Earlier quoted context omitted.
Multiple cars. 2 is pretty standard,3 is not unusual.
An average US home has 240 volts at 40 amps which is 24,000 watts.
Isn't it 9600? (240*40).
And maybe less because it's 240V,AC?
The internet should be a public utility
231–240 of 265 posts
Re: The internet should be a public utility
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure what you are suggesting here. Power lines can be buried but what’s the alternative to residential streets?
Walkable,neighbourhoods designed for people rather than having them designed for cars first.
Ok but even pedestrian first residential neighborhoods need roads. It’s not like power lines where you can completely get rid of them.
Re: The internet should be a public utility
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
I daresay, it's even worse than that. Your neighbors are actively fighting against the installation of infrastructure that would enable faster internet speeds. AT&T tried to bring FTTN to San Francisco years ago, but neighbors decried the "ugly" green boxes that would run down the street. Boxes that are standard in literally any suburb with fast internet. There are limited parts of the bay area with gigabit fiber, in…
It's so crazy because if you have ever seen the same neighborhood with and without power lines, the difference is dramatic. Power lines are horrendously ugly. But after people got use to them, they can barely be bothered to pay 10% extra on their power bill for the lines to be buried. Likewise, people would instantly forget about the green boxes after a few year.
> Likewise, people would instantly forget about the green boxes after a few year.
I disagree, as a pedestrian I have to walk around FTTC and terminal boxes every day.
Imagine if they were installed off the kerb, on the road instead of the pavement. There would be uproar.
Re: The internet should be a public utility
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you want to put up taxes for additional trenching, nevermind the overhead associated with the different agencies when digging is involved?
Put them in the street, take up parking spaces from cars. The attitude that people don’t deserve the same guarantees as cars is a bad one.
People will drive into them.
Re: The internet should be a public utility
#235The local government should own the "pipes" and rent them out. Some people are down on "socialism" without realizing they love it. We have socialized police, fire, sewage, (usually) water and road repair plus some others I'm forgetting. Socialism is people getting together to help each other. Businesses have no special right to view citizens as their exclusive feeding ground.
> The local government should own the "pipes" and rent them out. This is essentially what happens in the UK. BT have to rent out lines to everyone else. Guess what? Almost all the ISPs are capped at the speed at whatever BT can provide. The only company I believe in the UK that goes above those speeds is Virgin which almost twice the speed at almost the same price as the competition. I used to live in the countryside…
> The roads in the UK are awful.
Not in my experience, though admittedly I live in London.
>In the UK our council tax pay are supposed to pay for road repair.
I'm sure you realize that council tax is supposed to pay for a lot of things, and that council incomes are way down over the past 10 years.
Re: The internet should be a public utility
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The local government should own the "pipes" and rent them out. This is essentially what happens in the UK. BT have to rent out lines to everyone else. Guess what? Almost all the ISPs are capped at the speed at whatever BT can provide. The only company I believe in the UK that goes above those speeds is Virgin which almost twice the speed at almost the same price as the competition. I used to live in the countryside…
> The roads in the UK are awful. Not in my experience, though admittedly I live in London. >In the UK our council tax pay are supposed to pay for road repair. I'm sure you realize that council tax is supposed to pay for a lot of things, and that council incomes are way down over the past 10 years.
> Not in my experience, though admittedly I live in London.
Well outside of London it is generally awful. TBH London might as well be another planet when compared to the rest of the England (same goes for Manchester and Birmingham, I stay far away).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46444109
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/britains-pothole-probl...
I currently live near Manchester and before that Hampshire. So that is two opposite ends of the country pretty much and it is the problem there. So my experience seems to reflect that of what is reported.
>I'm sure you realize that council tax is supposed to pay for a lot of things, and that council incomes are way down over the past 10 years.
So? It has been like this since the late 90s. I remember my father complaining about it since then. In anycase the roads are awful.
Re: The internet should be a public utility
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure what you are suggesting here. Power lines can be buried but what’s the alternative to residential streets?
Walkable,neighbourhoods designed for people rather than having them designed for cars first.
Cities have had roads for a lot longer than cars have existed.
Re: The internet should be a public utility
#238Re: The internet should be a public utility
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand this part. As far as I can tell, utility monopolies can only form with government assistance (i.e. lobbying).
What is making you think that monopolies can only occur with government action? The first utility to service a region is a de-facto monopoly. I also gave two examples already of ways monopolies have occurred without government intervention: anti-competitive behavior and barriers to entry. Monopolies without government intervention are common enough that there’s a term for it: Natural Monopoly https://www.investopedia…
Thanks for this
Re: The internet should be a public utility
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I ask, what's the difference? Let's try not to be pedantic here, because if they are a legal monopoly, at the end of the day they have to do what the government says, because if they don't the government could just tear the monopoly down and prop up competitors.
1) Ownership Nationalized companies are owned by the state. AT&T had/has private shareholders. 2) Control With ownership comes control. The U.S. government granted AT&T a conditional monopoly. In the early 20th century it was in exchange for extending service across the nation. Mid-20th century for defense work. Aside from these conditions the U.S. government did not exert control on AT&T's operations.
>Nationalized companies are owned by the state. AT&T had/has private shareholders.
I feel like this is being pedantic. While there are shareholders, taxpayers have funded the infrastructure and are paying for it in the form of tax breaks.