I’m fine with discussion continuing here or there.

That said, it drives me nuts to hear people harping on the downside of roads when investments like the Interstate only fueled the strongest economy in the history of the planet. Could we have done it better? Absolutely, we should have had better policies.

Could the private sector have done it? Not in a billion years -- there are no incentives for the private sector to invest in long term infrastructure. We don’t want the private sector to do long term investments -- that is for maximizing social benefit. We want to build solid long term infrastructure so private companies can focus on building widgets faster, better, and cheaper.

As to flying cars -- now that is where the stimulus would go if the American people were directing funds.

This question comes up again and again. If there were a technology better than fiber that will come along in the next decade, we would know about it. These things take many years to develop -- from the basic science research (done by government grants because “basic” science research is rarely profitable) to the drawing board to engineering to standards setting to finding out if it is marketable to full scale deployment.

In the coming years, speeds over fiber will increase dramatically. Wireless speeds will increase less dramatically. If a for-profit company were to come up with something newer, it will take sufficiently long that the fiber networks will have more than paid for themselves, as did the phones and electrical grid.

To reinforce what Christopher stated above, the link below is about Jaguar Communications and how with Obsessed determination of the companies owner and with help of a loan from all places the USDA is able to bring fiber optic out to us country folk.

isp-planet.com/profiles/2007/jaguar_communications.html

Previously, my phone and internet was provided by Deskmedia a small fly by nite in Albert Lea. Since Qwest who own the phone line had no interest on upgrading the line with repeaters to support DSL to where I live 10 miles out of town (NO SHORT TERM ROI PROFIT). I was stuck with a cobbled in IDSL line that on a good day would hit 107kbps, when it was working.

Jaguar came by last spring and offered to bring fiber optic to my door if I signed up for 5yrs of phone and internet(3Mbps) at the same cost I was paying for the IDSL and phone with Deskmedia.

I will be able to add TV later this summer when they get their system working and then I can dump my satellite dish.

I feel ,as with REA and rural phone, that government helping with some of the high front end costs will more than payback for all in the decades of use to follow.

As the internet is more widely used — especially as it begins to supplant old phone lines with VoIP — it needs to be viewed as the same sort of essential service as roads or mail: it should be provided to all, even if it’s not profitable to provide it to one specific person.

Just because there is a profit available down the line does not mean the private sector will jump on it. You have to take return on investment into account. Muni water systems pay for themselves … over 20 years. Profits on these fiber networks come after 5-7 or even 10 years. These networks will not be operating at a loss (like our socialist roads, for instance).

Nevertheless, the private sector (rightly, based on our incentive system) refuses to build these networks in rural areas because the ROI takes far too long and they can get better returns elsewhere.

This is nothing new -- we dealt with it with electricity and phones decades ago and have always dealt with it in roads. This is why government involvement is necessary if we want everyone to have fast, affordable access to the Internet AND if we want to keep pace with the rest of the developed world that is racing ahead with smart government investments.

That said, I would assume money will have to be continually thrown at this

Well, yes, just like money is continually “thrown” at roads and sanitary sewer systems. I’m not saying we shouldn’t charge people, as on a tollway, for an internet connection, I’m just saying that the entity receiving the check (and putting that money back into the system) should be some level of gov’t or a nonprofit.

Just my two cents…. unless I can get the government to pay for that too…..

See the Dakota Future web site and their page on their Feb. 19 telecommunications forum with links to misc. PDFs.

With rural electricity it needed to get out to the rural areas because there were no other electric options. With high speed data I think there are other options. For example, my company uses wireless service, but I could get the service via Charter wire or over the phone line….and maybe via some other wireless digital format too.

But, I will say that if it is determined that hard wire cable in rural areas is something that is desired, the cable companies should look at it and come up with a plan for doing it. Just as the Post Office figures out a First Class stamp price, cable companies could figure out what it would cost ALL subscribers to create a rural system. then you would have dense city customers helping to support a thin rural population, just like the Post Office does.

Yes, I noticed your reference to whether private enterprise “can [work] and is working”. Indeed, this is the important question, and that’s why I’m fine without a municipal pizza parlor or (North) Indian restaurant.

But you also mentioned

[people] a mile outside of Northfield can’t get Charter service … it is only because it is not financially viable.

This part sounds to me like a gotta-pay-for-itself principle, which if applied rigorously would discontinue rural mail service, shutter schools, turn off streetlights, etc.

I know you don’t favor such absurd moves, but where and how would you draw the line? Isn’t rural high-speed data connection pretty closely analogous to rural electrification?

On the roads issue, there are not a lot of private roads in America. We have a few toll roads and toll bridges that seem to work OK I guess, but the vast majority of roads are public. Current roads in many municipalities are actually paid for by the land developer, then turned over to the government for perpetual use and maintenance. (That is how Northfield works)

If David H is correct that $43 billion of venture capital was invested in internet specific plans, then it appears that the private world is doing a pretty good job addressing this area.

In the 12 month period beginning the fourth quarter of 1999, Internet-specific venture capital investment totaled $47.3 billion.

One has to hand it to Clinton and Gore -- that they did not stop the Internet from happening

A couple of comments on your posting #27.

Re this:

I think someone should check with Al Gore before this thread continues. Since he invented the internet …

Haha.

But, for the record, let’s keep in mind that Al Gore really did play an important role in helping the Internet become viable. The idea that Gore claimed to have invented the internet is a long-discredited right-wing canard. Here’s one source: http://sethf.com/gore/ . Let’s put this old myth out of its (and our) misery.

Then you wrote:

I don’t think government should stray into areas where private enterprise can and is working. … It is important to remember that if, as Sean says, people a mile outside of Northfield can’t get Charter service, it is only because it is not financially viable. …

Hmm …

Would you reverse the Roosevelt administration’s rural electrification program? Rip up rural roads to lightly populated places? Discontinue rural mail delivery? I doubt any of these things pay for themselves.

Agreed, there are lots of things government shouldn’t do. If the city of Northfield proposes to open a pizza place I’ll oppose it with every fiber of my being. (A good South Indian vegetarian place I might accept.) But internet connectivity seems to me more closely analogous to electric power and school bus service than to thin crust pepperoni.

Seriouly, I’m with Peter on this one. I don’t think government should stray into areas where private enterprise can and is working. (that includes liquor stores) It is important to remember that if, as Sean says, people a mile outside of Northfield can’t get Charter service, it is only because it is not financially viable. To have the city take over an obligation that is not viable makes no sense.

I’ve seen very few municipal systems that are working as planned. We have examples right in the Twin Cities of very poor results. The people who really seem to come out on most of these ventures are the lawyers who represent the sides in the inevitable lawsuits that follow.

Okay, color me confused -- the government invented the Internet… how could it be more involved? Hundreds of cities already provide access to citizens and businesses to the Internet. If you would prefer to support a private monopoly in your access to the Internet, I think you will have that option, but I think the worst years of the Internet have been the ones where the private sector has had the most control over it and strangled it by not investing in the last mile.

Regarding N. St. paul, I wrote a piece about it. http://www.twincities.com/ci_11742691?nclick_check=1

I suppose if there were a nongovernmental, nonprofit trust that controlled these (that for-profits would rent the fiber from), that would be fine, too. I don’t necessarily think it’s essential they be government-owned. I just don’t think they should be owned by for-profit companies.

In fact, though, I don’t see a convincing reason why this should be private while other major things (roads) are public. Nobody would seriously suggest we privatize the interstate highway system. Why, other than our being accustomed to the idea, should information infrastructure be treated differently?

greedy private industry trying to bilk customers

vs frugal egalitarian government whom always put their clients first ?