[Gllug] To LLU or Not to LLU?

[Dylan]

On Wednesday 01 April 2009, Chris Bell wrote:
> On Wed 01 Apr, Dylan wrote:
> > That is not a necessary consequence - the infrastructure can be owned and
> > operated by a statutory company, or controlled by statutory instrument.
> > This would be similar to the railway or gas model (which is inefficient
> > due to lack of effective regulation and management, not in virtue of the
> > underlying model.)
> >
> > Dx
>
>    I understand that railways, and possibly other infrastructure such as
> canals, needed an act of parliament, with precise before and after maps and
> plans. That did not prevent planning stations and junctions located so as
> not to provide interchange, but sometimes with duplication. Many routes
> failed, although they probably ended up with a greater spread of
> facilities.

This is a matter, ultimately, of bad planning, management and regulation - 
there is also a significance difference in scale between installing 
wire/fibre along an existing road or one which is under construction for 
independent reasons, and the construction of a new section of railway which 
makes the former a much easier prospect. Pointing up the possible pitfalls of 
a project is generally the best way to derail it (pun intended) and strikes 
of negativity any nimby-ism. But then again, progress is always held up by 
nay-sayers and luddites.

Dx
-- 
“ ‘... but there is so much else behind what I say. It makes itself known to 
me so slowly, so incompletely! ...’ ”
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug