was about 150 USD/month, so you can imagine that average customer could not pay for internet a lot. That small fiber optical ISPs didn't had big investors behind their back, tons of money to invest, but still they managed to buy equipment on word prices and expand their networks. And now here in Lithuania we have plenty of ISP's who offers 100 - 300 mbps fiber connection to almost every home that needs it.
So I think real problem in USA is not about the money, it's about the laws that limit competition. And building government network would not solve this issue - building municipal networks is just the fight against the consequences, not the causes.
P.S. Lithuanian capital Vilnius has population of 650 000, so it is quite similar to the case described in this article.
"why private companies do not make such fiber networks?"
It's a bad investment. There is a large front loaded capital cost and a long, slow payback over decades. Build-outs are plagued by difficult problems involving multiple levels of government and incumbent roadblocks. Private investors simply can't entertain things with such long time horizons, particularly if it involves legal and political entanglements, unless the eventual payoff is enormous. There are better, faster opportunities.
In the early days of electric and telephone service in the US we had a different model. The goal was universal service and it was supported by subsidies, special status for incumbents and legal force that precluded most of the roadblocks. Had this not been the case both telephone and electric service would be what broadband is today; a spotty hodgepodge of cherry picked areas servicing mostly well-to-do urbanites.
It's a bad investment. There is a large front loaded capital cost and a long, slow payback over decades. Build-outs are plagued by difficult problems involving multiple levels of government and incumbent roadblocks. Private investors simply can't entertain things with such long time horizons, particularly if it involves legal and political entanglements, unless the eventual payoff is enormous. There are better, faster opportunities.
In the early days of electric and telephone service in the US we had a different model. The goal was universal service and it was supported by subsidies, special status for incumbents and legal force that precluded most of the roadblocks. Had this not been the case both telephone and electric service would be what broadband is today; a spotty hodgepodge of cherry picked areas servicing mostly well-to-do urbanites.
> it's about the laws that limit competition
In some cases it's not laws but simple entrenched ownership. If Google wants to run fiber on existing poles, they run into blockades by the pole owners or lawsuits by competitors who don't even own the poles but who can find a technicality about getting permission from the pole owner. The old 'possession is 9/10ths' factor.
In some cases it's not laws but simple entrenched ownership. If Google wants to run fiber on existing poles, they run into blockades by the pole owners or lawsuits by competitors who don't even own the poles but who can find a technicality about getting permission from the pole owner. The old 'possession is 9/10ths' factor.
When I read your story, something jumped out to me: willingness to take on risk. Whoever was building all those lines was willing to take on a lot of financial and other risk to themselves, right? Why they were willing to do so, I'm not sure, but in the US we are facing the problem of having fewer and fewer people like that. There was a report recently that entrepreneurship has been falling for some time here, and I think it's due to risk.
Where I live, there is a single Internet provider (besides dial up of course!), and I have dreamed of starting up an alternative (funny as my grandfather was Lithuanian :). The risk involved though makes it not worth it, my desk job is too comfortable.
Where I live, there is a single Internet provider (besides dial up of course!), and I have dreamed of starting up an alternative (funny as my grandfather was Lithuanian :). The risk involved though makes it not worth it, my desk job is too comfortable.
> And now here in Lithuania we have plenty of ISP's who offers 100 - 300 mbps fiber connection to almost every home that needs it.
How do these ISP:s access your home? Do all these competing ISP:s have cables running through your lawn? If not; is the government involved? It seems like a success.
How do these ISP:s access your home? Do all these competing ISP:s have cables running through your lawn? If not; is the government involved? It seems like a success.
It looks like this (Romania)
https://farm4.static.flickr.com/3628/3493868568_0538c4f264_b...
https://farm4.static.flickr.com/3628/3493868568_0538c4f264_b...
Yes! More freedom for the rich! Meanwhile, except Comcast or Verizon to give you your former freedom with at a premium. What you don't know, is what you don't get to see.
This whole thing sound like a leftist twist on the right-wing Soros conspiracy theory.
This strikes me as anti-American. Sure, I wouldn't go about building myself my own highway (to me the internet (access to) is to infrastructure as roads are to infrastructure). But... co-operatives can work in some cases and if a community wants to get together to build infrastructure and save the government money and do it better than both the feds and private institutions why not let them be FREE to do so?
A lot of left-wing and media groups attribute a lot of influence to the Koch brothers. But honestly, their efforts are often ineffective or outright counter-productive to their stated goals. It's funny to see them portrayed as boogeymen when you know how bad they actually are at wielding influence.
I've worked with the Charles Koch Institute before, and it's a mad house. Their other orgs are about the same. But don't take my word for it--check out their Glassdoor reviews[1] to see for yourself how many current and former employees feel about them. (Read the negative ones; many of the positive ones were posted because HR told people to do it.)
[1] https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Charles-Koch-Institute-and...
I've worked with the Charles Koch Institute before, and it's a mad house. Their other orgs are about the same. But don't take my word for it--check out their Glassdoor reviews[1] to see for yourself how many current and former employees feel about them. (Read the negative ones; many of the positive ones were posted because HR told people to do it.)
