Is Anti-Municipal Broadband Report Astroturf? 529
Glenn Fleishman writes "A report issued today by the New Millennium Research Council (NMRC) and The Heartland Institute says that municipalities shouldn't build wireless networks because it's anti-competitive and will waste taxypayer dollars. The report has some interesting points (mostly about building fiber networks), but eWeek (second page) uncovered that NMRC is a subsidiary of Issue Dynamics, which is a lobbying firm that represents most US telcos and cable operators. It's astroturf. The Heartland Institute won't reveal its funders. I wrote a long account trying to track down the connections between the sock puppets involved in publicizing the report."
Great Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
If there are professional companies willing to invest in the infrustructure great, use them. On the other hand when you have a small town in the middle of nowhere, it could be rather difficult to find that company. In that case a network run by the town looks like the best and only option
Besides, occasionally a community run network does do better job than the big guys
Re:Interesting issue tho (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting issue tho (Score:4, Insightful)
Should private companies be continuously allowed to hold a monopoly on an entire market and thus be able to charge whatever they see fit and treat customers in a manner that is the most economically feasible?
No. They should not. No one should be able to hold a monopoly on high-speed Internet services in an area (including the local municipality). Everyone should be able to freely compete. Sadly, that's not how it works.
While I love the theory of munipalities offering low-cost Internet service wirelessly I am worried about the implications of the local government then mandating what is and is not appropriate to traverse that transmission medium.
Government for the people, *by* the people, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
If companies are allowed to make money, then my townsfolk should be allowed to work together to *save* money. What next, bulldozing the library because Barnes & Noble wants to open up a store?
Theft (Score:3, Insightful)
Should the money someone else pays the government under threat of imprisonment be used for something they don't want, won't use, and won't enjoy?
If you want it, you pay for it. Don't force anyone else to pay who doesn't want to. I've got enough bills to pay without funding your addiction to
It's just another service (Score:5, Insightful)
Couldn't we say the same about street illumination, waste disposal or sewer networks? It's another service, and if the municipality thinks that it would benefit the whole community to put a wireless network in place, why shouldn't they get that service with the residents' tax dollars/euros/cookies?
Re:Interesting issue tho (Score:2, Insightful)
I think that's the real issue.
If a private company wants to be competitive in areas that the government is already supplying the service, they will just have to step up the customer service and value added services.
Think-tank (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of the time I look for keywords. In this case, "anti-competitive" and "waste taxpayer dollars" points me toward the people who stand to lose the most from government-sponsored wireless. Which would be telephone companies and cable companies. I would also expect energy/electricity companies, and several communication satellite companies.
I think a little competition would good for 'em.
Builds character.
The public good... (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, IMO blanketing a municipal area with publicly available hotspots seems like a legitimate use of public dollars if costs can be contained, and if implementation can be managed effectively (I know, I know, big ifs).
It may be cliched, but the internet has become a truly useful tool that can enrich the lives of those with access to it.
I think making this bandwidth available as a public service is in the taxpayer's best interest if it can be done with undue financial burden.
It would definitely help to decrease the digital divide. It doesn't take much hardware to surf the net. I could see the evolution of a sub $500 notebook market that evolved along side the widespread deployment of these municipal wifi networks.
Telcos need to put up or shut up. (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe the idea of a wireless public network is great and hope it spreads to more areas soon.
Re:Interesting issue tho (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, you might say that government owned and run Wi-Fi networks constitute "essential infrastructure" and since internet access is becomming more and more essential I would not argue against it. That is the reason we might choose to fund this sort of thing thru government not because it is "something I want, would use, and enjoy".
Re:Interesting issue tho (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when does any municipality have limitless funds? Hell every month the school board proposes a new budget that attempts to cut funding to the arts, and claim they're not receiving enough money from the county or state. They're closing fire houses. They're cutting police overtime. Unlimited funds and manpower? Give me a break.
Let the municipality build city wide internet access. Like any other city derived resource, it will be used by the less fortunate and the leeches who don't want to pay for something. The service will be nominally better than having none at all, but for many that's all they need.
Private companies will still compete because businesses still have needs. Individuals who want reliablity and accountability will still have needs that will only be met by a private company.
Re:Theft (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazing, why does this continue to be a response to anything government funded? Here are services I have never used:
- The fire department
- The police department
- Roads beyond the 1/2 mile to the interstate and around friends and family
Using your logic, we should just charge people who want the service. Need the fire department? Well, they are currently billing at $85/hour/firefighter plus equipment and supplies.
We are a society, if as a society, a city decides it is in their best interest to buy WIFI, and you do not, either: a-vote out the officials or b-move to another city.
Re:Government for the people, *by* the people, rig (Score:1, Insightful)
Remember, the only thing that makes Government different from other organizations is that Governments are legally empowered to enforce their will with the use of physical force (i.e., at gunpoint).
Is it morally acceptable for a group of people to require their fellow citizens for fork over tax dollars at the point of a gun to pay for a service they don't all want to use?
This is why Government has traditionaly restricted itself to providing services that are very diffacult to privatize (i.e., roads)
Carefully weigh the benefits with the risk (Score:4, Insightful)
But I have a concern... Without setting off the 'crazy anarchist' alarm, I think that the scope of the government should be limited at this point, not increased. The original purpose of our government was to provide a loose framework that would facilitate order and protect our borders from foreign invasion. Over the past 250 years, something changed, and many now look to government to fulfill a parental role as well. We expect the government to make sure we all share, take care of things we as children couldn't fathom (analogous to parents paying the utlity bill. If you're a 5 year old, you just see 'we have electricity', not 'we just paid for a service'). It has expanded time and time again, and each time we transfer something from private enterprise to the government, we lose a little power and flexibility.
A free market economy isn't perfect, but it has undeniably been the greatest boom to human rights since the invention of the cave. Every time a company has to compete, you get innovation. Every time you get innovation, you get lowered costs and better products.
If governments (city, federal, state, it doesn't matter which) then the competition aspect disapears. Maybe the service at the time of creation is perfect (Wow, 2 megabit, 5ms ping time, right on!) but after 5 years, it would probably start to feel a bit tight. After ten years, it would be hopelessly out of date. Remember the modem you used ten years ago? How satisfied would you be with it today?
Finally, business is the lubrication that prevents the gears of democracy from locking up. Money is power, and the flow of money back and forth keeps things fluid. If you destroy a company, that cash flow begins to stagnate, and stagnation is what hurts the economy. In the end, the government grows, money slows down, and everyone is hurt a little bit.
Is it a worthy tradeoff for bandwidth? I'm sure there are plenty of people who say 'yeah' because instead of death, they just see the tradeoffs as 'a little pain', something that they won't notice. The problem is, that as citizens, we're making compromises for the little pain every day, and pretty soon it starts to add up.
This isn't a rant against government, it's a rant against stagnation and overcentralization.
Re:If conservatives had their way... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the market DOES build roads. They are Toll roads and Turn pikes. and are built using private funding only.
https://smart-tag.com/dulles_toll_road.htm [smart-tag.com]
http://www.c-b.com/information%20center/transport
They have been around for a long time. Next argument please.
Re:Astroturf? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a term for this obfuscated funding: it's called "buying your evidence".
Re:Government for the people, *by* the people, rig (Score:5, Insightful)
Um... yeah, sometimes. Public parks, for example, I could say, "I don't want public parks! I HAVE a backyard!" What about public transportation? Public museums? Those aren't hard to privatize. We do have private land and and private transportation and private art collections, but the public stuff does serve a purpose, and most of us are willing to put in a few extra dollars to pay for it (even if we don't use them often).
Yes, there are some who'd rather not pay. That doesn't, by itself, indicate anything. Pick any single thing that the government does, and I can find someone who doesn't want to pay for it.
Re:Interesting issue tho (Score:4, Insightful)
What about public parks, public spaces, (even public restrooms) and the like?
They aren't "essential infrastructure" or "common defense" but they are management of a limited resource for the common good-- they provide something that many people "want, use, and enjoy".
Re:It's just another service (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Carefully weigh the benefits with the risk (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Government for the people, *by* the people, rig (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I would like to see what happens if a group of people start an experimental town centered around their own self interests vs the town as a whole...sort of like a reverse hippie commune.
Re: Interesting issue tho (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not just that - our government is now in charge of confiscating the efforts of many and using the money to please the powerful.
The social security taxes of the young are used to buy off the votes of the elderly.
