The first problem I have with publicly-provided anything is that it quickly becomes an "entitlement". How long before the public is expected to provide computers to those who cannot afford them in order to access the broadband services they cannot afford, and pizza and pepsi to the people sitting in front of those computers, (if not free, then at least at reduced rates, so the big bad pizzerias and soda companies aren't taking advantage of the users)?
(To those who argue for the economic benefits of such access -- any entity who can realize an economic benefit/advantage from broadband access will find, and probably has already found, a way to do so. For all the people who will not and have not, cheap broadband, publicly provided, is just a faster delivery mechanism for their IM and porn.)
I look at this from a libertarian-leaning perspective: I want the government to do as little as necessary, and otherwise stay the hell out of my life. Their authority for public safety, military defense, and the like, I will accept. All other activities are beyond the scope of what they should be doing.
As an example, the officials on the city council in my town have condemned and purchased property and wish to develop an industrial park for the city's "economic benefit". this purchase was made 15 years ago, and the land is still undeveloped marsh bottom, unsuitable for anything but mosquitos. By contrast, a private developer (a successful businessman from a neighboring community) purchased another large parcel a year ago, and his development of the industrial/business park is proceeding quickly and by all observations, successfully -- something the city has not been able to do in a 15-year period, with public funding available to it. The city project has become a money pit, and the council is a laughingstock. Bottom line -- public agencies' projects rarely, if ever, succeed in any equivalent manner to those of private entities with a business incentive to do so.
In the interest of full disclosure, I own and operate a small ISP in this community. We have, at our own expense, built a successful wireless broadband network, serving a couple hundred customers. We charge rates in the neighborhood of $35/$50 residential/business per month, a rate in keeping with DSL and Cable in neighboring communities. We could charge significantly more, as we have no local competition offering Cable Internet or DSL, but we live and work here, and believe in treating our customers as fairly as possible (quaint concept, huh?)
As a frame of reference, our rates are equal to or less than those of broadband providers in neighboring communities. Our community, being a little distant from those more urban centers, endures other, far more significant, price differentials, due mostly to what are claimed as "transport costs" from those areas. For example, we pay $.20 more per gallon of gas, approx 15% more for groceries, 20% more for prescriptions, and 10% more for trash pickup. All in all, I believe our customers are getting a real bargain from us.
Actually, considering the success we've had, if we were to procure startup funding, we'd be more than happy to do the same in any number of small, and even midsize, cities and towns. The payback in terms of gratitude and customer loyalty is immense, and we can make a system profitable with as few as 150 or so subscribers. In a market with far greater subscriber numbers, it's very possible to reduce rates even further, while maintaining profitability.
I agree that the large telco and cable effort to retain their stranglehold needs to be broken, but the communities would be better served if the public bodies were to offer the opportunities to businesses like ours, rather than take it on themselves, otherwise, where is the incentive to run an efficient, cost-effective operation? Who among you has ever known a public project that came in on-time and under-budget? (Don't even get me started on the perks and public retirement benefits for the people empl
Slashdot Mirror
The first problem I have with publicly-provided anything is that it quickly becomes an "entitlement". How long before the public is expected to provide computers to those who cannot afford them in order to access the broadband services they cannot afford, and pizza and pepsi to the people sitting in front of those computers, (if not free, then at least at reduced rates, so the big bad pizzerias and soda companies aren't taking advantage of the users)?
(To those who argue for the economic benefits of such access -- any entity who can realize an economic benefit/advantage from broadband access will find, and probably has already found, a way to do so. For all the people who will not and have not, cheap broadband, publicly provided, is just a faster delivery mechanism for their IM and porn.)
I look at this from a libertarian-leaning perspective: I want the government to do as little as necessary, and otherwise stay the hell out of my life. Their authority for public safety, military defense, and the like, I will accept. All other activities are beyond the scope of what they should be doing.
As an example, the officials on the city council in my town have condemned and purchased property and wish to develop an industrial park for the city's "economic benefit". this purchase was made 15 years ago, and the land is still undeveloped marsh bottom, unsuitable for anything but mosquitos. By contrast, a private developer (a successful businessman from a neighboring community) purchased another large parcel a year ago, and his development of the industrial/business park is proceeding quickly and by all observations, successfully -- something the city has not been able to do in a 15-year period, with public funding available to it. The city project has become a money pit, and the council is a laughingstock. Bottom line -- public agencies' projects rarely, if ever, succeed in any equivalent manner to those of private entities with a business incentive to do so.
In the interest of full disclosure, I own and operate a small ISP in this community. We have, at our own expense, built a successful wireless broadband network, serving a couple hundred customers. We charge rates in the neighborhood of $35/$50 residential/business per month, a rate in keeping with DSL and Cable in neighboring communities. We could charge significantly more, as we have no local competition offering Cable Internet or DSL, but we live and work here, and believe in treating our customers as fairly as possible (quaint concept, huh?)
As a frame of reference, our rates are equal to or less than those of broadband providers in neighboring communities. Our community, being a little distant from those more urban centers, endures other, far more significant, price differentials, due mostly to what are claimed as "transport costs" from those areas. For example, we pay $.20 more per gallon of gas, approx 15% more for groceries, 20% more for prescriptions, and 10% more for trash pickup. All in all, I believe our customers are getting a real bargain from us.
Actually, considering the success we've had, if we were to procure startup funding, we'd be more than happy to do the same in any number of small, and even midsize, cities and towns. The payback in terms of gratitude and customer loyalty is immense, and we can make a system profitable with as few as 150 or so subscribers. In a market with far greater subscriber numbers, it's very possible to reduce rates even further, while maintaining profitability.
I agree that the large telco and cable effort to retain their stranglehold needs to be broken, but the communities would be better served if the public bodies were to offer the opportunities to businesses like ours, rather than take it on themselves, otherwise, where is the incentive to run an efficient, cost-effective operation? Who among you has ever known a public project that came in on-time and under-budget? (Don't even get me started on the perks and public retirement benefits for the people empl