Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Muni Broadband Bills Country Wide
Ant writes "Broadband Reports says that 14 and possibly more states that have or will pass(ed) bills banning community-run broadband. Free Pass shows a map breakdown of the states while Tallahassee.com takes a look at a newly proposed bill in Florida, backed by Sprint, BellSouth, Verizon, and Comcast, designed to bog down the muni-development process."
Here in the Land of The Free (i.e. Western Europe), we allow our local/community governments to do what the electorate want them to do.
Aren't we naive....
If there was as much money in building and running "Community Clubs" I'd wager the big corps would try taking over the basketball courts and hockey rinks. All so the locals have more choice, you know.
Trolling is a art,
A good compromise would be to ban municipal wireless internet access unless no provider has established a commercial wireless internet access within 2 years.
Yeah, this is bullshit. Why not pass a bill that forbids commercial broadband providers from cornering the market and disallowing startup competition.
Oh wait, that would fall under anti-trust territory and we all know that "utilities" are basically exempt from that.
From TFA: "A bill limiting Internet offerings by government entities is back for legislative consideration..."
No rest for the weary. Even if its voted down, it will just come back at the next opportunity. That is why we don't get tired or frustrated, we stand strong and casually vote this crap down as many times as we have to.
Obviously community internet will lead to community controlled media eventually squeezeing out cable/phone and every other communication medium. I don't blame the companies one bit. But I will blame the government if they let this happen.
but on the other hand, I don't like rules that forbid a municipality from doing something which could benefit its citizens.
While in the vast majority of instances, it might be appropriate to ban a city from setting up its own ISP, there might be a few towns which are being ignored.
We have towns like that in my northern state. My father lives in a town with no broadband, heck, with NO local dial-up! To say that city can't set up its own ISP is ludicrous. The private sector has had decades to set up something but they've failed to even take notice. The city should be able to take action "for the common good" to set up its own.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Ah, yes. The free-market system, unfettered from legislative "regulations". Behold its efficiency! Marvel at its ability to out-compete any misguided "Big government" attempts to duplicate that which the market can provide!
Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
Id love to contribute to making my community a better place like that, but unfortunately it will be illegal soon. I will never understand how these laws get passed when it is obviously about money and money only. We can't build a MAN because it might cost some gigantic coroporation money? That is outright bullshit in my book. This is effectively censorship if you look at it right. What really gets me is how they think they can really stop us. What are they going to do? Bust down my door and take my WIFI router away? Throw me in prison for building a network? This is way out of hand allready, and I don't think this kind of shit is going to stop until were all in jail and there won't be anyone left to defend the majority Big Mac eating populace from their own stupid apathy.
You are about to give someone a piece of your mind, something which you can ill afford...
Do you call this good? While I'm not 100% in support of community run networks (mostly due to the fact that there aren't enough smart people to run them securely in most communities), I think this illustrate the point quite well that governements no longer have power, the businesses do. After all, who has the most money? Your governments (state local and federal) or businesses? Considering the huge debt at the federal level and the deficits at state and local levels, my money (hehehe) is on the businesses controlling the most funds. And they say we have "big government", hah! It seems that during the past decade, as the tech sector has grown tremendously and gained the most wealth in a short time, more and more "laws and legal decisions" have been bought by them. We are headed rapidly for the corporate feudal system with our governments being democracies only in name. Wake up... we're only a few steps from complete fascism.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Nope - it's not about the money. It's about control. This would make my open WiFi node illegal, closing one of the few remaining anonymity gaps on the 'net.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
So why not make it commercial and charge 1 cent for 1 year. If the law sucks, flex it.
Why can't the communities register broadband companies and run them in a style similar to mutual societies or worker's co-operatives?
easy- because that doesn't generate revenue for the 100 companies that run america
As an employee of one of the listed companies, I don't care whether you use a municipal broadband connection or not. But don't complain to me when all you can get is analog cable or regular dial-up phone service in your neck of the woods. No company is going to want to invest in a town where the government maintains an internet, television, or telephone network.