[1] https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Charles-Koch-Institute-and...
> their efforts are often ineffective or outright counter-productive to their stated goals.
The fact that the employees complain doesn't mean that the money they invest isn't effective for the goals they have: to increase doubt in the facts that they don't like and therefore prevent or even just slow down possible actions against their interests.
Then, what is the support for your claim that they are ineffective?
The fact that the employees complain doesn't mean that the money they invest isn't effective for the goals they have: to increase doubt in the facts that they don't like and therefore prevent or even just slow down possible actions against their interests.
Then, what is the support for your claim that they are ineffective?
The main issue with groups pushing single boogiemen is that life isn't that neat: there are, as alluded to in other places, multiple people (mostly billionaires these days, but not always) with major influence pushing multiple opinions. I am also not surprised that life behind the scenes at one of these advocacy groups is as Dilbertesque as any corporate environment tends to be.
I think the main issue here is that, with decisions like Citizen United in particular, political power does seem to have shifted towards those who can spend the most money even more than usual. Often, their priorities are out of whack with what the priorities of the common citizen are. I do not get the impression, for instance, that tax cuts aimed largely at corporations and high earners were the top priority of most who voted in last year's election (certainly the polling on the tax cut seems to reflect that). Yet this appears to be the single issue that the national GOP unifies itself on. Go figure.
Paradoxically, I think the very messiness that you are talking about might actually contribute to this particular issue. Instinctively, the Koch corporate interests shouldn't care about muni broadband much. Koch is largely resource extraction, meaning a lot of operation in rural areas. Given the current state of broadband (quasi-monopolistic), some rural communities miss out on good broadband because, quite simply, rural broadband isn't profitable enough for the current broadband monopolies [1]. Frankly, good broadband makes a given location that much more attractive to potential employees and other people living in the area. It would seem like the Kochs would at best simply keep mum about a muni broadband fight, even if it didn't necessarily gel with core beliefs.
Instead, my best guess is that their "libertarian oriented" cause funding got tied into the network of old school broadband monoplies' desire to restrict competition by legal decree (not exactly a libertarian thought, but currently aligned with Republicans). Voila, via the magic of political coalitions, the Koch brothers now "provide" some of the funding for anti-muni broadband campaigns.
[1] http://www.roanoke.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-minnesot...
I think the main issue here is that, with decisions like Citizen United in particular, political power does seem to have shifted towards those who can spend the most money even more than usual. Often, their priorities are out of whack with what the priorities of the common citizen are. I do not get the impression, for instance, that tax cuts aimed largely at corporations and high earners were the top priority of most who voted in last year's election (certainly the polling on the tax cut seems to reflect that). Yet this appears to be the single issue that the national GOP unifies itself on. Go figure.
Paradoxically, I think the very messiness that you are talking about might actually contribute to this particular issue. Instinctively, the Koch corporate interests shouldn't care about muni broadband much. Koch is largely resource extraction, meaning a lot of operation in rural areas. Given the current state of broadband (quasi-monopolistic), some rural communities miss out on good broadband because, quite simply, rural broadband isn't profitable enough for the current broadband monopolies [1]. Frankly, good broadband makes a given location that much more attractive to potential employees and other people living in the area. It would seem like the Kochs would at best simply keep mum about a muni broadband fight, even if it didn't necessarily gel with core beliefs.
Instead, my best guess is that their "libertarian oriented" cause funding got tied into the network of old school broadband monoplies' desire to restrict competition by legal decree (not exactly a libertarian thought, but currently aligned with Republicans). Voila, via the magic of political coalitions, the Koch brothers now "provide" some of the funding for anti-muni broadband campaigns.
[1] http://www.roanoke.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-minnesot...
I think the Koch brothers are more active and problematic than the other side's boogeyman, George Soros.
The Private depends on the Public - https://georgelakoff.com/2017/11/26/protect-internet-freedom...
I am all for municapal internet in the US, but really it is a bandaid. The fundamental problem is how competition is regulated in the US. Most European countries I know of did not achieve high speed internet by making it municpal. Rather we did it by forcing competition. Cell phone and broadband infrastructure owners in Europe typicall have to let competition offer services on their hardware. Same with power. Here in Norway companies owning the power cables going into my house are not allowed to exclude competitors from using their lines to send power to me.
You, need struct regulation of natural monpolies and that is what the US lacks. That is why Americans ironically end up with government solutions.
See the same with so many things. Government mandated minimum eages because unions are so weak. In Nordic countries, Germany etc there has never been a need for go ernment to provide this as unions have solved the problem with exploitative wages.
Ironically by fighting government regulation you just end up with more government.
You, need struct regulation of natural monpolies and that is what the US lacks. That is why Americans ironically end up with government solutions.
See the same with so many things. Government mandated minimum eages because unions are so weak. In Nordic countries, Germany etc there has never been a need for go ernment to provide this as unions have solved the problem with exploitative wages.
Ironically by fighting government regulation you just end up with more government.
How do you reconcile that with the fact that competition is by all means opposed? Sections of the country are carved up into fiefdoms where rent-seeking is the norm.