The income taxes of us all are used to buy off the votes of the welfare classes.
The teriff we pay on imports is used to buy off the votes of the protected Unions.
It's not just large corporations who gain when government is powerful.
There are so many sides to this (Score:4, Insightful)
However, many governments, small and large, are lazy, corrupt, and wasteful and would end up costing people more money than if private companies had to compete for the job.
So this depends on the people you have in government and the influence companies that would take this over have on those people.
The other side is for areas that companies won't connect up because they can't justify the small profit. Poor urban areas which can't afford to pay the cable or telephone companies might benefit from a government run operation. However, usually when governments say they're going to help lower class minorities, they just instead pad their own pockets.
So there is no clear "this is good" or "this is bad". You have to look at each case. I happen to live in an area where comcast offers very fast internet access, so I have no need for this type of service and I don't feel I should have to pay for it.
Re:Interesting issue tho (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the scope of the FEDERAL government should be limited to "protecting us from force or fraud, providing for a common defence, and construction and/or regulation of essential infrastructure ( e.g. roads )". If my small town gets together and agrees they're willing to [collectively, as a town] pay Betty to run a public day-care, we as the people of that town are well within our rights to do so. We can build a playground, too, if we like. We can choose to pull our resources together however we see fit and distribute it however we like, so long as it doesn't break any state for federal laws. If you live in my small town and don't like the decisions we make, you can either choose to live with it or leave.
Re:The public good... (Score:3, Insightful)
The same goes for single-payer healthcare. It would destroy competition between insurance companies. Heck, it would destroy the insurance companies. But right now the number one strike against creating jobs in the US compared to other developed countries is providing health care for your employees.
Re:Interesting issue tho (Score:3, Insightful)
For one, since they're talking about municipalities the concept of 'limitless' budget and manpower is incorrect. Cities have real budgetary constraints and most of their money comes form tax base. It's not like the US DoD has decided to do this, but smaller cities.
Second of all, sometimes the role of the municipality (or other levels) of government is to do something that is in the public interest but would be too expensive/fractured if done in the private sector. Think infrastructure like roads and water. Do you want to see "Bob's sewer system" not connecting to "Dave's swewr system"?
As to wether private companies should compete -- well, that's the thing. Private companies could compete in one model. In another model you say "we don't want 50 different bad attempts so we'll do one big-honkin good-enough attempt".
In this case it is private companies (according to assertions in this thread and in the original post) seem to have funded research saying that municipalities should stay out of this area and leave it to them to take care of. So, obviously, they agree with your assertion it is 'unfair' to them.
Discuss some more. =)
Re:No, its a luxury. (Score:1, Insightful)
Quite frankly, other than the direct legislative power (which is why lobbyists are so well-paid), sizable corporations and governments don't seem much different from your description. They both have methods of ignoring laws and creating new ones to benefit themselves. They both often have ways of controlling access and encouraging individuals to use only their services. As for pushing an agenda, one need only look into what gets reported by particular media outlets and their parent companies' actions and connections. The behaviour has become disturbingly similar, and many large corporations practically have their own pet legislators who can exert influence on government rules--this is on top of their own rules and regulations.
Re:Theft (Score:2, Insightful)
Municipal broadband access could very well be a net financial benefit to a community. This is _precisely_ the sort of thing I want my city to pay for. Its an excellent competitive advantage. If it draws in a younger crowd, makes it cheaper for businesses to get their job done, and makes it possible for a few more people to get online that is a Good Thing. More high-tech wage earners in town. A friendlier business environment. More educational opportunities for joe schmoe who hasn't used the internet much because dialup is so slow that the 'net is useless. All these things mean a larger tax base and more jobs.
Re:The public good... (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to consider myself a dyed in the wool libertarian or Liberal with a capital 'L' in the Milton Friedman school.
A funny thing happened on my way to the University of Chicago though...I noticed the devastating effects of often capricious capital flows across the globe ala the Asian Crisis, corruption and capitalism at its very worst in the former USSR, and the debacle in utility deregulation that came to a head with Enron.
In many cases, I am still all for unfettered markets, free trade, and the endless drum beat of globalization. I've also come to realize that markets left to themselves don't always work themselves out with the invisible hand.
