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."
Lobbying of governments by commerical organisations not completely transparent! News at eleven!
Astroturf is fake grass. In this case, it's a business funded organization that appears to be a grass roots movement.
Should the money I pay the government be used for something I want, would use, and enjoy?
I do security
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
It's interesting you mention this, since cable companies and telcos have long enjoyed exclusivity contracts, state subsidation, tax breaks, and all sorts of other preferential treatment. They're really upset that some people want to direct those advantages to a non-profit public service rather than the magical creation of a profit center for them.
Should private companies have to compete with a body that has limitless funds, manpower and preferential access to sell their product?
Should private companies be continuously allowed to hold a monopoly on an entire market and thus be able to charge whatever they see fit and treat customers in a manner that is the most economically feasible?
No. They should not. No one should be able to hold a monopoly on high-speed Internet services in an area (including the local municipality). Everyone should be able to freely compete. Sadly, that's not how it works.
While I love the theory of munipalities offering low-cost Internet service wirelessly I am worried about the implications of the local government then mandating what is and is not appropriate to traverse that transmission medium.
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 I pay the government be used for something I want, would use, and enjoy?
Of course not; everyone knows that taxpayer dollars should have gone to corporate coffers instead.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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!
Should the governing body of the land be held back from bringing the modern information age to the heartland of america?
I think that's the real issue.
If a private company wants to be competitive in areas that the government is already supplying the service, they will just have to step up the customer service and value added services.
Pretty Pictures!
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
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.
Gaah... I really need to refresh before I post to define things. I'm starting to sound like the guy who calls you up in the middle of the night to tell you he just got the joke you told him over lunch.
H'lo?
Dave! It's Mike!
Mike? Grmf... it's 3am!
"That's not my wife! I ride a unicycle!" WAAAAHAHAHA!
What?!
Best joke ever, buddy!
That was *six days ago*!!
Too funny, man... okay, have a good night!
I believe the idea of a wireless public network is great and hope it spreads to more areas soon.
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)
Should private companies have to compete with a body that has limitless funds, manpower and preferential access to sell their product? Discuss :)
Don't forget:
Has direct lawful (?) ability to have competitors taxed at a different rate than themselves.
Has direct lawful (?) ability to block competitors access to building/construction permits, right of way, etc.
Has direct lawful (?) ability to have taxes levied against competitors added to their own coffers.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Astroturfing in the political sense is fake "grassroots"
Which this is not. It's similar--shadowy funding buying a biased report--but it's not pretending to be a grassroots organization.
There ought to be another term for this. "Fakesearch" or somesuch.
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
Now, you might say that government owned and run Wi-Fi networks constitute "essential infrastructure" and since internet access is becomming more and more essential I would not argue against it. That is the reason we might choose to fund this sort of thing thru government not because it is "something I want, would use, and enjoy".
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
Should private companies have to compete with a body that has limitless funds, manpower and preferential access to sell their product? Discuss :)
Since when does any municipality have limitless funds? Hell every month the school board proposes a new budget that attempts to cut funding to the arts, and claim they're not receiving enough money from the county or state. They're closing fire houses. They're cutting police overtime. Unlimited funds and manpower? Give me a break.
Let the municipality build city wide internet access. Like any other city derived resource, it will be used by the less fortunate and the leeches who don't want to pay for something. The service will be nominally better than having none at all, but for many that's all they need.
Private companies will still compete because businesses still have needs. Individuals who want reliablity and accountability will still have needs that will only be met by a private company.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
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')
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.
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.
We would have no roads, because if they market requird roads, it would build roads.
a tion/ic.asp?tID=23&pID=85&issue=5&p=3&s=True&sT=Co mplex%20Financial%20Creatures
Actually, the market DOES build roads. They are Toll roads and Turn pikes. and are built using private funding only.
https://smart-tag.com/dulles_toll_road.htm
http://www.c-b.com/information%20center/transport
They have been around for a long time. Next argument please.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I was going to point that out in my comment, actually. This isn't astroturfing; astroturfing would be things like orchestrated letter-to-the-editor campaigns where the letters are sent by a small group purporting to represent many people (Parent's Television Council, anyone?), small communities of users swarming generally open polls to bias the results to their viewpoint, etc, etc.
There is a term for this obfuscated funding: it's called "buying your evidence".
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
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.
The scope of government should be limited to protecting us from force or fraud, providing for a common defence, and construction and/or regulation of essential infrastructure
What about public parks, public spaces, (even public restrooms) and the like?
They aren't "essential infrastructure" or "common defense" but they are management of a limited resource for the common good-- they provide something that many people "want, use, and enjoy".
"There ought to be another term for this. "Fakesearch" or somesuch"
I believe it's called "Business as Usual"
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!!!
Of course not; everyone knows that taxpayer dollars should have gone to corporate coffers instead.
It's not just that - our government is now in charge of confiscating the efforts of many and using the money to please the powerful.
The social security taxes of the young are used to buy off the votes of the elderly.