It's not just that they don't want municipalities competing against them -- they don't want groups competing against them who have open books.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I think what's going on is that we're fed up with the DSL/Cable duopoly, which is entirely understandable because they're doing a bad job with bad customer service at high prices. There are few companies I hate more passionately than Time Warner Cable. And, yes, I'm including Microsoft. But to then go running off to mommy and da....oops, I mean government officials...crying "Fix it! Fix it!" is a little short sighted.
Isn't what we really want just more competition? I guess I'd rather see government, whether local, state, or federal, offering various non-permanent subsidies to businesses that wanted to offer competing broadband capabilities. Perhaps only making those subsidies available in communities where current providers failed to meet certain service/price targets.
Actually, I was trying to be Insightful, not Funny.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm actually a little surpised to see Slashdotters so eager for the goverment to jump into this. Do we REALLY think the Government can do this better/more efficiently than private business? Forever? 'Cause that's what it will be.
I don't think the differences are so significant as to be noteworthy, and the benefits for the community are great. I know it's trendy to believe "government is always bad", but it's not always true. I've worked in enough corporate environments to know how screwed up and inefficient they can be.
Isn't what we really want just more competition?
Sometimes. But competition isn't the end-all be-all. Sure, it works great. Most of the time. But not all of the time.
I don't get the dreamy types who want the government to run something technical? Most people on /. are bloody paranoid about government abuse of power, spying, etc. Why on EARTH would you want the government building a muni network?
Personally, I think muni networks stifle innovation. Sure, there are the exceptions, but on the whole, most muni networks are a day late and a dollar short. Who wants their local network run by a committee that hasn't ANY CLUE about technology? Worse, they'll hire some crooked contractor to administer the thing, and offer incentive-based pay to keep costs as low as possible. I've seen government contracts like these, and they frequently accomplish the opposite of what they were intended, and the politicians who are responsible are long gone by the time the full effects are felt.
Which would you rather have? 3 or 4 companies vying to offer broadband? A little competition, different features, upgrades every few years? Or a local government that bought a white elephant from the lowest bidder? And then have it governed by a group of politicians who are non-technical glory hounds, probably bought off by the white elephant equipment vendor?
Hmmm. Tough choice.
Do you really want your next door neighbors telling the city that they don't want anymore upgrades because they don't care? Or would you rather vote with your pocketbook and choose from a selection of providers?
-- No sig for you!
...have a problem with government controlling access to the Internet? Anyone at all?
I know this is Slashdot and we're supposed to hate big buisiness and everything, but isn't government-provided Internet access just a bad idea? First off we have the fact that government can always undercut the opponent and hide the costs in taxes; few will ever complain. So clearly there's the risk that in the end we'll end up paying even more for broadband than we used to. Second, once government is involved, this throws the door wide open for "concerned mothers" to start lobbying for state-, county-, or city-wide controls on the content. You know how draconian those content filters are at government-run schools? In all likelihood these will go on municipal broadband offerings, too.
If it's like any other government service, it will be poorly and insecurely run, slow to respond (for instance, blocking ports to stem the spread of viruses), and twice as expensive as anything else. And by the time it's in, we'll be stuck with it for the rest of eternity (Amtrak, anyone?).
No comment.
I don't really understand the hue and cry from folks on this forum to have their broadband run by the a local government. Aren't you just trading one monopoly (the telco's and cable company) for another (the municipality)? In the latter case, it strikes me that you don't have the choice not to pay the government, where as if the telco and/or cable company sucks, you can decide not to pay them, which gives them an incentive to at least make sure that there service doesn't suck too bad. But with the gov't I don't see what incentive they'll have to provide good services. You're legally required to pay your taxes whether the service is good or bad.
Personally, where I live, I wouldn't mind seeing the gov't reeled in a bit. That way that can't force my neighbor (who is happy as a clam w/out broadband) to subsidize my broadband. If my broadband provider starts to suck, I'd like the option of not subsidizing someone else's broadband. I don't see any way to do this latter part if it's run by a gov't.