I am still a libertarian on many issues, but have come to dislike labels, and reducing one's beliefs to a pigeonhole. I'd like to think the tapestry of thought is a little more complex than that.
My point is just because someone is in favor of a public project in one particular area shouldn't brand them automatically as a 'socialist.' Life is a lot more complicated than throwing labels around.
Re:Theft (Score:5, Insightful)
Is your neighborhood under the constant threat of attack from roving mobs? Do you think, perhaps, the police department may have something to do with that? Do people drive whatever speed they want while throwing litter out of their windows on your street?
Do you honestly believe that the services you do admit to using just magically poof into existance on "Roads [withing] the 1/2 mile to the interstate and around friends and family". Do groceries get beamed into your local supermarket? Does the garbage man take your garbage to a half mile away and then launch it into the sun?
That line's not so clear (Score:5, Insightful)
The Eisenhower interstate system was originally built as a defense measure -- fast transport -- and as an economic boon. Our government right now spends colossal amounts on highway maintenance, at the federal and state levels that money is enormous.
The "necessity" of those roads wasn't as apparent when they were built as it is now. Back then -- and I'm sure you can find local examples -- new roads really were a sort of lavish luxury as well as a way of planning -- God forbid -- economic development. (The "Lilac Way" highway that runs near by my house had a big parade when it opened and was, initially, largely used for picnics at [government-built] public BBQ parks. Now it's not a scenic Sunday drive any more; it's a big economic and traffic hub in suburbs that grew up around it.)
And for what it's worth, the fact that the government planned those highways led to some decisions we can still question. For example, our interstates all run right into and through the interior of our big cities. Neighborhoods that didn't have the political clout to resist having a freeway cut them in half got destroyed by those things. (The Rondo neighborhood in St. Paul died out, for an example local to me.) Talk about your social effects of government! So your objection to this wireless stuff, that it leads to gov't intrusion, does hold up.
Personally I don't think the line's that clear or clean, and I don't think it's stable over time. Airports are a legit thing for governments to be very involved in planning, yes? I know I don't want a new runway over my yard tomorrow. Would they have been in 1915? When voters think it's legit, the necessities we spend on change.
The one point I'll strongly agree on is the Government's oversight of communications technologies, though. The FCC is hardly being a good steward of broadcast "space" for television. I'm not sure wireless, which is a point to point model, is quite the same, but I see the objection.
Re:No, its a luxury. (Score:3, Insightful)
So was indoor plumbing, before municipalities built waterworks and sewer lines.
Is indoor plumbing a necessity or just a luxury? You could take your dumps in a hole in your back yard if you had to. That's how it was done before the daggum gubmint taxed us landowners to build them fancy sewers!
Re:Government for the people, *by* the people, rig (Score:2, Insightful)
And usually that person is a republican.
Re:Why would you want this? (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason why many people want municipal broadband is becuase the local companies are not providing adequate service. The local telco may not want to build out to some neighborhoods because its not profitable, despite demand. Government could provide service with only minimal impact on the taxpayers as a whole.
Once upon a time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If conservatives had their way... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, its a luxury. (Score:2, Insightful)
your responses come in several parts, and deserve individual consideration.
The difference is that your examples are basic requirements to have a good clean infrastructure. Wireless Internet is a luxury and not employed by many. "Street illumination, waste disposal [and] sewer networks" are luxuries not enjoyed by anything close to a majority of the people in the world. Therefore, using that as a distinction fails.
If the government provides this service how long before they will have to subsidize the equipment to those who cannot afford it? Pretty soon you end up with little groups of people who get the equipment and service for free because they are classified as one type of minority or another. Of "street illumination, waste disposal [and] sewer networks" only the street illumination is "free," and even then its not. The people who own the property on the street that is illuminated are who are paying for it, if you think about it. Nothing from the government is "free" anyway. As for waste disposal and sewage - doesn't matter if you're poor, or a minority, those things aren't free. Businesses and homeowners alike have bills for those things (sewage is often on the same bill as the water). So...your distinction fails again. No one is proposing that the government buys things for people to be able to throw away so they can utilize waste disposal, nor are they proposing that the government buys wireless nics.
