Oh my god! Microsoft's monopoly level has fallen from "complete total dominance" down to "utterly terrifying massively overwhelming" in web browsers.
But, wait, actually. Seriously for a second. Isn't this exactly the type of competition that the DOJ argued would/could never happen as long IE was integrated into Windows? Wasn't the argument that IE was illegal tying because there would not be competition due to MS's dominance with Windows?
Firefox has managed to take ~7% of the market in a short period of time from a massively well-funded competitor on an ultra, ultra, ultra shoestring budget. This kinda proves what MS was saying, and disproves what the DOJ was saying.
It won't happen.
SAYS YOU. You are not a judge. The fact, and remains, that more bizarre things have happened. Judges and/or juries have revoked copyright protection before; they have made rulings that contravene your so-called "clear cut" cases.
For example, if you promise someone that something has "free" source, but it turns out there are a bunch of hidden restrictions on how you use it, you can lose your copyright protection. Maybe a judge rules that having a small file called "COPYING" included as one of 10,000 files isn't enough. Maybe that judge decides that it was a malicious attempt to harm a commerical vendor - entice them into something "free" and then nail them with a copyright violation. The fact is and remains that similiar things have happened outside the realm of software in the print and publishing industries. Maybe that judge uses an existing case to revoke a GPL'ers copyright protections.
You simply cannot say otherwise. Depending on the specifics of case anything could happen. There is such a body of case law, legislation, and grey area that until such a time as it happens, anything could happen.
There are plenty of cases around to support the idea that you can't copy without a licence.
And there are plenty of cases where copyright protection was abrogatted because of notice issues, because of various tactics, because of circumstances, etc.
Microsoft has actually done a decent job with correcting flaws in it Windows.
The virus issue is an interesting question. Any operating system that allows code that the user introduces to the system to run with privelages of the user is vulernable to virus attacks. I mean to say, I can write a binary for a Linux box that wipes every file the user running it has access to.
Is that a flaw or just how things are?
Viruses that exploit bugs or flaws in the OS are deplorable, and show what a lax attitude MS had for so long. However, as MS is fixing those, what's more and more and more common are programs that trick/deceive the user into installing them and then do something that is pretty much malware. How should that be handled? They aren't viruses per se, but they are annoying.
That's whats really wrong with Windows right now. It's just sucky when dealing with stuff on your PC that you don't want.
As Windows is continued to be locked down this is the last "growth vector" around.
At some point, the virsues going around are no longer exploitig what Windows has to "offer", but rather, the users themselves.
It just happens that the Republicans currently in power don't give two bits about what Democrats are willing to bring to the table as a median offer.
That's the thing, if they have 51 votes to end the fillibuster, they dont have to bicker back and forth. They can just do it. And do it raw. The only weapon the democrats have is to try to target vulernable senators and hit them to switch. But that's a hard strategy. After that all they can do is shut down the Senate with stalling tactics. Then the republicans will put up an act that would raise the minimum wage, and let the political hell break loose. Republicans will let the dems kill it, and then it will be a huge issue in 2006. Replace minimum wage with war funding, AIDS funding, etc. Shutting down the Senate could be hugely risky for the Democrats.
Pres, the Dem's played much nicer with the Repub's, because of a balance
That was mostly really because of the major demographic shift that was happening. The democrats have been losing Senate seats for a while now, ebbing since they had a high in the 60's.
Pres, the Dem's played much nicer with the Repub's, because of a balance
Single party control is scary, but it's not the end. Mexico had 100 years of single party rule, and though I wouldnt want to live there, the government never collapsed per se.
I'd hate to see it get there though. What's happened in the Senate though is very sad really. Every action is so under the microscope and there are so many activists on each side of the issue that carving out a voting bloc large enough to be influential in the Senate is virtually impossible. As a Senator, chances are your seat is either (1) very safe, or (2) very close to being lost. There is very little middle ground. If you are a #2 senator, what happens is that you have to swing widly to extremes to please your core voters. It's a tricky proposition!
In the 90's has the filibuster EVER been a front page issue in the "Liberal" media?
Yes, actually!
The fillibuster was a huge freakin issue when it was "tweaked" by the Democrat controlled senate in the 80's and again in the 90's.
What the democrats did before is exactly identical: it was 66 votes, the democrats had 62, so they lowered the limit to 60 votes for cloture. The Republicans have 54 votes, the limit is 60, so they want to lower it to 50. It's identical in all but numbers. The notion is exactly the same: things are different now, now it's affecting me!
The Senate "tweaked" fillibuster again and basically already eliminated it since they instituted "two track" Senate business: a fillibuster used to be a major thing: it had to be addressed or the Senate was stopped dead in its tracks. The minority had to be placated. It was a serious tool. Now, it's a joke! Nothing happens except the miniority can block any single thing he/she wants without end.
Sorry, but you are just off base here. The whole debacle reaks of utter lack of principle. The republicans are going nuts over it. The democrats will take a god-awful beating if they shut down Senate. Which serves them since the democrats are big time "flip floppers" on the issue themselves.
Saying "it's clear cut" is not all there is to it!
You can go to court and say, I am not the one copying, they are! My code was stolen by hackers, and now people are giving it away!
What then?
You are making things up based on your perception of copyright law. The fact is and remains that many copyright disputes drag on for years, and a few for a decade or more.
For every GPL case settled before court there is another that is forgotten about, or never pursued in the first place.
The fact is an remains that there is not binding legal precendent established that says that you can nail someone with a combination of GPL + copyright. For all you know, a judge could review the GPL and find that it's an unenforceable restriction, violates some arcane rule, and there the author forfiets his/her copyright. More bizarre things have happened in copyright cases.
Can you cite a single case where a copyright violation stemming from software that is released through the GPL ended with statutory fines being awarded to the plantiff?
I agree that it certainly does appear to be a "clear cut US copyright violation", however, in front of a judge lots of things can happen. The judge could waive statutory fines, or reduce them, and impose only damages, which could be proven to be zero. The judge could decide that releasing something under the GPL waives your copyright, or lessens its protections. A typical judge even when dealing with laws with no breathing room and no assignable discretion will find ways to inject. It could only be worse when dealing with modern copyright and it's 30 year rollercoaster of changes, case law, and abborations.
"Clear cut" is on paper. Unless you know of a speicfic case I've missed, I can't see anything that would indicate this as a "slam dunk" type of case!
Virtually every senator has been on both sides of the fillabusted argument when the opposite party is in power.
It's shocking. Of the current batch of democrats in the Senator many were around when democrats raised the number of votes needed for cloture from 66 to 60, arguing the same exact thing that the republicans are arguing now.
The bottom line is that the majority wants what the majority wants, and when the majority is just big enough to be a majority the minority can hold things up. And both sides hate it when they are the majority and love it when they are the minority.
Huh, I admin'ed a 5500 node Windows 2000 workstation network for about 11 months. We used remote logging to record just about every event that occured on the workstations.
After eleven months of daily use ranging from very light, to very, very heavy, I never once had to deal with a BSOD.
Your mileage may vary, but with solid hardware and certified signed drivers (we used 100% certified drivers), you can run a very stable Windows network!
was less afraid of them going bad, but now...I'm not so sure. br
But exactly wrong.
Google as a public company is ten, or maybe 100 times, more transparent than before hand. A public company has to report dozens and hundreds of things. A private company has absolutely nothing required of it from a reporting standpoint. Pick any random company. Who are its investors? Who makes decisions? What are its financials? How many employees does it have?
br
With a public company, it's all there. It's transparent. If you are a shareholder, you can participate in governance. A privately held Google would be a scarier thing.
The "No Fly" list is considered to be national security, and so is not public record.
And you have yet again missed the point. What makes you think a "No View" list would not be considered to be "national security". Do you have any rational basis for your belief?
UPS and FedEx both do letter delivery on the same time frame as USPS. The USPS also does tracking, signature verification, and time sensitive delivery. This could have been verified from their web site.
UPS and FedEx do not compete with the USPS for letter delivery, which is over 90% of the USPS business. A first-class leter dropped off to the USPS at a bulk-mail unit costs approximately $.27 for delivery anywhere in the United States. The same 1-ounce envelope will cost you several dollars from UPS, and not less than $11.21 from FedEx. Obviously, they are not competitors. The USPS provides marginal guaranteed delivery, and only provides verified delivery when required by statue. They are not in competition. FedEx and UPS derive a huge margin of their profit from parcel delivery. I work daily in the mailing business, I can assure you, you are 100% wrong. FedEx/UPS/DHL/whoever do not compete at all with USPS, and vice-versa.
As for expansion: my town has authority over my town. It cannot decide to start running roads or levying taxes on a neighboring town. Similarly it cannot decide to start running fibre, building roads, or passing laws in another town.
Yes, your town. However, your county has some authority over all cities and towns in your county. You state has authority over your town. The Federal government has authority over. This is, for example, how the Federal government can demand that libraries must install filtering software even though the libraries are located in your town. You have no rationale basis for denying that municipal broadband will be regulated by the federal government. They are already regulate municipal cable, phone, and other services. What rationale basis do you have for believing they will not get involved in regualting "your" town's broadband?
Private broadband quality has deteriorated over time. Like I said, just because more people can get it doesn't make it better. More people can get McDonald's food now than twenty years ago, but the food is still lower quality. We could play "is too; is not" for the next month, but it wouldn't spontaneously invent proof on your part. I stated where the quality dropped.
More access, more bandwidth, lower prices. More subscribers. More choice. People are largely satisfied by their ISP service. Just because you aren't doesn't mean that your local community and the taxpayers should fund your petty demands.
Nothing makes me think municipal internet wouldn't do that, but the residents would have a say in its operation. You don't have that with a private company.
Most users aren't going to care about the things you feel make crappy service. Bandwidth limitations, port blocking, etc do not affect the majority of users. You will still be a huge minority. If everyone feels they have fine service, and you are complaining, you have no recourse at all. You are again in the minority. Except now there are no competitors at all, and no prospect for competition.
In many places your only choice is an ILEC or cable carrier.
Right. What's wrong with that? Two choices, instead of one.
You have provided no rationale basis for why municipal broadband will be better than private access. There is no technical reason: the technology will be equal.
And what is this "no alternative" garbage. If people were unhappy with municipal offerings, they don't have to use it, just like now with private offerings. They could say with the private company, they could just not have internet, they could use dial-up. It isn't like the cable operators and ILECs are just going to up and remove all their
Those filters are provided by companies who refuse to publish their block lists. If that list was compiled by the government, they would be required to turn over the contents.
That's not true necessarily. For example, the government does not have to turn over the "No Fly" list. Why would you believe the "do not view" list would be any different?
There *IS* competetition to the USPS.
Not for letter carrying. The competition only handles parcles and/or time-sensitive letter delivery. They only exist because they do not directly compete with USPS: they provide value-added delivery services. The tracking, signature verification, time sensitive delivery services of the "competition" are all areas that USPS does not operate. The USPS sends regular mail at a highly subsidized rate.
Why would the government get into broadband? First reason is that the citizens want them it. Second could be that it's a revenue source that could help fund other things. Any profit that municipal broadband makes can offset taxes.
This is exactly wrong. Subsidized Internet is an expense, not a profit center. Second, I am a citizen, and I know lots of citizens, who want large monthly checks from the government for nothing. Obviously, giving citizens everything and all things they want is not the goal of good government. Third, by your standard, the government should get into just about all business, since it's all profitable and could offset taxes. Phone service. Check. Cable TV service. Check. Trash collection. Check. Babysitting. Check. House cleaning. Check. Lawn mowing. Check. Food service. Check. Why broadband instead of, say, cable TV or long distance phone service?
Municipal internet access can't expand past the municipality without making the service go private and incorporate. That is very hard to make happen.
First off, incorporation is not hard. Second, why can't municpal internet access expand? Who says? The same government who passes the law? If there is power to be had, it will be expanded. It always is. 100% of the time.
Private sector broadband service has deteriorated since it's inception.
False.
You now typically get filtered services, transfer caps, invisible traffic limits, blocked ports, the inability to run servers, inability to get static addressing.
Depends on your carrier, and your package. Second, you are assuming the municipal broadband is going to offer you a better service package, which is based entirely on your fantasies. What makes you thinks that you'll have unfiltered service, unlimited tranfer, and all open ports? Anything? Do you have any evidence to make up your silly claim?
In many areas you can only get cable internet, which has gotten worse over time. Perhaps Verizon's terrible service, or Comcast's invisible rules is better? Utilities subsidize one service with another, too.
Cable internet has not gotten, on average, worse over time. More people have better access. Of course corporations subsidize services, but only for a while. They dont have the power to tax, like governments. At the end of the day, they have to sell services or products.
If what you talk about with government run internet access happened, people would stop using it.
NOT IF THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE.
You could force a vote on your local ballot and force the internet service private, or dismantle it entirely.
NOT IF THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE.
Who is going to stay in town and compete with cheap/free Internet access. Let me give you the real numbers. If a competitor comes into town and offers prices 50% or 75% lower (or free) than the market can handle, the competiton will go away. Period. No private competitor can compete with this over any time period. So instead of having the choice of one or two private companies, everyone will just have LocalTown Broadband. Which is fine, of course, unless you ever want to disband
You can do whatever you want to try to make government good, but power is power.
I am not advocating for a anarchist open market.
However, you say it should be split, and that's wrong in my view. No non-essential services should be provided by the government. That's not the goal of the government.
We don't trust private companies at all! That's whats great.
Government has big men with big guns and black suits working for them. Time Warner, or AOL, or ComCast, does not. I can always opt out of them. I cannot opt out of tax subsidizing Internet access.
That's the great thing about the market. You always have reprecussions. It is often much more responsive to small niche's than the government.
And they will be sued if they do.
It's already been up and down the courts. It's legal, or close to it. One version gets struck down, they reword, and try again. Libraries have to filter. What makes you think it will be any different for municipalities?
In which case local ISPs will not have a problem, because local businesses will *need* more than what the municipal ISP provides them with, and the rest of us will *want* more than that.
