Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Broadband in America: You have 10 providers! Actually 0, sell your house.
Author Message
SuperFlyBCat Offline
Banned

Posts: 49,583
Joined: Mar 2005
I Root For: America and UC
Location: Cincinnati
Post: #21
RE: Broadband in America: You have 10 providers! Actually 0, sell your house.
(03-26-2015 12:09 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(03-26-2015 09:51 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Did the home buyer check existing cable/utility hookups?

If you read, their sites said service was available and BroadbandMaps.gov, maintained by NTIA and the FCC, claimed he did too.

I don't trust that just because it says service is available. There is no cable infrastructure into the home. I want to see the cable penetration into the house, before I buy the house. There is phone line into the house either?
03-26-2015 01:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GeorgeBorkFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,089
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 91
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Broadband in America: You have 10 providers! Actually 0, sell your house.
(03-26-2015 12:59 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(03-26-2015 12:56 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  
(03-26-2015 12:36 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(03-26-2015 08:48 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  Some of my facebook friends have stated, verbatim, "we all deserve fast internet."


High speed internet, probably for most of the country at this point, is just as important as electrical and water service. I won't get into the semantics of deserve vs need etc ... but it is at this point vitally important for state, business, and the public writ large.

Its economics. It it made sense, someone would provide him service. Heck, utilities aren't typically charged to use public rights of ways.

My internet choices are dial up, sat, or wireless broadband. It isn't society's job to provide me with internet.


I can agree that it isn't society's job. It also isn't society's job to provide you with electricity, water, or roads to your house. And yet you're just as dependent upon near universal coverage of all three. If any of those former three were delivered with the gross incompetence the internet is in this country, there'd be riots. And I'd argue in another 15-30 years the internet will be equally as important as those three are now.

I respectfully disagree. Reality shows that roads to your house can't be caused to happen by anything other than cooperative government. However, private sector internet providers do function, and well, in most cases, for most people.

I think it is unreasonable to propose that the internet is as important as electricty, water or roads.
03-26-2015 02:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #23
RE: Broadband in America: You have 10 providers! Actually 0, sell your house.
(03-26-2015 02:12 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  I respectfully disagree. Reality shows that roads to your house can't be caused to happen by anything other than cooperative government. However, private sector internet providers do function, and well, in most cases, for most people.

I think it is unreasonable to propose that the internet is as important as electricty, water or roads.

I'll play along with this line of thinking for a moment. So you think that power and water can be delivered privately to your house outside of cooperative government. And definitely think telecommunications can.

Do you think any of the former three has actually been privately rolled out? Before you answer ... find a copy of somebody's telephone bill and/or cellphone bill and/or power bill and/or water bill ... and do read me some of the line item surcharges and fees.
03-26-2015 03:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #24
RE: Broadband in America: You have 10 providers! Actually 0, sell your house.
We've been through this before, in railroads, in roads, in power lines, in canals, etc.

The argument is always the same, as is the outcome.

The right wants to grandstand on this issue and that is fine but they will lose, and rightfully so.
03-26-2015 04:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GeorgeBorkFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,089
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 91
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Broadband in America: You have 10 providers! Actually 0, sell your house.
(03-26-2015 04:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We've been through this before, in railroads, in roads, in power lines, in canals, etc.

The argument is always the same, as is the outcome.

The right wants to grandstand on this issue and that is fine but they will lose, and rightfully so.

Explain.
03-26-2015 04:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #26
RE: Broadband in America: You have 10 providers! Actually 0, sell your house.
(03-26-2015 04:41 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  
(03-26-2015 04:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We've been through this before, in railroads, in roads, in power lines, in canals, etc.

The argument is always the same, as is the outcome.

The right wants to grandstand on this issue and that is fine but they will lose, and rightfully so.

Explain.

You start of with something that is a novelty and in time that becomes an important avenue of commerce which in turn grows into a matter of public concern. Private property rights yield at the third point.

This is what has happened at every turn for the things I have mentioned above.

At its core this argument over broadband is the same. The internet started out as a novelty, grew into an avenue for commerce, and is now a matter of public concern. Usage of the infrastructure has exceeded the point where private property rights are beneficial to society. So, we are seeing this fight, the same one we have had over and over again.

The outcome is always the same.
03-26-2015 04:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GeorgeBorkFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,089
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 91
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Broadband in America: You have 10 providers! Actually 0, sell your house.
(03-26-2015 03:19 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'll play along with this line of thinking for a moment. So you think that power and water can be delivered privately to your house outside of cooperative government. And definitely think telecommunications can.

Do you think any of the former three has actually been privately rolled out? Before you answer ... find a copy of somebody's telephone bill and/or cellphone bill and/or power bill and/or water bill ... and do read me some of the line item surcharges and fees.

Step back. There is really no business/industry that does not have some level of government interaction. My point is -- how much.

When I look at my cell phone bill, I see mostly government surcharges and taxes, many which arguably don't have much to do with my actual phone service.

There are private water and electricity providers. Add in natural gas, etc. They use public rights of way, in most cases. Being a person who works for an agency with public rights of way, I find most of the utilities, public or private, to be a pain in the ass. They use the right of way for free. They shouldn't, but that is the law. Sometimes they do obtain their own easements outside our rights of way, so they bear the cost of that property acquisition/ownership.

In the past five to ten years, there has been a tremendous amount of growth in the amount of private fiber in our rights of way. There is no way government could do that work effectively or efficiently.

Circling back to this gentleman's situation, you think local government should provide him with infrastructure for internet service?
03-26-2015 04:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GeorgeBorkFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,089
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 91
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Broadband in America: You have 10 providers! Actually 0, sell your house.
(03-26-2015 04:44 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  
(03-26-2015 04:41 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  
(03-26-2015 04:31 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  We've been through this before, in railroads, in roads, in power lines, in canals, etc.

The argument is always the same, as is the outcome.

The right wants to grandstand on this issue and that is fine but they will lose, and rightfully so.

Explain.

You start of with something that is a novelty and in time that becomes an important avenue of commerce which in turn grows into a matter of public concern. Private property rights yield at the third point.

This is what has happened at every turn for the things I have mentioned above.

At its core this argument over broadband is the same. The internet started out as a novelty, grew into an avenue for commerce, and is now a matter of public concern. Usage of the infrastructure has exceeded the point where private property rights are beneficial to society. So, we are seeing this fight, the same one we have had over and over again.

The outcome is always the same.

I feel like I'm missing the point. In this case, the homeowner seemingly can't get suitable internet service. I don't think we are talking about property rights, exactly. The issue is whether the public should pay to provide him a service, or should a private entity be forced to provide it to him at a financial loss.

Some of your above mentioned examples should be revisited in the modern age, if I'm understanding your point. Railroads, pipelines, etc. shouldn't have condemnation powers. We aren't settling the wild west anymore.
03-26-2015 04:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #29
RE: Broadband in America: You have 10 providers! Actually 0, sell your house.
(03-26-2015 04:51 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  
(03-26-2015 03:19 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'll play along with this line of thinking for a moment. So you think that power and water can be delivered privately to your house outside of cooperative government. And definitely think telecommunications can.

Do you think any of the former three has actually been privately rolled out? Before you answer ... find a copy of somebody's telephone bill and/or cellphone bill and/or power bill and/or water bill ... and do read me some of the line item surcharges and fees.

Step back. There is really no business/industry that does not have some level of government interaction. My point is -- how much.

When I look at my cell phone bill, I see mostly government surcharges and taxes, many which arguably don't have much to do with my actual phone service.

There are private water and electricity providers. Add in natural gas, etc. They use public rights of way, in most cases. Being a person who works for an agency with public rights of way, I find most of the utilities, public or private, to be a pain in the ass. They use the right of way for free. They shouldn't, but that is the law. Sometimes they do obtain their own easements outside our rights of way, so they bear the cost of that property acquisition/ownership.