While I love the idea of cheap wireless I do not want the government controlling it. Unlike private corporations governments have incredible methods of ignoring laws and worse writing new ones that control access and content. They also are very good at pushing an agenda with such services. Um...you don't seriously think that no corporations engage in illegal activities, or push agendas, do you? Additionally, with *LOCAL* governments, its easy for the norms to enact change. The person who can do something is their neighbor. Its not like we're talking about federal wireless networks...
There is no clear need to provide this service as there is no majority that needs it or has the equipment to use it. With that logic, there is no need to build sewage systems in 3rd world countries, because the people there don't own toilets. Instead, why not consider the possibility that if a municipal wireless network was put in place that was secure, people might then have the imputus to *obtain* the requisite equiptment to use it? If random person X that lives in an apartment above a store in downtown uses dialup, its not necessarily because he lacks a wireless nic. It may well be because he can't afford the $50 a month for highspeed, or maybe the building he's in isn't wired for cable so he can't even get it, or...whatever else. Again, local governments are established and empowered by the local residents to do things for the benefit of the local residents...like provide street illumination, police officers, etc.
Do not allow the government to expand simply because it convienences you. If there's something that would benefit a large chunk of people, and would be *considerably* cheaper (pennies instead of dollars) to do it for everyone , then...why shouldn't it be done? Isn't the very purpose of civilization to be increasing efficiency?
Pretty soon you will find you will only have to access to what they want you to and when they want you to. Unless you purchase your own net access seperate from the "free" offering from the local government.
I also believe that they should only provide the services that are required. They are not here to provide luxuries.
Re:Interesting issue tho (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah, so, in your small town, you're allowed to force me to abandon my property rights (make me leave town) if I disagree with your collective decision? What if the collective decision is to build a free Christian daycare center, and I'm a Muslim, Jew, Budhist, or atheist?
In the larger context, when the municipality decides what constitutes "acceptable" WIFI or other internet access, who's to say they won't also decide what you're allowed to access via that public-funded interenet connection? And what if you disagree with that decision (they've banned your favourite porn site, for example), and you find that you can't find any private, non-restricted ISP to service your address, because they can't make money competing with the local government's monopoly?
Anyone who values freedom should shout loud and hard against any attempt by government entities to control your access to internet, even under the guise of "free access".
Re:Government for the people, *by* the people, rig (Score:5, Insightful)
In this sense, it is easily possible that the masses don't want 'x', but they do want 'y'. And sometimes, doing 'x' will help you get to 'y'. For instance, if you want to grow the income base of your city, you might do well to attract a lot of higher-paying jobs.... Like, maybe, build-out a wireless WAN. Provided that the citizens don't actively NOT WANT 'x', the city government (or perhaps the people, if by vote) should seriously weigh the benifits.
just my 2 cents
Progressive lies (Score:2, Insightful)
We can build a playground, too, if we like.
Simply untrue. The problem is that it is WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIKE. If the elected representatives determine it, then you are contributing your money whether or not you like it. And if you refuse, you'll be taken to jail (or worse). Taking you at your "if we like" suggestion, that would be how an elected government should work. Line-item support on your tax return for government programs you choose to contribute to.
Using your playground example, I'll tell you exactly how it works in my small town. Our community of about 1,000 just expanded the playground last year. The city clerk's desk had a contribution jar. It raised $20,000 through donations which we donated to. Our small town bank, grocery and several other businesses donated more. No tax was imposed and no community member forced to support the playground expansion against his or her will. We've also funded a brand new fire station in this manner and generally work together to support projects without shooting people that disagree. Several town suppers, a Harley raffle and other efforts also helped raise money for the fire station. Now we're looking at a new ambulance in the same manner.
Coincidentally, I run a 30-market broadband company. My small town is one of our markets. We pay for use of the water towers and own our own towers. Our service is reliable and affordable, with a 130 kbps entry level product at $19.95 a month, and our 700 kbps at $39.95. We've built it without a single cent of "public" money.
Just east of us 30 miles is a community that got $10 million in RUS grant money for fiber to the home. They require 90% market penetration with $220 per customer per month to make the numbers work. They are trying to figure out how to exclude cable and wireless competition in order to get a monopoly to attain 90%. I have been specifically told that the community leaders do not want our wireless there as it would take too many customers away from their monopoly - especially at the value rates we provide. Their community will be forced to take the service provided at whatever it costs the municipal. I can guarantee they do not work as efficiently as we do as well.
