[PLUG-TALK] Google Fiber - delayed

[Russell Senior]

>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Lofstrom <keithl at kl-ic.com> writes:

Keith> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 02:54:06PM -0700, Pete Lancashire wrote:
>> http://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-forest/index.ssf/2016/07/google_fiber_will_delay_portla.html

Keith> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 04:39:08PM -0700, Michael Rasmussen wrote:
>> Understatement: "The surprise delay represents a big disappointment
>> to Portland's internet surfers, who had nurtured hopes for more than
>> two years that Google would bring its superfast service to the
>> region."

Keith> I think this is our lucky chance to refocus on growing our own
Keith> local capabilities, free of Google snooping.

Keith> Superfast service does not require Google.  We can buy the same
Keith> equipment they can.  "We" meaning those of us who do the work,
Keith> and our neighbors who pay us to do it.

Keith> While I have some issues with the "public utility" aspect of
Keith> Russell Senior's proposals, I agree much more with his ideas than
Keith> Google's approach. [...]

The models I like, generally, are the Bonneville Power Administration
and the Portland Water Bureau.  The history of the Water Bureau in
particular is interesting.  Portland had private water utilities in the
1800s, but many of them were polluted and didn't work very well.  When
the City got serious about a clean water supply and scaling up, the
private utility infrastructure either collapsed or had collapsed, or was
gladly bought out.  For more on the history, see the book: 
  https://multcolib.bibliocommons.com/item/show/2154909068

The idea, generally, is service-at-cost.  You can quibble about whether
public utilities are as efficient as possible. People will always whine
about that, and it is good that they whine, as it keeps some pressure on
the utilities to do better.  But there is no arguing with the profit
margin that is extracted from our hide *continuously* and without
remission, forever, in the private model.  And the control that vertical
integration gives them, means they extend their rapacious margins in
related businesses like television channel packages.  The only whining
you are allowed with them, in the very concentrated market dominated by
the cable company, is doing without.  The dominant competition the big
carriers have today is people choosing not having service at all.

In the case of the Bonneville Power Administration, the Pacific
Northwest has enjoyed immense economic benefits from cheap electricity,
because we paid not what the market would bear, but what it cost to
produce.  The public took the risk, made the investment, and reaped the
rewards, not out of someone elses taxes, but out of a community of rate
payers.  We've had generally cleaner air, more employment, some dead
salmon, but on balance a gigantic economic boon for the last 80 years.

In addition to the cost benefits, public ownership of communications
infrastructure can provide what private ownership won't (Google started
out promising they would, then backed out), and that is an open-access
model that actually fosters competition for services over shared
high-capacity infrastructure.

Keith> Fuck "free as in beer".  Aim for "free as in freedom!"

Amen!


-- 
Russell Senior, President
russell at personaltelco.net