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!!!
> 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!
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.
"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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
I seriously doubt you've never used the fire department or the police department. Has your house burned down? No? Does it conform to local fire codes? Do you think that fire codes are completely unrelated to the fire department?
Is your neighborhood under the constant threat of attack from roving mobs? Do you think, perhaps, the police department may have something to do with that? Do people drive whatever speed they want while throwing litter out of their windows on your street?
Do you honestly believe that the services you do admit to using just magically poof into existance on "Roads [withing] the 1/2 mile to the interstate and around friends and family". Do groceries get beamed into your local supermarket? Does the garbage man take your garbage to a half mile away and then launch it into the sun?
Never confuse volume with power.
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.
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
...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.
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
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.