In the past five to ten years, there has been a tremendous amount of growth in the amount of private fiber in our rights of way. There is no way government could do that work effectively or efficiently.

Circling back to this gentleman's situation, you think local government should provide him with infrastructure for internet service?

You'll notice things like "Universal Service Fund" and "Rural Power" charges. Which are basically wholly designed to roll out the infrastructure in places where it would otherwise be unprofitable or unfeasible. Yea ... it cost a lot to run fiber optic internet file miles up some rural road to two people. It cost even more to do the same with power, and that was done too.

I think his municipality should be legally allowed to sell him internet service, even if profit offerings are available. Right now they are not. That solves his and many other problems. The locals are suckin up a storm? Fine. Let the municipality roll their own fiber networks and crush them.

I don't understand where their isn't a mandate and a rider on ALL government infrastructure work requiring conduit with regular crossover junctions. Building a road? Fine. But it by law MUST include proper conduit and crossover junctions. Building a railroad? Same deal. Building a bridge? Same deal. It shouldn't be an afterthought. It should be baked in to EVERY infrastructure project where even a DIME of taxpayer money touches it.
03-26-2015 05:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #30
RE: Broadband in America: You have 10 providers! Actually 0, sell your house.
(03-26-2015 05:05 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  You'll notice things like "Universal Service Fund" and "Rural Power" charges. Which are basically wholly designed to roll out the infrastructure in places where it would otherwise be unprofitable or unfeasible. Yea ... it cost a lot to run fiber optic internet file miles up some rural road to two people. It cost even more to do the same with power, and that was done too.

I think his municipality should be legally allowed to sell him internet service, even if profit offerings are available. Right now they are not. That solves his and many other problems. The locals are suckin up a storm? Fine. Let the municipality roll their own fiber networks and crush them.

I don't understand where their isn't a mandate and a rider on ALL government infrastructure work requiring conduit with regular crossover junctions. Building a road? Fine. But it by law MUST include proper conduit and crossover junctions. Building a railroad? Same deal. Building a bridge? Same deal. It shouldn't be an afterthought. It should be baked in to EVERY infrastructure project where even a DIME of taxpayer money touches it.

First, I'm surprised a hard core Libertarian like you GTS is advocating for a gov't solution.

Second, you would want the system to modeled more like power than water. You would not believe the number of out of date water transport systems that exist in US cities due to politicians not raising the rates and/or doing proper maintenance. A private monopoly working in conjunction with the state Public Service Commission seem to generate better result.

Finally, going underground is not as easy as it sounds. The general construction rule for for elevations is 1=at grade, 3x=above grade, 7x below grade.
03-26-2015 08:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #31
RE: Broadband in America: You have 10 providers! Actually 0, sell your house.
(03-26-2015 08:21 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(03-26-2015 05:05 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  You'll notice things like "Universal Service Fund" and "Rural Power" charges. Which are basically wholly designed to roll out the infrastructure in places where it would otherwise be unprofitable or unfeasible. Yea ... it cost a lot to run fiber optic internet file miles up some rural road to two people. It cost even more to do the same with power, and that was done too.

I think his municipality should be legally allowed to sell him internet service, even if profit offerings are available. Right now they are not. That solves his and many other problems. The locals are suckin up a storm? Fine. Let the municipality roll their own fiber networks and crush them.

I don't understand where their isn't a mandate and a rider on ALL government infrastructure work requiring conduit with regular crossover junctions. Building a road? Fine. But it by law MUST include proper conduit and crossover junctions. Building a railroad? Same deal. Building a bridge? Same deal. It shouldn't be an afterthought. It should be baked in to EVERY infrastructure project where even a DIME of taxpayer money touches it.

First, I'm surprised a hard core Libertarian like you GTS is advocating for a gov't solution.

Second, you would want the system to modeled more like power than water. You would not believe the number of out of date water transport systems that exist in US cities due to politicians not raising the rates and/or doing proper maintenance. A private monopoly working in conjunction with the state Public Service Commission seem to generate better result.