For a group of people strongly opposed to monopolies (e.g. micorosft), I don't really understand why you'd prefer to have some other monopoly (e.g. the local gov't) running your lives.
Is there something obvious that I'm missing?
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
I realize this is a joke, BUT...
I supported/support the war in Iraq, and voted for Bush twice. (Once in each election, just so people dont start screaming about diebold).
That being said, I think his and most every other politician's stand on intellectual freedom issues is wrong. They don't understand the issues, not many citizens do either. They look at it from a short term economic standpoint. They see how free wifi hurts companies short term, but fail to see how a connected society helps long term.
I would love for there to be a unified opposition to this, without dragging all the rest of politics into it. It really is a purple issue (Red and Blue combined... im so savy, I should be a news analyst)
On the subject of excessive basing of Americans, I found this article rather interesting. As a European, I find the unthinking anti-americanism around here distasteful... even though it can be fun at times :)
I'm actually a little surpised to see Slashdotters so eager for the goverment to jump into this. Do we REALLY think the Government can do this better/more efficiently than private business? Forever?
Yes.
This recorrent myth that "private business" is always more efficient and beneficial for the user doesn't even stand a chance under a closer look. I find it hilarious that these great saviours, the "private businesses", need good old government interference to forbid any effort of providing a community and/or municipal WiFi network access. I private business is oh so much more efficient, why do they need these? Their obvious higher quality and pricing should be enough right? Except that they are there to maximize their profits, not primarily to provide a service. If they can (and they always can, with the power that big business has over the corrupt politicians) keep prices high and provide shitty service, they will. Only if the bottom line is affected is the behaviour changed, and even then, trough price fixing and other cartle like tactics, nothing substantial changes.
Internet access is becoming important enough to constitute a basic necessity (education wise, for example). As such the State should provide it. If private business can top the State offer, that's great! But, as the British pension fiasco showed, they seldom can.
I'm not from the USA though, so I lack that "Sheriff and a saloon and many guns!" kind of view on individual liberty as opposed to colective beneficts dispensed by the Government.
Government frequently does the job better than private business.
A recent study (I heard it on NPR) showed that the government-run VA provided better health care than the private competition. Something about knowing the patients would come back, enabling them to focus more on long-term and preventitive care.
Social Security spends less on administration than most private retirement plans. And they provide expensive-to-manage disability insurance as well.
Medicare and Medicaid provide health services with far lower overhead than private insurance companies; IIRC, spending 3% of revenues on administrative expenses vs. 30%. And that's with "free market competition".
When the private supplier has a monopoly position, watch out. The suppliers are maximizing their profit, which means high prices and expensive service has to be justified by the revenue that it brings in (or the revenue that would be lost if they didn't).
"Government subsidies" are another name for corporate welfare. And you can claim they won't be permanent, but they will end up like copyright, renewed and extended every time they're about to expire.
I can imagine that in smaller communities and perhaps larger ones, that 'local decency groups' would force local elected officials to censor objectionable content. Since they would be you ISP it would be easy to administer community standards. I can imagine that political hacks in charge of the network creating 'routing problems' which block opposition candidates, or the local rumor mill. Heck the local police could check on your email, or see which sites you visit. While larger communities might have good separation, smaller ones might even have the police dispatcher as the overnight server support!
I think that these laws should be written to include 'fair access' in the same way that local telephone companies are starting to open their own access, sort of a carrot and stick approach.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Individuals have all the same rights. But companies have more rights then individuals.
That's the so called democracy in the United States.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
Learn politics. The local government is the orginised expression of the community. The whole purpose of the local government is to reprisent the comunity and take care of issues related to the community. If the local governement can do it cheaper than business, then so be it. Business better learn to compete.
By the way, the lack of cheap Internet access stalls the local economy. So it's in the best interest of community businesses to support community networks
They could. But then they would have to get people to invest a lot of money to buy equipment and get started, which is difficult. And they would have to charge monthly fees, which in the long-term could be highly competetive with commercial providers. But they could not operate at a loss, or provide free service. Governments can. And subsidizing utilities makes sense in some situations.
