Slashdot Mirror
Is Anti-Municipal Broadband Report Astroturf?
Glenn Fleishman writes "A report issued today by the New Millennium Research Council (NMRC) and The Heartland Institute says that municipalities shouldn't build wireless networks because it's anti-competitive and will waste taxypayer dollars. The report has some interesting points (mostly about building fiber networks), but eWeek (second page) uncovered that NMRC is a subsidiary of Issue Dynamics, which is a lobbying firm that represents most US telcos and cable operators. It's astroturf. The Heartland Institute won't reveal its funders. I wrote a long account trying to track down the connections between the sock puppets involved in publicizing the report."
I don't understand the significance of this term. Can someone explain?
Should private companies have to compete with a body that has limitless funds, manpower and preferential access to sell their product? Discuss :)
Lobbying of governments by commerical organisations not completely transparent! News at eleven!
Disconcerting, for sure.
I think municpal run WiFi is a great idea, at least when you can't get a company to do it.
If there are professional companies willing to invest in the infrustructure great, use them. On the other hand when you have a small town in the middle of nowhere, it could be rather difficult to find that company. In that case a network run by the town looks like the best and only option
Besides, occasionally a community run network does do better job than the big guys
The amount of money that it would save consumers would be incredible... free municiple wireless can be implemented for a tiny fraction of the money that is spent on an individual basis.
this would eventually lead to the death of telcos, so you can imagine the forces that want to stop this.
love is just extroverted narcissism
A town in essence is a group of people who have gotten together because it's in their best interests to consolidate their efforts to make the best use of resources (ie roads, schools). If this group of people begins to see the benefits of locally-provided high speed access (albeit wireless) and votes on it, why shouldn't they be free to exercise their will and implement such a plan, assuming it will be affordable?
If companies are allowed to make money, then my townsfolk should be allowed to work together to *save* money. What next, bulldozing the library because Barnes & Noble wants to open up a store?
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Should the money someone else pays the government under threat of imprisonment be used for something they don't want, won't use, and won't enjoy?
If you want it, you pay for it. Don't force anyone else to pay who doesn't want to. I've got enough bills to pay without funding your addiction to
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
> municipalities shouldn't build wireless networks because it's anti-competitive
Couldn't we say the same about street illumination, waste disposal or sewer networks? It's another service, and if the municipality thinks that it would benefit the whole community to put a wireless network in place, why shouldn't they get that service with the residents' tax dollars/euros/cookies?
---- Take the Space Quiz!
New Millennium Research Council (NMRC) sounds like a "Think-tank". In this day and age, it's not a question of conflicted interest and "bias". It's only a question of figuring out who funded it. Same as any "university study".
Most of the time I look for keywords. In this case, "anti-competitive" and "waste taxpayer dollars" points me toward the people who stand to lose the most from government-sponsored wireless. Which would be telephone companies and cable companies. I would also expect energy/electricity companies, and several communication satellite companies.
I think a little competition would good for 'em.
Builds character.
What next, bulldozing the library because Barnes & Noble wants to open up a store? ...and then suing people who lend books to other people....
Hmm.
Steve
Anticompetitive for you
Good for me
I am generally all for competition, and government staying out of the way of private businesses.
That said, IMO blanketing a municipal area with publicly available hotspots seems like a legitimate use of public dollars if costs can be contained, and if implementation can be managed effectively (I know, I know, big ifs).
It may be cliched, but the internet has become a truly useful tool that can enrich the lives of those with access to it.
I think making this bandwidth available as a public service is in the taxpayer's best interest if it can be done with undue financial burden.
It would definitely help to decrease the digital divide. It doesn't take much hardware to surf the net. I could see the evolution of a sub $500 notebook market that evolved along side the widespread deployment of these municipal wifi networks.
We would have no roads, because if they market requird roads, it would build roads.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Maybe they're right. Maybe a network infrastructure shouldn't be done via wireless, which still has some major security issues to resolve before. Maybe a network infrastructure is completely useless for a muni to build. But the reasons they state are all wrong. Municipalities should spend tax dollars to provide basic services to the citizens of the municipalities. Providing fire department and police services is an example. Educational services at a job-training level. It's a service. And, just like other services provided by a muni, taxpayers can pay to get better service (private alarm and fire suppression systems, security guards for gated communities, DeVry training, a college education). So, is it a service that *should* be provided to everyone with the possibility of better service from the private sector? Maybe. But claiming it will have unforseen cost-overruns (what police department or fire department isn't if there is a major riot, or forest fire), or quash competiton (security firms seem to do well enough), or not spur business (that's not the primary purpose of a muni anyway), is really just setting up straw men to knock down. And since it's a telco front that's setting them up, I trust it's conclusions as much as a 3 dollar bill with Clinton on the front.
Do not touch -Willie
The govenrment doesn't supply my telephone, electricity, cable tv, cell phone, or natural gas services. Why should they be in the business of supplying wireless Internet access?
If cities, states, or the federal government start rolling out wireless networks, will we also consider this the "public airwaves" since its publicly funded and using a piece of the regulated spectrum? If so, would we start to see the FCC or some other government body start enforcing "decency" standards on what is being broadcast in this spectrum? Would the government start trying to regulate what you're allowed to browse if its over a public wireless connection?
As a regular customer to different taxi services I fail to see why municipal wireless broadband wastes my dollars, and I wish to take this opportunity to state I strongly object to these allegations.
I believe the idea of a wireless public network is great and hope it spreads to more areas soon.
When have you ever enjoyed the qaulity of government service? Name a government program which has been run efficiently. And, what about censorship? Now if an isp censors their users, those users can go to another isp if they care enough. If the government provides zero additional cost ISP service, not as many people would be motivated to go to another ISP to get away from censorship. The other ISPs would have a smaller possible market, and thus have to charge more. The whole idea stinks.
"brxref
Hey, I can string together a bunch of random words to:
"hyper-fluctuating communications coffee mug".
"Rainy IP Microsoft helmet".
"MP3 plastic raisen sports dome?"
I guess a confusing title is the first step to getting your submissions through.
"Oh dear, she's stuck in an infinite loop and he's an idiot" -Prof. Farnsworth (Futurama)
Not that I agree or disagree with the idea of municipal broadband, but would municipalities ever consider providing free telephone service or electricity? If not, then why is wireless access different?
I think that municipalities should not offer free access. If they want to offer a pay service, that's fine. If the do offer a pay service then it needs to be operated only by the funds it takes in. Otherwise it would unfair competition with private companies.
Also, as much of a geek as I am I have to say that I don't want my government spending more money on a non-essential service. Internet access is not a right, it's a priviledge. I would rather have more policeman, fireman, teachers, road repairs, water repairs, sewer repairs, etc than wireless internet access that is controlled by the government. Plus there will be more fighing over what should be filtered on a government-controlled network. I just don't think it's worth the $$$ or headaches.
-Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
The political groups (Democrats and Republicans) have been doing this for years. Setup a "think tank" with an innocuous sounding name ("People for the American Way" (an anti-Religion group), "The Heritage Foundation" (a Conservative/Republican group) ) and then start spewing "research" and press releases.
Microsoft does this itself. (Running a campaign of sending out letters to newspapers across the US as a "grassroots" effort)
Wal-Mart is running a "counter-campaign" to try to save it's image.
Is it wrong? It's under the table to be sure. if it's not putting out lies or misrepresenting it's information I don't think so. Maybe their view is right and the only way they'll get their message heard is if they use a messenger that doesn't automatically generate a prejudiced response.
I mean, how many people would read the article: "Phone Company research shows that Municipal Wireless is a bad idea" without thinking "Ah, the phone company's just pissed that they're not getting money.
(and no, I don't think the phone company's right here...I'm just sayin')
Your argument appears to assume that everyone in the town would want to use the service and so should be forced to pay for it with their tax dollars.
Remember, the only thing that makes Government different from other organizations is that Governments are legally empowered to enforce their will with the use of physical force (i.e., at gunpoint).
Is it morally acceptable for a group of people to require their fellow citizens for fork over tax dollars at the point of a gun to pay for a service they don't all want to use?
This is why Government has traditionaly restricted itself to providing services that are very diffacult to privatize (i.e., roads)
The difference is that your examples are basic requirements to have a good clean infrastructure. Wireless Internet is a luxury and not employed by many.
If the government provides this service how long before they will have to subsidize the equipment to those who cannot afford it? Pretty soon you end up with little groups of people who get the equipment and service for free because they are classified as one type of minority or another. This is what happens to government programs that are not required to sustain life. They become vote buying schemes.
While I love the idea of cheap wireless I do not want the government controlling it. Unlike private corporations governments have incredible methods of ignoring laws and worse writing new ones that control access and content. They also are very good at pushing an agenda with such services.
So while the article may be FUD this is one area that local governments do not need to stepping into. There is no clear need to provide this service as there is no majority that needs it or has the equipment to use it.
Do not allow the government to expand simply because it convienences you. The more it convienences your the more control it will eventually exert over you. Pretty soon you will find you will only have to access to what they want you to and when they want you to.
No, I do not need tinfoil hat. I just believe in small and non-intrusive government. I also believe that they should only provide the services that are required. They are not here to provide luxuries.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I know this community, and I know that we all like the idea of ubiquitous internet access. I have a computer in my car and I'm a cheap bastard, so I would stand to directly benefit from a plan that would get me legit free internet access.
But I have a concern... Without setting off the 'crazy anarchist' alarm, I think that the scope of the government should be limited at this point, not increased. The original purpose of our government was to provide a loose framework that would facilitate order and protect our borders from foreign invasion. Over the past 250 years, something changed, and many now look to government to fulfill a parental role as well. We expect the government to make sure we all share, take care of things we as children couldn't fathom (analogous to parents paying the utlity bill. If you're a 5 year old, you just see 'we have electricity', not 'we just paid for a service'). It has expanded time and time again, and each time we transfer something from private enterprise to the government, we lose a little power and flexibility.
A free market economy isn't perfect, but it has undeniably been the greatest boom to human rights since the invention of the cave. Every time a company has to compete, you get innovation. Every time you get innovation, you get lowered costs and better products.
If governments (city, federal, state, it doesn't matter which) then the competition aspect disapears. Maybe the service at the time of creation is perfect (Wow, 2 megabit, 5ms ping time, right on!) but after 5 years, it would probably start to feel a bit tight. After ten years, it would be hopelessly out of date. Remember the modem you used ten years ago? How satisfied would you be with it today?
Finally, business is the lubrication that prevents the gears of democracy from locking up. Money is power, and the flow of money back and forth keeps things fluid. If you destroy a company, that cash flow begins to stagnate, and stagnation is what hurts the economy. In the end, the government grows, money slows down, and everyone is hurt a little bit.
Is it a worthy tradeoff for bandwidth? I'm sure there are plenty of people who say 'yeah' because instead of death, they just see the tradeoffs as 'a little pain', something that they won't notice. The problem is, that as citizens, we're making compromises for the little pain every day, and pretty soon it starts to add up.
This isn't a rant against government, it's a rant against stagnation and overcentralization.
Excuse me, you used government and low cost in the same sentence.......
Turned out the guy had a large financial interest in a towing company. Seriously.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Your argument appears to assume that everyone in the town would want to use the service and so should be forced to pay for it with their tax dollars.
