Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

Mon Dec 20 04:34:31 UTC 2010

On 12/19/2010 06:12 PM, JC Dill wrote:
>
>
> And if a competing water service thought they could do better than the
> incumbent, why not let them put in a competing water project? If they
> think they can make money after the cost of the infrastructure, then
> they may be onto something. We don't have to worry that too many would
> join in, the laws of diminishing returns would make it unprofitable for
> the nth company to build out the infrastructure to enter the market.

On this point I would like to add some anecdotal information that may or 
may not be relevant:

	Where I used to live, a rural community in northern california, the 
township was the exclusive provider of water service to the community. 
The cost of water service was obscene compared to urban water service, 
and in fact we had to put up with drought conditions due to insufficient 
water storage in system and no connections to other water systems. They 
went ahead and passed laws that made it illegal for you to have your own 
water storage tanks on your own property (which is something the local 
population has easy access to and would be considered normal for the 
area). Furthermore, the lack of available 'water permits' severely 
restricted the abillity of land owners to build the properties they 
bought, and drove down property values since you couldn't find a buyer 
for land you can't develop (in that area).

	A second water / sewer provider would have set the township govt' on 
it's ear, to the benefit of the residents and property owners....