What really gets me is how they think they can really stop us.
... making it completely obvious that certain laws are illegitimate if they constantly make most of us criminals.
Yes, they can. Why does the state think they can stop you from shooting up some heroin (or stop you from looking at kiddie porn (or stop you from copying music)), in the privacy of your own home?
What are they going to do?
Detect wireless networks and prosecute. They can simply issue fines on the basis of a triangulated detection on your residence. They can then advance this concept by issuing blanket search warrants, which leads to police knocking on your door and confiscating equipment.
Bust down my door and take my WIFI router away?
That's unlikely to occur. It's overall better to simply fine you. They may also knock, and demonstrate that their detection equipment shows that your home is the problem, hence they have probable cause, so please open the door, Sir, or we'll have to force entry. Chances are, the scared little White boy (the probable target population for wireless crime) is going to open the door, and he's going to get fined, lose his equipment, and maybe be arrested.
Throw me in prison for building a network?
Yes. It's more likely, however, that they'll fine you. Fines are nonviolent, bring in revenue, and avoid all that nasty uncertainty of actual court action (in which a jury might actually decide you are not morally guilty of committing a crime).
The government just loves to illegalize the things that people tend to do for themselves to bring pleasure and capability. In America, this is trending sharply upward, so we must now as a class consider our positions as constant criminals. I look forward to the magic day when cops will just say "ah, screw it" and routinely ignore things
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Because the high-cost American CEOs would howl through the mass media (that they own and operate) that communities doing so would be Communism! And Communism is Bad. Unamerican. "Worker's co-operative".. that's Socialism! Which is tantamont to Terrorism! Off to gitmo for you...
"This would make my open WiFi node illegal, closing one of the few remaining anonymity gaps on the 'net."
Actually it would not. These are laws preventing governments from providing internet. This is about telcoms and cable providers not wanting to compete with governments for customers.
I kind of have mixed feelings about this. I am not sure I want to subsidise internet service on the government level. On the other hand, the information gap for low income people is a huge disadvantage in seeking employment. Also I take advantage of free WiFi at airports and libraries when I travel. Technically that would be considered government provided internet. I would not want to lose that service. Maybe the answer is a tax incentive to providers to subsidse low income families' service. I am of the opinion that free enterprise can always provide a service cheper than a government bureaucracy.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
Private business can frequently provide services at a lower cost _to_themselves_ than the government. Because they can always jettison the high-cost areas.
That has nothing to do with lowering the cost _to_consumers_. Competition does that. Which is why the local unregulated monopolies have to do anything in their power to stop competition.
"How can you sit back and trust your local or state government to deliver this service?"
Whether I do or don't is immaterial.
The real question is:
As a resident, as a citizen, isn't it my right to empower my local government to deliver WiFi/Broadband if I desires?
Perhaps I think my local government does do a good job delivering services.
To me, the argument about essential versus non-essential services is interesting, but not at all relevant to the discussion here.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I'm not from the USA though, so I lack that "Sheriff and a saloon and many guns!" kind of view on individual liberty as opposed to colective beneficts dispensed by the Government.
Wow, that has got to be the scariest mind set I have ever read. Welcome to 1984, The government KNOWS what's best for you. You have no desires that are not prescribed by your direct officials. Hey, it's a brave new world.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Even more than that, these are state laws preventing any municipalities from funding and operating information services.
Yes, when there is competition, the municipalities often can not compete, but there are places in my state where there is no way it would be cost efficient for a cableco or telco to operate a broadband service.
Take for example, Borden County, population 729 - for the whole county. At what point is there any busines motivation to build the infrastructure necessary to allow access to broadband. Even if all 729 people paid $50 a month, how long would it take, at $36k a month, to pay off the necessary build-out?
That is the point where municipalities need to get involved - not as competition to businesses providing a service, but in place of the businesses when there's no service to begin with, and none likely in the future.
The only way to get around that would be to mandate, at the state level, that if municipalities are not allowed to build their own infrastructure, that the businesses MUST provide it where requested.