Many communities also build bike paths. It is likely most people will never use them
Many communities fund local parks. Many people do not go to them.
and pay for stuff if they want it and NOT pay it if they don't. Your mistake, and those who modded you insightful, is assuming the government should have your money in the first place. When you see stuff like this, your response should be that it's time for the goverment to give your money back to do with it what you will.
taxpayers should not be forced to finance risky projects that benefit only a fraction of the
population
I am currently paying for roads I don't use, fire equipment I never call, and the police who merely stop me from speeding. Every day we are forced to pay for services that do not benefit us directly, but as a society we value. Opponents have two options - 1. Convince their government this is a bad course of action or 2 - move.
municipalities enjoy unfair competitive advantages resulting from their ability to raise lowinterest, tax-free and government-backed capital; from their exemption from income taxes;
from their control over rights-of-way; and from the fact they charge franchise fees to
incumbent providers;
Where is the capitalistic spirit we always have waved in our faces, when we say we don't want Walmart or Starbucks? If corporations with billions cannot compete against a local city, it is not unfair advantage. It is the company wants to provide substandard service and this will prevent them.
municipalities have a conflict of interest as they become both competitor and regulator;
With few exceptions, this is federally regulated, so this is just applying the minority to the entire and claiming it as fact.
public provision is not economically efficient, and distorts the market and competition;
See my point about competition above.
telecommunications is an industry rife with technical change and competition, posing risks
that municipalities are not equipped to withstand. The unexpected need for upgrades,
market penetration and price competition from private providers and the threat of new
technologies puts the taxpayer or municipal ratepayer at risk.
Risk is in every bridge, building and roadway allowed in the city. Public parks put the city at liability risk. As for the need to upgrade, this can actually occur on citizen demand, as opposed to the two years we waited for Comcast broadband to make it to the state capital. It also has the advantage of negating the cost of the last mile.
Sorry but this is a puff piece made to sound like research.
This is extremely true!
Just look at what corporations do, Enron purposefully and very maliciously worked out deals where power plants would 'find reasons' to shut down, in order to drastically inflate the cost of energy. They played a short taped conversation proving this on NPR this morning.
I am not saying that all corporations are bad, it's just that when you mix utilities with greed, it is extremely easy for people of low moral fiber to put in place schemes like Enron executives did.
There are certain things that the government should own the rights to and then they should lease those rights out to corporations. That might not work perfectly either, but it might be a better middle ground then full government control or full corporate control.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
It's another example of using tax dollars for something outside of the scope of government. Just because someone is a slashdot reader who feels they _need_ internet access and don't feel like paying, that does not mean it is a role of the government. Other people don't want to pay for internet access, and shouldn't have to. I want a car, and I want it cheap. Should the government be in that business too?
Um... yeah, sometimes. Public parks, for example, I could say, "I don't want public parks! I HAVE a backyard!" What about public transportation? Public museums? Those aren't hard to privatize. We do have private land and and private transportation and private art collections, but the public stuff does serve a purpose, and most of us are willing to put in a few extra dollars to pay for it (even if we don't use them often).
Yes, there are some who'd rather not pay. That doesn't, by itself, indicate anything. Pick any single thing that the government does, and I can find someone who doesn't want to pay for it.
Is it morally acceptable for a group of people to require their fellow citizens for fork over tax dollars at the point of a gun to pay for a service they don't all want to use?
Yes. The intangible benefits of the program to the population as a whole are also relevant. A municipality can consider the economic benefit of having a free wireless network for all. For example, the network could bring in new businesses. Even if Joe doesn't use the internet, he might get a job with one of those companies.
Think of public transportation and municipal airports. If I don't ride or fly, I still think they are useful because they are good for the economy. A bigger strecth is education. Even if I don't have kids, a good school system is advantageous to me (property values, business location), so I am willing to pay for it.
CV
Do we really want this? Somewhere, sometime before long, some small local group will take the city supplied internet connections to court, with the rallying cry of "Your tax dollars are providing pornography!"
And the city will probably bend over. I can't see a local jurisdiction not putting a filter on the content they deliver, if only to provide the appearance of trying to avoid a lawsuit.
Acceptable or not, it happens all the time. I do not own a car or have children; should my tax dollars go to fund roads and schools I do not use? If you say I benefit indirctly from those things, who is to say that people who do not use the municiple Internet would not indirectly benefit as well?
For a more controversial issue, I did not want our military to invade Iraq. Yet I am paying for that as well.
Let's add to the list...libraries, schools, some streets that perhaps you'll never drive down. Towns try to do things that are for the benefit of society in general. And you're *not* forced to pay taxes...if you don't want to participate in something bigger than your personal needs and interests, you can move. There are vast, unsettled parts of the country still.
Personally, I would like to see what happens if a group of people start an experimental town centered around their own self interests vs the town as a whole...sort of like a reverse hippie commune.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
A town in essence is a group of people who have gotten together because it's in their best interests to consolidate their efforts to make the best use of resources (ie roads, schools). If this group of people begins to see the benefits of locally-provided high speed access (albeit wireless) and votes on it, why shouldn't they be free to exercise their will and implement such a plan
If your hypothetical town were organized along decentralized, anarchist lines, as your description seems to imply, you would be absolutely correct. Hell, I would love to see this happen. I think the residents of that town/city would develop a stronger sense of involvement and connection to the place they live and they people they live with, even stronger than the proverbial small rural town.
However, in this case you're dealing with a community run by a few individuals with authority to extort funding from the population in the form of taxes*. Elected or not, the town as a whole isn't making these decisions. The centralized power structure is making them. Under the prevailing attitude toward politics and economics that exists in the US, these centralized authorities are considered to be inefficient allocators of resources, entities that should be limited to providing physical security and defence of control over property. To counteract this attitude, which is somewhat based on false assumptions and selective reality, you would have to successfully argue that the town government can provide the service better than a private entity without making use of its power to extort funding from individuals who do not wish to make use of the system, while playing within its own rules, with no bias in regulation or enforcement of laws. Even then, there are people--some of them influential--who oppose any activity by a government that might present an opportunity for private profit.
* Of course, recall that the colonists back in the late 1700s weren't entirely opposed to taxes, only being taxed without complementary agency. Extreme capitalists and tax protesters may want to remember this; if you don't think you're being represented properly, there are avenues of redress in the system you claim to uphold.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
This really seems like their domain. If Wi-Fi will bring in tourism, neighborhood businesses should be more than will to chip in $10 or $20 a month. Heck, it's cheap enough that many business would probably try it even if they aren't sure. Plus, (and please correct me if I'm wrong) aren't the costs of administrating a city-wide network going to be far higher than the costs for a group of small (2-3 AP on a standard residential or business broadband connection) networks covering the same area?
On one hand, you have an infrastructure that lots of people will use. It would save the people money if it wasn't in the hands of a for-profit company but rather the local government.
However, many governments, small and large, are lazy, corrupt, and wasteful and would end up costing people more money than if private companies had to compete for the job.
So this depends on the people you have in government and the influence companies that would take this over have on those people.
The other side is for areas that companies won't connect up because they can't justify the small profit. Poor urban areas which can't afford to pay the cable or telephone companies might benefit from a government run operation. However, usually when governments say they're going to help lower class minorities, they just instead pad their own pockets.
So there is no clear "this is good" or "this is bad". You have to look at each case. I happen to live in an area where comcast offers very fast internet access, so I have no need for this type of service and I don't feel I should have to pay for it.
Here's the interesting part -- would municipal wifi end up bringing more people downtown? That would help out a lot of businesses. Might help property values as well. And cheap, easy access would certainly increase the chances of people engaging in economic activity on-line in general. The only ones who lose are the companies that want to charge as much as possible for the pipe. Everyone else, from computer makers to Amazon to your local coffee shop who now has wifi like Starbucks to your town library comes out ahead, as far as I can tell.
I think that municipalities should not offer free access. If they want to offer a pay service, that's fine. If the do offer a pay service then it needs to be operated only by the funds it takes in. Otherwise it would unfair competition with private companies.
If I understand what you are saying, you are saying that it should be setup how the postal service is? As a private company that is mandated to providing a service at cost and paying it's own way? Although, the Post Office has changed slightly (originaly the post office didn't have to take all the packages it does today). And we still have competitors such as FedEx and UPS and probably another few that I don't know of. Not to mention all the courier services in the big cities.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Are the conclusions valid? That is all that matters; if by building a taxpayer subsidized business the government comes into competition with the private sector, then they ought not do it.
Welcome to 1984.
This is the funny thing. We're talking about small change here, folks. Very small change, in terms of big business, in what it will take to get a metro-wide WiFi service. All this complaint about big government and what-not? Heck. This is pocket change.
Any argument about 'big government' and 'wasted money' is silly. The only argument is it being hard for existing wireless services to compete against something like this. And a few large companies really believe in this argument and want you to believe in it, too.
The benefits to a community? Could be strong. Very strong. You've just got some large businesses that can afford lobbying groups to try to convince you and lawmakers that it is a bad idea. Seems to make this an even better idea.
Taxypayer dollars? Dollars from cab rides will fund wireless networks?
One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://heartland.org/ about/donors.htm
Reject Fear - Embrace Hope
The Eisenhower interstate system was originally built as a defense measure -- fast transport -- and as an economic boon. Our government right now spends colossal amounts on highway maintenance, at the federal and state levels that money is enormous.
The "necessity" of those roads wasn't as apparent when they were built as it is now. Back then -- and I'm sure you can find local examples -- new roads really were a sort of lavish luxury as well as a way of planning -- God forbid -- economic development. (The "Lilac Way" highway that runs near by my house had a big parade when it opened and was, initially, largely used for picnics at [government-built] public BBQ parks. Now it's not a scenic Sunday drive any more; it's a big economic and traffic hub in suburbs that grew up around it.)
And for what it's worth, the fact that the government planned those highways led to some decisions we can still question. For example, our interstates all run right into and through the interior of our big cities. Neighborhoods that didn't have the political clout to resist having a freeway cut them in half got destroyed by those things. (The Rondo neighborhood in St. Paul died out, for an example local to me.) Talk about your social effects of government! So your objection to this wireless stuff, that it leads to gov't intrusion, does hold up.
Personally I don't think the line's that clear or clean, and I don't think it's stable over time. Airports are a legit thing for governments to be very involved in planning, yes? I know I don't want a new runway over my yard tomorrow. Would they have been in 1915? When voters think it's legit, the necessities we spend on change.
The one point I'll strongly agree on is the Government's oversight of communications technologies, though. The FCC is hardly being a good steward of broadcast "space" for television. I'm not sure wireless, which is a point to point model, is quite the same, but I see the objection.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Yeah, those fricken commies with their "public libraries"! I've estimated that Barns & Noble has LOST 17 billion dollars of business to public libraries in the past 10 years, accounting for a loss of 3 million jobs. You know those commie libraries are just filled with left-wing propaganda (i.e. books that aren't the Bible) anyhow.
The phone grid wouldn't be what it is if the government had not intervened (that goes both ways). But what I'm saying is that if we had to wait for the phone companies to get around to building their networks, there would still be many rural communities without phone service.
That is the big problem with cable in the US if you ask me. None of the new subdivisions going up in my area have cable. Satellite only. It just isn't profitable for the cable companies to roll out when a new neighborhood goes in.
So the report (haven't read it) must be bunk. The govenment in some cases must assist to ease an infrastructure in. An argument against this would be cell service. To my knowledge, the govement has not helped with this enterprise, yet connectivity is decent. Maybe it costs less to throw up a cell tower?
-- yawn. --
I only knew of them from reading about their actions in various newspaper articles and they were usually cited synonymously with "Americans United for Separation of Church and State" Thus my assumption. After writing that post I realized that I was probably confusing the two. (hinsight is 20/20) So I went to their website and discovered they're a rightwing watchdog group. (So my example is still technically correct!)
http://www.ashlandfiber.com.
They broke a local monopoly for cable and drove down the rates on everything, cable TV and broadband. Qwest, Charter and a host of others tried to stop it, and failed. I now have insanely cheap broadband which I love.
