Slashdot Mirror
Is Cheap Broadband UnAmerican?
Reader Ant wrote to mention the article entitled Is Cheap Broadband UnAmerican? The author argues that media companies are systematically ruining the MuniWiFi efforts across the country, likening the community initiatives to a form of communism. From the article: "Telecommunications giants have mobilized a well-funded army of coin-operated think tanks, pliant legislators and lazy journalists to protect their Internet fiefdoms from these municipal internet initiatives, painting them as an affront to American innovation and free enterprise"
Their weapon of choice is industry-crafted legislation that restricts local governments from offering public service Internet access at reasonable rates. Laws are already on the books in a dozen states. This year alone, 10 states are considering similar bills to block public broadband or to strengthen existing restrictions. Spinning broadband as theirs alone to provide, ISPs have chalked up some early victories--including a draconian law now on the books in Pennsylvania, which strips local governments of the right to choose their own homegrown broadband solutions without the prior approval of a monopoly phone company. In late 2004, Verizon dictated the law word-for-word to local legislators, who then quietly slipped it into the middle of a 72-page bill that appeared to call for improved communications infrastructure for all Pennsylvanians.
It will have the opposite effect.
No way! You mean that our elected officials are being paid off by corporations so that state citizens get the shaft? Who would have thought?! Personally, anyone responsible for cheating and lying to the citizens of the states involved in this should be ousted. Why aren't we revolting against this crap now? Oh yeah, we're lazy, sorry; I forgot.
A nation that once prided itself as the global pacesetter in technological innovation and affordable communications is now held in the thrall of corporations eager to keep a basic 21st Century right--the right to connectivity--from citizens who can't afford their exorbitant access fees.
How has America fallen so far back?
Because we take the word of the conglomerates as the word of God, that's why. People see a price tag and they just accept it as reality. Most people are uninterested in shopping around for better service, better prices, etc. It's just easier to plop the good old CC down and have it paid automatically every month.
People don't realize that 1500/256 is crappy service for DSL and that 5000/384 is just as bad. People say, ooooh, Cable is faster than DSL and less money! They don't bother looking into the hidden restrictions and commonplace bullshit that the ISPs pull (such as UNLIMITED SERVICE - as long as you don't pass over our unknown bandwith usage threshold).
Some people say, "but there is no alternative." Sure there is... Become active and do something about it. Oooh, but that would take away from your time watching Survivor and The Apprentice. Perhaps the Cable company would even come and shut off your precious mind-numbing TV delivered drugs. Wah.
Americans are lazy, undereducated about technology, and just don't give a shit about making their own lives better. As long as it is easy and they are told it's acceptable they are good to go.
To this mix of industry sock puppets add a gullible media. In a finely targeted media campaign, the "evils" of municipal broadband were pressed upon local journalists who were willing to echo corporate concerns without digging for an opposing view. Too often, local papers failed to follow the money that linked their sources at the Cato Institute and NMRC to the industry--taking at face value comments and data from these think tanks without revealing the conflicts of interest that would impugn their research.
Welcome to the Georgenium! The one where people believe everything they see on TV and do no self-research into finding out what might be true and what might not be. Why should they form their own opinions? There are two sides to every story but the news media is fair and balanced right?
Realize that we have not only corporations funding false research and presenting it as true we have our own government doing the same thing. Sadly people fall for it and even want more of it!
The corporations are going to quickly realize that what they are doing is going to cause even more problems for them. Yeah, you are going to shut out competition from the municipalities... Just wait until the residents of that municipality cre
Today, monthly broadband packages offered by the national carriers hover above $50, barring access to millions of Americans who can't afford the sticker price. Cities and towns across the country have taken up the task of building a cheaper alternative -- often choosing easy-to-build wireless mesh networks -- to bridge the gap that has kept many on the darker side of the digital divide.