I toggled a toggle and buttoned a button, but when I got done, I was done doin' nothin'.
Thoreau, where are you now? We need you to show Americans how a good man can stand up for justice and refuse to allow himself to be dominated by a government that prefers to give the public empty rhetoric rather than the freedoms to be good people and decent neighbors.
There is more at stake here than having to pay higher prices for broadband. What we have here is the government moving in to protect private interests who want to CONTROL the Internet; to inhibit free speech and deny users access to the single greatest resource we possess for enabling and maintaining a true global democracy. Do you really want AOL/Time Warner and Verizon dictating the terms we can access the Internet? Of course our well-bribed officials are siding with the multinationals; they know which side their bread is buttered on. It's time to show them what happens in America when the public gets fed up with corruption and a so-called elective system of government that offers taxation without representation.
I'd like to see them start arresting communities in masse and try to justify that to their electorate. Good luck! If people would just stand up for their rights, we wouldn't have to worry about crap like this.
Our grandfathers and great-grandfathers DIED for our freedom. Are we willing to go to jail for it?
Try to name three things the Government does good
1. Water
2. Power (electric)
3. Sewer
There's a long history of goverment doing each of these cheaper and more reliable than the for-profit companies that take over when these utilities are privatized.
I posit that current anti-americanism is not a "hate America" or "hate Americans" posture, but "hate the imperialist behaviour of the current American government" in the name of the American people. I think Blair is being a dickhead too, but I don't translate that into a blanket anti-British feeling.
If the cable/DSL duopoly isn't interested in serving an area, why should they get to whine when the local government steps in to fill the need? The demand is clearly present, or the city fathers wouldn't bother either.
Then add the provisions that apparently hinder public websites for city/county/state government, and you REALLY have to start wondering.
This is a big problem with how capitalism has been going. When there is competition it's a win, but when there is little competition we end up with oliopolies and monopolies, and they will charge as much as they can get away with to maximize their profit. I'd argue that having a single company control a business is much worse than having the government control it, as at least theoritically the government can provide the service at a fair price, whereas without competition the business will not.
I do have some qualms about government going into business's that are handled by the private sector, besides the big brother issue. The main issue is that the if the government wants to allow there to continue to be a private market, they have to ensure they don't charge less than what it costs to provide the service. In the case the parent post provides, it appears they have not run out the competition, which is a good thing. What I'd like to see is for industries such as this where the government wants to do something about unfair prices, the government help setup co-ops that would be self-sufficient after x number of years. As long as there is a rule of (at minimum) self-sufficiency, private enterprise should still be able to thrive.
I find it hilarious that these great saviours, the "private businesses", need good old government interference to forbid any effort of providing a community and/or municipal WiFi network access.
/.er to explain. If they are so against the government regulating industry, why would they be for industry regulating government? And if corporations could do it cheaper, what is wrong with letting government do it, and then if they are correct the gov't won't be able to compete?
Good point. And one that I would like the average Randian Libertarian
Though if we had community cable/broadband, and it cost a couple bucks more, I'd choose it over the telco or cable company, just to support my community. I doubt that most people would do this, though, caring more about their pocket books than the state of where they live. If my neighbor takes my money for service, I view that as a better situation than some rich ass living in New York or California taking it.
But then again I live is a rather small violently liberal community, one that passed a law to keep superwallmart out, and from undercutting the locally owned buisness.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
You do realize that the government doesn't have their own money right? Ultimately, in the end, we are going to have to pay whatever it costs to provide the service in taxes. So if it costs X to provide the service and they charge Y to users, the other X - Y is just going to be made up in taxes. So people who don't even know what WiFi is will be subsidizing our browsing (not to say we don't subsidize things all the time that we don't use). The real question is can the government really provide this service cheaper than private business and how do we determine exactly how much the goverment is spending to provide the service. That is the problem with private businesses trying to compete against the goverment.
The local governments are wanting to provide Wi-Fi because the telecom monopolies are sitting on their asses and not providing it because of various reasons.