If you don't like having government owned networks, move to somewhere that doesn't. We like ours.
And usually that person is a republican.
Sometimes what looks like corruption is just birds of a feather flocking together.
Say you are writing a pro-conservation and people find out (cue spooky music) your article is funded by the Sierra Club. Maybe it's because the Sierra Club finds value in the person's work. Maybe the NRA backs politicians who pro-gun control, instead of trying to bribe a politician.
A special interest is just an interest that isn't your's.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
It would be great...until the network is so saturated by bittorrent, edonkey, and kazaa users that it would be impossible to actually use it.
"Personally, I would like to see what happens if a group of people start an experimental town centered around their own self interests vs the town as a whole...sort of like a reverse hippie commune."
Sort of self-defeating, since one of the benefits of a town is for the "common good", excluding any potential tax benefits.
how did they catch all these taxypayers to ask them if it would waste resources?
...street illumination, water service and waste disposal used to be luxuries. What if access to information counted as a required service in future?
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Something that must be understood:
While there are multiple sides to this, bell and cable lobbyists are working (successfully) to pass state-wide bans preventing your town or city from deploying so much as a community run Wi-Fi network on the beach.
Good, Bad, Eggplant; shouldn't that be your community's decision, NOT the corporations - who are scared they'd lose revenue via competition?
I don't care where people fall on this issue, but everyone should agree these bans are not in the end user's best interests.
Whether or not the guy had a stake in the towing company is of little consequence. The point being the government is now becoming directly in volved as a competitor to these towing companies at the tax payers expense. Also, could anyone use these yellow trucks services or did they check id to ensure you paid for the service?
With regard to wireless service, once all the compeition has withdrawn from the area? Will the local government upgrade the service in line with other municipalities who chose to allow competition to flourish? There are way too many "gotchas" to government sponsered programs, as well meaning as they may be when they start out.
A: The activities of The Heartland Institute are overseen by a 16-member Board of Directors, which meets quarterly. The members of the Board of Directors are:
Herbert J. Walberg, Chairman
University of Illinois - Chicago James L. Johnston
Amoco Corporation (retired)
Joseph L. Bast, President and CEO
The Heartland Institute Roy E. Marden
Public Policy Consultant
Walter F. Buchholtz
ExxonMobil Corporation David H. Padden
Padden & Co.
Robert Buford
Planned Realty Group Frank Resnik
Medline Inc. (retired)
Paul Fisher
Piper, Marbury, Rudnick & Wolfe Leslie Rose
Fidelity Bank
James Fitzgerald
BankNote Capital LLC Lee Tooman
Golden Rule Insurance Company
Dan Hales
Peterson & Ross Lee H. Walker
New Coalition for Economic & Social Change
William Higginson
Chicago Equity Fund Inc. Thomas Walton
General Motors
anyone surprised? i bet someone will dig up some more dirt on them...
Where the Hell do they get off competeing with our glorius corporations!!!!! Don't you godless heathen democrats realize we live to serve the fortune 500!!! God will smite you!!
After all we have cities providing FREE ACCESS TO BOOKS (libraries) and Internet. People should have to PAY FOR EVERTHING THEY READ!!!!!!!! They should have to pay an ISP for every second on the net. How can we expect companies to compete when cities offer these services for free. And summer and after school programs for the poor.. Those little moochers should have to pay for that too, and don't get me started on the school lunch program, instead of offering meals for a buck or two we should have private corporations in there charging $5 or $6 bucks a meal, thats the going rate, after all the corporate masters need thier million dollar bonuses.
While we're at it why do states provide services for the elderly, I mean come on if they are too poor and old to be able to pay the going rate to XYZ retirement community then shoot them in the head and use them for land fill.
What do you people think the constitution says "We the People"....... or something.
Get over it. Every Corp. in america has the right to charge whatever they want, when ever and where ever it is. If you don't like it move somewhere else. Legal rights you say, crap those were too expensive, we can't being sueing companies because thier products hurt people and we sure don't have the money or the time to be concerened about whether corp profits actully hurts people. After all they contributed to the presidents re-election campaign did You, you commie pig.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
It's the future, and you're living it today!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
VOIP seems to me (under its current incarnation) to be something that works fine for friends and family calling when you are at home with a fixed landline., when you have plenty of bandwidth. Next, I list it's failings (so far).
However, for businesses they still require some sort of connection to people with regular phones. VOIP does not provide the same Quatlity of Service (yet) as land lines. Wireless does not have the same capabilities as a cell phone (bandwidth issues when you add in internet and interference) and a whole host of other things that land lines can do that VOIP can not.
Don't get me wrong, I think VOIP is a great idea. It's probably how we will get video phones (unless the telcos like verizon really speed up their fibre roll out)[would wireless hinder this?]. But for the forseable future I don't see it as a replacement for land lines. Also, I really worry what will happen if VOIP gets all around and a large segment give up landlines, what hapens when the power goes out? (one reason I will keep a landline even with my Cellphone).
Also, for calling and VOIP, who will run the DNS equivalent? I don't think people want to call MAC Addresses and there will be a need for the Phone/VOIP transision at some point in the system for out of area calls.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I'm too lazy to RTFA, but I have some comments on the comments.
1) Many municipalities are too small to attract a viable commercial provider of some services. Competition may be good, but if no one wants to play the game, the people (i.e. the governmenet) may need to get it done themselves.
2) The government may utilize and benefit from the service as well - wi-fi enable police cars, fire trucks, survey vehicles, etc. If the government can provide the service to the citizens for no or nominal additional cost, why shouldn't they?
3) Web access to government information is probably cheaper (or just as cheap) for the government to provide as having "real people". e.g. Public record research. Is it cheaper to have a staff digging through the archives and printing out information for people impatiently standing in line? Or to provide wi-fi and net access and let people serve themselves?
4) It does open a can of worms of liability. What happens when the first kiddie porn ring is found using the municipal wi-fi? Or gangs are found to be using it to coordinate drug deals? Or some third grader is caught surfing barnyard porn at the Sunday School picnic?
The municipalities won't (for long) be able to offer unencumbered Net access. They will either be forced to shutdown or restrict to the point of losing usefulness by the "What about the children?" crowd.
- Jasen.
"Issue Dynamics, which is a lobbying firm that represents most US telcos and cable operators"
http://www.idi.net/grassroots/ Issue Dynamics make no bones about being in the astroturf business. Check out this link, I don't believe it.
To further the parent's point: A city government has a moral obligation to do 'what is right' for the city. What is right should ideally be defined by a huge number of things, but 'what the masses want' would be high up there.
In this sense, it is easily possible that the masses don't want 'x', but they do want 'y'. And sometimes, doing 'x' will help you get to 'y'. For instance, if you want to grow the income base of your city, you might do well to attract a lot of higher-paying jobs.... Like, maybe, build-out a wireless WAN. Provided that the citizens don't actively NOT WANT 'x', the city government (or perhaps the people, if by vote) should seriously weigh the benifits.
just my 2 cents
it happens all the time. I do not own a car or have children; should my tax dollars go to fund roads and schools I do not use? .. I did not want our military to invade Iraq. Yet I am paying for that as well.
this is not a reason to put more things under government control. this is a reason why we should try to have as few things under government control as possible. let individuals decide what they want to do with their lives and resources.
socialists on the far left and fundamentalists on the far right both like to tell everyone how to behave and what to do and where to spend their money. then they say, well its democracy because the majority of people voted for it. what it is, is the tyranny of the majority. democracy and freedom are often at odds with each other in this way.
democracy is when the country as a whole gets to decide. freedom is when individuals get to decide. sometimes freedoms need to be sacrificed, but lets keep it to a minimum.
Given the tone of your post I understand that you're making only a rhetorical point. E.g. the fact that the fire department will come out and extinguish a file at your neighbor's house too (so that it won't spread to yours) is a use of service. As is the rule with all regulated externalities.
The point is that there is no magic formula that indicates which service is more efficiently paid for "in bulk" and which is not.
Likewise there's no way to automatically guarantee that you won't at some point have a corrupt provider of a monopoly service, or that the whole idea of providing some service municipally might not be corrupt. Private services (a few zealots on either side notwithstanding) are generally somewhat better at correcting for this, at least when there's choice.
Finally, emotion or enthusiasm can cause people to make poor choices (e.g. "bridging the 'digital divide'") so it's often good to make certain centralizing decisions slowly, or even not at all so you can preserve optionality (i.e. choice) for the future.
Notice the words nine-times slips in to seem reasonable:
We can build a playground, too, if we like.
Simply untrue. The problem is that it is WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIKE. If the elected representatives determine it, then you are contributing your money whether or not you like it. And if you refuse, you'll be taken to jail (or worse). Taking you at your "if we like" suggestion, that would be how an elected government should work. Line-item support on your tax return for government programs you choose to contribute to.
Using your playground example, I'll tell you exactly how it works in my small town. Our community of about 1,000 just expanded the playground last year. The city clerk's desk had a contribution jar. It raised $20,000 through donations which we donated to. Our small town bank, grocery and several other businesses donated more. No tax was imposed and no community member forced to support the playground expansion against his or her will. We've also funded a brand new fire station in this manner and generally work together to support projects without shooting people that disagree. Several town suppers, a Harley raffle and other efforts also helped raise money for the fire station. Now we're looking at a new ambulance in the same manner.
Coincidentally, I run a 30-market broadband company. My small town is one of our markets. We pay for use of the water towers and own our own towers. Our service is reliable and affordable, with a 130 kbps entry level product at $19.95 a month, and our 700 kbps at $39.95. We've built it without a single cent of "public" money.
Just east of us 30 miles is a community that got $10 million in RUS grant money for fiber to the home. They require 90% market penetration with $220 per customer per month to make the numbers work. They are trying to figure out how to exclude cable and wireless competition in order to get a monopoly to attain 90%. I have been specifically told that the community leaders do not want our wireless there as it would take too many customers away from their monopoly - especially at the value rates we provide. Their community will be forced to take the service provided at whatever it costs the municipal. I can guarantee they do not work as efficiently as we do as well.
What's their rational? After all, it's hard to believe someone would be so opposed to letting their community benefit from competitors keeping prices down and quality up. They state that fiber is faster and better for the community. They believe (without sound data) that having fiber will cause countless large technology businesses to up and move to town, boosting tax rolls. Already all US citizens have helped pay for the $10 million given to them, and they're going to suck more out of all of us. Considering they have to use consultants from out of state and are buying the wrong equipment, you can bet a dime or two is leaving your pocket for this disaster. All of this scheme for more tax dollars. Oh, and nice salaries and perks for the municipal managers.
If you disagree with me, you need to think long and hard about why that is. Deep down, are you lazy and just want to suck off of your neighbor's hard work? Be honest, many people do. Just say you're a lazy thief and we'll respect you a hell of a lot more than if you pretend to be some progressivist, relativistic moron who can't see his ideas conflict and goals are unreachable through his proposed means.
I'll confess that I sure as hell thought that way for ten years out of high school. Student loans, Pell grants, food stamps, whatever - after all, I needed it. What's wrong with that?
Bottom line: Before you solve the problem for those of us who already get it, please put the browser down, get out and find out from those who know. My state has yet to have a successful municipal in spite of giving 100% of the RUS money to these guys and the tired old monopolies, and the dirty truth is that they end up providing very poor service at high rates, while driv
Consider any government's record in IT projects. The idea of a law disallowing it is repugnant, but I would not want my tax dollars supporting such boondoggles. Hasn't anyone here ever worked on a government IT project? I've worked on some (and my tax dollars have paid for more.) 802.11 technology only has a few years left in its lifecycle - who's going to upgrade the whole system every two years? The same people that fix your potholes and parking meters. Are you happy with their terms of service?
