Message from @Grenade123
Discord ID: 455839873430192129
even if the right of way cost is exorberent, its still preventing more taxation on the united states infastructure
because keeping that infrastructure funded by only the government has been working out real well.
actually it sounds like its funded by isps taking up pole realistate
though taxepayer money probably does eventually go into that
fuck, i wish they would privatize roads here just so that there would be real roads, rather than the state government raiding the transportation funds to pay some ex governor 100k a year in pension for retiring at 50
@Arch-Fiend i wasn't talking about just the internet infrastructure, otherwise your comment on "preventing more taxation on the united states infrastructure" would make no sense
"its taxing the infrastructure....by building new and better ones.... yeah..."
also who owns poles is really random and different from place to place
your suggesting a pole for every isp?
we once looked like this https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4066/4329783566_8e1420ea07.jpg
it would probably end up being easier and cheaper to start going the underground route at some point
there is several different ways to solve this problem but the government is not one of them
Underground tends to work better in many areas (I know in FLorida it would be better as it would minimize damages and speed up recovery after hurricanes. That is unless you are in a low lying area that is prone to flooding...in which case your underground wiring/cable/electric will get fried when you have alot of rain/hurricanes/storm surges
it does nothing but fuck it up
@Chijohnaok and not on limestone that likes to vanish
the giant alka seltzer that is Florida
i think i agree with you that even if the goal to making right of way exorberently expensive just to prevent cable bloat on poles, its not seemingly a calculated expense, it probably does have more to do with kickbacks, however at some point compatention will have to be curbed by realistic limitation on infastructure. so i think yes this right of way cost is protectionist for existing ips and should be delt with, but at the same time we should decide how far we will go. even then this doesent solve the problem in the marketplace that corporations will have where they simply outcompete with eachother by already having so much wealth they can choose to take a loss over a number of years just to kill out any compatition that arises and intimidate any others for a time
@Arch-Fiend as with everything, there is balance.
however, talking about the cost of digging holes, maybe Elon's boring company would be helping to fix that
In my subdivision all the utilities are buried but as soon as you step outside you have large utility poles (some wooden which tend to come down easier in storms and some massive concrete poles which tend to stay up better during storms). A storm related fail will result as soon as it comes to that wooden pole.. aka the weakest link in the chain
maybe you don't need to dig a hole along every house, just a main one under the street or through some main drag, then towns or homeowners pay for the line going from the house to the hookup
so the cost of that is on the owner/town
and the ISP is just the cable running to the hookup
As it is now the two two primary cable/internet/phone providers in my area have their own buried lines in the right of way (grass between the sidewalk and street). One provider uses the coax wiring to carry signals while the other provider (FIOS) uses fiber optics.
Those lines I think are no more than 1-2 feet underground.
Perhaps a better solution is for some communities to just start kicking out ISPs completely and just putting down the 20k to set up their own internet node and pay the 1800 a month collectively
That could be the cost of like 18-20 people paying for high speed internet right now
Well, if you have ever sat in on a Homeowners Association meeting, getting a group of people to agree on assessing the members more money is not an east thing to do.
easy
A few years ago the county offered our subdibvision the chance to have a "gray water" system installed so that your water for sprinking/irrigation was reclaimed water. The per month charge on your water bill would be significantly lower but the per home initial installation costs were like $5,000. It was put to a vote of the homeowners and did not pass. The county would not do it unless a certain % of the homeowners had approved it.
"reclaimed" water is basically water from storm/sewage returns that undergoes some treatment but not the same level of treatment as drinking water.
Normally we have sprinkling restrictions (you get to water laws 1 or 2 days a week) but if you have gray water you can sprinkle unlimmited with no restrictions
People view money lost now as somehow more than the money you will lose in the future
But this is more like "hey, the town can put funding to this this year and we can kick out the ISPs and save everyone money or get better internet for the same cost
Some may not have the $5k to pay now. Some are elderly and figure they will not be alive long enough to recoup their investment. Some don't plan on holding the home long enough to recoup their money. A variety of objections wre enough for the effort to fail.
Well, if you have seen how some towns deliver on their promises/utilities/infrastructure then you might not vote for the effort either. 😉
Lol
They just keep fighting their own side. It’s great.
its one of those things that makes you question reality
Politicized food
kind of hypocricy though,
Its forbidden to eat food from a 'bigot'
But its also forbidden for a 'bigot' to not serve people