The income taxes of us all are used to buy off the votes of the welfare classes.
The teriff we pay on imports is used to buy off the votes of the protected Unions.
It's not just large corporations who gain when government is powerful.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
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.
No, the scope of the FEDERAL government should be limited to "protecting us from force or fraud, providing for a common defence, and construction and/or regulation of essential infrastructure ( e.g. roads )". If my small town gets together and agrees they're willing to [collectively, as a town] pay Betty to run a public day-care, we as the people of that town are well within our rights to do so. We can build a playground, too, if we like. We can choose to pull our resources together however we see fit and distribute it however we like, so long as it doesn't break any state for federal laws. If you live in my small town and don't like the decisions we make, you can either choose to live with it or leave.
For one, since they're talking about municipalities the concept of 'limitless' budget and manpower is incorrect. Cities have real budgetary constraints and most of their money comes form tax base. It's not like the US DoD has decided to do this, but smaller cities.
Second of all, sometimes the role of the municipality (or other levels) of government is to do something that is in the public interest but would be too expensive/fractured if done in the private sector. Think infrastructure like roads and water. Do you want to see "Bob's sewer system" not connecting to "Dave's swewr system"?
As to wether private companies should compete -- well, that's the thing. Private companies could compete in one model. In another model you say "we don't want 50 different bad attempts so we'll do one big-honkin good-enough attempt".
In this case it is private companies (according to assertions in this thread and in the original post) seem to have funded research saying that municipalities should stay out of this area and leave it to them to take care of. So, obviously, they agree with your assertion it is 'unfair' to them.
Discuss some more. =)
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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.
How 'bout "Resmearch" or "Resmirch"?
besmirch, v. To soil, discolour, as with smoke, soot, or mud; also fig. to sully, dim the lustre of.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
The libaries work. Our local roads are in good repair and they just got finished doing an overlay to make it smoother. The local DMV even goes out of their way to help me renew my license and gets it done expiediently.
The reason why many people want municipal broadband is becuase the local companies are not providing adequate service. The local telco may not want to build out to some neighborhoods because its not profitable, despite demand. Government could provide service with only minimal impact on the taxpayers as a whole.
...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.
Yeah, it's very strange. The only times I get modded flamebait is when I'm absolutely serious. I'm always shocked when it happens. But when I say something obviously ridiculous and obviously intended to flame, I get away with it.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
"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
I live in Pittsburgh. We don't have direct sunlight here, you insensitive clod!
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
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.
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
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.
..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.
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.
The problem is that you don't seem to understand English. See, "we" can sometimes be taken to mean every member of a group including me, or it can also mean the group which includes me, as a whole. Therefore, I can say "we've decided..." even if *I* didn't decide that, and even if I *disagree* with the decision.
No tax was imposed and no community member forced to support the playground expansion against his or her will.
That's great that y'all, *as a town*, decided not to levy a tax or force any contribution. I bet there was at least one person in that town who would have liked it to have been paid for with taxes, but y'all, as a town, still decided to go with voluntary contributions. See, towns get to make those sorts of decisions.
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.
And if you notice, I was stipulating that the Federal government shouldn't get into the ISP business. I would say, however, that if a city/town wants to set up some hotspots, and the citizens in general like the idea, that it seems reasonable to me.
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?
You're way off there, buddy. I'm more like the sort of guy who's willing to allow reasonable sucking off of my hard work, just so long as it's reasonable.
I'm more the sort of guy who strongly believes that contributions at museums should be voluntary, but always pays the suggested donation. Why? Museums are important, but not everyone can really afford to go. Really. Not everyone can afford to go. If you live in a city, public parks are REALLY important, but if you charged admission, some of the people who need them most couldn't afford it. Playgrounds too. Public transportation too. And you know what, it's not all altruistic. If you took all the public services out of my city, the city turn into a zoo. Even when I don't use these things, I still get a benefit.
Truth is, I would more happily pay $70 a month for citywide WiFi that gives everyone access than pay $60 a month for an ISP that gives me, alone, citywide access.
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 driving competitors out of town.
Yeah, and it seems (from your post) that the guys in your state are running fiber to the home, which is a pretty daunting task. Why not use more conventional methods? Why not contract the work out to a number of different ISPs, therefore *not* driving local ISPs out or denying competition?
What I'm saying is, I find it reasonable for a town to choose to figure out some way to provide free Internet access for it's citizens. That is not the same as saying it's a good idea to do it in a stupid way.
Choice is a big thing. If there is no choice then governement owned is better. Look at the various monopolies for utilities. Water seems to always be in the hands of the government and it sems to be fairly reasonably price controlled. In most areas electric is so heavily goverment regulated that it might as well be government owned. Look at California for what happens when it becomes privatized. Then look at cable. Private and the cable company is the very definition of price gouging monopoly.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
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 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
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.
A bar in my hometown had a bumper sticker: "We screw the other guy to pass the savings along to you."
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
"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
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?
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.