Finally, going underground is not as easy as it sounds. The general construction rule for for elevations is 1=at grade, 3x=above grade, 7x below grade.

I am not advocating for a government solution. Exception granted to my idea of requiring proper conduit with all publicly funded infrastructure, and allowing governments to offer services competing against the private sector. But I do want to set the record straight for those who think net neutrality or municipal internet service is some unprecedented infringement on the free market delivery of utility type services, as though their roads/phone/power/water/cellular was some great bastion of free market economics.
03-26-2015 08:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #32
RE: Broadband in America: You have 10 providers! Actually 0, sell your house.
(03-26-2015 08:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  
(03-26-2015 08:21 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(03-26-2015 05:05 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  You'll notice things like "Universal Service Fund" and "Rural Power" charges. Which are basically wholly designed to roll out the infrastructure in places where it would otherwise be unprofitable or unfeasible. Yea ... it cost a lot to run fiber optic internet file miles up some rural road to two people. It cost even more to do the same with power, and that was done too.

I think his municipality should be legally allowed to sell him internet service, even if profit offerings are available. Right now they are not. That solves his and many other problems. The locals are suckin up a storm? Fine. Let the municipality roll their own fiber networks and crush them.

I don't understand where their isn't a mandate and a rider on ALL government infrastructure work requiring conduit with regular crossover junctions. Building a road? Fine. But it by law MUST include proper conduit and crossover junctions. Building a railroad? Same deal. Building a bridge? Same deal. It shouldn't be an afterthought. It should be baked in to EVERY infrastructure project where even a DIME of taxpayer money touches it.

First, I'm surprised a hard core Libertarian like you GTS is advocating for a gov't solution.

Second, you would want the system to modeled more like power than water. You would not believe the number of out of date water transport systems that exist in US cities due to politicians not raising the rates and/or doing proper maintenance. A private monopoly working in conjunction with the state Public Service Commission seem to generate better result.

Finally, going underground is not as easy as it sounds. The general construction rule for for elevations is 1=at grade, 3x=above grade, 7x below grade.

I am not advocating for a government solution. Exception granted to my idea of requiring proper conduit with all publicly funded infrastructure, and allowing governments to offer services competing against the private sector. But I do want to set the record straight for those who think net neutrality or municipal internet service is some unprecedented infringement on the free market delivery of utility type services, as though their roads/phone/power/water/cellular was some great bastion of free market economics.

Most of your L. Neil Smith type Libertarians refused acknowledge the utility of gov't involvement in such areas. But by stating your belief that the internet would approach utility status is essentially saying that you want the government involved to ensure connectivity reliability to Americans. Which is not unprecedented as that was why the REA and TVA were established in the first place. If you could ensure a censor free status, I think a PSC type relationship could work. Especially since ISP's are or will approach power company level monopoly status in many regions throughout the US.
03-26-2015 09:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
geosnooker2000 Offline
I got Cleopatra in the basement
*

Posts: 25,267
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation: 1358
I Root For: Brandon
Location: Somerville, TN
Post: #33
RE: Broadband in America: You have 10 providers! Actually 0, sell your house.
Serves him right. That house is ugly as sin.
03-26-2015 09:49 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GeorgeBorkFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,089
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 91
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #34
Toungue RE: Broadband in America: You have 10 providers! Actually 0, sell your house.
(03-26-2015 05:05 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  You'll notice things like "Universal Service Fund" and "Rural Power" charges. Which are basically wholly designed to roll out the infrastructure in places where it would otherwise be unprofitable or unfeasible. Yea ... it cost a lot to run fiber optic internet file miles up some rural road to two people. It cost even more to do the same with power, and that was done too.

Those taxes have outlived their usefulness and should go away. Our country is much different than it was when the first run of electrical services were being installed in the 1920's, 30's, 40's, etc. First of all, due to population growth, there are fewer places that are truly far away. There is less distance between towns and existing infrastructure. Secondly, I am positive it is cheaper today to install such infrastructure than it was 90 years ago, due to mechanization and other efficiencies.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:I think his municipality should be legally allowed to sell him internet service, even if profit offerings are available. Right now they are not. That solves his and many other problems. The locals are suckin up a storm? Fine. Let the municipality roll their own fiber networks and crush them.