The second issue is in the areas where the telecom monopolies are providing it, they are the only choice and are charging too much. If the government wants to get involved, contract out the data infrastructure. Don't leave it in the hands of a Verizon to control everything.
Which scenario is better?
Scenario A: Verizon runs fiber to my house. Verizon is my only choice of ISP. If I want another ISP, they have to run a separate fiber line to my house. Nuts!
Scenario B: Gov't awards job to contractor to run fiber to my house. I can choose from multiple ISP's for my service over this fiber.
1) Yes, I can drink the water. Tap water in the US is some of the best in the world. I can drink it without getting parisites, large doses of heavy metals, or other nasties. Most tap water contamination in the country comes not from the municipalities, but from old lead pipes in people's houses.
2) What? Mix ups? No. Corruption, yes. I would hardly call Enron a 'mix up'.
3) Yes, taxpayers are paying for sewer. But they are paying less in property tax than they would to a private corporation (at least, this is the point of the parent).
Let me add a forth item (one with which I am intimately familier, but which you probably don't know or care much about):
Historic and cultural preservation. Before the government will give money or land to any project (i.e. mining, foresting, &c.), the leaders of that project must ensure that they are not adversly impacting the environment (or, that if they are, they mitigate the effects of their project -- i.e. mine reclaimation). Part of this is ensuring that our cultural heritage is not lost (i.e. protecting archaeological sites, old buildings, &c.).
I have worked for the government, and have seen what it costs the government to do the work. There is some overhead, but because there are many people working on many projects at any one time, the overhead devoted to historic preservation is fairly low. Furthermore, the government pays less in wages than private contractors. I have seen the contracts, and the feds can do this kind of work much more cheaply than private industry. However, government regulation requires that a certain amount of the work is contracted out. To the lowest bidder.
Rhapsody in Numbers
I don't get the dreamy types who view the government as some huge outside force that is imposed on them.
We are the government. We hold the power (responsibility?) to change things. If the government was considering building a municipal network in your area, as a technologically adept citizen, what would stop you from getting ahold of the people responsible, and having a sit-down talk with them about the proper way to do it? What would stop you from volunteering to administer or advise this project? What's stopping YOU from being the contractor that runs it?
Instead all I can see in this post is three paragraphs of complaints modded insightful, with not one solution proposed. That makes the parent only half a post.
Everything breaks down when everyone expects everyone else to deal with problems. So, now that the paranoid flag-waving is out of the way, I look forward to reading the solutions you propose to the problems you outlined above.
Or maybe someone else will do it for you.
Can you actually drink your tap water?
Yep. There's nothing unhealthy in it. It sometimes has a metallic taste, so I'll run it through a filter on my end, since _ANYONE_ sending water through miles of metal pipes will result in water with a metallic taste.
Please actually do some long term research rather than just pointing at messed up transitions pains.
I have. Have you? Muncipial power companies in CA were forced to privatize their serves. They're still paying tons more per KWh. So how many years will this 'transition period' last? Oh, btw, in other countries were the power grid was privatized as much as 20 years ago, they still pay a ton more per KWh (even taking inflation in to account).
Just because you don't see the $100 a month to pay for something doesn't mean it isn't there.
Well, as a municipal utility you get to see the books. If you want to know how much of your taxes are going to subsidize it, you can simply read their annual reports.
Every municipal utility I'm aware of cover their day-to-day expenses from their service fees. Some do get government funding to help for captial improvements, but many private utilties also get government funding for captial improvements.
I am of the opinion that free enterprise can always provide a service cheper than a government bureaucracy.
Unfortunately, in the majority of these markets it is not "free" enterprise, it is basically a monopoly. If the market can provide the cheaper/faster access people will choose it over the muni access.