The only govt IT project that was successful in my long checkered past was Santa Clara County's Center for Urban Analysis, which received no funding except for office space and operated on a subscription basis for local agencies.
Other projects: City of Austin GIS in the 80s - spents buckets of money, ran out, and could not afford agents to field check and update the database. (They eventually fixed this - after about 5 years.)
City of Palo Alto: Big plans to wire the city with SONET. Obsolete technology by the time the project was started (would you pay $1000 for a modem?) Everyone I know in Palo Alto has DSL or Cable access now. Palo Alto's city-owned cable TV operation was a financial disaster and while it was operational charged higher rates than Comcast.
Spouse is federal employee: When they switch IT support contracts every couple years, nobody gets email for 6 weeks. Told the only competent sysadmin to cut his corn rows or quit - PHBs run amok!
I'll take my chances with the marketplace.
The Heritage Foundation doesn't make any attempt to hide its ideological affiliation. You can also view the source of their funding if you like.
Once you accept the idea of the government providing your conduit, you've given up the right to decide what is "acceptable" and what is not - that's in the hands of bureaucrats, who might decide that any site that mentions "breasts" is "unacceptable" before 11PM local time, to "protect the children". And you're stuck, because the private companies won't be around to offer alternatives, since they can't afford to compete.
Lets not have the blind lead the blind. The great telco infrastructure and right of ways for the majority of the companies seeking to stop municipal broadband was funded entirely through tax payer dollars and initiatives.
Lets also not forget how much money the government gives to these corporations in handouts, tax "relief" and subsidies.
I would rather have an ELECTED OFFICIAL be responsible for maintaining what is becoming MODERN INFRASTRUCTURE than ignore the problem entirely or say corporate america can do it better when it hasn't even bothered.
Sometimes the PROFIT of something isn't the cash reward but the ROI across the board. Kids with resources, families who can keep in touch and schools and libraries that can afford to modernize and network with each other.
Your story would make much more sense if i was able to choose my telephone company, able to choose my cable company or able to select what i want.
(Yes, i use vonage, so i have my own phone service.. but the infrastructure it relies upon was still laid by tax dollars and subsidies)
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Be careful with your choice of words. Freedom does not mean the right to gang up and initiate force against others. In this case, true freedom would be the right to refuse to associate with others, or the right to peacefully develop your own voluntary solution. Your solution may be popular, or supported by the majority, but that does not make it voluntary in the slightest.
If there are 5 people starving to death on a raft at sea, and 4 of those people decide to kill the fifth, against his will, in order to survive, would you say that those 4 people are "exercising their freedom" to murder the fifth? That is exactly what you're claiming here, and that's just plain wrong. An initiation of force is an initiation of force, whether 4 against 1 or 4,000,000 against 1. Majority rule does not magically flip the definition of association by force.
Now you tell me, why shouldn't I be free to exercise MY will to refuse to participate in this program? If I don't have that right, then I'm not exactly free, am I?
You took his stuff. You pound him.
Taxation is not extortion. You are free to leave, firstly, to find a town that doesn't have any taxes (I'd assume they'd get by by robbing travellers?), and secondly, governments can levy "taxes". Calling it "extortion" is like calling copying a file "stealing".
Waitaminnit...
Hell, the average user can't even keep from installing SPYWARE! How does anyone expect them to disable simple file sharing (default in windows that allows anyone to access shared files without a password)? Many people I know have to pause to think where the freaking START button is. Everyone who isn't an expert is going to be screwed by this.
d.
Imagine if they charged a toll everytime you left your driveway.
Now imagine the extra commerce that would happen if there was no toll.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
In other cases, the city itself may take on the responsibility of providing a service to the general public which will need similar use of these public spaces. Your may be buying water from your city's water service. They have pipes (much like the telephone wires or television cable) which run all accross public property. Although your taxes may pay for some of the infrastructure to put such a system in place. It's the actual consumers of such a program who generally pay a large part of the cost (such as a monthly water bill). If you don't want the cities water, you can have your water turned off, and you won't recieve a monthly bill. A similar type system could easily be put in place for the wireless system to put the bulk of the financial burden on the actual users.
Yes, there are some who'd rather not pay. That doesn't, by itself, indicate anything. Pick any single thing that the government does, and I can find someone who doesn't want to pay for it.
Exactly. So why are you forcing them to? Sex without consent is rape, even if it is for a better cause. I'll guarantee you wouldn't tolerate me raping your wife and kids if I promised to donate $1,000,000 to the community for a new building or park. Yet you have no problem stealing money I'm trying to save for my wife to drive a more reliable car and for my kids college. You rape my checkbook daily without even a thank you. Now you horney little ass-bandits wanna rape it for high-speed porn. Pay for your own Janeane Garafalo lesbo pics!
Here's a couple of alternatives that work for all of us:
o pay to play: Wanna visit the state park? Pay for a permit. Fund the park with the permit. Enforcement not feasible? Then don't and use an honor system. Often this approach is more successful. Look at free will offerings at church suppers - you'll find you do far better with free will as those who can afford to give more and appreciate it don't pay the flat fee.
o optional pay and buy what we collectively get: Want a new building? Take donations. Only get enough for a small building. Then that's what we buy. If the bureaucrat must have a bigger building, then he'd better get out and sell its value to more people. Betcha get a lot of mo-nay when you go out asking for donations to your high-speed porn... still, doesn't hurt to ask.
A lot of free-market idealists complain about a public administration using taxes to fund a service competing with established business. I personnally won't shed a tear over poor telcos losing a little piece of their near monpo^W^W market, but I can see the point.
...
What would you think, then, of a community network providing free wireless Internet, ran by volunteers and funded with contributions ? Would that still be unfair competition ?
Think NY, Seattle, Austin, Montreal
:wq
And I'm not sure why we feel like people who use more government supplied resources can't pay more than an equal share of the cost. Trucking companies use the roads to make money and trucks are hard on roads. I don't see it as a huge deal that trucking companies pay road use fees in the form of taxes. I'd even take it step farther and suggest that parents with kids in school might pay a little higher tax rate that people without kids or those opting for private school. Everybody contributes, but those who use the resources the most contribute a little more.
You may want after school and athletic programs for your kids but don't expect those of us without kids to keep accepting higher and higher tax burdens for supporting them.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
municipalities shouldn't build wireless networks because it's anti-competitive and will waste taxypayer dollars, where were they when taxpayer dollars were used to build stadiums, football, baseball or otherwise? I didn't hear this group whining and bitching then.
Several studies have shown that using taxpayer dollars to build stadiums is a net loss. The money spent to build is not recovered in taxes or job growth.
Yes, I realize this group is a cover for the telcos and such but come on, at least be consistent.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
- The fire department
Fire protection is provided by private for-profit companies in many cities and counties in the US, and is provided by a volunteer organization that is not tax funded in many others.
Many innovations in firefighting technique were pioneered by for-profit fire companies, which tend to produce better service at lower cost than public tax-funded ones.
Need the fire department? Well, they are currently billing at $85/hour/firefighter plus equipment and supplies.
Where fire protection is private, the cost tends to be covered by subscription as part of the homeowner's fire insurance policy required by the lender.
I play Nerd-Folk!
I do not own a car or have children; should my tax dollars go to fund roads and schools I do not use? I did not want our military to invade Iraq.
I have two kids in school. I support killing extremists in Iraq and demonstrating to Islam that it will either moderate or die, just as Christianity, Judiasm, and Mormonism learned.
Yet I agree with you. I'm furious that you're required to support things you are morally opposed to, or do not see any benefit from and wish not to support. I'm personally digusted that my money goes to support meth abusers I know that buy groceries with food stamps so they can have money for more meth. It is clear I'm helping to enable their abuse. Why should I be forced to be an enabler?
We need a different model for taxation. User fees for everything that works into that model. Line-item contributions for everything else. Money goes directly to the agency. Fire the IRS and much of the Federal and state administrative overhead.
Here are [vital] services I have never used:
Amazing, why does this continue to be a response to questioning funding by government taxation?
WiFi amounts to the most luxurious of communication services. In a world where nearly 80% of people have never even made a phone call, some are contending that others should be compelled, under threat of imprisonment, to pay for - of all things - wireless broadband.
We have to pay for postal mail, telephones, couriers, pagers, cable TV, and wired broadband - what makes WiFi so special and different that the few who actually have wireless computers (costing more than the annual salary of most people on this planet) should compel the rest to pay for it?
Do you seriously equate easy WWW access to putting out your neighbor's house fire? Even the fire department will not rebuild the home, only limit the destruction thereof. Police try to arrest people who stole your wallet; police do not ensure the filling thereof. Roads provide a pervasive system that benefits all as practically everything travels thereupon - and even there, most of the cost is borne by taxes on truckers; the only thing stopping truly commercial roads is the lack of physical space, a limitation which Internet access lacks.
Don't try to equate WiFi with firemen.
Get your hand out of my wallet.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
imagine the extra commerce that would happen if you didn't pay taxes.
This is the same argument that people try to make against "Student Fees" at colleges that go to support the Athletic Center and the Club Sports teams that students organize. They're open to everyone, and their only purpose is to enrich the lives of students and faculty. Yes, of course some people don't take advantage of it, there are people that don't take advantage of anything college has to offer them (even an education!)... but $150 of fees gives everyone an opportunity they wouldn't otherwise have to participate in virtually anything you could think of. It just takes an inkling of initiative.
And granted, it's not at the point of a gun... but just go ahead and try NOT paying it :)
Then again, maybe not... if it was free, you could argue that it's a public service to get stuck cars moving again as quickly as possible during rush hour: the amount of money that everyone else on the road is saving is far greater than you might get if you charged for the service; and that, IMO, is the mark of whether something should be a public service or not.
Amazing, why does this continue to be a response to anything government funded? Here are services I have never used:
- The fire department
- The police department
- Roads beyond the 1/2 mile to the interstate and around friends and family
Why is it that so many people think that governments at any levle are immune to the same failings as corporations? They are both run by fallable, often self-interested people. What I find ironic is that the very same people who advocate an activist government at any level are the ones who probably hold GW Bush and his cronies in the same regard as Enron executives.
Since when did Wi-Fi broadband equate to ESSENTIAL services like those you mentioned? Governments at all levels should make essentials such as those the priority and leave such extras to private enterprise--period. Your contention that you never used ANY of those services? That is bullshit. Maybe you've never had a house fire, but I'm positive that the fire department played a role in ensuring your home was safe (all construction has to pass fire codes after all). You've most definitely benefitted from the service provided by the police department as well--law enforcement is what makes it somewhat safer to live wher you do compared to, say, Beiruit. In regards to roads you answered your own question--you DO use some of the roads (including the Interstate highway system I gather, if you care about the 1/2 mile of road that leads to it). If you don't drive, you benefit even more because not only are you making use of the road, but public transit vehicles driving on those rads too.
There are things government should take resopnsibility for in the public interest--it must ensure the safety and freedom of its citizens and their environment. Wi-Fi, at this point in time, is far from an essential service. If a municipality wants to be an activist gov't then there are far more nobler causes. Safe, clean low-income housing comes to mind, or how about improving public schools for children of low-income parents? If some city officials have a boner for Wi-fi then have them provide it to public schools and let the suburban soccer-moms and hockey-dads make their own arrangements?
Oh yeah--you might be trying to sound outrageous by suggesting the firefighters charge for responses, but it isn't that for off from what already happens. Even up here in "utopian Canada" with socialised medicine you can get a nice big bill for an ambulance ride. If the government can't cover something like THAT then I want them to stay out of Wi-Fi and other crap.