I agree, to a point. That municipal utility should not be allowed to be supported by any tax dollars. If it is, it operates at an unfair advantage to private industry.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:I don't understand where their isn't a mandate and a rider on ALL government infrastructure work requiring conduit with regular crossover junctions. Building a road? Fine. But it by law MUST include proper conduit and crossover junctions. Building a railroad? Same deal. Building a bridge? Same deal. It shouldn't be an afterthought. It should be baked in to EVERY infrastructure project where even a DIME of taxpayer money touches it.

I strongly disagree. Transportation agencies and municipalities should not be maintainers of conduit infrastructure. Forcing them to install it forces them to own it. What size conduit? How do you fairly allocate space within it? Who is entitled to what? These companies don't want to share infrastructure such as conduit. Even with the use of innerduct, whether traditional or fabric, the first cable (fiber) in the run can be damaged quite easily by the next pull. I don't want to have to mediate that argument. Let them bury their own conduit, maintain it and own it. Anyway, many prefer to hang it from the poles already in place from the electric company.

You want the Federal government to pass this law that impacts all these infrastructure projects, even if locally funded?

We already run our own conduit and fiber for our transportation system/network needs. Government does a poor job of building and maintaining their own stuff. No private entity with a brain wants to depend on us.

I live just off the outer edge of a major metropolitan area. I pay $40 a month for 1.5 Mbps down and 128k up (including extra for a static ip) for wireless broadband. It isn't terribly reliable due to overselling by the provider, among other things. I point at an antenna on someone's grain leg. It works, ok. Life goes on. Nobody owes me fiber out in front of my house.
03-26-2015 10:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #35
RE: Broadband in America: You have 10 providers! Actually 0, sell your house.
(03-26-2015 10:52 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  I strongly disagree. Transportation agencies and municipalities should not be maintainers of conduit infrastructure. Forcing them to install it forces them to own it. What size conduit? How do you fairly allocate space within it? Who is entitled to what? These companies don't want to share infrastructure such as conduit. Even with the use of innerduct, whether traditional or fabric, the first cable (fiber) in the run can be damaged quite easily by the next pull. I don't want to have to mediate that argument. Let them bury their own conduit, maintain it and own it. Anyway, many prefer to hang it from the poles already in place from the electric company.

You want the Federal government to pass this law that impacts all these infrastructure projects, even if locally funded?

We already run our own conduit and fiber for our transportation system/network needs. Government does a poor job of building and maintaining their own stuff. No private entity with a brain wants to depend on us.

I live just off the outer edge of a major metropolitan area. I pay $40 a month for 1.5 Mbps down and 128k up (including extra for a static ip) for wireless broadband. It isn't terribly reliable due to overselling by the provider, among other things. I point at an antenna on someone's grain leg. It works, ok. Life goes on. Nobody owes me fiber out in front of my house.

The government owns the conduit. Size: It must be big enough to contain two large gauge water pipes, two large gauge sewer pipes, two fiber optic backbones, two telecomm trunk lines, and two cable trunk lines. And still be big enough for a human to service all of the above. I'm fine with reducing it down heading into the sticks ... but that should be the standard on interstates and highways and major state roads which connect urban areas. Who owns the conduit? On federal infrastructure, the feds. Anything else ... the state it is in. Who pays for the conduit? On federal infrastructure, the feds. Anything else ... the state it is in. How do you get access to the conduit? It is leased at the prevailing market rate to all who use it ... similar to how pole access works for utilities now. All profit made is rolled back into infrastructure. I'd further say the state should own the fiber optic backbones themselves and lease actual capacity on it to prevent one carrier from buying up all the space to force competition out.
(This post was last modified: 03-26-2015 11:09 PM by georgia_tech_swagger.)
03-26-2015 11:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GeorgeBorkFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,089
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 91
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Broadband in America: You have 10 providers! Actually 0, sell your house.
(03-26-2015 11:08 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The government owns the conduit. Size: It must be big enough to contain two large gauge water pipes, two large gauge sewer pipes, two fiber optic backbones, two telecomm trunk lines, and two cable trunk lines. And still be big enough for a human to service all of the above. I'm fine with reducing it down heading into the sticks ... but that should be the standard on interstates and highways and major state roads which connect urban areas. Who owns the conduit? On federal infrastructure, the feds. Anything else ... the state it is in. Who pays for the conduit? On federal infrastructure, the feds. Anything else ... the state it is in. How do you get access to the conduit? It is leased at the prevailing market rate to all who use it ... similar to how pole access works for utilities now. All profit made is rolled back into infrastructure. I'd further say the state should own the fiber optic backbones themselves and lease actual capacity on it to prevent one carrier from buying up all the space to force competition out.