Telecommunications giants have mobilized a well-funded army of coin-operated think tanks, pliant legislators and lazy journalists to protect their Internet fiefdoms from these municipal internet initiatives, painting them as an affront to American innovation and free enterprise.
While I don't agree with the laws that are being passed against broadband, I would like to point out that most states have a type of business specifically designed for the common good while simultaneously keeping the government (and stupid laws) out of it: Cooperatives.
CO-OPs are designed to be businesses by the people, for the people, without engaging in the communist-like practice of merging everything under the government's umbrella. A lot of towns in my home state (Wisconsin) have banded together into CO-OPs to provide local utility services. Thanks to their efforts, I had DSL access long before Comcast stopped breaking their promises, and long before many city dwealers had the same services. So if your state passes an idiot law, see if you and your neighbors can do something about it on a local level. It might piss off Verizon and SBC, but that's just too bad, isn't it?
Meanwhile, the United States has slid from first to thirteenth place in national broadband penetration, falling behind South Korea, Japan and Canada, where effective private-public sector initiatives have paved over the digital divide, allowing more citizens to reap the economic benefits of the open information era at a fraction of the costs we take for granted.
This isn't really surprising. The tech started here in the US, so that made us #1. But the rural spread of our population makes market penetration quite difficult, thus resulting in countries with higher population densities pulling ahead. As Mark Twain once said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I thought telephone company monopolies were unamerican?
Welcome to the new America.
When corporations see things happening that they don't like, they call the congressmen that they've bought and paid for and tell them to fix it.
Look at the bankruptcy bill. Nothing could more blatantly tell the American public that our lawmakers are only concerned with the interests of large corporations and the ultra-wealthy.
Just as the article points out, this is like a public library having to ask permission from Borders before checking out books.
It's sad that it's come to this, but there just isn't much that can be done.
DeviantArt Page
NSFWMaybe they are against having public libraries, also? And streetlights? What about public roads, are those manifestations of communism too?
I feel the government should encourage broadband as much as possible, but I wouldn't want to invest in providing a commercial service for customers and have the government come in and with MY TAX MONEY compete with me.
It's just not right.
That said, municipal WIFI districts are not too bad an idea IMHO.
.
Each community should have the right to choose for itself.
I really don't see municipal wireless broadband efforts as any different.
It's really similar to how some communities offer garbage service, whereas others do not. If the community's taxpayers are willing to pay for the service, then the local government should be willing to provide it (within the standard Constitutional limits).
Additionally, if a local government provides a broadband service, it should be like the public streets--open to all. I'm not comfortable with the economic exclusion of parts of the taxpaying public through the charging of a separate fee (no matter how small this fee is). Furthermore, I don't have a problem with the implementation of a "Fair Access Policy", which tacks on a surcharge for those users who utilize the network the most, so as not to penalize the light users of the network.
However, what concerns me the most, however, is the community policing of these broadband networks, including government intrusion on people's privacy and censorship of content deemed inappropriate for the community.
One more thing, by all means, the opening of community broadband should not be a dedicated monopoly on broadband service. Thus, communities should NOT be allowed to block other broadband services from coming in to service their residents. This should force the alternate broadband service providers to provide better services and specialized content to get people to want their services.
Why the hell not, everything else I like seems to be.
"Have you no sense of TCP/IP, Sir?
At long last, have you left no sense of TCP/IP"
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I do not want the goverment in controll of my access to the internet. If the govenment gives away free internet access, the "for pay" services will not be able to compete and will go under. That will leave the government in full control of my access to information.
I have no problem with government agencies providing free access in libraries, parks, airports, schools, and government buildings. I consider this to be approprtiate and even usefull. I do not, however, want the government providing free wifi in my home.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
"coin-operated think tanks"
My gawd, that has to the the most brilliant, funny, and succinct turn-of-phrase I've read in a long time...
Big food companies are systematically ruining the Apple Pie baking efforts in kitchens across the country, likening these home baking initiatives to a form of communism.