I can already see hoe that would turn out too. It sounds great to think that you could flick on your PC or any wireless device anywhere in the city and just browse at 10mbit or higher at and ditch the crappy cable and DSL. Trust me though it won't be free. There will be a tax hike associated "infrastrucure improvements" and no-one will know exactly how much of that went into putting in the access points. The job of putting in the equipment will be contracted to the "highest bidder"--that being the outfit who donated the most to the mayor's election campaign "bid". The city will take twice as long to put everything in as a private company would, and the system will be overcapacity from the start (it being free, every Centrino notebook in the city will be firing packets at it). Don't expect the city to take responsibility for network security and troubleshooting either--if your neighbourhood node goes out it'll be 4 to 48 hours before they fix it.
In other words, "free" city wireless will be no better than what private cable and telcos offer, except unlike the latter it'll never improve past mediocre, and nobody will ever have a really solid idea of how much it costs or where the money could've been better spent.
The point is keeping the traffic flowing smoothly by minimizing downtime for flat tires and out of gas cars is in the communities' best interest. Eliminating them in favor a narrow private sector profit at the expense of all the other commuters is not in the public's interest.
..the Totally, Completely, Not at All Related to the Big Oil Companies Research Institute released its findings that automobile emissions are good for baby birds and cute lil' bunnies. The Institute's previous work has shown that crude oil gives sea otter fur a shiny, healthy glow.
governments can levy "taxes".
And they can do this because they have a monopoly on force, granted by tradition, inertia, and acquiescence. People who refuse to pay taxes can be coerced to by individuals in power through leverage of that force--hence, the term "extortion". If they didn't have that monopoly on force, government would have to be funded voluntarily, right?
I think you'd be amazed what people will voluntarily fund, given the chance and a lack of pressing needs.
Don't misunderstand me--I recognize the necessity of services that everyone covers a part of. I live in Canada, for cryin' out loud; my taxes cover the health care system that I've had to use from time to time, and that's one thing I will gladly fund, even knowing that I may never make use of it again. Someone else might desperately need it and not have the funds. I just try to be realistic about what takes place in a society, since I think doing that might lead me to develop better ways of existence. Those same tax dollars that fund useful services, and could go to fund even more services, are just as likely to end up socializing some private entity's costs or funding someone's military misadventure. The government running the country I live in, for example, blew hundreds of millions on busted submarines that are still out of service. Great use of tax dollars, geniuses.
We really do need to develop stronger communities, which I think can only be truly done by trashing the power hierarchies built through Machiavellian activities and accepted by quiet submission. Then, I think we will start to see wonderful things happen. Shiny things are not necessarily the pinnacle of existence.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Vote their asses out and vote someone IN who shares your views. If not enough people share your views, you've got three choices. Move away, or do whatever it is that you're not in agreement with on your own.
I LOVE IT! And that it's coming from a leftist is even more precious. Let's see. We all just voted here in the USA. Based on the vote and your perspective, we all can agree that:
1. The Iraq war is the right thing.
2. Abortion will be made illegal.
3. The Patriot Act is a good thing.
4. Membership in MoveOn.org, PETA, ALF/ELF or any other national socialist organization will automatically qualify one for lifetime servitude to rich republicans.
5. Smelly leftist protestors should be rounded up into reeducation camps and given forced baths, hygine lessons, electro-shock therapy and political brainwashing.
Do you think everyone will agree with this though?
You can also just deal with it.
Darn right they will. Thanks for the vision (and we wonder why progressives are melting down...)
This is going to be a boon for drunk drivers and such. Now they can drive on ANY road! These roads will be unsecured, and even if they have police on them, it's not like the police can catch every one of them.
;P
Hell, the average driver can't even keep from TAILGATING! How does anyone expect them to actually drive in a responsible manner (Cars automatically allow drunks to get behind the wheel)? Many people I know have to pause to think about what most basic traffic laws are in my state. Everyone who isn't an expert is going to be screwed by this.
(It's already happened with roads, drivers and cars, the "information highway" is not impervious to the influx of stupid people. Just look at most posts on Slashdot, this one included)
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
the "invisible hand" of the market (karma)...
they forgot to tell you the hand is attached to a moron, but he has a sense of justice, so it all balances out. Sort of.
What I often wonder about is why there isn't more discussion about having a public network, over which service is offered by competing private parties. We don't have a State-run trucking company along with public roads. Why do we assume it has to be government monopoly vs state monopoly? Private competition over public networks could mean real competition due to low barriers to entry. We all know how a good commons can serve as a platform for widespread success.
And why do we do half-a** measures like mandating private competition over... private networks? That's how things seem to be done here in Utah. I've been trying to help my parents get broadband for 7 years. They live in a town of nearly 100,000 people. They live two blocks from a technology campus/business park. They can't get DSL. It's always "oh, about 6 months from now," from Qwest and has been since 1998. Near as I can tell, at least half of the city must be in the same boat, because that's the portion of Orem that was built around or before my parents home was. Of course, you call up any of Qwest's "competition," and it turns out they're simply reselling Qwest's services, and since Qwest apparently can't get it together to update half of my hometown... no DSL for them.
Of course, Qwest cried and screamed and protested and astroturfed when the UTOPIA project came around, promising not only competing service, but a truly updated public infrastructure. Qwest won't or can't provide the service, but darned if they're going to let somebody else show them up and take away their free lunch. The entrepreneur who started one of the first ISPs in Utah, of course, saw right through them..
Tweet, tweet.
should just sell all the roads to a local monopoly, then they can use that money to save the school programs which will be enjoying a record minimum enrollment, no doubt thanks to the increased efficency of the new infrastructure management.
Here's a couple of alternatives that work for all of us:
YEah!
And while we're at it, get rid of all those damn roads I never use. I'm paying for roads that go to places I *never* visit. All roads should be toll roads, period!
I'm sure *everybody* is on board for that, right?
So should the government manage them all for the common good?
Isn't that totalitarianism?
Yes, let's imagine that. No more FDA so it's back to the snake oil salesmen times. Hope you don't die eating what you thought was aspirin.
Not always. For instance, I'm a Democrat and I want in no way, shape, or form to pay for stupid wars in the Middle East.
Yes, I live in a slum duplex. The other half burned out and was re-built.
No (bad wiring, no smoke detectors).
Yes, it's administered by the bylaw enforcement officers here, and the cheif of bylaw enforcement is a friend of my landlord.
Yes! It's a slum.
Yes, their response time (if they come at all) averages 10 minutes longer than in wealthier parts of town.
Yes.
All of this is true, but I'm not upset with taxes; I want them to improve the situation, not scrap services alltogether.
Corporations fund policy groups all the time hopefully ones that have have the corporation's best interests at heart and nobody elses. They ought to do it more often than giving in to politicians of both parties that extract money out of them. I don't give a rat's rear whether said report was written by the masses, all of them clamouring for WiFi (along with "bread and peace", presumably). It's all bullshit. The real issue is addressed by the paper, and that's what is worth your time, not this sophomoric post. What liberals seem to lack in intelligence they make up for in an instinct to posture and grandstand and the delusion (which many fine programmers and IT muckity mucks share) that they're the only intelligent person in the room. Don't be fooled, younguns. The world isn't a big kindergarten. Think for yourself.
The municipalities have realized that high speed service really isn't *all that* expensive to provide, in the grand scheme of things. The telcos just don't want another player and they think they have a hold on the local government. The telcos want to spin "hurts our business" as "anti-competitive" which is just not true.
Fascinating that virtually NOWHERE in the mass media (network TV, big cable stations, major radio, elite newspapers) is this kind of discussion taking place (i.e., a discussion about what much of what is offered in the mass media).
I think a lot of people, including myself, have started to see that much of what is superficially seen as Infotainment is really corporate propaganda. And the media is NOT discussing this at all.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
It seems to me that if a service can be provided for everyone who wants it for less total expense than providing it only for those who are willing (or can afford) to pay for it (on an expense-plus-profit basis), a case can be made for government involvement. Anything with a very low incremental cost, and a significant burden to meter and collect, would have a possibility there.
This particular example is also a case of a natural monopoly - even more so than power, water, telephone - since too many "providers" in one area will all interfere with each other and degrade service for everyone. In addition, there's a significant amount of complication with property rights. Rather than go the route of granting a monopoly to a company (which then skims additional off the top), why not have the government do it on a non-profit (but break-even) basis? There's nothing automatic about government being inefficient, nor for that matter about private companies (especially ones who have been granted a monopoly) being efficient.
Everytime you hear someone say "be realistic" or "be pragmatic", you should think "corporate shill/sheeple/exploiter".
Now, go fuck yourself, corporate shill/sheeple/exploiter!
And usually that person is a republican.
;)
Who ironically considers winning the slightest majority a mandate.
Seriously though, as much we would like to tell ourselves that municipal broadband is a non-partisan issue, we'd be doing ourselves a disservice ignoring the tremendous influence that partisan politics has in shaping the debate into many little packages of false dichotomies.
I personally believe if we as a society was determined enough, we could come up with a series of solutions that could encourage REAL infrastucture based competition (not pseudo-deregulation) AND municipal and state's rights (not lip service).
I understand that these objectives tend to be at odds with each other, but I also understand that engineering a solution requires one to make comprimises in minor principles to strengthen the principles of the entire objective.
But before we get to that point, I believe we need to start trashing ALL political parties whom seem to do a great job dividing and preventing us from having a productive discussion (outside the confines of each party's respective gospel) to where WE can come to our OWN conclusions and consensus.
So don't get offended if someone says something mean about "your" political party. Reply back with something especially vitriolic, and keep doing it until the idea of aligning yourself with a Republican or Democrat seems like a rediculous idea.
BTW, before this discussion gets any further, I was JOKING in my original post. The reason the government builds roads is because it has Eminent Domain, i.e., the right to take private property and pay only the reasonable cost.
Obviously, since the free market does not have that right, it would be too costly to build roads.
What you're saying is that eminent domain allows the government to overcome the monopolistic price inflation that property-owners would otherwise engage in. Yes, that's part of it, but that problem could be overcome by regulation--the government could mandate that property owners sell to Road Building Co. for the "reasonable amount" just as easily as to the government.
The "biggest" reason the government builds the roads is the tragedy of the commons. I suppose we could manage it by making everything a toll road, but that would suck. The inconvenience (combined with the overhead costs of the toll booths) means we like government-built, tax-supported roads better.
Note that the government isn't stepping in due to a failure of the free market, but because the market isn't free. Intervention is required to overcome monopoly ownership of the property involved (eminent domain), and intervention is required to make everyone pay for what they use (tax it).
And if you look even further you will notice
that Rob is part of this 'think-tank' too.
This report was prepared by the same firm that months ago produced a report on the tremendous gains that could be achieved by augmenting legal protection of Intellectual Property, extending it in the terms of the protection, the lenght of the protection period and the scope of property entitled to protection.
This research firm is also preparing a new report where they will explain why free air is also anticompetitive when considering the huge gains that could be realized if the current system of free breathable air were to be replaced by bottled air that can be purchased at supermarkets and convenience stores. When asked if the Bottled Air Lobby was behind all this they declined to comment. The U.S. Congress and Senate are actively writing new legislation based on these reports.
P: If there are 5 people starving to death on a raft at sea, and 4 of those people decide to kill the fifth, against his will, in order to survive, would you say that those 4 people are "exercising their freedom" to murder the fifth? That is exactly what you're claiming here, and that's just plain wrong.
umm..... yeah.... no wait.... what? no. WTF are you on about? Setting up internet access is exactly the same as murder?!
