Slashdot Mirror
Municipal Net Access: Unfair Competition?
ruvreve writes: "Net Economy has an article about how Los Angles is attempting to provide the ability for end-users to have a choice between multiple ISPs for high-speed bandwidth access, among other things. The article talks about how a city has an unfair advantage to offer such services. Unfair because the government monitors and regulates the cable and phone company but at the same time wants to compete for their customers. If it gets 100Mbit access to my front door it HAS to be good!" This issue's been raised a few times before, but the article raises some points worth thinking about.
Do you suppose it's possible to say something so hypocritical, so mindbendingly and offensively pointing to one's own guilt, that the speakers' head actually spins 360 degrees Exorcist-style then reseats itself as if nothing had happened?
I mean, the telecom behemoths want to complain about unfair competition after the way Excite, Rhythms, etc were treated?
Good gravy. Since the government created these corporate monsters through deregulation, perhaps the government is the only entity that can compete with them. Note to conspiracy theorists- perhaps this is all a clever ploy to keep the telecom bribes flowing, so the fatcats don't get too comfortable.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
With a few exceptions, the public utility that most americans think least about... Our public road and highway infrastructure, is completely publicly owned. There's just no way to effectively manage an entire system of roads cost-effectively at a profit.
There exist a few turnpikes, toll-roads, and troll bridges out there... (*rimshot*) but for the most part Americans are used to paying for the right to use the system out of tax dollars.
Power is going the same way, as can be evidenced by the collapse of the California power grid. How long will the state pay for the power companies to stay solvent until the state becomes the primary power-provider? Phone will go too, IMHO.
Internet is going to be the next public utility, probably even before the phone system. Already communities all over the country are building 'municipal' internet services. Look for these to become tax-supported in the near future.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Why in god's name should they subsidize it? If people don't want it they don't want it.
Since there's no demand for solid gold toilets should the gov't subsidize it to generate interest?
You can't get much more local than city government. We're not talking about behemoth state governments or the federal government here. And yet here we are debading whether it's unfair for one of the smallest units of government, one of the entities closest to the people who elected it, to offer us services for our taxes.
The privatization of government services seems to have gone so far that we now seriously consider almost every city government function replaceable by private contractors (security services, health services, and so on), yet for local government to "intrude" into an arena now dominated by huge for-profit entities is somehow taboo.
Government is often painfully inefficient - I say that because I've worked in government. But it baffles me that when the people from our own neighborhoods whom we elected to help our cities run better actually offer something superior to what private industry can offer, we run screaming that the free markets are being sabotaged.
Ah, how far we have come.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
In any case, in a democracy, it is up to the people to decide how public rights-of-way and public airwaves are allocated. We have made a decision in many places to have public utilities, and we can do the same thing with Internet access if we think it serves our needs better.
Is not only about free trade and freedom of choice.
But it should be (in my honest opinion).
Maybe you don't like it, but that's how it works when you have a goverment. That's what it should do.
Of course folks love the gov't to interfere in situations where its benefitial to them. By your logic its perfectly OK for Disney and Fox to back Hollings new law and the DMCA since its going to benefit their economics.
The other problem with the gov't running infrastructure is they now have the moral high ground to regulate it above and beyond what they could do by law anyway. For example, you live in gov't funded housing and someone (not yourself) gets cought doing drugs, you get kicked out. How much howling would we hear the first time an administration came into power and ruled that "offensive material" had to be blocked from gov't subsidised internet access? They already do such things to private schools that accept gov't funding.