You pretty much got it. And the US still has huge areas that are offered zero broadband, nor are they going to be offered broadband from the private concerns anytime soon. It seems it's OK to have government run and regulated roads, so that the stuff we get from the non broadband served areas can get into the cities, but the stuff from the cities out, run over much cheaper wires, seems to be "controversial" and "it wouldn't pay" and is "too expensive". We can have "broadband" government run water pipes into the cities, but not broadband data pipes out. Hmm, isn't that special. Perhaps the people not served with broadband in the rural areas should shut their water that they have been getting ripped off for for generations down to a trickle (analogous to dialup) going into the cities and see how everyone there liked that. And when they complained direct them to the data pipe monopolists for a solution. A pipe is a pipe, they both serve a purpose and having "enough" beyond a marginal intermittent trickle is sure a good thing. And privatise it and really make a huge profit on it, no local government involved. Oh, joe big city wants more water and have it cheap because it's useful? Well, no problem, build your own pipelines then, or pay the fee like it should be. Without tax money. Purchase each individual right of way from each rural land owner that the pipeline crosses. Let's do it with natural gas as well. See what it costs the end user in the cities for water and heating gas then. Oh, they like electricity? Swell, let them start their own coalmines inside the cities, and build their own genplants, all private run, but inside the cities only. Any coal from outside has to pay each individual landowner a fee for crossing his property on his stretch of private road, or his stretch of private train tracks. Let's let the rural folks who's lands the powerlines cost all individually negotiate the fee for allowing those electrons to slide on by on their property. Would make for some interesting cost increases then. The rural folks would have enough money to pay for their own fat data pipes then, but now? Nope, they get ripped off for critical products, forced by law to "share" what they own so that the huge dense population areas can have cheap and plentiful. Food? No problem, they got all them big buildings downtown, maybe Verizon and Bellsouth HQ rooftops can have gardens on them to supply their "profitable" broadband customers with food too.
The FCC "allows" 50,000 watt commercial stations, and industry cookie-cutter "content" monopolisation, yet joe schmoo little local guy out in the sticks can hardly get "permission" to run a 10 watt community station without the licensing fees costing more than the hardware, and don't even think about it being a commercial venture. Now they want to disallow any attempt at all to even have a chance at broadband when it has become obvious that the big guys just will *not* move it to places it's not at already? And the only bone they can throw is 802.11x with that pitiful range, and even that wouldn't be "allowed" for a community to run itself?
Nuts. Large corporate run government, gotta love it.
Would that be the freedom to photograph bridges and subways without being harassed by police, or the freedom to enter the country without fingerprinting? Perhaps you meant the freedom to grow and ingest psychoactive plants? Lest I forget, the freedom that comes with puritanical views on sex?
Oh. You meant the freedom to make lots of money without having to pay onerous taxes. How....visionary.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
They do have a point, in that governments are allowed to run systems at a loss, indefinitely. No private enterprise can compete with the right of governments to levy taxes.
I think the best way to go is akin to Utah's Utopia Project. The state takes out some municipal bonds, lays out vast swaths of fiber optic cable, connecting a lot of the cities in Utah. Then it pays the bonds back as private service providers rent the lines and compete for customers. The best thing about it is, rather than having to hope that good provider X will get to your area so you can stop using sucky provider Y, they both have to compete for your dollars because changing services is as simple as making a couple of phone calls.
It would be similar to government laying the roads, providing private taxi companies with a forum for competition, rather than having each company build out its own roads over an area. With the latter approach, there is a natural inclination towards unhealthy regional monopolies.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Doesn't that all depend upon how broadly or vaguely the law is worded? The laws against government-community networks can be worded to also illegalize individual-community networks. I think we've seen government test the waters on this already, with various state attempts to tax private networks. The threat is always out there ... since governments and corporations partnered together find individual freedom to be completely incompatible with their plans for total economic domination.
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
I've lived in two locales, the greater Cleveland area and the greater Tampa area, and in both locations the municipal water was of very good quality. I and my family do drink the water "from the faucet". And I'll tell you a secret, most of that bottled water that people buy from those commercial entities are simply taking water from some municipal supply or another, or from a community resource such as the crystal springs here in Florida, and bottling them WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL treatment.