I mean, I guess they are exercising a sort of "freedom" in your murdering example, and I can only suppose that they meant to eat the 5th guy?....... So forgive my ignorance, but is it the freedom to murder or the freedom to be cannibals that's "exactly" like the freedom of townspeople to run their own town?
Yeah, if the private sector ran roads you WOULD have to pay to drive on them, OTOH you wouldn't be paying the gas tax either. The government's primary advantage stems from eminent domain and the ability to force users to pay (since they can force us all to pay).
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Whenever I see stories about a municipality, township, or some other community trying to put together wireless, or wired internet services I read the stories. They interest me.
And 9 times out of 10 the story turns out to be horribly overpriced local monopoly trying to set rates far higher than anyone could be expected to pay in this day and age, or, the companies which could offer the service choose not to.
And they get upset when someone else decides to take the piece of the pie they were ignoring.
I am of the opinion companies only provide service where they know they will have substantial profits, or where their competitor would have profits if they did not compete.
They actively ignore those markets where the profit margin is less than perfect and there is no other significant competition.
If a significant portion of a town whats a service and the local monopoly does not choose to offer it, too bad, they had their chance. Replace them.
I completely don't understand many of the comments I'm reading here. How in the world can so many people claim that communities shouldn't do something that might compete with a company? The barnes and noble comment above is right on the money.
The first priority should always be to people, which are represented by the town's government. Corporations are always second to that. They certainly shouldn't have any right to complain about a municipality cutting into their business.
If the people decide to band together and blanket the town in wi-fi to improve the quality of the town, and to encourage people to visit common places, who are these companies to complain? The municipality is acting in the interests of the local people (or at least it should be). The company is acting in it's own financial interests. Why is there any question of who has priority?
I concur this report cannot be trusted because of conflicts of interest.
However, speaking with my economics hat on, the basic argument is absolutely correct.
If the state provides a service from tax dollars, it cannot be commerically provided.
This is bad, because commerical provision has two important properties; it's efficient, and it only charges those people who use the service.
State provision is invariably hideously inefficient and charges everyone, regardless of whether they use the service (e.g. tax).
The cost of a service should be born by those who use it.
State provision also removes choice of provider, since if the State provides the service, it cannot be commerically provided; the State is the only provider. This is very bad, too.
--
Toby
Eliminating them in favor a narrow private sector profit at the expense of all the other commuters is not in the public's interest.
No, but it IS in the best interest of Republicans who want the towing companies to profit so they can get "campaign donations".
I'm trying to think what this group would have said if they were on the OPPOSITE side of the debate, actually trying to push this kind of network.
"We need to think of the children. We need our children to be competitive and we need our technology infrastructure to be competitive with other countries. We are falling behind in education and technology. You aren't against children and education, are you?"
For heaven's sake! Look at our research and HELP the CHILDREN by purchasing us a wireless network!
Or even better... "This technology will enable small businesses to be created and to come up with new services. It would grow the local economy and produce jobs!"
Except that there's one problem: most of the municipal broadband/wireless projects were started because commercial interests (telcos and cable companies) weren't providing the service, or weren't providing it in the areas it was wanted. Usually this was because they couldn't make as large a profit as they wanted in the areas people wanted the service. It seems not in the public interest to cut people off from access to a service just because the commercial interests don't find them profitable. If the commercial interests don't find that acceptable, perhaps they should re-think their position.
It's also non-revolt.
If you're out of work, and your kids are starving, you're probably going to be willing to run amok.
And if there are a lot of you, people power happens.
Sorry. Vested interest and conflict of interest is of great consequence. It helps me tell whether they really believe it from an objective standpoint or are simply looking for personal gain. For certain parts of congested freeways, cars need to get out of there ASAP. I think it is one area that the government needs to get into for the safety of that driver and all the others on the freeway.
"Unlike private corporations governments have incredible methods of ignoring laws and worse writing new ones"
You ever hear of Enron? Or how about Comcast, who pushed through a law in Penssylvania making it illegal for cities to set up WiFi networks (they gave Philly an exemption to get the law passed).
Your distrust of government is warrented, my friend, but to suggest that corporations are any more trustworthy is ludicruous. Remember, politicians are motivated by desire for power, CEOs by power AND greed.
Yeah, call me cynical.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Freedom doesn't, but democracy does.
Take any group in society that doesn't have equality -- hell, make it a hypothetical so we don't get dragged into any of the particulars.
Any time the majority decides for everyone else, this is effectively what happens. If the three-foot tall blue guys can't get the right to vote, it's because the majority has 'exercised their freedom' to pass a law that isn't universally just.
It's not an indictment of the entire system of democracy. It's just an example of how democracy sometimes fills exactly the role you're mentioning. One just hopes that there aren't any really aggregious offences that the majority decides upon. Most democracies have some cheks and balances to keep 'em in line.
But let's face it --- I bet half of the voters in the US feel that Bush is the effect of other people 'exercising their freedom' to their detriment. Heck, I'm not an American and I didn't get to vote, but the whole rest of the world has to live with the consequences of the choices of half of the American voters.
It aint perfect, but it's the best we've come up with yet. But once the majority decides what's happening, those rules are enforced with the implicit threat of force by the government who is there to enforce them.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. If the majority want broadband, so be it. Don't like it, fight against it and become the majority. Nothing moral about it.
I laughed so hard I cried... :)
cost of a service should be born by those who use it?
--i don't use icbm's, but i pay for them.
--i don't own an automobile (public transit works for me), but i paid to build roads and highways.
--aren't insurance companies built on the premise that those who get the service have it paid for by everyone?
if the state provides a service from tax dollars, it cannot be commercially provided.
--you mean, like, transportation? govt provides buses and trains, but i see a lot of commercially provided cars.
--you mean, like, police? ever been to beverly hills? they got plenty o' commercially provided rent-a-cops running around.
--you mean, like, education? maybe you didn't go to a commercially provided boarding school, but you've heard of them, haven't you?
Otherwise, you will almost inevitably end up with economic stratification (the wealthy can leverage their wealth to become wealthier, the poor will have to do anything to survive, and the middle class will become poor as the wealthy take all their assets)
i don't mind doing a little redistribution to help people out, but i think your observation is not accurate. why can't the poor (and middle class and rich) advance? how is it that the wealthy take the assets of the middle class? i can only think of 3 (incorrect) reasons you might believe this:
1. there is a finite amount of money in the world and the rich people are hogging it all.
this is not true. new wealth is created all the time. when steve jobs invented the pc in his garage, he created new wealth that wasn't there before.
2. when a consumer purchases a product they "lose" their money to the producer.
when trade happens, it always benefits both parties. otherwise, they wouldn't agree to trade. both sides leave better off than they were before.
3. the rich steal it somehow.
if redistribution is supposed to make up for an unfair justice system, then shouldn't we fix the justice system and forget about the redistribution?
"Now you tell me, why shouldn't I be free to exercise MY will to refuse to participate in this program? If I don't have that right, then I'm not exactly free, am I?"
It's this kind of thinking that is slowly destroying the States.
Taxes are not a burden. Having tax money spent on things you don't agree with is a fact of life. No one has a right to profit, sometimes the state can and should work for the benefit of the people even when it costs some company potential profits.
Lets say I don't have a car, and walk everywhere, why should I play for roads? Why should I pay for highways? In many cases, majority rules is not rule of thumb, but comparing free wifi to cannibalism is just pure bunk. They aren't even close. If you don't like how 90% of your neighbors spend your tax money, you got two choices, vote/protest or move. I couldn't care less which one you pick, I'm going to keep living my life in a cooperative manner, and the anarchists parading as libertarians can go live in a cave.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Setting up internet access is exactly the same as murder?!
What a self-centric fool, isn't he? $100 says he's from an upper middle class family, drives a SUV bought and paid for by daddy's money, and has not a worry to the world.
Get out and experience the world kid. The majority is not like you (thank god). Life is hard. Money is limited. We have little old ladies in my town that cannot afford prescriptions, on top of food, taxes, basic utilities. If you sock them for an extra $100 in tax annually, what are you going to take it from? That's a month's groceries for you to get your high-speed Internet. Yes, you're killing people.
It is not freedom to gang up with others and steal from the weak or underrepresented. Did you think it was freedom for the southern white majority to decide that a small few should be slaves? The same party that supported the slavery of African Americans believes in the slavery of educated, professional americans. They want me to work as a slave for more than a half year (already got me at a third) for their programs that provide me no benefit.
Kindly pay for your own damn Internet if you want it. If you can't afford it, then get off your ass and work for a change.
All roads should be toll roads, period!I'm sure *everybody* is on board for that, right?
They already are. Didn't you know that?
Or did your license plate come free? Unfortunately too little is applied in vehicle license tax and too much from general funds (this is a Federal / State / Local issue where the Feds take the money from the states, apply all sorts of strings, then give the money back to the states for road programs. Factor in the cities and counties as well to this mix which derive most of their funds from local property taxes - this is PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE PAYING FOR THEIR OWN ROADS. Cluestick. Feds don't assign license plates so they've screwed up the model a bit).
I'm paying for roads that go to places I *never* visit.
Do you drive in Alaska? Hawaii? Or in all cities in your state? Probably not. When was the last time you licensed your vehicle in that state or paid property tax in other cities you don't own property in and visit? Again, the Feds have confused too many people on how the money flows, but roads are very much a state and local responsibility. Trust me, you're not paying for my roads.
If a municipality needs there to be WiFi across its jurisdiction for use by its operatives, subcontractors and employees, why should it not build out an infrastructure to provide that access? They might be able to make a case that it would be cheaper to own and operate their own infrastructure than it would be to pay for a service provided by a telco or wireless ISP. In that case, and as a side-effect, since it is after all funded by the citizens/taxpayers, it might well decide to make access free for all. It might not cost a whole lot more to put the capacity in place for everyone than for the few internal users.
The consequences of not paying that fee are a lot less severe than the consequences of not paying your taxes. :P
The Tennessee Valley Authority (www.tva.gov) is federal organization which supplies power to TN and parts of the surrounding states and created a governemnt-run monopoly in the region. It was started way back with FDR's New Deal. Similar arguments were heard back then and continue today. I'm sure back then some people wondered whether they should pay for someone else's electricity - it wasn't a neccessity, they could live without it right? Of course it's apples and oranges and Wi-Fi cant cook your food or heat your home...yet.
Sometimes the PROFIT of something isn't the cash reward but the ROI across the board.
cybrthng walks into a bank. deposits $1000. comes back two weeks later and wants to withdrawel his money. the bank teller hands him $50, to his dismay. "where's the rest of my money?" demands cybrthng. "what? you wouldn't want us to be worried about PROFITS would you?"
LOL. why is it "progressives" always want rules applied to everyone else but them? huh? lazy fscking hypocrites is all they are.
Public net access opens up a whole world of information to a lot of people. Sure anyone can go to the library now and use the computers there, but that's a much greater time burden.
We already spend a boatload of local money on public education. IMO, public wireless would be a significant boon with a relatively small pricetag.
E.g., If my neighbor can learn the symtoms of her tuberculosis infection before it impacts me, then I benefit indirectly.
There are several classes of information beyond medical which act this way: commercial product and service availability information makes local economies more efficient, access to what would otherwise require a trip to a public library cust fuel consumption, homeowner insulation and repair information saves resources and time, etc.
The problem with this sort of comparison--and virtually all comparisons, I'm afraid, that libertarians make that ever invoke the phrase at the point of a gun or something similar--is that it's assigning an ethical equivalence to requiring you to pay $10 more a year in property taxes or something similarly trivial and being put to death. This is utter nonsense.
