I believe that you've misunderstood my response to the GP...

The GP suggested that allowing multiple carriers to build competing, redundant infrastructure would somehow solve the lack of competition. He implied that the market would magically fix everything. My argument isn't blind to other options. In fact, in another post in this thread I pointed out that a better solution is to have the government own the local infrastructure or at least require that the local utility provides transportation services to anyone who wants to use their pipes.

Again, you're not arguing against me but the GP to which I responded. I agree. Provide the access as a government service and let private companies compete for the service.

One minor point with your post:

First 8% is not a strong return. I work for a regulated public utility and our maximum rate of return is capped in the 9.5% to 10% range (it varies from year to year). To investors, we are a safe and slow bet - as long as we do things right they aren't going to lose money but even 10% isn't sexy. Second, whatever the return achieved by cable companies, there's no way they are going to get that kind of return in a competitive market. They make their money in monopoly arrangements where most of their customers choose the incumbent provider or no service. My point was that the ROI isn't there for these same companies to build a network where someone else already has one and already has most of the customers.

I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to post your anti-Netflix bullshit. As pointed out in a sibling post already, Netflix hosts on AWS and your claims about Netflix randomly switching carriers doesn't even make sense.

Further, Netflix has built its own CDN hardware and network and tried very hard to work with ISPs to get this equipment in their data centers. They've deployed CDN units to hundreds of ISPs but the big boys won't play. I don't suppose it has anything to do with the fact that these ISPs also sell content and have no desire to improve Netflix's performance.

In my county, there is one option for Internet service - the local cable company. The franchise agreement is not exclusive. However, there is no way for a second company to show reasonable ROI on duplicating the existing infrastructure in order to compete. They are better off finding another area where they can be the exclusive provider or simply buying the other company. Basic economics makes your suggestion bad for everyone but the company who owns the only network in the neighborhood.

Again, you miss the realities of simple business economics. What is the motivation for someone else to build an expensive network where there already are incumbent providers? They have to convince you to leave your current company or bring something so new and exciting that they create new customers, and in such quantities to show sufficient returns on the capital invested.

I work for a public utility. We are regulated by the state PUC and are capped at 9.5% - 10% profit (it varies from year to year). We primarily distribute natural gas but the state also requires that we offer transportation services for anyone who wants it. A customer can go to any producer or interstate transporter with connections to our pipe network, buy their own gas, and have it delivered via our pipes. While this could work, the customer contracts are complex and billing is complicated.

It seems much simpler to make the local network a government-owned facility to which any number of carriers can connect at defined delivery points. This eliminates your problem of multiple carriers digging up the street for their own last mile and there is no need for another regulated utility.

Actually, isn't this the guy who was a director of something at AOL during their years of rot and a director of user experience at the shithole known as Yahoo?

But that's still a failure on the part of the so-called parent. If you can't outwit a 5 year old, you have no business trying to raise one.

I hope that all of your meat, eggs, milk, and other animal-based products come from small farms where you can verify the treatment of the animals. Otherwise, you're simply outsourcing your animal torture to ADM and Cargill.

Those "things" are called bees. And they are not toys. They are livestock, raised for their output just like dairy cows and chickens.

I am a beekeeper and your statement remains meaningless. I might disagree with "requires almost no interaction with the bees" but the GP's basic point remains.

Then you should keep reading because you've obviously missed some details.

The fact that they essentially thumbed their noses at the FBI, NSA, and federal courts without legal ramification tells a thinking man that their attorneys were very much engaged in making sure they toed the line without crossing it. Believe it or not, there are actual attorneys out there who are willing to operate on the edges of a broken system in the fight for what's right.

Then you should think again. The difference is the willingness of a small company to stand up for their values versus a large company's desire to continue making money. Yahoo! challenged the so-called "Protect America Act" in 2008, arguing that the broad, warrantless Internet surveillance (in which they were required to participate) was unconstitutional. The case was sent to the FISA Court, which rejected their arguments. They were allowed to appeal to the FISA Court of Review (one of only two meetings of the court in 33 years), where they also lost. The ruling included this gem: "...efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts."

Wrong again. A good deal of the data collected and stored by the NSA's PRISM program didn't even require a warrant. Other items were obtained with overly broad and legally unsound "warrants". For example, Verizon has been providing detailed telephone records to the NSA on every call in its systems for months.

The FISA Court is accountable to no one. The FISA Court meets in secret and only one side is represented, so there is no possibility of appeal for those whose rights are trampled. The FISA Court has denied only 11 of 33,942 requests in its 33 years of operation and the FISA Court of Review has met a total of twice in that time period. The design and operation of the FISA Court provides no path for accountability to the Supreme Court. Even if the telecom companies that were required to provide customer data to the government wanted to appeal, there is no requirement that their arguments are considered (the FISA Court allowed Yahoo! to appeal in 2008 so that the law in question could be ruled okay and a heavily redacted ruling released to make sure no one else bothers to try). No FISA-related case has ever gone to the Supreme Court and it isn't clear how one could.

Congress has no oversight of the judges. Each judge is appointed by the Supreme Court Chief Justice with no oversight or confirmation by anyone else, including Congress. In the 33 years of FISA, we've had three chief justices, all conservative Republicans. John Roberts appointed every single FISA Court judge currently serving.

Your dishonesty regarding FISA is troubling. Either you are ignorant of something you strongly support or you are lying in hopes of deceiving others.

Why do you assume that Lavabit did not say "no", provide the reasons, and engage lawyers? When you are told by a judge that your arguments do not matter and you must compromise both your values and your core business model, creatively dragging your feet can be the only option left.

Pretending Joe Lieberman was an Independent is laughable. He was a hair's breadth from being the nation's Vice President as a Democrat and was supported by the Republicans in his campaign as an "independent". He lost the support of the local Democrats because of his war hawk and neo-con positions. Bernie is indeed outside the mainstream and a legitimate independent politician. He's also an anomaly. 1 out of 535. Let's talk when he's one of 30 or 40.

I said that? I said nothing about the Tea Party because I had no interest in that part of your comment. Of course they've had an impact. But they're also a movement within the GOP that is shaping the GOP's platform from within. They are not a third party.

You are aware that this block of independent seats does not exist, right? The House of Representatives hasn't had a non-R/D in almost a decade and hasn't had more than 2 (out of 435) since WWII. The Senate has a single Independent (Bernie Sanders, who considers himself a democratic socialist) who caucuses with the Democrats. Joe Lieberman also was considered an Independent for his last term in office because he lost the Democratic primary but won the general election with support from the national Republican party.

Your post in no way actually supported this conclusion.