No, I don't think so. Local small businesses don't need more. They need what home users need. Local larger or medium businesses already go above and have either leased or dedicated connections, like T1 loops, or similiar products. Regardless, for business, whatever they do, is fine. It's a cost of doing business. What we are talking about is personal access.
And if it's not granted because it's a religious protest, it will be challengable in the courts.
The religious protest is just an example. Permits are denied all the time in Central Park. Insert whatever. Political protest, anti-meat eating protest. Whatever. Permits are denied, and you have little or no recourse. You can take it as high as you want. Before the RNC in NYC last year many protest permits were denied, and none were overturned in court. What makes you think that if NYC offered broadband that there would be anything less required? A permit to assemble on public property.
They ban religious websites? Really? Or are you refering to the smut filters that remain contentious?
Yes, they ban religious websites. Smut filters that "accidentally" (well, assumedely so, we can't see the list, so, who knows) block religious websites.
What competition?
There bloody well isn't going to be any if the government gets involved in provided access. There will never, ever, be competition. Just like there is no competition to the USPS, or the local roads, or the local water district. You can't compete with subsidized service. It's just not long-term viable. Unless you can manage to carve out some type of bizarre niche market, it's infeasible.
then what is the failing that the local municipality feels is strong enough to warrant getting into the business itself?
I have no idea, but they are working on it! $8-10/mo for broadband access.
because the other alternative here is you're moving the goalposts having realised your argument is completely bankrupt and are now talking about municipalities starting services in already well served areas, something I haven't advocated or appeared to advocate
And what I originally said, and you replied to, is that it will start off well-intentioned, like all government programs. Good people with good ideas who can make them happen. And then it will grow, and expand. Like every other single program in the history of government (with few notable exceptions). A few successes will be extrapolated into widescale programs.
you believe these 10-15 ISPs completely suck and are incapable of improving their services. If that's the case, what competition exists for this hypothetical municipal ISP? What does it destroy?
ISPs get better. Service gets better. Competiton makes it better. Broadband service has gotten consistently better and better in the last 10 years. It went from nothing to pretty comprehensive. And it continues to improve. The market continues to grow. Yeah, it sucks for people who are underserved.
If you open the door to government internet service, it will not close. It's just how government is. The more power, the more tax dollars, the better.
What competition? How can competition go when it has yet to arrive? We can undermine future competition, but that said, the risk of such competition would at least ensure the local government has good incentive to keep their system up to date and as flexible (ie no NAT or port blocking) as practically possible.
The towns an
I am just saying, it's a failure. Every place that has tried it has been a failure.
The purpose of the laptops wasn't to teach students to be geeks, but it was sold as a general teaching tool. And it has failed, and failed badly.
For specific purposes, like IT education, programming classes, 3d art clasess, etc it may be great.
The laptop program was sold as a way to elevate the teaching and level of education for all students, not just ones interested in computers. It wasn't sold as way to learn vi, or program Flash, or MySQL. It was sold as way to improve education, and it has failed.
You are completely relying on the fact that some local government isn't going to be equally or more restrictive about what you can do with the connection.
Do you have any backup to cover your claim, or are you just winging it? If you had something, I'd love to see it. But otherwise, within a year or so, I'd wager real dollars that the TOS will be equal to or more restrictive than what the major players offer.
And don't forget, it will be treated as a "privilege". It will not be automatically allowed. If you don't pay your parking tickets, watch out. For example, in my home town, if you have any outstanding parking tickets, you can't register a dog, register your car, get your car out of impound, have water service connected, apply for a city street parking permit, register a boat, file for a marriage certificate, or conduct just about any city business. Do you have any reason, ANY at all to believe this won't eventually be the case with your broadband?
In the real world, we need a mix of solutions. Raising straw men ("A municipal ISP will ban religious expression and be taken over by the state!") doesn't help us see what that mix is. The FCC did a good thing, in my view, by forcing the ILECs to open up their infrastructures.
I agree 100%. State granted monopolies are bad. However, municipal ISPs will be abusive. It will be a matter of time before it happens. It will be proactive "defended", and therefore censored. It's going to happen. It's already happening on the local level by federal mandate. It's hardly a strawman - it's fact.
Municipal ISPs are providing a valuable service to those areas where the free market is simply failing regardless of what the FCC did.
Again, this is now. At the onset. It will spread, and you know it will. Like all government programs. Limited successes will be extrapolated into wide-ranging programs. I want everyone to have broadband access, but I am not sure that this is the best way to achieve that goal. Is it worth it to fill the end of the bell curve if it means flattening out the peak? Choices do not always exist, and commercial services are frequently worse than government supplied ones.
It's the bell-curve again. Most people get average service. Some people will get better service under government programs, other will get worse. However, the median service will be lower. That's the trade-off for universal service.
It's either this, or yet more regulation. Not that regulation is automatically a bad thing either.
I am not saying it's automatically bad, either. But you are presenting a false choice. The situation is not hopelessly bad. Most people have many Internet choices. Most people can afford them, and most people are satisfied. Something probably needs to be done to serve the underserved areas. I am open for the debate on that.
But putting the government at any level in charge of information flow is just asking for trouble. It will be abused. The median quality of service will be lower. There will be fewer choices for consumers. What we are doing, essentially, is granting municipalities a monopoly. Just like with phones and cable in the last century.
Maybe what would be better idea is to have local governments setup infrastructure, and allow commerical providers the ability to lease the infrastructure in a non-discriminatory fashion to provide the service. If some town or city wanted to drop fiber to the door, and then sell access in an open fashion to commerical ventures, that'd be fine with me, so long as the government was providing a "common carrier" only role. This is how the power system in my state is setup. One state sponsored corporation owns the transmission system, and leases the lines to power generation and sales companies. If the transmission company hadn't already been around, the state would just own the lines outright. They lease access to whoever wants it, and consumers can pick their power company.
If you somehow think the Terms of Service for the local government ISP is going to any more open, less restrictive, or less draconian than what your commerical providers offer, you are mistaken.
Nonsense. If a private ISP bans you from using your connection to promote or service your religion, there's no come back whatsoever. No warrants, nothing. You can either suck it, or leave it, and too bad if nobody else in the area thinks differently to them.
LEave it! Yes. If the muncipal ISP exists, there will be no choice.
Now, about the 1st amendment issues. The government will restrict your right to post information, and it will be proactive. They will block ports, they will limit bandwidth, they will filter content. It's going to happen. It's already required of libraries providing Internet access. It is going to happen, you can count on that. The fact is right now you need a permit to assemble a crowd in a public place, on public land, for just about any purpose. You want to stage a religious protest in Central Park, you need a permit, and it may not be granted. What makes you think that governments who deny permits to protestors will allow them to publish damaging or damning information via their network?
So I find the whole "Municipal broadband destroys choice" argument somewhat misleading.
It destroys choice because where there exists government broadband at below market prices the competition will fail, every time. It's just a matter of time. I have between 10 and 15 ISPs over four delivery systems available to me. If my town went into the ISP business, I'd have 1 choice, and 1 choice only, in little or no time. This isnt' a strawman, thanks. It's the fact. A subsidized solution will put out a free-market solution every single time.