In any given group there are infrastructure needs which simply make more sense to be funded collectively, even though there is probably no one single function that all members of the community will need. There will be some people who inevitably pay for services that other people use. But when they're paying for such a service, they're paying for something that they don't need right now but might at some other point--and might not be available cost-effectively, or even available at all, without spreading the burden around. And, of course, some of those services provide indirect benefits: even if you don't use that service directly, services that you do rely on may in turn rely on that common infrastructure.
Is it possible to envision a society with no common infrastructure costs? Sure. But it'd be a society in which all those costs are a lot higher for those who do use the services, and there's a great deal more difficulty for those who don't, and we're not talking about inconvenience--we're talking about no access to police, fire, water, sewer, roads and any other municipal service. Everyone in the society but those at the very top would be poorer, sicker and in more danger. The benefits of this "coercion" outweigh the incremental loss of individual freedom.
Municipal wireless obviously isn't a basic infrastructure need, and I can see arguing against it. But you know, that's the wonder of our government--people can go to town meetings and argue against what they consider to be stupid ideas, and anyone who watches local government knows that they do listen. (Anyone who watches local government knows that, in fact, citizen input is where most of the stupid ideas come from, too.)
(The Internet) was a tax funded 'luxury'.
Please let me dispel this myth. The Internet has never been a tax-funded system. Never. You may be thinking of DARPANET or NSFNET. These were "internets" due to their usage of the Internet Protocol, but have nothing to do with the commercial Internet you use.
I helped build the original commercial Internet in the early 90s. I started the first commercial network in my part of the country because our NSFNET regional demanded $60,000 per year for a 56 kbps connection to a Freenet we were building in a small town. This same regional had over twenty full time retired college professors who did nothing but make presentations and talk about how cool this Internet thing was. On top of this, the regional got taxpayer provided facilities at the universities, the universities paid the dedicated circuit bills, paid for the technical personnel to man the computer operations facilities, and even paid for the health insurance benefits for the regional employees.
My first 56 customer (frame relay, which was light years ahead of the regional's point-to-point model), paid $200 per month. We built it up to a $4 million/year business before selling it. The regional was acquired two years later and dissolved.
Incidentally, not one penny for my network came from "tax funding". Nor did UUNET, SprintLink, Netcom or the others build their networks from tax dollars. Perhaps one could call PSI's contract to administer NYSERNET "tax funding" but they'd be technically wrong.
It's the incumbent carriers that are dead set against this and probably fronting the study. I can't wait - if the old style big players don't start adapting they're going to fail. And I'm not pleased by the re-consolidation of telecom companies. I estimate that in five years there'll be one ILEC in the U.S. under the name AT&T.
"The cost of a service should be born by those who use it."
Oh really?
Ok, so let's do the following. First and foremost, REPEAL ALL TAXES OF ANY KIND. Second, we'll have to install toll booths on every road in the nation, near every intersection, and certainly and the beginning and end - just to make sure only the users of any given stretch of road have to pay for its upkeep. Then, we'll have to figure out how to bill for thinks like street lights, public toilets (remember the pay-toilets of the 1970's?)... let's also get rid of all federal funding for schools and make them all private. That way, only the students who go there have to pay for it.
All makes perfect sense to me...
The question that needs to be answered about municipal broadband is whether internet access can be lumped in the same class of services with water, trash removal, and sewer. Right now, I think the answer to that question is an unequivocal NO. However, that is changing slowly as more and more services absolutely require internet access. My prediction is that, in one more generation, Internet access will be handled ONLY by municipalities and governments as it will be a required component of public services - and people will need it just to survive as more and more life services become Internet-only.
> Except that there's one problem: most of the
> municipal broadband/wireless projects were
> started because commercial interests (telcos and
> cable companies) weren't providing the service,
> or weren't providing it in the areas it was
> wanted.
New services do not occur overnight. It took years for broadband to become generally available - despite the fact I was asking for it back in 1998. There is a limited supply of capital, and it will be invested in the areas of highest return first. Another issue is that the market in which telcos operate is by no means free; it is pervaded with perverse incentives, which leads to inefficient behaviour.
It could also be the case that the actual demand for the service is insufficient to make it economically viable. If this is so, then it is so. The State should not then allocate tax revenue to providing this service.
Consider; imagine placing a railroad to a remote village because a couple of people there want to travel by train to the city. A railroad company would never do it. It is crazy for the State to then provide such an expensive service for so few people; and it is pretty much the case that if a service cannot be provided economically by inherently efficient private companies, it most certainly will be provided in a grossly expensive manner by inherently inefficient State provision.
--
Toby
Are you then arguing that the cost of services should never be born by the users, but by all?
--
Toby
> --i don't use icbm's, but i pay for them.
You do in fact "use" them. They are part of the national defence. Your safety depends in part upon them, and you pay for that.
> --i don't own an automobile (public transit
> works for me), but i paid to build roads and
> highways.
This is indeed so, and it is improper. Why should you pay for something you do not use? note though you will pay for it indirectly (and rightfully so) in the cost of items or services that you buy which in turn use the road. For example, you pay for roads and highways in that the cost of funding roads is passed onto the consumers of public transports through part of the cost of the ticket.
> --aren't insurance companies built on the
> premise that those who get the service have it
> paid for by everyone?
This is a totally different case. I am refering to services such as State provided rubbish collection. Here, everyone pays the same amount despite consuming different values of service.
Insurance fundamentally is a risk sharing mechanism; a group of people agree to pay a certain value into a common pool which they can all draw from in the case that a loss occurs. The only people who pay are those who are benefitting from possessing the insurance.
> --you mean, like, transportation? govt provides
> buses and trains, but i see a lot of
> commercially provided cars.
Do you see commerically provided busses and trains in places where the State provides those services?
> --you mean, like, police? ever been to beverly
> hills? they got plenty o' commercially provided
> rent-a-cops running around.
This is because the State provides a general police service, which does not meet the needs of those people hiring private police; private police offer a rather different service, much more secure and often 24/7 in a given location.
> --you mean, like, education? maybe you didn't go
> to a commercially provided boarding school, but
> you've heard of them, haven't you?
Again, the State does not provide extremely high quality education. Those people who can afford such education for their children inevitably buy it. If the State provided high quality education, this would not occur.
--
Toby
-Tax dollars pays for the lines in the first place when no one wanted to build them.
-The lines become profitable and the utilities lobby to buy the lines at a consiterable discount from what the current value or replacement costs are.
-We now have the privilage of supporting an industry that has no problem accepting government handouts as long as its on the receiving end.
Yup that's the way it is.
If public services are all socialism, then why pay taxes? I was not born to make the rich richer, and I feel very sorry for you if you were.
Here's how I see this going: The town opens a city-owned wireless service, and everyone gets a better deal than they could get from a commercial provider. The service eventually begins to stagnate/deteriorate as city officials stop funding it properly, or refuse to increase funds to add features and/or take advantage of new technology. As budgets are cut (by inflation if nothing else) the service starts to suck, but everyone is still required by law to buy the service via taxes. Finally people will end up being over-charged for a bloated/inefficient/broken down service that they could get a much better deal on if they went with a private company - but there aren't any private companies in the area, because no one wants to bother trying to compete with a service that people are already forced to by somewhere else; rather like trying to open a GM dealership in a town where everyone is required by law to buy a Kia. What kind of service do you think you'll get at the town Kia dealership if the employees there know that you have to buy from them whether you like it or not?
Wasn't the internet itself originally a goverment project? If that's the case, you could make an argument that we've paid for it, we should have free access to it. Just a thought, I could be wrong...
I think we have a major disagreement, then. You seem to be arguing that when private companies don't find it profitable to do something, it shouldn't be done by government. I'd argue that government exists precisely to do things that are beneficial to the public but that private companies can't or won't do for whatever reason. If the voters don't want to pay the taxes for it they can make their wrath felt by voting the politicians responsible out of office. More often, though, the voters want the projects to proceed, because that's the only way they're going to get service.
I believe this is, in fact, given a name in the free-enterprise system: competition. If there's a demand for your services that you won't meet, a competitor will. I'm of the opinion that most of the opposition to these projects is of the form "But we don't want to have to compete for customers!".
1. new wealth is created all the time
uh maybe i wasn't very clear. what i was trying to say is that there is not a finite amount of wealth in the world. i wasn't trying to say anything about money. steve jobs created something of value. he didn't just print money. if he just printed money, then yes, there would be a problem of inflation, but he created value.
2. trade is always mutually beneficial.
i stand by my statement. thats not really a free market that you are describing. its a perverted circumstance where there is no competition for labor or goods.
3. redistribution and justice
i was trying to say that injustice is not a reason for redistribution of wealth. if there is injustice, than what we need is justice -- not wellfare.
the other stuff
the wealth of the world is certainly not constant. the average over all standard of living of the world is higher now than it ever has been and productivity is growing exponentialy. wealth is being created.
its true that capitalism doesn't guarantee equality. wealth is distributed to those who are most productive. this can change. some people become poorer and others become richer. this is a good thing. it means that there are no rigid class systems. and people are rewarded according how hard they work. its very moral.
the situation you describe where a minority ends up with all the wealth only happens when there is a broken justice system that allows the wealthy to steal money (for example via monopoly). capitalism does require a strong and fair justice system. but it certainly doesn't require redistribution of wealth!
About 15 years ago when I was doing more policy wonking than now, I got to know Heartland, went to some of its meetings, met directors and advisors and staff.
They are a think tank, basicly chicago-school economist types. They are aware that government spends a lot of tax money lobbying itself to get bigger and more instrusive, in ways that are bad for the economy.
For example, they have done policy studies showing that governments should not compete in the video rental business, and should not use tax dollars to build football stadia.
They cheerfully accept money from anyone but government, and try to target the people who have the most to lose from government horning in on industry. They do not write policy studies to please their donors, but will seek donors who are pleased by their policy studies. Their position on municipal wireless networks is wholely consistent with their overall preference for markets and the private sector.
Personally, I might not be opposed to government -issue wireless networks, if that creates efficiencies in things government insists on doing, like schools, and they aren't trying to monopolize the process.
But I certainly see where heartland is coming from on this. This is not astroturf, or industry hired guns. These are serious economists trying to inject a note of sanity into public policy.
802.11 wasn't meant for an entire town. Go ahead, waste your money. Industry will make 802.11 obsolete for this application when 802.16 matures.
A town in essence is a group of people who have gotten together because it's in their best interests to consolidate their efforts to make the best use of resources (ie roads, schools). If this group of people begins to see the benefits of locally-provided high speed access (albeit wireless) and votes on it, why shouldn't they be free to exercise their will and implement such a plan, assuming it will be affordable?
Yeah, that's why property owners get nervous when town governments start using words like "annex". Prefer well water to buying city water? Doesn't make a difference if the town forces you to buy their water. And aren't property taxes just wonderful? Isn't it great too when the county annexes your local school system and then starves it of funding?
If companies are allowed to make money, then my townsfolk should be allowed to work together to *save* money.
What they hell is stopping them, apart from the town council?
What next, bulldozing the library because Barnes & Noble wants to open up a store?
Is this supposed to be an argument? Any private library is going to be better than one that's frequented by pensioners who read nothing but cheap romance novels and homeless people. Try looking for up-to-date, useful computer texts at your county library some time. There's nothing to stop you from renting/borrowing books any more than you can rent videos apart from the fact that it's preferable to buy a used paperback than pay late fees. As for video rentals, they're in a decline as well. Why rent when you can buy? But I forget. Public libraries, however empty they are (thanks in part to rediculous hours, a stale atmosphere, and a sparse, random selection of books), are sacred cows. Fortunately, there's Barnes and Noble (unless zoning ordinances block construction of one).