What's their rational? After all, it's hard to believe someone would be so opposed to letting their community benefit from competitors keeping prices down and quality up. They state that fiber is faster and better for the community. They believe (without sound data) that having fiber will cause countless large technology businesses to up and move to town, boosting tax rolls. Already all US citizens have helped pay for the $10 million given to them, and they're going to suck more out of all of us. Considering they have to use consultants from out of state and are buying the wrong equipment, you can bet a dime or two is leaving your pocket for this disaster. All of this scheme for more tax dollars. Oh, and nice salaries and perks for the municipal managers.
If you disagree with me, you need to think long and hard about why that is. Deep down, are you lazy and just want to suck off of your neighbor's hard work? Be honest, many people do. Just say you're a lazy thief and we'll respect you a hell of a lot more than if you pretend to be some progressivist, relativistic moron who can't see his ideas conflict and goals are unreachable through his proposed means.
I'll confess that I sure as hell thought that way for ten years out of high school. Student loans, Pell grants, food stamps, whatever - after all, I needed it. What's wrong with that?
Bottom line: Before you solve the problem for those of us who already get it, please put the browser down, get out and find out from those who know. My state has yet to have a successful municipal in spite of giving 100% of the RUS money to these guys and the tired old monopolies, and the dirty truth is that they end up providing very poor service at high rates, while driv
Just more f-ed up government IT projects (Score:1, Insightful)
The only govt IT project that was successful in my long checkered past was Santa Clara County's Center for Urban Analysis, which received no funding except for office space and operated on a subscription basis for local agencies.
Other projects: City of Austin GIS in the 80s - spents buckets of money, ran out, and could not afford agents to field check and update the database. (They eventually fixed this - after about 5 years.)
City of Palo Alto: Big plans to wire the city with SONET. Obsolete technology by the time the project was started (would you pay $1000 for a modem?) Everyone I know in Palo Alto has DSL or Cable access now. Palo Alto's city-owned cable TV operation was a financial disaster and while it was operational charged higher rates than Comcast.
Spouse is federal employee: When they switch IT support contracts every couple years, nobody gets email for 6 weeks. Told the only competent sysadmin to cut his corn rows or quit - PHBs run amok!
I'll take my chances with the marketplace.
Re:No, its a luxury. (Score:3, Insightful)
And having it be in the hand of a corporation isn't protecting it from laws. In fact, you're exposing it to double regulation; first by the corp, then by the government.
Re:I agree....sort of. (Score:3, Insightful)
You say it's a non-essential service. That's your view. I'm sure there are a fair number of users out their who consider it to be an essential serivice (me being one of them, I telecommute occasionally).
I believe the recent articles on this topic are referring to small towns setting up their own broadband. They're not interested in filtering content, they're interested in just getting broadband.
Most likely, such a venture would be funded by a hike in town taxes.
Sure, that money could be put to other uses. But if a town already has it's expenses covered and the townsfolk want broadband, then why take that privilege away from them?
It's simple. If the telecos can't make the money they want, then they don't build. They aren't a democracy and no one can force the telecos to build infrastructure if they don't want to.
What it comes down to is a simple question. Does small town x do without broadband until company y wants to provide the service, or does small town x gather enough resources and do it themselves?
Broadband, I think, is extremely important. Especially if you want to attract other businesses to your town.
~X~
By their logic (Score:4, Insightful)
And I'm not sure why we feel like people who use more government supplied resources can't pay more than an equal share of the cost. Trucking companies use the roads to make money and trucks are hard on roads. I don't see it as a huge deal that trucking companies pay road use fees in the form of taxes. I'd even take it step farther and suggest that parents with kids in school might pay a little higher tax rate that people without kids or those opting for private school. Everybody contributes, but those who use the resources the most contribute a little more.
You may want after school and athletic programs for your kids but don't expect those of us without kids to keep accepting higher and higher tax burdens for supporting them.
So when they say. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Several studies have shown that using taxpayer dollars to build stadiums is a net loss. The money spent to build is not recovered in taxes or job growth.
Yes, I realize this group is a cover for the telcos and such but come on, at least be consistent.
Re:Carefully weigh the benefits with the risk (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Business is about making money. The "lubrication that prevents the gears of democracy from locking up" is citizen implication and conscientisation. Business does pretty well these day while the current state of Western democracy is damn pathetic. Connect the dots.