Municipal broadband, by and large, is being done where there's a demand that local government intevene,
Right. And my point was that it starts good. There is a need, let's fill it. Great. But once that area has broadband provided by the town, what is going to stop them from abusing it once the competition is long gone? Nothing.
If we lived in a world where choice was deemed that important and the free market worked, nobody would be doing that.
There are two reasons this would happen. The first being a government-granted monopoly, which means no one else can compete. The other reason for an underserved market is that there isn't enough business to support it.
Why? Because the former has to obey the first amendment.
Well, in theory. Like libraries, right? They are government funded, but they filter. Actually, they are required to filter. It's not just an option, it's a requirement.
And what about contemporary community standards, and all that? If the government owns the network, can individuals post religious material? I mean, the governmetn owns the park, and you can't just go down there and put up big posters of Jesus without a permit, right? And even though we are guaranteed the right to assembly, it's not unconditional. We have to get mass permits so there isn't rioting and so that we have a "safe" place to assemble.
So, yeah, the first amendment is great. But in reality, it's not the be all end all of protection.
The difference between the private ISP and the municipal is that on the ISP, it's reactive. Something happens, a warrant is issued, and something else happens. If the government is in the loop from day one, there is absolutely no check. None. It will be pro-active.
Like I said, I don't believe it should be implemented wider than a municipality.
That's great, and I agree. However, the people running things won't always be running things. Schools are run locally, right? Unless the State performs a takeover because it's really a bad school. What happens if the State decides your little network is too slow or bad or whatever, and decides to take it over to manage it properly?
Once you open the door, it really is almost never shut.
A market economy does not provide universal coverage. The quality of service is a bell-curve, some people get awesome service, some get terrible service, most get mediocre service. That's where we are today. The largest majority of people can get either crappy or mediocre service. A small minority can get great service. A smaller minority can get no service.
For these people, maybe we need sometype of government sponsored universal access guarantee. Maybe that's a good idea that should be investigated.
But when the government owns the network, it will be proactive against it's users before long. Muncipalities are seen as responsive, but they aren't always. They can be vindictive. There will be a broadband board. They will call people forward to testify. They will cut people off. They will spy on people. They will release logs to embarrass enemies. They will abuse the power. It will happen. It's a guarantee. There is not a government power that goes unabused.
So the final question comes down to this: would you rather take your chances with private/commerical carriers, or the government.
My choice is simple, and clear. I have economic recourse against business. I have legal recourse against business. I have choices. If my town started offering broadband at sub-market prices, well, that'd be the end of my choice.
That said, high speed internet access is rapidly becoming as essential to the growth and development of the mind as public education. Kids with high speed net access preform better in schools. That's not necessarily a causal relationship, but it's something worth investigating.
Do you have some backup for this claim?
My home state gave laptops to all middle-schoolers a few years ago, and pretty much without question, it's been an unmitigated disaster.
First, it was money that was diverted into the program. Not a huge amount, but it's pretty pricey.
Second, teachers and schools had to prepare for the laptops. Schools spending largish sums of money on IT is kinda silly.
Third, teachers and schools have to deal with them on a daily basis. They break, they have tech problems (not that many, they are iBooks), they make funny noises, and give the frowny face icon sometimes.
Fourth, they are a big distraction. Kids stealing a peak here and there. Kids multitasking ESPN.com and IM.
Fifth, they take classroom time from other subjects.
Sixth, teachers have to spend more time preparing classes that utilize the new technology. Where before some notes about a lecture where good, now a slide-show and/or document "handout" is expected.
The article in the local newspaper is pay-for-view, but here is the abstract:
"Middle schoolers who used laptop computers for two years performed about the same on a standardized test as students before them who never had laptops. Critics of laptops say the scores are the first real evidence that the program, which so far has cost more than $15 million, is an expensive fad. But proponents say it's too early to expect dramatic changes in test scores."
link
For some people, like myself, it's utter paranoia.
Muncipal governments are luckily mostly small, but wait until this hits a bigger area. I can just see it now: having to go in front of the municipal broadband board and justify my hosting of an unpopularly sentimented blog, or having to answer to the city council about why I am using so much bandwidth.
Ultimately, government control of information will lead to censorship, and monitoring. Information that is illegal will be pro-actively searched for and destroyed.
The problem with government is that good intentions are behind it all. "We want to cut down on evil monopolies and eliminate the digital divide".
Great. I am happy for that. It's a laudable goal.
Something will happen. Let's say, a parent comes home to discover their teenage daughter has left a runaway note. "Mom, you suck, I am running away to be with my older boyfriend. He loves me!".
Well, of course, here comes "Little Angelic Angela's Law", which will require that local police have access to IM records that pass over their networks if they involve minors. Who wants the government providing Internet access to predators so they can bait helpess impressionable children? "Not with my tax dollars!"
After a bit, that will not be enough. Something else high-profile will happen. A school shooting will be co-ordinated. Or a bomb threat e-mailed in. Or whatever.
And all of the sudden, the rules start piling up. It'll only be a matter of time until citizens decide that they don't want to subsudize Mr. Creepy Pants porn habit, and so, the broadband they provide will filtered against ONLY the most extremely nasty pornography network wide.
Good intentions and government are sometimes a very dangerous mix. Most people involved are great, civic minded people. But. The expansion of government most often leads to very, very, very tricky questions.
It'll be a few years, and a county government will want to take over the network. Why should all these inefficent little networks exist, when they can benefit from econimies of scale? And then the State.
And then it's over. And then, your Internet will be used as a weapon against. It'll be a privelage, like driving. Why should we let people who haven't filed their income taxes on the Internet? It's a privelage of living in the state. Why should people on welfare have access to entertainment sites, it's our tax dollars! Why should people be able to publish websites on this connection, this is for non-commerical use only! The latest e-mail trojan is spreading like wildfire, block all ports in the infected range for the protection of the many!
Of course, all this could happen with private Internet access. But. In my smallish town of 30,000 I have two cable offerings, nearly a dozen DSL offerings, a handful of ISDN offerings, a handful of dial-up offerings, national offerings from AOL and similiar folks, and two wireless ISPs. That's a pretty decent slate of choices.
The temptation to throw myself full fledged onto the free/low-cost municipal broadband is great! It'll be great as long as it's got THIS. And THIS. And THIS. But how long until they get trimmed back, one by one, till what we have is less than what we have now?
People who believe in religion out of fear are operating at the lowest levels of spirtuality.
When raising children, for example, you go through phases of education. When the child is small, base training is how the child is taught. Go near the hot fire, you smack them on the behind and tell them loudly and scarily, "NO!". When the child is older you teach them about heat, and what burning is, and what it will do to you. You help them to hone their natural defenses. Recognize that pain should be avoided. As they reach maturity, you help them realize that pain is not the punishment, but the warning.
People who act religiously out of fear are afraid (often literally) of the fire.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh my god! Microsoft's monopoly level has fallen from "complete total dominance" down to "utterly terrifying massively overwhelming" in web browsers.
