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."
Astroturf is fake grass. In this case, it's a business funded organization that appears to be a grass roots movement.
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!!!
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
"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 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.
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.