Re:Carefully weigh the benefits with the risk (Score:2, Insightful)
These guys are squeezing evrey last inch out of it they can, have they already taken enough? You mention the founding of a great country and hint of innovation, but when you look around do you really see it?
Personally I see color screens that were invented in the early 90's but streached out over 15 years to bring them down to the prices we pay for LCD's today. I see broadband access which is half the speed (or less) of evrey one else in the world but we get charged 2 - 3x as much. I see chips from Intel and AMD that have been sitting on their shelves for 2 years or more that they only release because thier revenue stream is getting below corporate targets.
These companies want you to think that there is nothing else for them to do. There will never be any inventions or innovations to take note of so if you take this away they will starve and bring the economy down with them. I call bullshit, corporations have turned society into such obiedient consumers that they will continue to purchace with or without them. And this will bring new businesses to take up that cash just sitting there.
When there is this much cash don't let these guys fool you with out big companies others will be formed.
Maybe it is time telecom was given to the people?
Re:Highway Helpers in Minneapolis -- previous exam (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, maybe not... if it was free, you could argue that it's a public service to get stuck cars moving again as quickly as possible during rush hour: the amount of money that everyone else on the road is saving is far greater than you might get if you charged for the service; and that, IMO, is the mark of whether something should be a public service or not.
Re:you do use those services (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Carefully weigh the benefits with the risk (Score:4, Insightful)
And what happened? The cable companies stepped in to provide "high-speed internet". Do we have 12Mb/s for $20/month? No, not yet (although I'm about halfway there). On the other hand, how much of that $20/month is subsidized via taxes? How much does that bandwidth really cost?
The point is that telcos won't provide additional services unless forced to. In fact, they will first work to prevent others to provide that service before competing. What we're seeing now is a lot of cities getting fed up with the attitude of cable and baby bells and going it alone. Rather than try to compete or work out a deal, the bells are attempting to block it in the statehouse and persuade the locals that they don't actually want city-funded networks.
Another thing: publicly owned networks have another advantage, namely that, since they are public, content and server restrictions are less frequent. Small scale city projects seem more interested in providing a service than keeping the customer in a box, which is something I've never seen from a bell.
Re:I'm not sure why this is suprising... (Score:2, Insightful)
Based on what passes for journalism in the last 10 years, I would have to say 'very few.'
Re:I agree....sort of. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Astroturf - Yes Valid and Correct - Also Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that there's one problem: most of the municipal broadband/wireless projects were started because commercial interests (telcos and cable companies) weren't providing the service, or weren't providing it in the areas it was wanted. Usually this was because they couldn't make as large a profit as they wanted in the areas people wanted the service. It seems not in the public interest to cut people off from access to a service just because the commercial interests don't find them profitable. If the commercial interests don't find that acceptable, perhaps they should re-think their position.
My prediction for the future (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Government for the people, *by* the people, rig (Score:3, Insightful)
I never suggested the threat was "make-believe," I suggested the comparison between people eating you in a life boat and being forced to pay a extra $10 in property tax is ridiculous. The fact that government is in a unique position to legally make your life miserable does not make a slippery slope fallacy less fallacious.
There are several quibbles I have with the "government is evil" mindset of the most dedicated libertarians, but you expose one inadvertently:
This contains a host of assumptions, from the explicit idea that governments are never formed or rejected voluntarily to the implicit idea that non-governmental organizations never have coercive, binding force. All of these are highly questionable assumptions indeed.
If libertarians were more willing as a whole to recognize that the problem with the potential use of force by government is a problem with any organization with a high concentration of power, I'd be a lot more comfortable with their positions. Government organizations undoubtedly have legal force that private organizations do not, but--at least in a representational form of government--there is an accountability to those affected by their actions that corporations simply do not have. (And if you don't think corporations can exercise lethal force and get away with it, you need to study history--even recent history--more closely.)
Remember, there are very, very few actions our government takes that are just done for the hell of it--there are people outside of government calling for those actions to be taken, and very often these actions are being taken at the behest of "free enterprise." If you want to save people from the government, you need to change who government is accountable to. Attempting to reduce government's functions without addressing accountability issues may well leave you worse off than before.