But, wait, actually. Seriously for a second. Isn't this exactly the type of competition that the DOJ argued would/could never happen as long IE was integrated into Windows? Wasn't the argument that IE was illegal tying because there would not be competition due to MS's dominance with Windows?
Firefox has managed to take ~7% of the market in a short period of time from a massively well-funded competitor on an ultra, ultra, ultra shoestring budget. This kinda proves what MS was saying, and disproves what the DOJ was saying.
It won't happen.
SAYS YOU. You are not a judge. The fact, and remains, that more bizarre things have happened. Judges and/or juries have revoked copyright protection before; they have made rulings that contravene your so-called "clear cut" cases.
For example, if you promise someone that something has "free" source, but it turns out there are a bunch of hidden restrictions on how you use it, you can lose your copyright protection. Maybe a judge rules that having a small file called "COPYING" included as one of 10,000 files isn't enough. Maybe that judge decides that it was a malicious attempt to harm a commerical vendor - entice them into something "free" and then nail them with a copyright violation. The fact is and remains that similiar things have happened outside the realm of software in the print and publishing industries. Maybe that judge uses an existing case to revoke a GPL'ers copyright protections.
You simply cannot say otherwise. Depending on the specifics of case anything could happen. There is such a body of case law, legislation, and grey area that until such a time as it happens, anything could happen.
There are plenty of cases around to support the idea that you can't copy without a licence.
And there are plenty of cases where copyright protection was abrogatted because of notice issues, because of various tactics, because of circumstances, etc.
Microsoft has actually done a decent job with correcting flaws in it Windows.
The virus issue is an interesting question. Any operating system that allows code that the user introduces to the system to run with privelages of the user is vulernable to virus attacks. I mean to say, I can write a binary for a Linux box that wipes every file the user running it has access to.
Is that a flaw or just how things are?
Viruses that exploit bugs or flaws in the OS are deplorable, and show what a lax attitude MS had for so long. However, as MS is fixing those, what's more and more and more common are programs that trick/deceive the user into installing them and then do something that is pretty much malware. How should that be handled? They aren't viruses per se, but they are annoying.
That's whats really wrong with Windows right now. It's just sucky when dealing with stuff on your PC that you don't want.
As Windows is continued to be locked down this is the last "growth vector" around.
At some point, the virsues going around are no longer exploitig what Windows has to "offer", but rather, the users themselves.
It just happens that the Republicans currently in power don't give two bits about what Democrats are willing to bring to the table as a median offer.
That's the thing, if they have 51 votes to end the fillibuster, they dont have to bicker back and forth. They can just do it. And do it raw. The only weapon the democrats have is to try to target vulernable senators and hit them to switch. But that's a hard strategy. After that all they can do is shut down the Senate with stalling tactics. Then the republicans will put up an act that would raise the minimum wage, and let the political hell break loose. Republicans will let the dems kill it, and then it will be a huge issue in 2006. Replace minimum wage with war funding, AIDS funding, etc. Shutting down the Senate could be hugely risky for the Democrats.
Pres, the Dem's played much nicer with the Repub's, because of a balance
That was mostly really because of the major demographic shift that was happening. The democrats have been losing Senate seats for a while now, ebbing since they had a high in the 60's.
Pres, the Dem's played much nicer with the Repub's, because of a balance
Single party control is scary, but it's not the end. Mexico had 100 years of single party rule, and though I wouldnt want to live there, the government never collapsed per se.
I'd hate to see it get there though. What's happened in the Senate though is very sad really. Every action is so under the microscope and there are so many activists on each side of the issue that carving out a voting bloc large enough to be influential in the Senate is virtually impossible. As a Senator, chances are your seat is either (1) very safe, or (2) very close to being lost. There is very little middle ground. If you are a #2 senator, what happens is that you have to swing widly to extremes to please your core voters. It's a tricky proposition!
In the 90's has the filibuster EVER been a front page issue in the "Liberal" media?
Yes, actually!
The fillibuster was a huge freakin issue when it was "tweaked" by the Democrat controlled senate in the 80's and again in the 90's.
What the democrats did before is exactly identical: it was 66 votes, the democrats had 62, so they lowered the limit to 60 votes for cloture. The Republicans have 54 votes, the limit is 60, so they want to lower it to 50. It's identical in all but numbers. The notion is exactly the same: things are different now, now it's affecting me!
The Senate "tweaked" fillibuster again and basically already eliminated it since they instituted "two track" Senate business: a fillibuster used to be a major thing: it had to be addressed or the Senate was stopped dead in its tracks. The minority had to be placated. It was a serious tool. Now, it's a joke! Nothing happens except the miniority can block any single thing he/she wants without end.
Sorry, but you are just off base here. The whole debacle reaks of utter lack of principle. The republicans are going nuts over it. The democrats will take a god-awful beating if they shut down Senate. Which serves them since the democrats are big time "flip floppers" on the issue themselves.
You are way out of touch.
Saying "it's clear cut" is not all there is to it!
You can go to court and say, I am not the one copying, they are! My code was stolen by hackers, and now people are giving it away!
What then?
You are making things up based on your perception of copyright law. The fact is and remains that many copyright disputes drag on for years, and a few for a decade or more.
For every GPL case settled before court there is another that is forgotten about, or never pursued in the first place.
The fact is an remains that there is not binding legal precendent established that says that you can nail someone with a combination of GPL + copyright. For all you know, a judge could review the GPL and find that it's an unenforceable restriction, violates some arcane rule, and there the author forfiets his/her copyright. More bizarre things have happened in copyright cases.
Speculation is fun, but it's not binding!
Can you cite a single case where a copyright violation stemming from software that is released through the GPL ended with statutory fines being awarded to the plantiff?
I agree that it certainly does appear to be a "clear cut US copyright violation", however, in front of a judge lots of things can happen. The judge could waive statutory fines, or reduce them, and impose only damages, which could be proven to be zero. The judge could decide that releasing something under the GPL waives your copyright, or lessens its protections. A typical judge even when dealing with laws with no breathing room and no assignable discretion will find ways to inject. It could only be worse when dealing with modern copyright and it's 30 year rollercoaster of changes, case law, and abborations.
"Clear cut" is on paper. Unless you know of a speicfic case I've missed, I can't see anything that would indicate this as a "slam dunk" type of case!
The deception on both sides is appalling!
Virtually every senator has been on both sides of the fillabusted argument when the opposite party is in power.
It's shocking. Of the current batch of democrats in the Senator many were around when democrats raised the number of votes needed for cloture from 66 to 60, arguing the same exact thing that the republicans are arguing now.
The bottom line is that the majority wants what the majority wants, and when the majority is just big enough to be a majority the minority can hold things up. And both sides hate it when they are the majority and love it when they are the minority.
Huh, I admin'ed a 5500 node Windows 2000 workstation network for about 11 months. We used remote logging to record just about every event that occured on the workstations.
After eleven months of daily use ranging from very light, to very, very heavy, I never once had to deal with a BSOD.
Your mileage may vary, but with solid hardware and certified signed drivers (we used 100% certified drivers), you can run a very stable Windows network!
