100 Years Ago, No Free Broadband Pneumatic Tubes 293
TheSync writes "The Division of Labour blog spotlights a report written 100 years ago by a commission appointed by the Postmaster General, that came to the conclusion: 'That it is not feasible and desirable at the present time for the Government to purchase, to install, or to operate pneumatic tubes.' Here is a scan of the original NYTimes article. If only we had gotten the free government Intertubes in 1908!"
Top hats, and bow ties. (Score:3, Informative)
The Victorian Internet [wikipedia.org]
Re:Snarky article (Score:3, Informative)
Did you read anything beyond that line?
GP's point is that in many rural areas, commercial data providers simply aren't willing to come into the town and install data infrastructure.
Additionally, even though it's a monopoly, chances are nearly every citizen of a given small town knows each other, knows their elected representative personally, and can actually have a say in town decisions, as opposed to big cities or countrywide monopolies, which are usually run by an oligarchy of some sort.
Re:Snarky article (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong.
The USPS has a government protected monopoly on mailing first and third class letters.
FedEx/UPS are allowed to ship priority letters, but not first class letters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service#Universal_Service_Obligation_and_the_Postal_Monopoly [wikipedia.org]
Re:Snarky article (Score:5, Informative)
Most people only own the land up to their driveway. From there on, it's usually owned by the city.
That's why if the water pipes break (due to an earthquake or something) in the middle of the street, it's not your responsibility to fix it. You'd have a hard time dividing up the bill, in any case.
And for obvious reasons, a company can't just dig up a road and install new pipes or cables. They need a permit, and the city doesn't want the road being dug up every other week so they grant exclusive rights for ONE group to do it once.
Now arguably since it's public land, the network connections ought to be owned and controlled by the city and leased out to any ISP that wants to hook you up, but that's much different from the homeowner owning the last mile.
Re:Snarky article (Score:5, Informative)
The last mile is going to be a monopoly,
Why? Just because you cannot think of a way?
No, because the last mile is a natural monopoly. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Actually, Ted Stevens wasn't so wrong (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Snarky article (Score:5, Informative)
We have similar laws for electricity and phone, so why not internet.
Perhaps you need a history lesson [wikipedia.org]. Rural areas of the United States originally got electric service through public cooperative organizations because the private utilities would not provide service in these areas. While laws were passed to provide government loans to these co-ops, private companies were not forced to provide service.
Private utility companies later purchased many of these co-ops, but there are still co-ops providing electric service in many areas today.
Re:Snarky article (Score:2, Informative)
There is a big difference between infrastructure and service.
Unless you have purpose in having multiple connections (maybe if you have some alternative utility system) then you'd only need a single utility connection (per utility...electric, phone, cable, etc). The service provider would bill you for the utility they provide you.
Think of it another way...does every grocery store own the building it resides in? Of course not, they push off costs that are not associated with their core business.
Because I work for a large US utility, I know that most utilities have infrastructure in a separate business unit and the service business unit in another.
Most utilities could easily spin off these business functions into independent money making entities. Infrastructure's business models are based on billing for transport costs either directly to the customer or to service providers
Re:Snarky article (Score:3, Informative)
No it isn't.
For it to be a natural monopoly, you would have to make assumptions:
I would assert that neither of these assumptions are true.
People want different things from their last mile connections. Some people merely want voice or voice+video service. Some people want on-demand content. Some people want hagh transmission capacity. Some people only want data... Etc..
If the diversity of customer needs is high enough (it should be), the second assumption also falls. If each of the last mile providers can attract a significant portion of the market, they should each be able to achieve a customer base large enough to bring down the costs of the network that would need to be passed on to the individual users.
And lastly, proof that this is the case. We currently have a situation where most communities have multiple last mile providers with overlapping services. One or more cable companies, and an incumbent telephone company. Both of which can justify upgrading their last-mile networks to the point where it's essentially a complete rebuild. This would be impossible if the last mile were a natural monopoly.
Re:Snarky article (Score:3, Informative)
When I lived in the country, the last mile literally did belong to me (well, actually my parents). The phone company was required by PA law to provide electricity to the curb, but the final mile into our home was paid by my parents. So yes a similar solution could work for internet.