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."
Interesting issue tho (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Interesting issue tho (Score:5, Interesting)
What makes WiFi special? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Interesting issue tho (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't forget:
Has direct lawful (?) ability to have competitors taxed at a different rate than themselves.
Has direct lawful (?) ability to block competitors access to building/construction permits, right of way, etc.
Has direct lawful (?) ability to have taxes levied against competitors added to their own coffers.
Re:Astroturf? (Score:3, Interesting)
Astroturfing in the political sense is fake "grassroots"
Which this is not. It's similar--shadowy funding buying a biased report--but it's not pretending to be a grassroots organization.
There ought to be another term for this. "Fakesearch" or somesuch.
I agree....sort of. (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, as much of a geek as I am I have to say that I don't want my government spending more money on a non-essential service. Internet access is not a right, it's a priviledge. I would rather have more policeman, fireman, teachers, road repairs, water repairs, sewer repairs, etc than wireless internet access that is controlled by the government. Plus there will be more fighing over what should be filtered on a government-controlled network. I just don't think it's worth the $$$ or headaches.
-Nick
I'm not sure why this is suprising... (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft does this itself. (Running a campaign of sending out letters to newspapers across the US as a "grassroots" effort)
Wal-Mart is running a "counter-campaign" to try to save it's image.
Is it wrong? It's under the table to be sure. if it's not putting out lies or misrepresenting it's information I don't think so. Maybe their view is right and the only way they'll get their message heard is if they use a messenger that doesn't automatically generate a prejudiced response.
I mean, how many people would read the article: "Phone Company research shows that Municipal Wireless is a bad idea" without thinking "Ah, the phone company's just pissed that they're not getting money.
(and no, I don't think the phone company's right here...I'm just sayin')
No, its a luxury. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. This is what happens to government programs that are not required to sustain life. They become vote buying schemes.
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.
So while the article may be FUD this is one area that local governments do not need to stepping into. There is no clear need to provide this service as there is no majority that needs it or has the equipment to use it.
Do not allow the government to expand simply because it convienences you. The more it convienences your the more control it will eventually exert over you. Pretty soon you will find you will only have to access to what they want you to and when they want you to.
No, I do not need tinfoil hat. I just believe in small and non-intrusive government. I also believe that they should only provide the services that are required. They are not here to provide luxuries.
Highway Helpers in Minneapolis -- previous example (Score:5, Interesting)
Turned out the guy had a large financial interest in a towing company. Seriously.
Re:Theft (Score:1, Interesting)
I'll give you an example. That annoying 100 year-old tenement that would ordinarily be swallowed by eminent domain to spur economic development? The residents won't be able to afford a firehouse. The buildings will burn to the ground, without all of that pesky bureaucratic crap like "fair-value compensation" and "orderly evacuation". This will cheaply and efficiently make way for big business. See how simple it would be if we had no government bossing us around?
Just joking, of course.
Re:I'm not sure why this is suprising... (Score:3, Interesting)
People for the American Way is "Anti-Religion?"
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid= 111 [pfaw.org]
Explain, please. It seems that they are for Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State, not the abolishment of religion. That seems very American, and also very right.
That being said, they are a politically motivated interest group, so I really just want to know the dirt.
Astroturf on Demand Inc. (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.idi.net/grassroots/ [idi.net] Issue Dynamics make no bones about being in the astroturf business. Check out this link, I don't believe it.
Re:Government for the people, *by* the people, rig (Score:2, Interesting)
Be careful with your choice of words. Freedom does not mean the right to gang up and initiate force against others. In this case, true freedom would be the right to refuse to associate with others, or the right to peacefully develop your own voluntary solution. Your solution may be popular, or supported by the majority, but that does not make it voluntary in the slightest.
If there are 5 people starving to death on a raft at sea, and 4 of those people decide to kill the fifth, against his will, in order to survive, would you say that those 4 people are "exercising their freedom" to murder the fifth? That is exactly what you're claiming here, and that's just plain wrong. An initiation of force is an initiation of force, whether 4 against 1 or 4,000,000 against 1. Majority rule does not magically flip the definition of association by force.
Now you tell me, why shouldn't I be free to exercise MY will to refuse to participate in this program? If I don't have that right, then I'm not exactly free, am I?
Re:No, its a luxury. (Score:2, Interesting)
it's all about perspective.
In most places good sewerage is a luxury.
In a lot of places, public illumination is a luxury.
It's going to happen sooner than later. Unless the people who make money off of it now pay the government to keep ther service (lobbying/bribes)
Re:Government for the people, *by* the people, rig (Score:2, Interesting)
And they can do this because they have a monopoly on force, granted by tradition, inertia, and acquiescence. People who refuse to pay taxes can be coerced to by individuals in power through leverage of that force--hence, the term "extortion". If they didn't have that monopoly on force, government would have to be funded voluntarily, right?
I think you'd be amazed what people will voluntarily fund, given the chance and a lack of pressing needs.