I am not claiming elsewise, but if either of the those two get out line, it's the job of shareholders to hold them in check.
was less afraid of them going bad, but now...I'm not so sure. br
But exactly wrong.
Google as a public company is ten, or maybe 100 times, more transparent than before hand. A public company has to report dozens and hundreds of things. A private company has absolutely nothing required of it from a reporting standpoint. Pick any random company. Who are its investors? Who makes decisions? What are its financials? How many employees does it have?
br With a public company, it's all there. It's transparent. If you are a shareholder, you can participate in governance. A privately held Google would be a scarier thing.
What about all the representatives in the House of the Democratic nature who voted for the House version of the bill?
Are they railroading this bill?
The "No Fly" list is considered to be national security, and so is not public record.
And you have yet again missed the point. What makes you think a "No View" list would not be considered to be "national security". Do you have any rational basis for your belief?
UPS and FedEx both do letter delivery on the same time frame as USPS. The USPS also does tracking, signature verification, and time sensitive delivery. This could have been verified from their web site.
UPS and FedEx do not compete with the USPS for letter delivery, which is over 90% of the USPS business. A first-class leter dropped off to the USPS at a bulk-mail unit costs approximately $.27 for delivery anywhere in the United States. The same 1-ounce envelope will cost you several dollars from UPS, and not less than $11.21 from FedEx. Obviously, they are not competitors. The USPS provides marginal guaranteed delivery, and only provides verified delivery when required by statue. They are not in competition. FedEx and UPS derive a huge margin of their profit from parcel delivery. I work daily in the mailing business, I can assure you, you are 100% wrong. FedEx/UPS/DHL/whoever do not compete at all with USPS, and vice-versa.
As for expansion: my town has authority over my town. It cannot decide to start running roads or levying taxes on a neighboring town. Similarly it cannot decide to start running fibre, building roads, or passing laws in another town.
Yes, your town. However, your county has some authority over all cities and towns in your county. You state has authority over your town. The Federal government has authority over. This is, for example, how the Federal government can demand that libraries must install filtering software even though the libraries are located in your town. You have no rationale basis for denying that municipal broadband will be regulated by the federal government. They are already regulate municipal cable, phone, and other services. What rationale basis do you have for believing they will not get involved in regualting "your" town's broadband?
Private broadband quality has deteriorated over time. Like I said, just because more people can get it doesn't make it better. More people can get McDonald's food now than twenty years ago, but the food is still lower quality. We could play "is too; is not" for the next month, but it wouldn't spontaneously invent proof on your part. I stated where the quality dropped.
More access, more bandwidth, lower prices. More subscribers. More choice. People are largely satisfied by their ISP service. Just because you aren't doesn't mean that your local community and the taxpayers should fund your petty demands.
Nothing makes me think municipal internet wouldn't do that, but the residents would have a say in its operation. You don't have that with a private company.
Most users aren't going to care about the things you feel make crappy service. Bandwidth limitations, port blocking, etc do not affect the majority of users. You will still be a huge minority. If everyone feels they have fine service, and you are complaining, you have no recourse at all. You are again in the minority. Except now there are no competitors at all, and no prospect for competition.
In many places your only choice is an ILEC or cable carrier.
Right. What's wrong with that? Two choices, instead of one.
You have provided no rationale basis for why municipal broadband will be better than private access. There is no technical reason: the technology will be equal.
And what is this "no alternative" garbage. If people were unhappy with municipal offerings, they don't have to use it, just like now with private offerings. They could say with the private company, they could just not have internet, they could use dial-up. It isn't like the cable operators and ILECs are just going to up and remove all their
Those filters are provided by companies who refuse to publish their block lists. If that list was compiled by the government, they would be required to turn over the contents.
That's not true necessarily. For example, the government does not have to turn over the "No Fly" list. Why would you believe the "do not view" list would be any different?
There *IS* competetition to the USPS.
Not for letter carrying. The competition only handles parcles and/or time-sensitive letter delivery. They only exist because they do not directly compete with USPS: they provide value-added delivery services. The tracking, signature verification, time sensitive delivery services of the "competition" are all areas that USPS does not operate. The USPS sends regular mail at a highly subsidized rate.
Why would the government get into broadband? First reason is that the citizens want them it. Second could be that it's a revenue source that could help fund other things. Any profit that municipal broadband makes can offset taxes.
This is exactly wrong. Subsidized Internet is an expense, not a profit center. Second, I am a citizen, and I know lots of citizens, who want large monthly checks from the government for nothing. Obviously, giving citizens everything and all things they want is not the goal of good government. Third, by your standard, the government should get into just about all business, since it's all profitable and could offset taxes. Phone service. Check. Cable TV service. Check. Trash collection. Check. Babysitting. Check. House cleaning. Check. Lawn mowing. Check. Food service. Check. Why broadband instead of, say, cable TV or long distance phone service?
Municipal internet access can't expand past the municipality without making the service go private and incorporate. That is very hard to make happen.
First off, incorporation is not hard. Second, why can't municpal internet access expand? Who says? The same government who passes the law? If there is power to be had, it will be expanded. It always is. 100% of the time.
Private sector broadband service has deteriorated since it's inception.
False.
You now typically get filtered services, transfer caps, invisible traffic limits, blocked ports, the inability to run servers, inability to get static addressing.
Depends on your carrier, and your package. Second, you are assuming the municipal broadband is going to offer you a better service package, which is based entirely on your fantasies. What makes you thinks that you'll have unfiltered service, unlimited tranfer, and all open ports? Anything? Do you have any evidence to make up your silly claim?
In many areas you can only get cable internet, which has gotten worse over time. Perhaps Verizon's terrible service, or Comcast's invisible rules is better? Utilities subsidize one service with another, too.
Cable internet has not gotten, on average, worse over time. More people have better access. Of course corporations subsidize services, but only for a while. They dont have the power to tax, like governments. At the end of the day, they have to sell services or products.
If what you talk about with government run internet access happened, people would stop using it.
NOT IF THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE.
You could force a vote on your local ballot and force the internet service private, or dismantle it entirely.
NOT IF THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE.
Who is going to stay in town and compete with cheap/free Internet access. Let me give you the real numbers. If a competitor comes into town and offers prices 50% or 75% lower (or free) than the market can handle, the competiton will go away. Period. No private competitor can compete with this over any time period. So instead of having the choice of one or two private companies, everyone will just have LocalTown Broadband. Which is fine, of course, unless you ever want to disband
You can do whatever you want to try to make government good, but power is power.
I am not advocating for a anarchist open market.
However, you say it should be split, and that's wrong in my view. No non-essential services should be provided by the government. That's not the goal of the government.
We don't trust private companies at all! That's whats great.
Government has big men with big guns and black suits working for them. Time Warner, or AOL, or ComCast, does not. I can always opt out of them. I cannot opt out of tax subsidizing Internet access.
That's the great thing about the market. You always have reprecussions. It is often much more responsive to small niche's than the government.
And they will be sued if they do.
It's already been up and down the courts. It's legal, or close to it. One version gets struck down, they reword, and try again. Libraries have to filter. What makes you think it will be any different for municipalities?
