dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2006-10-31 20:31:09: Editorial: Outfits such as the Reason Foundation, Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Heartland Foundation are free-market think tanks that proudly proclaim that eliminating government oversight in the broadband sector will result in broadband .. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next
Nuts65
join:2006-04-27
Forest, OH

Nuts65

Member

Excellent Article

Great job Karl.
SD6
join:2005-03-26
Pittsburgh, PA

SD6

Member

Self-Interest

"Everybody acts in their own self-interest" Hold true to that thought and you can make some sense of the telecom world. "Hope that people do the right thing" and you will be frustrated by the seemingly inconsistent actions and statements.

Some Senators did get out there and sponsor the Muni-Broadband bill.

kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL

2 recommendations

kapil

Member

Every Action Has What?

An Equal And Opposite Reaction.

Keep going you right wing, bible thumping at the same time thumping young boys' bottoms, free market as the world - including working Americans - starves and free falls into poverty, death penalty promoting, calling a collection of cells a baby, while permitting genocide overseas, hell even committing genocide in Iraq, denying gays equal rights while getting divorced because you screwed an intern and your trophy wife is humping the Mexican gardener whom you've been trying to get deported, sorry excuse for a human being, jerkwads.

Push Harder to make this country and this world a more miserable place. Win this election next week. Kill More trees and more black men on death row. Consume more, buy more, spend more, dig more, extract more, recycle less, care less, be humble and in-tune with the rest of the planet even less than that.

Why? Because we're watching. The universe is watching. The power that be is watching. And we'll snap back twice as hard because blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness for they shall be filled.

ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17

ftthz

Member

interesting article

Fake experts, faking interest ... [so much money wasted on fake results] wonders if the money they spend on this crap would be better spent fixing up the networks and deploying services people actually want
Expand your moderator at work

hurfy
Premium Member
join:2002-08-06
Spokane, WA

1 recommendation

hurfy

Premium Member

I agree, let the market sort it out :)

The city drops a fiber line to everyone (even better fiber,coax and copper) and runs em all to a main office(s).

City sells x bandwidth (on line y) for $z to ISP, cableco, telco or whoever.

Any ISP/whoever can plug in the main office and sell you anything for whatever they want to charge. Virtually no regulations required!

Not what they had in mind? oops sorry

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

1 recommendation

karlmarx

Member

Where's our neo-con right-wing whackos now?

"Strange how such rabid fans of a free-market aren't interested in allowing market darwinism to play out. "

That, of course, is the crux of the matter. If the megacorps want to compete, then fine, they should compete against the muni's. If the muni's don't need to show a profit, well, corporate darwinism states that the inefficient companies will go bankrupt. And that's a GOOD THING. Muni owned broadband doesn't TAKE ANYTHING from the megacorps, except the shareholders. The plus side of that of course is that the RESIDENTS see the benefits. My town (taunton, ma) is a perfect example of muni broadband/muni power gone RIGHT. I pay 35.00/month for a 10mb symmetrical connection. I pay 40% LESS for my electricity vs the next town over (NSTAR). The benefits to ME are both tangible and noticeable. The benefits to the megacorps? Absolutely none. But then again, the profitability of comcast isn't my concern.
kcir
join:2005-07-30
Butner, NC

kcir to hurfy

Member

to hurfy

Let the market prevail WHERE there is a market.

There is with everything give and take. Where there is actually at TRUE "market" available let it prevail. To that end once in a state 90% of the residents have two competing broadband options offer at least 1M/1M remove all regulation and let them compete! This should give all the providers an incentive to deploy.

guest77
@64.69.x.x

1 recommendation

guest77 to karlmarx

Anon

to karlmarx

govt run buisness

I can mostly agree with that editorial. The problem is it is also nonsense to pretend you have a free market when you have governemnt run services. Choose: either we want a free market or we want the government monopoly to run this service. That isnt sarcastic im serious states/counties need to choose 1 and go with it. Claiming in that editorial buisness will ever compete in a free market directly against tax subsidized service is just as looney as what you are criticizing.

Noah Vail
Oh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica

1 recommendation

Noah Vail to kapil

Premium Member

to kapil

Let's see.....

Hatred, Vitriol, Deceptive Lies, Outright Lies, Hypocrisy, Negativism, Defeatism, Paranoia and concluded with Empty Threats.

Nice Encapsulation of the Leftist Manifesto. Good Job!

After reading the above, will you vote left? Could this be you?

NV

Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium Member
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL

Michieru2

Premium Member

@

How can you expect competition when it's being blocked and sent to you through the same copper wiring that has always existed? Explain me that one.

Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting

Minister to guest77

Member

to guest77

Re: govt run buisness

quote:
states/counties need to choose 1 and go with it.
This is a false dilemma argument. There is a significant difference in suggesting voters should have the right to support localized gap-filling broadband measures and advocating national government run telecom. Remember these companies have shown no interest in competing in these regions.

Most of these municipal projects are private-public partnerships funded with private money, anyway. If these densely populated areas ever become profitable to serve, the incumbent will have to enter and compete, or more likely purchase the existing networks.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Good thing it was labeled editorial - short on proof

I am glad to see you labeled this an EDITORIAL. Because your comments were long on opinion and emotion and short on facts.
For example:
position papers insist they are concerned with "optimizing broadband deployment" in this country, but the real agenda is simply maximizing revenue
I am glad to see you can read their minds and uncover the "real agenda" not listed in the position paper.
the compact's signees are concerned with one thing: maximum possible revenue for their clients.
More mind reading? That is quite a useful skill.
Their focus is not to increase broadband deployment. That would require offering broadband services to rural portions of America, where their employer's ROI would be dubious and stock prices would suffer.
Are we sensing a theme here? The group doesn't want broadband to expand because profits would suffer. Which is, of course, not true. Expanding broadband means more profits. The difference is they see a different way to accomplish it - with less government regulation instead of more.
The reality is that these groups only truly oppose regulation when it runs contrary to the interests of their corporate financiers and their own portfolios. Many of these groups would find regulations preventing the dumping of toxic chemicals into river water equally "unnecessary" if the price was right.
The old debating tactic of throwing up a stalking horse(accusation of pro polluter) and then slamming that and tying it into your issue.
The country's largest corporations currently control both sides of the debate over this nation's broadband policies. They freely voice their opinions via press release (and now blogs)
I don't see any shortage of opinions and commentary that is anti-corporate and anti-Bush administration on this subject. There are plenty of groups that are having their day in the sun advocating for both government subsidized and ad-supported muni systems. Does »www.muniwireless.com and the BBR front page ring any bells, as well as dozens of others.

Minister
join:2002-01-02
Fleeting

Minister

Member

TKJunkmail, our resident mystery industry apologist, has changed his name and avatar yet again I see.

Did you forget to include any actual factual arguments in your post? Or is attacking the website for having an opinion the best we get today?

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

pnh102

Premium Member

How Is This Wrong?

quote:
Strange how such rabid fans of a free-market aren't interested in allowing market darwinism to play out.
Government provided broadband is by definition outside of the free market. It is only natural that someone who supports a free market would be against any sort of government subsidized broadband.

one no
@swbell.net

1 recommendation

one no to karlmarx

Anon

to karlmarx

Re: Where's our neo-con right-wing whackos now?

If the muni's don't need to show a profit, well, corporate darwinism states that the inefficient companies will go bankrupt. And that's a GOOD THING.

That's just it. By your own statement the Muni is an inefficient firm, but it is artifically protected from the market forces which you acknowledge SHOULD drive it out of business. Whatever they lose, they just make up with taxes!

Muni owned broadband doesn't TAKE ANYTHING from the megacorps, except the shareholders.

And of course all of your neighbors get to subsidize your Internet connection. Do you really not get why a free marketeer would object to this situation?

no
@verizon.net

no to Noah Vail

Anon

to Noah Vail

Re: Let's see.....

I'll vote left because the right reeks of just as much zealotry. At the very least most of the left aren't radicals like the person to whom you replied. Say the same about the people currently in power. I dare you.

damonlab
Premium Member
join:2001-05-02
Detroit, MI

damonlab

Premium Member

/.

This article made front page on slashdot:
»politics.slashdot.org/ar ··· /2341240

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

karlmarx to one no

Member

to one no

Re: Where's our neo-con right-wing whackos now?

"That's just it. By your own statement the Muni is an inefficient firm"

Umm, where in the world do you read that a muni is inefficient? My town runs a GREAT and FAST network, it's VERY efficient. Your problem lies in the simple fact that no matter what you are shown, you believe govt=bad,free market=good. I am living proof that your worldview is WRONG. I get faster-better-cheaper internet from my town owned utility. I get CHEAPER electricity from my town owned power plant.

My 'neighbors' aren't subsidizing anything. My Neighbors get exactly the same benefits I get. They get 40% off their electric bills. They get an internet connection that is 10 times better than comcast, at 50% of the price. No siree, my neighbors LOVE what we get. The only thing me and my neighbors DON'T do, is pay our hard earned money to the fat cat megacorp executives, and that, is the best thing of all.

Rogue Wolf
An Easy Draw of a Sad Few
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY

Rogue Wolf to pnh102

Member

to pnh102

Re: How Is This Wrong?

I think the real issue here isn't in areas where service providers would have to compete with government. It's in areas where the service providers refuse to provide service, and yet wish to deny the people in those areas any option to form government services. It's basically a "we don't want you, but we won't let you do it yourself" thing; the companies are afraid that a trend would start.

Noah Vail
Oh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica

1 recommendation

Noah Vail to no

Premium Member

to no

Re: Let's see.....

So proud of your stand that you posted it anonymously. Well, I suppose I would too.

Can you provide a specific example of this RW zealotry and how it has limited you? Any unambiguous example going back to your birth will do.

You think he is Radical Left? Why would you think that? As a recovering leftist, I find his attitude to be representative of the left.

A thread of hatred is woven all through his diatribe. It's the same hatred I hear from nearly (if not all) every left leaning democrat I've questioned. Hatred of Bush, Hatred of Evangelical Christians, Hatred of Fox News, Hate - Hate - Hate. If there's another commonality, it's well disguised.

Why would anyone vote for a body governed by Hate, except, perhaps those also consumed by Hatred?

I can't quite make sense of your challenge. Are you saying that people in power are mostly radicals? I think they're better described (on average) as pandering, empty suits. In other words they are representative of the populace that voted them into office.

Which is evidence of the need for the privilege of voting to be earned, not given away, but I digress.

I'd take you up on your dare, if I could figure out just what it is. Perhaps you could clarify.

NV

NyQuil Kid
8f The Nyquil Kid
join:2001-01-06
Brick, NJ

1 recommendation

NyQuil Kid

Member

And the alternative....

As opposed to the utopia offered from a government regulated authority where only it provides BB and dictates how and where it is deployed? Give me a break....

Thanks, but I'll stick with the free market thank you.

[8F] The NyQuil Kid

Noah Vail
Oh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica

Noah Vail to karlmarx

Premium Member

to karlmarx

I find some truth in that.....

Business and Government are similar beasts. In and of themselves they are mindless entities that follow a course, heedless of what lies in their path. The smaller they are, the more opportunity there is for them to be guided by people of character, or the less opportunity for them to do damage if there is no proper guidance.

But as they grow to the level of affecting millions of people, they are less and less likely to be influenced by the good side of capitalism, or power. People get squashed.

Unfortunately, external threats usually wind up precluding the ideal of smaller/better.

NV
Noah Vail

Noah Vail to Minister

Premium Member

to Minister

How Sad.....

I think you're right. It's unfortunate that when one does that, that the previous posts change the identity of the poster as well. Maybe there is a reason for that.

I normally agree with TKJunkmail. At least with portions of his arguments. But I can't come up with an honorable reason for changing one's identity, like a chameleon. Kind of like Taylor Troll who won't put up ANY identity to stand behind.

Does ANYONE respect TT?

NV

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102 to Rogue Wolf

Premium Member

to Rogue Wolf

Re: How Is This Wrong?

said by Rogue Wolf:

It's in areas where the service providers refuse to provide service, and yet wish to deny the people in those areas any option to form government services.
I would happily stand by any private interest that blocked my town from entering such a venture, even to the point of voting out local leaders who would waste my already high taxes on something like this.

If private industry cannot make a profit on a service, then there is no way for the government to make any money off of it (Amtrak, anyone?). Any such service in such circumstances would inevitably eat another hole in the taxpayers' pockets.

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

karlmarx

Member

Luckily, you don't live in MY town. My town provides us with services and prices that are FAR better than what we would get with comcast/nstar. In fact, we elect our politicians because they do what's right for US, not what's right for the megacorp. The problem with your philosophy is that you don't vote FOR the people, you are beholden to the megacorps. Luckily, on november 7th, 'your' people are going to lose both houses of congress.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

said by karlmarx:

Luckily, on november 7th, 'your' people are going to lose both houses of congress.
HAHAHAHAHA Funny.
Test99
Premium Member
join:2003-04-24
San Jose, CA

Test99

Premium Member

People Who Live In Glass Houses

I'm an enthusiastic reader of both BBR and Reason Online. I get lots of valuable information from both sites.

I disagree with the Reason panel's recommendation to ban municipal broadband services.

But when it comes to objective reporting, and, over time, presenting diverse points of view, Reason does make a serious effort. BBR makes no attempt that I can detect to present points of view other than their own. I have no problem with that. It's an interesting point of view.

But BBR questioning Reason's objectivity? Yeah... Right...

Billy_Soul_Devourer to Noah Vail

Anon

to Noah Vail

Re: Let's see.....

There are many varying degrees of the left viewpoint. This 'hate' that you refer to is just one extreme viewpoint from the spectrum of discontent that many of the left have over the policies and actions by the right. One could also lay down a similar blanket statement in response, stating that all right wingers are trying to push their agenda on morals (an entirely subjective view) or self-interest.

There are numerous of examples of right-wing zealotry. How about religious zealots trying to cram their morals and beliefs down everyone else's throats? (Yes, I personally have had acquaintances try to impose their religious viewpoints upon me despite my clear assertion that I was not interested in them.) I am not stating that all of the right are religious zealots, but rather that the religious zealots are one concrete example many within the right.

Another example is all of the 'think of the children' campaigns and regulations that restrict liberties overall, and do very little (if anything) to solve the problem. Often times, they appear little more than false dichotomies and thinly veiled propaganda attempts at garnering public support (Representative $FOO didn't support proposition $WONT_SOMEONE_THINK_OF_THE_CHILDREN? ! So remember, people, voting for $FOO means that you support the child predators!)

One example: The Online Child Protection Act (COPA). Among other things, it seeks to punish web site operators for failing to block childrens' access to inappropriate materials. Some of the debate is over whether the access has been sufficiently prevented, and to what extent is it the responsibility of the site operator vs. the parents. What constitutes sufficient blocking of access to children vs. adults who wish to access the content? Is a click-through that "Yes, I am over (13/18/whatever) years of age" sufficient? (Children would never lie about that) What about requiring a credit card number in order to access a website? (Some minors do have credit/debit cards, and some have the ability and willingness to use the cards of their parents) And as a US regulation, it would have no jurisdiction over foreign sites. A question to the COPA supporters: What steps specifically qualify as the adequate blocking of childrens' access? To what extent is it the responsibility of the site operators to police the children (as opposed to the parents, whose job is to provide a proper upbringing and set of values)? How does the act adequately protect the children vs. not being in place? And does this benefit, if any, offset the detrimental effects that it creates?

Going back to your main point, what you deem to be 'Hate,' others consider dissatisfaction due to the inadequate or improper addressing of the issues at hand.

Unfortunately it often boils down to choosing the lesser of two evils, rather than an optimal choice.

Just my thoughts.

Billy, Devourer of Souls

Dan Engel
@comcast.net

2 recommendations

Dan Engel

Anon

How to define "free market"

Several posters have indicated that the problem with this op/ed author's argument is that a muni-run broadband provision is outside of the free market and represents exactly the opposite.

In the case of broadband, and other services as well, such a statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how free-market principals apply.

As long as a municipality doesn't enforce a monopoly on the service (i.e., ban the provision of services by commercial providers) then the municipal- and community-based provision of services is nothing more onerous than the decision by a customer to obtain the product by building it himself rather than by buying it from the current set of commercial vendors. And that's the crux of the matter: broadband communication, especially with the fast-paced improvement in wireless broadband capabilities, is a relatively low barrier-to-entry market. Once somebody has access, it's easy to share, and sharing doesn't generally cause a significant degeneration of one's own service. Thus, for a community or municipality to build their own broadband infrastructure, and then simply pay a bandwidth-based fee to LD carrier is just an example of the customer competing with the vendor.

And there's nothing anti-free-market about that. In fact, the possibility and freedom for customers to do that is a necessary component of a working free-market economy.

Cheers,
-Dan Engel
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next