Don't misunderstand me--I recognize the necessity of services that everyone covers a part of. I live in Canada, for cryin' out loud; my taxes cover the health care system that I've had to use from time to time, and that's one thing I will gladly fund, even knowing that I may never make use of it again. Someone else might desperately need it and not have the funds. I just try to be realistic about what takes place in a society, since I think doing that might lead me to develop better ways of existence. Those same tax dollars that fund useful services, and could go to fund even more services, are just as likely to end up socializing some private entity's costs or funding someone's military misadventure. The government running the country I live in, for example, blew hundreds of millions on busted submarines that are still out of service. Great use of tax dollars, geniuses.
We really do need to develop stronger communities, which I think can only be truly done by trashing the power hierarchies built through Machiavellian activities and accepted by quiet submission. Then, I think we will start to see wonderful things happen. Shiny things are not necessarily the pinnacle of existence.
Re:Progressive lies (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that you don't seem to understand English. See, "we" can sometimes be taken to mean every member of a group including me, or it can also mean the group which includes me, as a whole. Therefore, I can say "we've decided..." even if *I* didn't decide that, and even if I *disagree* with the decision.
No tax was imposed and no community member forced to support the playground expansion against his or her will.
That's great that y'all, *as a town*, decided not to levy a tax or force any contribution. I bet there was at least one person in that town who would have liked it to have been paid for with taxes, but y'all, as a town, still decided to go with voluntary contributions. See, towns get to make those sorts of decisions.
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.
And if you notice, I was stipulating that the Federal government shouldn't get into the ISP business. I would say, however, that if a city/town wants to set up some hotspots, and the citizens in general like the idea, that it seems reasonable to me.
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?
You're way off there, buddy. I'm more like the sort of guy who's willing to allow reasonable sucking off of my hard work, just so long as it's reasonable.
I'm more the sort of guy who strongly believes that contributions at museums should be voluntary, but always pays the suggested donation. Why? Museums are important, but not everyone can really afford to go. Really. Not everyone can afford to go. If you live in a city, public parks are REALLY important, but if you charged admission, some of the people who need them most couldn't afford it. Playgrounds too. Public transportation too. And you know what, it's not all altruistic. If you took all the public services out of my city, the city turn into a zoo. Even when I don't use these things, I still get a benefit.
Truth is, I would more happily pay $70 a month for citywide WiFi that gives everyone access than pay $60 a month for an ISP that gives me, alone, citywide access.
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 driving competitors out of town.
Yeah, and it seems (from your post) that the guys in your state are running fiber to the home, which is a pretty daunting task. Why not use more conventional methods? Why not contract the work out to a number of different ISPs, therefore *not* driving local ISPs out or denying competition?
What I'm saying is, I find it reasonable for a town to choose to figure out some way to provide free Internet access for it's citizens. That is not the same as saying it's a good idea to do it in a stupid way.
Cmdr Taco has an Astroturf intellect. (Score:1, Interesting)
Private companies offer what service? (Score:3, Interesting)
Whenever I see stories about a municipality, township, or some other community trying to put together wireless, or wired internet services I read the stories. They interest me.
And 9 times out of 10 the story turns out to be horribly overpriced local monopoly trying to set rates far higher than anyone could be expected to pay in this day and age, or, the companies which could offer the service choose not to.
And they get upset when someone else decides to take the piece of the pie they were ignoring.
I am of the opinion companies only provide service where they know they will have substantial profits, or where their competitor would have profits if they did not compete.
They actively ignore those markets where the profit margin is less than perfect and there is no other significant competition.
If a significant portion of a town whats a service and the local monopoly does not choose to offer it, too bad, they had their chance. Replace them.
Astroturf - Yes Valid and Correct - Also Yes (Score:2, Interesting)
However, speaking with my economics hat on, the basic argument is absolutely correct.
If the state provides a service from tax dollars, it cannot be commerically provided.
This is bad, because commerical provision has two important properties; it's efficient, and it only charges those people who use the service.
State provision is invariably hideously inefficient and charges everyone, regardless of whether they use the service (e.g. tax).
The cost of a service should be born by those who use it.
State provision also removes choice of provider, since if the State provides the service, it cannot be commerically provided; the State is the only provider. This is very bad, too.
--
Toby
Re:Government for the people, *by* the people, rig (Score:3, Interesting)
It's this kind of thinking that is slowly destroying the States.
Taxes are not a burden. Having tax money spent on things you don't agree with is a fact of life. No one has a right to profit, sometimes the state can and should work for the benefit of the people even when it costs some company potential profits.
Lets say I don't have a car, and walk everywhere, why should I play for roads? Why should I pay for highways? In many cases, majority rules is not rule of thumb, but comparing free wifi to cannibalism is just pure bunk. They aren't even close. If you don't like how 90% of your neighbors spend your tax money, you got two choices, vote/protest or move. I couldn't care less which one you pick, I'm going to keep living my life in a cooperative manner, and the anarchists parading as libertarians can go live in a cave.