Net neutrality proposal

Tony Su tonysu at
Fri May 16 12:19:50 PDT 2014

Don't include the power grid on your list... :)
It's fairly well known that it's a hodge-podge of independent entities
that individually have done only what is minimally required in their
own interest.
Without a master strategy, this has resulted in major inefficiencies,
numerous recognized and unrecognized potential points of failure and
limitations on capacity.

It's like building a software app hodge-podge the cheapest way
possible that you hope does the job but with no strategy for the
future. For those who have been involved with this kind of Dev, it
means that what you build typically is rotten to the core in parts and
would need complete replacement instead of upgrades as needed, which
of course makes the decision to improve all the more painful.

And, of course there is the constant drumbeat of warnings that the
power grid is completely vulnerable to attack. Annually if not more
often someone is doing a study which repeats the warning... If one day
an adversary has a real interest in debilitating America, large parts
could be nearly without electricity for maybe weeks. Since this is so
commonly known, I've speculated the only likely reason it hasn't yet
happened is that the timing isn't in the adversary's interest and
knows that retaliation would be immense. But if someone is crazy
enough to crash planes into towers, someone eventually will attack our
power grid.

So, the status of our power grid is probably an example that is all
that is wrong with ad hoc capitalism without regulation... As long as
we only suffer minor pain which can mostly be hidden (increased costs
due to inefficiency, inability to support more beneficial options), we
muddle along until something serious enough captures our attention and
forces change.


On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Andrew Lentvorski <bsder at> wrote:
> On 5/15/14, 10:02 PM, R S wrote:
>> Valid points. But business tends to have better filters against incompetence keeping a position in the organization.
> But this isn't about competence, the telecoms are completely *inert*.
> A friend of mine got tired of the damp string that the telecoms called
> internet access and took it upon himself to bring fiber to his small,
> northeastern town (population about 4,000).  Nearest city for
> termination is about 150K and is about 15 miles.
> The big telcos wouldn't even *TALK* to them.  They couldn't even get a
> quote.  So, he had to sit down and total everything out to do it
> themselves.  It's about $40K per mile and totals out around $3-4 million.
> Once they did all this, some of the smaller telcos/ISPs actually wanted
> to talk.  The cost didn't come down much, but now some of them were
> willing to discuss partnership, etc.
> Big telcos *STILL* didn't want to talk.
> Then the next hurdle set in.  Nobody is set up to help with this at any
> government level because it has been so long since the telcos actually
> did *anything* useful.  Basically, he is having to custom craft all the
> legal documents, frameworks, and approvals *from scratch* because
> effectively nothing has been done across the entire state for 15+
> years--and this is in the "progressive" northeast.
> Finally, after all of this, he seems to have a public/private
> partnership to handle both the physical infrastructure and running the
> premises equipment.  Things are just starting to move.
> NOW, magically, the big telcos are paying attention.  Suddenly they're
> worried that they're going to get completely blown out of the town for
> cable (very scary), internet (somewhat scary), and telephone (don't care).
> Classifying these assholes as common carriers and laughing with glee as
> they go bankrupt would be insufficient punishment.
> If my friend is ever in town during a KPLUG meeting, I'll see if I can
> get him to talk about it.  I suspect the process has been painful enough
> that it might take quite a bit expensive wine to get him talking.
> -a
> --
> KPLUG-List at

More information about the KPLUG-List mailing list