Hacker News Reader

Comment by photochemsyn | Hacker News Reader

The system of roads that carries goods from point A to point B is not 'free', it's taxpayer-financed. Governments could also use tax revenue to pay for nationwide fiber-optic systems that carry information from point A to point B.

Note 'paying for' doesn't mean hiring private contractors to run the system, it means having government employees run the systems while relying on the competitive private sector for things like manufacturing fiber optic cable (comparable to the road system, where equipment like road graders is privately manufactured).

If congestion becomes a problem, as with roads, alternatives like trains for public transit to reduce traffic loads are also plausible. Regardless, those who claim there is a competitive free market solution to the issue of basic infrastucture are either highly ignorant or just pushing for private monopoly control with high rents.

View on HN

This is not a good analogy. The infrastructure, e.g. roads, is the one thing we all already do pay for via our ISP. It's the store fronts and movie theatres on the road that we want to be free, that are currently paid for by ads.

It's more like free public attractions like national parks. In real life they are paid by taxpayers which are in turn paid by estate taxes and income taxes by local residents.

I now wonder about the viability of an ad-supported movie theater and grocery store.

Re: movie theatres. We’re already on that road. 20 years ago I’d go to a move and see a few trailers. Now I have to sit through a bunch of ads, then trailers, and then finally we get to the movie I paid for.

Grocery store is definitely not viable - the profit margins are already among the lowest in retail and don't leave much room to drop. Movie theaters just need to be able to pay for the building and electricity and to clean up once in a while though (food and drink could be handled by outside vendors renting space to set up). Seems doable in a large enough metro.

Movie theaters are pretty much ad supported aren't they. From what I hear the payment we make doesn't cover the cost of the film, which is why you get about half an hour of ads and trailers before the film starts.

How does this have anything to do with ads? Advertisements are used to fund the content you watch, not the infrastructure. Infrastructure is funded with the money you pay each month to your ISP.

That depends. Are Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Wikia, etc. the content or the infrastucture? A lot of content online is created for free but still infested by advertisements added by those handling the distribution.

But why, when we can inject billions into the pockets of ATT, Comcast, Verizon, and friends. It’s far too lucrative an opportunity to let any more infrastructure ever be public again.

Aren’t most freeways and interstates built by private contractors? Lots of toll roads are even “operated” by private companies and those tend to be the nicest, best maintained, lowest congestion roads.

I do see a lot of billboard ads on the road.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com