"Pie manufacturing giants have mobilized a well-funded army of TV commercials, huge supermarkets and lazy mothers to protect their Apple Pie fiefdoms from these home kitchen initiatives, painting them as an affront to American innovation and free enterprise"
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Cheap broadband is as unamerican as freedom.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
If I don't own a car and only walk, and my taxes go to roads, is this unfair?
I'm sure this will be an unpopular statement for some, but I don't LIKE the idea of state and city run internet. Frankly, I'd rather pay a private company that I know is not going to limit my access to the internet, and is not going reveal my activity to other companies without my consent.
Thats something I will pay dearly for.
Let the wireless companies compete. And not just on WiFi. Verizon has EVDO, and Sprint is starting up their EVDO. Don't take tax money and give it to an inefficient -- and potentially tyrannical (in terms of ready cooperation with snooping federal agencies) -- government-run communications operation.
Any goal of bridging the "digital divide" for the economically disadvantaged should be handled by private charities. The last thing we need is for that segment of the population to have a government-run ISP censor blogs like whatreallyhappened.com (which was classified at one point by a censorware company as being "anti-Semitic", and thus presumably unavailable at some public schools and libraries).
Duh, everyone knows only those socialist over in Europe actually do things like this.
It really is disheartening when I run into to people who don't understand the inherent value of cooperation, especially as it applies to legimate government interests. It's american in so far as it expresses the will of the population. So people unfortunately have been convinced that the people don't have the same rights/privledges as the "professions" do. Society has been sectioned off, we consume, they make and how dare we cross that line.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Ya know who else wanted cheap broadband - Hitler!
With a co-op, you can actually do something. You can elect new board members that will better represent your interests. Heck, you could even start a campaign to recall the SOBs. With a private utility company, you have absolutely no power and no choice in how the place gets run. With a co-op, at least you can make the bastards sweat a little even if you can't get the membership mobilized to throw the bums out.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The public shouldn't be forced to pay for a service that will compete against private sector alternatives. Socialized internet services will only lower the quality of the service in general where they are implemented because people will go to them for the price: free or near free. It's one thing to provide broadband for free in public libraries or to subsidize a charity's computer lab for those without the money to own their own computer and broadband service. It's quite another to provide an entire service that competes against real providers.
I already pay $45 a month for Adelphia's cable service and it would make me quite mad to have to pay more taxes to subsidize someone else's connection to their home. I would mind a buck or two going to buy cable access for the local library since that is totally open to the public. Free wireless though, is something that people can use in their own homes and thus I oppose it. If they are going to get free access then it should be only in a public place where the government can scrutinize their use. The last thing I want to pay taxes for is a connection that lets some mooch run file sharing software off the public dime all day.
Oh and if the government is running the wireless service you can pretty much bet safely that the government will let the police play around with the ISP. They'll be free to log everything and scrutinize everything you do on it because it's a government resource owned and operated by a local government, not a private corporation. That means that if they want to log everything and periodically check to see who is doing what, well that's their prerogative. Your expectation of 4th amendment protection online will all but go out the window if you use the gubermint's service.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Most of the city-supported internet projects that I know of in Texas are public-private partnerships, where a private ISP provides the service. So your concern doesn't apply.
The bills prevent the government from any role whatsoever -- even to let a private ISP resell excess capacity on the city network, or to use a water tower in a rural area.
Many of the projects are in small rural towns that have no broadband at all. The incumbent phone companies are holding the local economy hostage. They're saying "if we don't want to supply broadband to the town, nobody should."
I'm involved with the fight against this legislation in Texas, at SaveMuniWireless.org
Only a freakin' idiot would make the leap to equating this with Soviet State Communism, Stalinism, the murder of millions of people, and hence, evil. Communism isn't inherently evil, any more than most philosophies.