Actually, there is. There is only a finite amount of stuff to own (no matter what monetary system you're using) - just by the fact that there are a finite number of atoms in the universe (and much fewer accessible to us on the Earth's surface). And the more stuff fewer people own, the less of it is available for everyone else to use (except by permission of the owners).
The circumstance he/she described is a natural consequence of unrestrained capitalism. There's nothing "perverted" about it.
A lot of that is because of "socialistic" practices which involve the redistribution of wealth. Unrestrained capitalism would have left a small number of merchant-emperors with the rest of the population in indentured servitude.
You are incorrect in your overall analysis. With unrestrained capitalism, people with wealth can leverage their own resources to earn more than people without wealth, even without being more intelligent or working harder. There will always be individual exceptions & cases where a rich person loses a huge percentage of their assets because of a bad decision, but the tendency is for rich people to earn more & faster than everyone else, just because they have more resources to do so. At a certain level of wealth, rich people tend to earn money without even needing to work - they pay other people a pittance to do the work for them.
In addition, because of their wealth, they can also absorb the damage that making a bad decision will cost them, without endangering their survival. Normal people who are living hand-to-mouth & trying to feed a family just can't take those kinds of risks, so they tend to play it safe - and as a result, can't take advantage of some of the incredible payoffs that a rich person can afford to take a risk on.
Without an active mechanism to force redistribution of wealth, rich people will inevitably end up owning just about everything that can be owned, and everyone else will live at their sufferance.
No, wealth concentration is a completely natural result of pure capitalism. No theft is required - just the diligent application of entrepreneurial principles, backed with lots of wealth.
_Capitalism_ doesn't - but a HEALTHY SOCIETY does. Pure capitalism does not lead to a healthy society. A healthy society requires an active mechanism for redistribution of wealth, to prevent economic class stratification.
BTW, I think you are making an assumption that "justice" will prevent class stratification. I'd be interesting in hearing the principles of "justice" that you are thinking of which can prevent wealth concentration without requiring the redistribution of wealth.
Residential Lite High-Speed Cable Access
3 Email Addresses
1 Dynamic IP Address 128 Kbps Upload* 384 Kbps Download*
$25.99/mo
AlamedaNET Basic High-Speed Cable Access
5 Email Accounts 20Mb of Web Space
1 Dynamic IP 128 Kbps Upload* 1.5 Mbps Download*
$32.50/mo
Personally, I'd be glad to pay for this, the low-end rate is what I'm buying right now.
However, if you'd rather pay more for less service from a good capitalist provider like comcast, feel free.
Tech Public Policy stuff
its not just about the atoms though. ideas have great value. a personal computer, for example, is worth more than a pile of the raw materials it is made out of. its not just the atoms that give it value, its the arrangement of those atoms. and don't forget the service industry. providing services, might just mean moving atoms around and often doesn't really have anything to do with the number of atoms in the universe. besides the universe is pretty big and i'm not too worried about that particular limit.
also you claim, the average standard of living of the world is higher now than it ever has been and productivity is growing exponentialy "because of socialistic practices which involve the redistribution of wealth." this statement does not mathematically make sense. redistribution of wealth could never create a higher average standard of living. that defies the definition of "average" and "redistribute". the only way to raise the average standard of living of the world is by creating new wealth.
these 2 graphs and the accompanying article back up my claims:
gdp per capita,
world population and production,
article (the last paragraph is especially relevant).
generally, i think that you are confusing the "free" in "free market" with anarchy. freedom and anarchy are different. i am not a proponent of anarchy markets -- certainly markets do not work well in a system of anarchy. at the very least you have to be able to enforce a contract. but more than that, i strongly agree with you that corporations (and governments, individuals, nonprofits) must be policed as they commit crimes from time to time. a society needs a strong and fair judicial system for a free market to function.
when people say "free market" they use the word "free" in the same way the founding fathers did. individuals and groups are free to act in any way they choose as long as it doesn't infringe on the freedoms and rights of others. that is the difference between freedom and anarchy. and that is the kind of justice that will prevent a rigid class system.
you gave the example, of a mining company which existed where there was not a good justice system. one of the things it did was force people to accept good and services at prices above the market price. clearly people in a free market would never accept those prices because in a free market they would be free to go to another store which wass offering goods and services for market prices. but since they were forced to accept these high prices, there was no freedom, no choice, and no market, and thats not capitalism.
i think your criticism of capitalism is unfair. you should criticize the individuals and groups who are criminals and who are imposing their will on others by engaging in bribes, slavery, theft, etc. or you could criticize a society's justice system. but i don't see how capitalism is in anyway related to or responsible for companies that behave badly. (capitalism doesn't kill people. people kill people.)
so it can only be concluded that a fair system of justice means that there is no reason for redistribution to prevent a rigid class system from forming from capitalism.
Well, "Free Market" means the free movement of mterials and information.
So, no copyright/patent/trademark.
Also, the money is a government fiction, so either remove mony or spread it out.
Get rid of tarriffs, grey import restrictions, EULA, NDA. CSS, broadcast flag...
You DO want socialism, it's only different bits of it you want.
That is the essence of all government. If you don't pay your taxes, they come with guns, and they take you to jail. Yes, by force. They may not come with guns at first. They usually don't, in order to downplay the fact that you are, indeed, facing deadly force. But the threat is not make-believe as you would have it. The threat is real, and that's why it works.
Government is the only organization that posesses the unique "right" to initiate force (yes, deadly force, if it comes to that) as a means to an end. Anyone else who does so is a criminal. That is the only universal, unambiguous definition of government, and will be, until the end of time. If government was voluntary, it wouldn't be government at all -- it would be free enterprise.
The fact is that if you decide to resist -- any law, not just the big ones -- you WILL eventually face deadly force. You can sugar-coat the promises of government until they rot, but you can't change the fundamental principle of government which is association by force.
You took his stuff. You pound him.
Heck, based on your boosterism here you should be touting his involvement. He's an experienced businessman, offering his leadership in a public forum. Right? And conflict of interest be damned! (Let's stack EPA regulatory agencies with energy company lobbyists, they really know the industry...)
The point being the government is now becoming directly in volved as a competitor to these towing companies at the tax payers expense.
Personally, if I ran a towing company I'd be wondering why I wasn't in a position to address this problem before the gov't got involved. I'd be kicking myself for creating the perceived need for those little trucks by providing such consistently bad service. It sure as heck doesn't seem like the tow truck industry has done jack squat to improve itself during my adult life, despite some very obvious problems with its services.
When you get a flat on the highway, the tow people require you to call them. (Please dial information and try to find a station near this exit. What exit is this? I hope that station has a truck...) You can't ever tell what the wait's going to be like for any one place you call. The whole thing's inefficient in a way that can be dangerous. (I live in Minneapolis, remember? Which means waiting around in 20-below temperatures can KILL YOU, leaving alone the busy highway traffic running by.)
By contrast, the government puts out a few small pickups that run around only during rush hour, giving people two gallons of gas or helping them fix a flat (or arrange tows -- gee, why is that necessary?) to get the road clear. The cost is minimal next to pothole fixing, the service is far more timely for the stranded motorist.
There are tradeoffs and "gotchas" to both public and private approaches to any problem. I've personally seen the effects of hard line regimes in both directions, and neither one of them impresses me much. Sorry not to be drinking the kool aid of one side or the other, but I think I'll stick with a balanced economy, thanks so much.
(And frankly, someone who says conflict of interest is meaningless in a legislator doesn't stand much chance of convincing me that we need more True Believers in the world.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I never suggested the threat was "make-believe," I suggested the comparison between people eating you in a life boat and being forced to pay a extra $10 in property tax is ridiculous. The fact that government is in a unique position to legally make your life miserable does not make a slippery slope fallacy less fallacious.
There are several quibbles I have with the "government is evil" mindset of the most dedicated libertarians, but you expose one inadvertently:
This contains a host of assumptions, from the explicit idea that governments are never formed or rejected voluntarily to the implicit idea that non-governmental organizations never have coercive, binding force. All of these are highly questionable assumptions indeed.
If libertarians were more willing as a whole to recognize that the problem with the potential use of force by government is a problem with any organization with a high concentration of power, I'd be a lot more comfortable with their positions. Government organizations undoubtedly have legal force that private organizations do not, but--at least in a representational form of government--there is an accountability to those affected by their actions that corporations simply do not have. (And if you don't think corporations can exercise lethal force and get away with it, you need to study history--even recent history--more closely.)
Remember, there are very, very few actions our government takes that are just done for the hell of it--there are people outside of government calling for those actions to be taken, and very often these actions are being taken at the behest of "free enterprise." If you want to save people from the government, you need to change who government is accountable to. Attempting to reduce government's functions without addressing accountability issues may well leave you worse off than before.
the comparison between people eating you in a life boat and being forced to pay a extra $10 in property tax is ridiculous.
What do you think would happen if you refused to pay that $10? First they'd impose a fine or two. Assume you ignore it. Then comes the threatening letters and phone calls, and if you still ignore them, the IRS arrives at your door. If you refuse to chat with them, they go away and the cops take over. If you refuse to open the door for the cops, they break it down, guns pointed at your face. If you decide to invoke force in defense of force, what happens then?
The comparison wasn't that absurd after all. Sure, $10 is "small fries", but that's irrelevant. The point is that deadly force is behind everything government does -- even the seemingly little things -- even if you can't see it at first.
As for megacorps and the ability to initiate force as a means to an end -- it wouldn't be possible without the blessing of government. Business cannot lie, cheat, steal, rape, or murder, unless the law allows them to (unfortunately it does exactly that, in too many circumstances). Otherwise they are criminals and should be dealt with accordingly.
Economic power is not the same kind of power that government is founded on. A business cannot hold you at gunpoint and demand that you purchase its products. Government, on the other hand, does exactly that, even if you can't see it at first.
You took his stuff. You pound him.
No, you didn't say you were a libertarian, but your phrasing and examples come across as extremely similar to a particular kind of fiercely anti-government, market-over-everything libertarian stance. If you feel that's a mischaracterization of your position, I apologize, but it's inherent in the concept of "law" that laws can be enforced, and most people don't seem to have an inherent problem with that notion. I have literally never heard the "all government power comes from the point of a gun" line from anyone who doesn't regard all government as tyranny. If you're using it simply to melodramatically make a point that government power is different from non-governmental power, I've not stated otherwise, although yes, it is my feeling that if you underpaid a tax bill for $10 the police would not be breaking down your door over it. (Speaking from personal past experience, given a choice between underpaying your city government and underpaying Citibank, underpay the government, because they will not put nearly as much effort into screwing you.)
To paraphrase George Washington: Government is not reason or eloquence; it is pure force.
The founders understood that government is the most dangerous thing that could ever exist, unlike most of our political leaders (and civilians) today. As history shows, the crimes committed by governments (of all types, including democracy/republic types) dwarfs the crimes committed by private individuals and groups. What could possibly be more dangerous than an organization that posesses the ability to initiate force legally?
So, to realize that government is founded on pure force is not paranoid or radical; it is the simple truth.
Now, there is a great and moral difference between the initiation of force and force invoked in self-defense. By the laws of human nature, the latter is moral and just; the former is not. Government, as I stated before, is defined precisely as the organization which posesses the unique legal ability to initiate force (any other individual or organization which does so is criminal).
And, sorry for being argumentive, but I tend to take these discussions very seriously. I am what you call an anarcho-capitalist. I believe that someday, perhaps 1000 years into the future, government will finally crumble and give way to a completely voluntary society. (What society could be more moral and just than one which is entirely voluntary, and only permits force in self-defense?) Libertarianism is only a stepping stone between oppressive government and the "holy grail", the voluntary society. Libertarianism, and freedom in general, is simply social evolution in progress.
You took his stuff. You pound him.