Re: power to the internet

["John Levine" <johnl () iecc com>]

In article <CAL9Qcx5jGEZzoqmcvusfW9htTwoSVV9Mnf6Xca5VHQLLDSTySw () mail gmail com> you write:
> To reanswer the question posed though, is still the same ; $$$. If network
> operators take the position that the electric utility supply should be more
> reliable than it is, then they need to start influencing and lobbying for
> ways for that to happen. If not, they will have to increase investments
> into local generation or storage capacity to bridge those gaps.
>
> You seem to imply that regulation is inherently bad; however the scenario
> that you describe (power failures impacting 911 service) is only a concern
> to an operator if there is a legislatively define deterrent.

California suffers from an unusual combination of a dry climate that
is getting dryer and political decisions that made sense in the short
run but are now showing their long term consequences, notably land use
that encourages sprawl and construction in ill-suited areas, and a
regulator that keeps short term consumer prices down at the cost of
reliability and long term stability.  None of this should be a
surprise to anyone familiar with the situation.

Even well run US utilities are much less reliable than the norm in
Europe or Japan.  Where ISPs in the US are figuring out how to install
batteries and backup generators or private windmills or whatever,
their European peers pay somewhat higher utility bills and don't have
to worry about the other stuff.  You'll pay either way.  European
utilities aren't more reliable by accident; that's how they're
regulated.

Calfornia also offers an interesting natural experiment comparing
privately run utilities PG&E and SCE and the city owned Los Angeles
DWP.