The fact that oppressive dictatorships arose in the last century that called themselves Communist (while doing a lot of unCommunist things, like, I don't know, oppressing the workers a lot worse than the capitalists were doing before them) doesn't make any vaguely socialist proposal the edge of a slippery slope to totalitarianism, and more than the Crusades prove that all Christians love killing Muslims.
Anyone who tries to advance their political ends through misleading labeling should be tarred and feathered.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Yeah, but do you really want to pay for your broadband and their broadband (through taxes). Might as well have the city foot the bill for electric, gas (natural, unleaded and diesel), telephone, cable, netflix, mmorpg's, and iTMS while you're at it. There is no such thing as 'cheap' wifi...it's just how/when you pay for it. Only advantage to municipal is that your payments (sales tax/income tax/property tax) are federally tax deductable.
I absolutely, positively, and totally detest the notion of everything and everything being a "right." Connectivity isn't a right because it's not something innate to you. We're not born with the ability to access the Internet. Someone has to build the backbone, the infrastructure, and the hardware to enable Internet access. It's not like freedom of speech, in which case we're all born with the ability to speak.
Defining something as a "right" which requires one to use the labor of others isn't a right -- it's saying that you should have control over someone else's property or work. It's like someone saying that they have the "right" to take GPL software and use it commercially without adhering to the GPL -- they're taking someone else's work and using as it they wish without consideration of the author's wishes.
If a community wants to implement a "free" wireless network, fine. Let the electorate of that community make the decision. However, don't try to sell the line that one has a "right" to something that they didn't produce. That is Communism, and not only does it not work practically, it's ethically and morally unjustifiable as well.
Bingo!
You said it yourself. Americans are lazy because that is what the WANT! After pulling more then 60 hours a work week, maybe being lazy when you get home is what they/we want at the end of the day.
As soon as joe sixpack wakes up from this lucid dream, the sooner he will see just how long he has been chasing his own tail.
Life is not for the lazy.
There are 6 billion plus people on this planet, and the United States has only 250 million of them. As much as some people would like to believe it, you're country is not the center of the universe. A lot of us are UnAmerican, so your little jabs are irrelevant.
And the reason the parties are able to distract us with these non-issues such as gun control or gay marriage, is there is a force even stronger than selfishness in the American psyche: The desire to impress my arbitrary moral values on someone else.
Getting back on-topic: I have strong libertarian leanings, and am of the general belief that the government at any level is the least qualified entity to provide any service. If a private enterprise cannot compete against the demonstrably least efficient corporation in the history of the universe, then they truly deserve to fail. (This does make the rather polyanna assumption, that the government plays at least reasonably fair.)
I guess we can thank our lucky stars that the Professional Private Firefighter Association is not lobbying congress to pass laws against municipally operated fire brigades.
How does the Slashdot Effect happen given that no slashdotters ever RTFA?
What happens to wiretap laws when the gubmint is your ISP?
If I have a contract with, say, my excellent local service providers North Valley.net or the venerable Sunset.net , I do so with the understanding that
A) I'm contracting with a private entity, whose existence is perpetuated by the charges I pay, and
B) that the company has every legal right to examine my traffic for any purpose whatsoever, though generally it's going to be only to diagnose performance problems.
Because of "A", I know that they don't have any particular interest in examining my traffic and/or violating my trust and privacy beyond "keeping me happy". If word gets out that the admin at either of these companies is reading customer email, and maybe even silently forwarding private messages to other staff, there'd be hell to pay in the court of public opinion, and in the company's bottom line.
But, if the "gubmint" does it, why, it's simply called a "security matter". Rattle off a few department names (FBI, CIA, City Police, State Troopers, whatever) and everybody turns their head silently.
In this case, I think I'm on the side of the companies, even though I dislike their reasons for doing so.
I do not want my Internet service provided by an entity with a vested interest in violating my privacy, whether that interest is in the name of law enforcement, anti-terrorism, or just shits and giggles.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Oh god, shut the fuck up. Seriously, cork it.