Not that I think that I can convince an anti-government zealots such as yourself, but I'll give you a couple more examples of activities that probably should not be in the hands of private corporations:
The CDC - Do you really want the entity that is trying to watch out for and react to an Asian bird-flu pandemic to be a for-profit enterprise? I certainly don't. Some activities MUST be done in the public good WITHOUT the impact of market forces.
The Federal Highway Agency- The U.S. federal highway system is the envy of the world (well, except for maybe Germany) precisely because it is open, free, well-designed, and (at least until recently) well maintained.
Protection of the food supply - Let me let you in on a little secret, before the FDA was set up, the only forces in place to protect public health were market forces. And corporations proved themselves well capable of selling the public anything they wanted to if they could get them to buy it. This included spoiled meat, poison pills, tainted baby-food, and all kinds of quack medicines. And the recent drug scandals just prove what happens when a public agency charged with protecting the public gets too cozy with the industry they are charged with regulating.
Commercial entities are good for many things. But not everything. Government has a role to play. The important thing, though, is that WE maintain control over our own government.
When companies are setting public policy that is contrary to the public good, it simply proves that the people have to pay more attention to what's happening in their own governments. And the fact that my mother, living in a rural area right in the middle of the highly industrialized section of northeast Ohio STILL does not have access to cable television or broadband service proves that there are gaps in the corporate coverage of these services. Shouldn't government then step in to make sure that services are available, even in sparsely populated areas? If you say no, realize that most of Tennessee would still not have telephone service if the opposite case had not been in force in the 1930s. It isn't a question of capability. Despite what you may argue, both government agencies and corporate entities have been both good and bad at what they do. If the organizations are put together well and populated with talented people, often times they work. Nope. It's a question of motivation. Occasionally. . . we do not want the motivation to be money.
With public wifi, the costs are an internet connection, and various adapters. (Don't have to pay for locations, businesses love having a free wifi connection in their business.)
With for pay, you added 'billing', and 'keeping track of who paid their bill', and all sorts of crap.
Sticking up a public network might cost, oh, 300 dollars a month, with a startup cost of 5000 dollars. (Probably need a system admin, but, then again, they probably already have an IT guy for the government. Or just have the local high school students volunter to run it.) This is trivially within reach of any town over 200 people.
Now add billing, and someone to keep track of it. Well, you could do that with income tax, except people don't pay local income tax. There are going to have to be bills sent.
Now add the fact that keeping track of the people on the network is now a full time job...you need to keep track of MAC addresses or logins or something, and match those up with the billing.
I mean, you've at least tripled the cost. You've probably added another full-time staff, and you've turned it into a business.
I mean, imagine the street in front of your house, and all those people who don't use it. Imagine all the streets that you don't use, and how you pay for them. Now imagine that the government could keep track of who used what streets, at least statistically, and just billed everyone for their existimated useage...that would cost a lot more than just having the streets.
Sometimes, just doing things for everyone is a hell of a lot cheaper than billing people for them. Yes, people without computers will pay for people who have them, but people in cities paied for phone lines in the country, and people without cars pay for roads, people without children pay for schools, etc, etc. A wifi broadband connection is peanuts compared to one road being built on the other side of the state, which you pay for all the time.
OTOH, my local touristy city has an open wifi network on the square that I think was setup by the Chamber of Commerce. Or just three or four businesses on the square working together. (Of course, I'm talking about a football field worth of coverage here, not a city.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Yeah I know that's a small market for them... It's an example I'm familiar with though and also an are where that choice was stolen from us by those big companies worried about loosing 'profits' to local government (aka the state of Pennsylvania). Hence why I got a tad biligerent with the person two levels up...
& yes cell towers would be a good community/local government project. To bad this is the US and the companies 'own' the bands used by cellphones making it a good idea that can't legally happen... Not to mention other problems involved in it. The funny thing is all those Verizon "Can you hear me now?" commercials... No, No I can't hear you how about adding a tower...? Though they are better than anyone else locally...
My point is that letting state (& I'm guessing eventually federal) government restrict what local governments can and can't do for their citizens is stupid. And anyone who can't see why this could be important needs to rethink the idea from a different point of view for awhile...
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise