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."
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!!!
"If you want it, you pay for it. Don't force anyone else to pay who doesn't want to. "
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
Using your logic, we should just charge people who want the service. Need the fire department? Well, they are currently billing at $85/hour/firefighter plus equipment and supplies.
We are a society, if as a society, a city decides it is in their best interest to buy WIFI, and you do not, either: a-vote out the officials or b-move to another city.
One thing I've learned as I've gotten a little long in the tooth at the ripe old age of 33, is that the world is not full of black and white issues, and there are a near infinite amount of shades of grey.
I used to consider myself a dyed in the wool libertarian or Liberal with a capital 'L' in the Milton Friedman school.
A funny thing happened on my way to the University of Chicago though...I noticed the devastating effects of often capricious capital flows across the globe ala the Asian Crisis, corruption and capitalism at its very worst in the former USSR, and the debacle in utility deregulation that came to a head with Enron.
In many cases, I am still all for unfettered markets, free trade, and the endless drum beat of globalization. I've also come to realize that markets left to themselves don't always work themselves out with the invisible hand.
I am still a libertarian on many issues, but have come to dislike labels, and reducing one's beliefs to a pigeonhole. I'd like to think the tapestry of thought is a little more complex than that.
My point is just because someone is in favor of a public project in one particular area shouldn't brand them automatically as a 'socialist.' Life is a lot more complicated than throwing labels around.