The entire country is run by a handful of firms that control most of the copper and fiber backbone. That's hundreds of thousands of miles of transmission lines in the hands of a tiny group of firms, so you wanna tell me again that the government is over-regulating things?
Don't use the fear of bible America to push erroneous free market drivel. It's unbecoming. If the local municipality gets demands from it's constituents to provide a low cost alternative and it decides to provide it, don't go demonizing the government..point at the private entities and ask them to get on the ball and bring prices down.
It's pretty widely accepted that the government has a role to play in providing roads and bridges. This is basic infrastructure that enables the rest of the free market economy.
Do the people making this argument also think that the government should get out of the "road" business, and that all roads should be privately run toll roads?
Broadband is the 21st century equivalent of a road. If a region doesn't have broadband, it becomes the economic equivalent of a third world country with dirt roads.
Adina Levin
SaveMuniWireless.org
How is towns offering WiFi different from towns offering garbage pickup, or electricity, or water, or cable? In each case, the town decides to go with one company or another, but it could choose to provide the serivce by itself.
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
As good as "free" sounds it's a very short sighed objective. Why would you hamper your Wifi network in the bureaucracy and complete idiocracy that plagues most city governments?
The reality of our governments, local, state, and federal, is that the people that participate in them aren't our nations best and brightest, they're running Fortune 500 companies not running for city council.
My two year old really likes "free" things too. But successful, educated, adults understand that only through free markets and sound business plans can you support the enormous technology rollout that would be required to get Wifi to the masses.
So, instead of trying to find ways to get our governments to do if for us, we should be brainstorming ways to start our own WiFi companies and start getting it out there.
Of course, we don't want the city governemts to roll in and take away our customer base. Vote down any attempt to establish a municipal wifi. Let them go back to making paper clip scrulptures or whatever it is they do all day.
Hi all. I actually wrote that article for my blog MediaCitizen. How it ended up on Progressive Trail is beyond me. I submitted it to SlashDot but, as with everything else I have written it too was rejected. hmmmmmm . . . . I'm pleased your reading it now and providing intelligent repartee. You might be interested in my sock puppet report there as well. We have just published a separate report debunking the lies of these coin-operated think tanks at Free Press. Check it out.
I am SO tired of seeing that term. The Right-Wing started it since 9/11. Now, EVERYONE uses it.
:) )
The only thing that IS "un-American" is NOT talking/communicating about things (issues, debates, ideas, etc.).
We have dealt with "corporate America" in the past and we will continue to do so.
The only thing, in MY opinion, is that the vast majority of people in government (not talking about workers, interns, secretaries, etc.) are rich... I am referring to the legislatures, congress people, the house, executive, and judicial branches. The vast majority of them are rich, again MY opinion... (don't like it, I don't care J )
THIS is a problem. It is a problem because those in power (most, not all) are only interested in keeping their power and money and therefore are not interested in the common man, woman, or child. Just look at the incredible level of poverty around the nation. MOST them are focused on gaining money from a variety of sources (corporate America, "Religious" groups, and Iraq) keeping the people of this country focused on "other things" while they do it. Again, MY opinion...
The Right-Wing used (and continues to use) the term "un-American", among others, to divert (and scare) the mass majority of sheep in our country away from the REAL issues facing our country. This is done to pass legislation that would NORMALLY not make it and to continue their greedy ends...
BUT using FEAR and BRANDING as tactics seems to be working. I am just SICK, and tired, of this CRAP!
THAT is all it is... Feces! (guano, excrement, whatever... You get the point, it's all POO!
Most of Canada's population is centered in one of the following:
Vancouver
Calgary
Toronto
Montreal
With perhaps, maybe, a dozen or two dozen other semi-major centers. This gets a very large portion of the populace online without much expense from the telco.
I live in a rural area and have gotten the shaft WRT broadband access, so I am working with my municipality to make a wifi gateway available to get a broadband link to an area where I can link into a commercial DSL line.
Much of the lip service to "private / public" initiatives is politico code for dumping money into the telephone companies with little or NO accountability. If it did not make a business case to install broadband, it didn't get installed. Period, end of discussion.
Spite, however, is a powerful motivator.
..don't panic
Because I'm not always going to be at home.
And there is such a thing as cheap wifi. Sitting around a Buffalo Wild Wings in Vegas while eating less than 10 dollars worth of food.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
They have the least ammount of vacation days here and don't even try and have gaps in your resume when you didn't work in your life, or you will be "required" to explain and will be labeled as lazy. Whether that's right or wrong, you decide.
Poeple here are also obsessed with making money and acquiring goods. I know you'll say, well who isn't? I would answer that I have lived in other countries and it is definetly an order of magnitude higher here. People don't like to talk about money, just like they don't like to talk about sex but they obsess about it. This is the only place I have been where it is extremely not appropriate to ask someone how much money they make, it goes beyond the "I don't know you that well, why should I tell you" it is more of a "why, are you going to come and murder me, my family and my dog and steal it?" type reaction. It just shows even where people's hearts are - with their money. I would expect that in a poor country where money is to used mostly to buy food to survive, but not here, where money is to exercise the "right to be happy" and the right to "instant gratificiation" People need to buy, see and eat more and more things regardless of how much they already bought, seen and eaten.
I am always amazed at how even the poorest people still get double digit ammounts of credit cards so they can buy luxury cars, shop at GAP and get $200 shoes. I am also amazed at the rent places that tell people that cannot afford a plasma TV to just rent one and pay a monthly fee. The credit card companies want people to dig themselves into debt and end up slaving day and night to keep up with the fees.
I know that this is offtopic and that many of you will say, well then if America is so bad, "why dontcha get the fuck out and move to Canada or France.". I don't think this country is a bad country overall, in fact it is still the best one in the world and I love living here, it just that it has some bad "habbits" and stereotypes attached to it that I wish, through better education, those would go away too. That's it. Again, sorry for an offtopic, just struck a cord...
In a nutshell, we have Friedman essentially saying that among other things, having inexpensive and widespread broadband is essential to remain competitive. Countries like Japan and South Korea have encouraged this, since it is in the best interest of their economies. Us? We encourage the profits of the entrenched monopolistic telecoms.
Krugman talks about our health system, and has one astonishing statistic - that we not only pay twice what other countries with "socialized" medicine pay out per capita, with worse results, but almost half of our per capita is Medicare expenditures by the government. In other words, the US government already pays pretty same the much amount per citizen of what the French, Canadian or UK governments do - but we still have 40 million uninsured, and private insurance doubles our per capita. With worse results. This defies any kind of logic.
Why would a government promote policies that give worse results, while enriching private companies and special interests? Simple: our government serves those entities, but not the citizenry. I don't care about your party affiliation or ideology; spending more money with poorer results to benefit the few at the cost of the many is NOT something that represents American ideals. Anyone that says otherwise is simply ignorant or likewise beholden to special interests.
I'd blame the government, but the citizenry is who elected them. We get the government that we deserve.
jh
This isn't new, it is normal. Every time a new technology that shifts the economic landscape comes onto the scene in the US this same thing happens. Broadband is nothing compared to what was happening with the railroad robber barrons or with GM managing to trash otherwise perfectly good public transit systems in cities with their PR and campaigning.
The most instructive example for those of us involved with the nets is the early days of radio and how our public bandwidth became anything but. Early radio looked a lot like the internet. And under the guise of fixing a couple of real problems with the system, became a corporate-only playground regulated to specifically prevent low-barrier public entry in an astoundingly short period of time.
7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
Why not complain about something worthwhile?
The complaint isn't that you're not allowed to saturate your upstream bandwidth on an inexpensive broadband account. The complaint is that they aren't upfront about it, and only tell you after you've broken their invisible limit (whatever it may be).
I think that having clearly spelled out contractual terms is worthwhile.
That's not communist or communist-like. Education, health care, and pensions aren't property (strictly speaking). Restrictions on the trade of physical property would be communist. But these are social concepts and considered necessities in some societies, hence it's socialism to have the government control them (as in who gets what).
For things which are necessities or become ubiquitous the government regulates or takes control of them as public utilities. The internet is certainly at the level where some states might consider them utilities. Therefore at some point they should be allowed to offer them as such. Right now we're in that in-between stage; it's not as common as the telephone but it's getting there.
Developers: We can use your help.
You can get DSL even in a place like Moosonee, in northern Ontario. This is a small town of 2500 souls near James Bay, surrounded by thousands of km of forest and shrubs and not much else.
You can also get DSL in places like Magnetawan (population 1300). Grab an atlas, look up a few tiny places in rural Ontario, and look them up yourself at http://canadianisp.com/ for yourself.
Are you crazy? Have you never head of McCarthy and The House Committee on Un-American Activities?
Go forth. Google.
Why? If I don't drive a car should I not still have to pay taxes that maintain the roads?
If I don't have kids, shouldn't I still pay taxes to support the schools?
If I don't drink tapwater, shouldn't I still have to pay for water treatment facilities?
These are services that, even if you don't personaly use them, make your community a better place to live. You benefit from them indirectly.
Roads provide the infrastructure to deliver goods to the stores you shop in. They make your city a place buisnesses will set up shop and provide you with jobs.
Schools educate people. This lowers crime rates, increases the median wage in your area, and contributes to overall economic prosperity.
Water supplies make a city's higher density possible. Even if your house can run on a spring in the back yard, your benefit by having the water system in place. Resturants, industrial firms, to say nothing of hospitals and office buildings require running water to function. Their function makes your life easier and better. Moreover, running water decreases disease rates, making your community safer.
Why is internet access any different? It encourages trade, encourages education, brings people closer together, and creates an incentive for high paying tech jobs in your area. These jobs in turn lower crime rates, raise average sallaries (unless you live in Beverly Hills) and promotes civic growth.
Even if you don't need muni-wifi, you benefit from it being there. Given that, why shouldn't you pay for it?
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Can you even begin to fathom the kinds of monopolies and cartels that would form if our streets, highways, and expressways were privately owned (as some extremist libertarians advocate)? If you think the Microsoft monopoly is bad, imagine a Shell, Exxon, or Ford monopoly on the street to your driveway. Want to go to the store? Better make sure it's an Exxon affiliate. Want to go to work. Better hope to God you work for on Exxon affiliate (or pay treble). Want to compete with Exxon. God (or other mythological Dieity) help you.
That is exactly the current situation with telecommunications in the United States, and the FCC's efforts to mititage these monopolies through regulation will always be inadequate as long as the underlying infrastructure, which lends itself to natural monopolies in much the same way roads do (how many wires can you physically have running up to your doorstep, and how cost effective is it to have more than one?), remains privately owned.
Network infrastructure is for digital communicatons as basic as roads and highways are to transportation. It not only makes sense to have them administered as public works projects in the same way highways are, it is imperitive if you want to have any kind of effective competition with respect to the thousands of services that use that infrastructure. Otherwise, so hello to your local telco. They own access to your communications and, by implication, you, and you don't even have the power to elect someone new when (not if) they abuse their position.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Logic ... merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who
We're talking about Government putting together a wireless infrastructure because private industry can't do it or at least can't do it cheaper.
But there's no *Right* involved here... These cities are charging $20 or so a month to recoup their costs.
I don't see where you can justify the argument you are making.
You are using the internet thanks to hippy government. The government started the internet since no company would take the risk to see if it would be succesful. X.25, a non-commie commercial network, lost.
You use free hippy roads, you leave your house and drive on toll-free hippy roads and buy things from businesses, increasing trade.
Let the govt provide ISP service, private corporations who will do things like screw with third party VOIP have necessitated this.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
How about this:
- Nearest city pop > 1,000,000: ~ 1,900 kms
- Nearest city pop > 500,000: ~ 800 kms
- Nearest city pop > 250,000: ~300 kms
- Nearest city pop > 25,000: ~200 kms
- Nearest city pop > 5,000: ~120 kms
- Your population: ~900 people
Is that rural enough? It's the town I grew up in. It's in Saskatchewan.Yup, broadband available.
Compare that with places in the US that are complaining they can't get broadband because they only have a few hundred thousand people. C'mon. Really.
Now, I'll admit that my parents who live on a farm several miles from town (and a half mile from a forest that you could walk through and get to the freakin' north pole only crossing a couple roads) can't get broadband. Yet. But they could if they were a half mile closer to town.
Yes, Canada is highly concentrated along the US border. But broadband is still available.
Perhaps you live in Alberta. It's more like the US. That might explain your lack of service availability.
"the rural spread of our population makes market penetration quite difficult, thus resulting in countries with higher population densities pulling ahead."
Well, since Canada has 1/10 the population and a larger land mass, they should be even more 'disadvantaged' and they should be using tin cans tied with bits of string.
As Mark Twain once said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." He forgot to mention greed from the wireless phone services who feel threatened by anybody putting up an antenna for any reason.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
" Why? If I don't drive a car should I not still have to pay taxes that maintain the roads?
If I don't have kids, shouldn't I still pay taxes to support the schools?
If I don't drink tapwater, shouldn't I still have to pay for water treatment facilities?"
Actually, I would say that NO, you shouldn't. In all of those cases. The fact that you have no choice infringes on your personal freedom. Our country (I know this seems ludicrous now...) was founded as a protest against taxation!
Now I will grant that you are correct, that muni-wifi can benefit the whole community indirectly as a whole, but it bugs me that I have to pay for things that I don't want. The way capitalism is meant to work, is that you buy whatever you want. However, if you are forced to give up that choice, and are required to buy certain things, well then you are eliminating the need for competition.
Really this is a slippery slope argument, how far does it go before we end up quietly slipping into socialism??
As for that, you may ask "so what's wrong with socialism, all the people's needs are met by the government?". Well, IMHOP, the problem is that it means I give up my choice of how those needs are met. That choice is sacred to me, and I wouldn't give it up for anything. It's liberty and freedom that I value more, not comfort.
bottom line, if the government wants to enter the wifi market, to raise money and compete against the commercial providers, then fine. but there better be checks and balances to ensure they compete fairly, and the people should retain their choice of whether they even want it or not.
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
This presumes that there are any private sector alternatives.
In which case, the private company would have to offer something more than the publicly offered service: static IP, or higher bandwidth, or some other services in order to compete. The availability of advertiser-supported free television has not stopped the growth of cable TV and satellite dishes.
That would be a reasonable argument except that in many cases those who could be providing the service will not - because it's too expensive to offer it - and want to prevent local agencies from offering it when they will not. Also, the phone companies are not innocent here; they have used various methods to prevent competition, including making it virtually impossible for anyone else to provide service, creating excuses and delays to prevent competition, and artificially inflating rates and costs necessary for interconnection, in an effort to cripple competitors.
Companies that are public utilities hate competition and will do anything they can think of to stop it, including rigging the laws to do so when they can.
Let's try a rephrasing of your argument:
I think most of us would argue that having free local roads paid for by property taxes is better than constantly paying tolls for every use of the public roads. Now, maybe a private company would do a better job for less, but I think collecting a flat fee from every property takes less overhead to collect the amounts needed than collecting tolls on a per-use basis. I think we all benefit from free local roads over imposing tolls for every road we use. Sure, those that used roads less would pay less, but I think the overhead would kill us and might make traveling to see others prohibitively expensive.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.