Tell me what "large gauge" is. There is no reason to put sewer and water in a conduit. In fact, by law, sewer and water "pipe" have to maintain a separation. In my state, it is as much as 15'. If you lose water main pressure, it prevents crap water from being suctioned into the water main, since all sanitary sewer can leak. The price to hang from a pole is set by the owner of the pole. Period. It isn't really a "market" rate. It is what can I charge that is just a little less than what is costs to bury the cable.

I'm actively dealing with discussions of shared/provided conduits on bridges through a major/local roadway corridor. I'm the bridge owner. If we provide conduit on a bridge, for a cost, we have no people/system to reliably maintain it.

Nobody wants to share conduit. Trust me. I've tried, specifically with a company that rhymes with AT&T.

Government isn't going to make any "profit." You know this.
03-26-2015 11:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #37
RE: Broadband in America: You have 10 providers! Actually 0, sell your house.
(03-26-2015 11:29 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  
(03-26-2015 11:08 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The government owns the conduit. Size: It must be big enough to contain two large gauge water pipes, two large gauge sewer pipes, two fiber optic backbones, two telecomm trunk lines, and two cable trunk lines. And still be big enough for a human to service all of the above. I'm fine with reducing it down heading into the sticks ... but that should be the standard on interstates and highways and major state roads which connect urban areas. Who owns the conduit? On federal infrastructure, the feds. Anything else ... the state it is in. Who pays for the conduit? On federal infrastructure, the feds. Anything else ... the state it is in. How do you get access to the conduit? It is leased at the prevailing market rate to all who use it ... similar to how pole access works for utilities now. All profit made is rolled back into infrastructure. I'd further say the state should own the fiber optic backbones themselves and lease actual capacity on it to prevent one carrier from buying up all the space to force competition out.

Tell me what "large gauge" is. There is no reason to put sewer and water in a conduit. In fact, by law, sewer and water "pipe" have to maintain a separation. In my state, it is as much as 15'. If you lose water main pressure, it prevents crap water from being suctioned into the water main, since all sanitary sewer can leak. The price to hang from a pole is set by the owner of the pole. Period. It isn't really a "market" rate. It is what can I charge that is just a little less than what is costs to bury the cable.

I'm actively dealing with discussions of shared/provided conduits on bridges through a major/local roadway corridor. I'm the bridge owner. If we provide conduit on a bridge, for a cost, we have no people/system to reliably maintain it.

Nobody wants to share conduit. Trust me. I've tried, specifically with a company that rhymes with AT&T.

Government isn't going to make any "profit." You know this.


You can split them just fine in one main conduit run. The 15' bit is when you're putting them in dirt. No, the revenue made will not make up the cost of installing and maintaining the conduit itself. But there are more ephemeral network benefits of making all those utilities universal, high capacity, and cheap. You wouldn't even have to do all the paperwork to get every single municipality ever to approve yet still ANOTHER something buried in the dirt that will eventually get dug up by a backhoe.
03-26-2015 11:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 25,218
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 2239
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #38
RE: Broadband in America: You have 10 providers! Actually 0, sell your house.
Turn off, unplug, be happy!
03-27-2015 12:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.