In which case local ISPs will not have a problem, because local businesses will *need* more than what the municipal ISP provides them with, and the rest of us will *want* more than that.
No, I don't think so. Local small businesses don't need more. They need what home users need. Local larger or medium businesses already go above and have either leased or dedicated connections, like T1 loops, or similiar products. Regardless, for business, whatever they do, is fine. It's a cost of doing business. What we are talking about is personal access.
And if it's not granted because it's a religious protest, it will be challengable in the courts.
The religious protest is just an example. Permits are denied all the time in Central Park. Insert whatever. Political protest, anti-meat eating protest. Whatever. Permits are denied, and you have little or no recourse. You can take it as high as you want. Before the RNC in NYC last year many protest permits were denied, and none were overturned in court. What makes you think that if NYC offered broadband that there would be anything less required? A permit to assemble on public property.
They ban religious websites? Really? Or are you refering to the smut filters that remain contentious?
Yes, they ban religious websites. Smut filters that "accidentally" (well, assumedely so, we can't see the list, so, who knows) block religious websites.
What competition?
There bloody well isn't going to be any if the government gets involved in provided access. There will never, ever, be competition. Just like there is no competition to the USPS, or the local roads, or the local water district. You can't compete with subsidized service. It's just not long-term viable. Unless you can manage to carve out some type of bizarre niche market, it's infeasible.
then what is the failing that the local municipality feels is strong enough to warrant getting into the business itself?
I have no idea, but they are working on it! $8-10/mo for broadband access.
because the other alternative here is you're moving the goalposts having realised your argument is completely bankrupt and are now talking about municipalities starting services in already well served areas, something I haven't advocated or appeared to advocate
And what I originally said, and you replied to, is that it will start off well-intentioned, like all government programs. Good people with good ideas who can make them happen. And then it will grow, and expand. Like every other single program in the history of government (with few notable exceptions). A few successes will be extrapolated into widescale programs.
you believe these 10-15 ISPs completely suck and are incapable of improving their services. If that's the case, what competition exists for this hypothetical municipal ISP? What does it destroy?
ISPs get better. Service gets better. Competiton makes it better. Broadband service has gotten consistently better and better in the last 10 years. It went from nothing to pretty comprehensive. And it continues to improve. The market continues to grow. Yeah, it sucks for people who are underserved.
If you open the door to government internet service, it will not close. It's just how government is. The more power, the more tax dollars, the better.
What competition? How can competition go when it has yet to arrive? We can undermine future competition, but that said, the risk of such competition would at least ensure the local government has good incentive to keep their system up to date and as flexible (ie no NAT or port blocking) as practically possible.
The towns an
I am not bashing on the fact that it's a Mac!
I am just saying, it's a failure. Every place that has tried it has been a failure.
The purpose of the laptops wasn't to teach students to be geeks, but it was sold as a general teaching tool. And it has failed, and failed badly.
For specific purposes, like IT education, programming classes, 3d art clasess, etc it may be great.
The laptop program was sold as a way to elevate the teaching and level of education for all students, not just ones interested in computers. It wasn't sold as way to learn vi, or program Flash, or MySQL. It was sold as way to improve education, and it has failed.
You are completely relying on the fact that some local government isn't going to be equally or more restrictive about what you can do with the connection.
Do you have any backup to cover your claim, or are you just winging it? If you had something, I'd love to see it. But otherwise, within a year or so, I'd wager real dollars that the TOS will be equal to or more restrictive than what the major players offer.
And don't forget, it will be treated as a "privilege". It will not be automatically allowed. If you don't pay your parking tickets, watch out. For example, in my home town, if you have any outstanding parking tickets, you can't register a dog, register your car, get your car out of impound, have water service connected, apply for a city street parking permit, register a boat, file for a marriage certificate, or conduct just about any city business. Do you have any reason, ANY at all to believe this won't eventually be the case with your broadband?
In the real world, we need a mix of solutions. Raising straw men ("A municipal ISP will ban religious expression and be taken over by the state!") doesn't help us see what that mix is. The FCC did a good thing, in my view, by forcing the ILECs to open up their infrastructures.
I agree 100%. State granted monopolies are bad. However, municipal ISPs will be abusive. It will be a matter of time before it happens. It will be proactive "defended", and therefore censored. It's going to happen. It's already happening on the local level by federal mandate. It's hardly a strawman - it's fact.
Municipal ISPs are providing a valuable service to those areas where the free market is simply failing regardless of what the FCC did.
Again, this is now. At the onset. It will spread, and you know it will. Like all government programs. Limited successes will be extrapolated into wide-ranging programs. I want everyone to have broadband access, but I am not sure that this is the best way to achieve that goal. Is it worth it to fill the end of the bell curve if it means flattening out the peak?
Choices do not always exist, and commercial services are frequently worse than government supplied ones.
It's the bell-curve again. Most people get average service. Some people will get better service under government programs, other will get worse. However, the median service will be lower. That's the trade-off for universal service.
It's either this, or yet more regulation. Not that regulation is automatically a bad thing either. I am not saying it's automatically bad, either. But you are presenting a false choice. The situation is not hopelessly bad. Most people have many Internet choices. Most people can afford them, and most people are satisfied. Something probably needs to be done to serve the underserved areas. I am open for the debate on that.
But putting the government at any level in charge of information flow is just asking for trouble. It will be abused. The median quality of service will be lower. There will be fewer choices for consumers. What we are doing, essentially, is granting municipalities a monopoly. Just like with phones and cable in the last century.
Maybe what would be better idea is to have local governments setup infrastructure, and allow commerical providers the ability to lease the infrastructure in a non-discriminatory fashion to provide the service. If some town or city wanted to drop fiber to the door, and then sell access in an open fashion to commerical ventures, that'd be fine with me, so long as the government was providing a "common carrier" only role. This is how the power system in my state is setup. One state sponsored corporation owns the transmission system, and leases the lines to power generation and sales companies. If the transmission company hadn't already been around, the state would just own the lines outright. They lease access to whoever wants it, and consumers can pick their power company.
If you somehow think the Terms of Service for the local government ISP is going to any more open, less restrictive, or less draconian than what your commerical providers offer, you are mistaken.
Nonsense. If a private ISP bans you from using your connection to promote or service your religion, there's no come back whatsoever. No warrants, nothing. You can either suck it, or leave it, and too bad if nobody else in the area thinks differently to them.
LEave it! Yes. If the muncipal ISP exists, there will be no choice.
Now, about the 1st amendment issues. The government will restrict your right to post information, and it will be proactive. They will block ports, they will limit bandwidth, they will filter content. It's going to happen. It's already required of libraries providing Internet access. It is going to happen, you can count on that. The fact is right now you need a permit to assemble a crowd in a public place, on public land, for just about any purpose. You want to stage a religious protest in Central Park, you need a permit, and it may not be granted. What makes you think that governments who deny permits to protestors will allow them to publish damaging or damning information via their network?
So I find the whole "Municipal broadband destroys choice" argument somewhat misleading.
It destroys choice because where there exists government broadband at below market prices the competition will fail, every time. It's just a matter of time. I have between 10 and 15 ISPs over four delivery systems available to me. If my town went into the ISP business, I'd have 1 choice, and 1 choice only, in little or no time. This isnt' a strawman, thanks. It's the fact. A subsidized solution will put out a free-market solution every single time.
Municipal broadband, by and large, is being done where there's a demand that local government intevene,
Right. And my point was that it starts good. There is a need, let's fill it. Great. But once that area has broadband provided by the town, what is going to stop them from abusing it once the competition is long gone? Nothing.
If we lived in a world where choice was deemed that important and the free market worked, nobody would be doing that.
There are two reasons this would happen. The first being a government-granted monopoly, which means no one else can compete. The other reason for an underserved market is that there isn't enough business to support it.
Why? Because the former has to obey the first amendment.
Well, in theory. Like libraries, right? They are government funded, but they filter. Actually, they are required to filter. It's not just an option, it's a requirement.
And what about contemporary community standards, and all that? If the government owns the network, can individuals post religious material? I mean, the governmetn owns the park, and you can't just go down there and put up big posters of Jesus without a permit, right? And even though we are guaranteed the right to assembly, it's not unconditional. We have to get mass permits so there isn't rioting and so that we have a "safe" place to assemble.
So, yeah, the first amendment is great. But in reality, it's not the be all end all of protection.
The difference between the private ISP and the municipal is that on the ISP, it's reactive. Something happens, a warrant is issued, and something else happens. If the government is in the loop from day one, there is absolutely no check. None. It will be pro-active.
Like I said, I don't believe it should be implemented wider than a municipality.
That's great, and I agree. However, the people running things won't always be running things. Schools are run locally, right? Unless the State performs a takeover because it's really a bad school. What happens if the State decides your little network is too slow or bad or whatever, and decides to take it over to manage it properly?
Once you open the door, it really is almost never shut.
A market economy does not provide universal coverage. The quality of service is a bell-curve, some people get awesome service, some get terrible service, most get mediocre service. That's where we are today. The largest majority of people can get either crappy or mediocre service. A small minority can get great service. A smaller minority can get no service.
For these people, maybe we need sometype of government sponsored universal access guarantee. Maybe that's a good idea that should be investigated.
But when the government owns the network, it will be proactive against it's users before long. Muncipalities are seen as responsive, but they aren't always. They can be vindictive. There will be a broadband board. They will call people forward to testify. They will cut people off. They will spy on people. They will release logs to embarrass enemies. They will abuse the power. It will happen. It's a guarantee. There is not a government power that goes unabused.
So the final question comes down to this: would you rather take your chances with private/commerical carriers, or the government.
My choice is simple, and clear. I have economic recourse against business. I have legal recourse against business. I have choices. If my town started offering broadband at sub-market prices, well, that'd be the end of my choice.
That said, high speed internet access is rapidly becoming as essential to the growth and development of the mind as public education. Kids with high speed net access preform better in schools. That's not necessarily a causal relationship, but it's something worth investigating.
Do you have some backup for this claim?
My home state gave laptops to all middle-schoolers a few years ago, and pretty much without question, it's been an unmitigated disaster.
First, it was money that was diverted into the program. Not a huge amount, but it's pretty pricey.
Second, teachers and schools had to prepare for the laptops. Schools spending largish sums of money on IT is kinda silly.
Third, teachers and schools have to deal with them on a daily basis. They break, they have tech problems (not that many, they are iBooks), they make funny noises, and give the frowny face icon sometimes.
Fourth, they are a big distraction. Kids stealing a peak here and there. Kids multitasking ESPN.com and IM.
Fifth, they take classroom time from other subjects.
Sixth, teachers have to spend more time preparing classes that utilize the new technology. Where before some notes about a lecture where good, now a slide-show and/or document "handout" is expected.
The article in the local newspaper is pay-for-view, but here is the abstract: "Middle schoolers who used laptop computers for two years performed about the same on a standardized test as students before them who never had laptops. Critics of laptops say the scores are the first real evidence that the program, which so far has cost more than $15 million, is an expensive fad. But proponents say it's too early to expect dramatic changes in test scores." link
For some people, like myself, it's utter paranoia.
Muncipal governments are luckily mostly small, but wait until this hits a bigger area. I can just see it now: having to go in front of the municipal broadband board and justify my hosting of an unpopularly sentimented blog, or having to answer to the city council about why I am using so much bandwidth.
Ultimately, government control of information will lead to censorship, and monitoring. Information that is illegal will be pro-actively searched for and destroyed.
The problem with government is that good intentions are behind it all. "We want to cut down on evil monopolies and eliminate the digital divide".
Great. I am happy for that. It's a laudable goal.
Something will happen. Let's say, a parent comes home to discover their teenage daughter has left a runaway note. "Mom, you suck, I am running away to be with my older boyfriend. He loves me!".
Well, of course, here comes "Little Angelic Angela's Law", which will require that local police have access to IM records that pass over their networks if they involve minors. Who wants the government providing Internet access to predators so they can bait helpess impressionable children? "Not with my tax dollars!"
After a bit, that will not be enough. Something else high-profile will happen. A school shooting will be co-ordinated. Or a bomb threat e-mailed in. Or whatever.
And all of the sudden, the rules start piling up. It'll only be a matter of time until citizens decide that they don't want to subsudize Mr. Creepy Pants porn habit, and so, the broadband they provide will filtered against ONLY the most extremely nasty pornography network wide.
Good intentions and government are sometimes a very dangerous mix. Most people involved are great, civic minded people. But. The expansion of government most often leads to very, very, very tricky questions.
It'll be a few years, and a county government will want to take over the network. Why should all these inefficent little networks exist, when they can benefit from econimies of scale? And then the State.
And then it's over. And then, your Internet will be used as a weapon against. It'll be a privelage, like driving. Why should we let people who haven't filed their income taxes on the Internet? It's a privelage of living in the state. Why should people on welfare have access to entertainment sites, it's our tax dollars! Why should people be able to publish websites on this connection, this is for non-commerical use only! The latest e-mail trojan is spreading like wildfire, block all ports in the infected range for the protection of the many!
Of course, all this could happen with private Internet access. But. In my smallish town of 30,000 I have two cable offerings, nearly a dozen DSL offerings, a handful of ISDN offerings, a handful of dial-up offerings, national offerings from AOL and similiar folks, and two wireless ISPs. That's a pretty decent slate of choices.
The temptation to throw myself full fledged onto the free/low-cost municipal broadband is great! It'll be great as long as it's got THIS. And THIS. And THIS. But how long until they get trimmed back, one by one, till what we have is less than what we have now?
People who believe in religion out of fear are operating at the lowest levels of spirtuality.
When raising children, for example, you go through phases of education. When the child is small, base training is how the child is taught. Go near the hot fire, you smack them on the behind and tell them loudly and scarily, "NO!". When the child is older you teach them about heat, and what burning is, and what it will do to you. You help them to hone their natural defenses. Recognize that pain should be avoided. As they reach maturity, you help them realize that pain is not the punishment, but the warning.
People who act religiously out of fear are afraid (often literally) of the fire.