how-to block ads
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 .. .. |
| |kapilThe Kapil
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.
| |Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremiumReviews:
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?
| |Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremiumReviews:
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.
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
| |Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremiumReviews:
Re: Let's see..... Well, the Hate is less of a viewpoint and more of a state of mind. Is it extreme? Among the complete population of the US, yes; among the left, no.
A better word than extreme is common. Hatred is an extreme emotion, common among the left.
In my case, it is not a blanket statement, but instead a specific one, because I can easily qualify it.
We'll use your statements about religious people. You used terms like Zealots! and Cramming Morals and Beliefs Down Everyone's Throat!. Would you say that terms like that are best used to describe things that people hate? Most people would. That's why you chose them. As long as people associate those terms with people of faith it self perpetuates. The same techniques were used to slander black men and women a hundred years ago.
It's also telling that your example gave the illusion of specifics without providing any. Can you tell us of a situation where a person of faith crammed a moral and/or belief down a person's throat? You opine that they do it to everyone, so there should be an abundance of examples.
You did speak of a campaign that was so severe, Your Liberty Was Restricted. Restricting Liberty is a pretty serious charge, as any kidnap victim can attest.
And how did that Restriction On Your Liberty manifest itself? It did this by adding 2 mouse clicks to a web page; a situation, both onerous and forbidding! Interestingly, this Restriction of Liberty can be easily circumvented by the youngest of children.
As a side note, it is also telling that Porn is a preeminent standard of the left. Porn is the thing that generated so much passion in you that to be thwarted from it is to have you Liberty Restricted.
This also neatly illustrates why attacks on the Right need to be concealed inside of vagueness and devoid of specifics.
Re: Let's see..... > Well, the Hate is less of a viewpoint and more of a state of mind. Is it extreme? Among the complete population of the US, yes; among the left, no.
Nice opinion. Would you care to back that up with any examples, showing how the left is full of hate, and the right is not? Some might argue that the right would have just as much hate, if not more so, than the left:
- You don't believe in $RELIGION ? Burn within the fiery depths of hell, you heathen!
- Keep those immigrants out of this country! What do they think, that America welcomes those tired, poor, huddled masses?
- Creationism should be taught in public school science classes. Intelligent design should be given equal time as evolution in a science class, because to focus on evolution (a theory affirmed by using the scientific method) in a Science class and to not give equal time to intelligent design (which does not use the scientific method) is discrimination!
> Can you tell us of a situation where a person of faith crammed a moral and/or belief down a person's throat?
Here's a couple of examples:
- Abortion - individuals that believe abortion is wrong, and employ terrorist tactics towards abortion clinics, doctors, etc., including murder, bombing, and death threats
- Stem cell research - religious opposition to stem cell research has limited advances in the field
> Interestingly, this Restriction of Liberty can be easily circumvented by the youngest of children.
With regards to COPA, that was my point: the legislation provides little benefit (it is easily circumvented by children, as you just said) while creating additional regulations and overhead; as I mentioned earlier, it looked like it was more to mobilize political support for the politicians than actually solve problems.
> As a side note, it is also telling that Porn is a preeminent standard of the left. Porn is the thing that generated so much passion in you that to be thwarted from it is to have you Liberty Restricted.
Nice logical fallacy: I provide an example where a regulation fails to adequately solve the problems it was created to, and that suddenly equates to me being obsessed with porn. What I do not think highly of are the laws which are used mainly to further political agendas while doing little to solve the problems.
Let's try another example, with a similar point:
Video game legislation - Attempting to create additional regulations on video games, such as trying to pass laws to ban the sale of games to minors that "... taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artist, political or scientific value for minors." (Act 441 from Louisiana that was struck down earlier this year) Aside from the fact that whether a game has "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" is highly subjective, the regulation would not sufficiently solve many problems. A large part of the time it is the parents who end up buying the games for minors; maybe they should take a look at that ESRB rating and game content, and determine whether their child is mature enough to handle it?
What happened to the responsibilities of the parents for raising their children, instead of creating a bunch of useless new laws and expecting the government to raise them?
Billy, Devourer of Souls
| |Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremiumReviews:
Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate-ity Hate! Hate-ity Hate! SPECIFIC Examples of LW hate? Sure, no problem. These are people close to me, who lean left. The first is my Father-in-Law, whom I love and respect dearly.
He hates Bush. It breaks my heart to see hate in his. How do I know he hates Bush? When he begins his Bush rant, he leaves behind that incredible self control that has always been with him. Everyone of his reasons for hating Bush is a DNC talking point. Bush is Stupid - Bush Lied - War for Oil....you know the litany. It's the same list parroted by CBSNBCABCNYTBBCLATNPRPACIFICAAlJazeraBostonGlobeChicagoSunSentinaletc....
All his reasons for maintaining this destructive anger are all straw men. I can go point by point, careful to stay away from ideological sources, and present some good evidence that what he believes is not true.
He has nothing to refute me. I'm not saying I can't be refuted, I'm saying he has no interest in hampering his hate and anger. Once I knock down his straw man, he'll simply move to the next one and eventually loop back to the first as if we never spoke of it. His first priority is to maintain Bush hatred.
It's exactly the same with his neighbor Larry.
It's the same with Ric (who is a Jeopardy champion and operates a LW OpEd in Arkansas).
It's the same with my Sister.
It's the same with Maureen from church.
It's the same with every leftist I know (I'm really trying to think of an exception, and can not).
It was the same with me when I was a leftist.
I'd rather people governed by THAT character not govern my country.
-----You don't believe in $RELIGION ? Burn within the fiery depths of hell, you heathen!-----
Who on earth ever said THAT to you? Can you quote me a source? I'm still waiting for SPECIFIC examples. BTW that would be a BLANKET STATEMENT.
Evangelical Christians believe that Hell is a forgone conclusion unless you believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and repent of your sins through Him, like a ball hitting the ground unless something intervenes. Other Christian faiths believe in widely varying degrees of the same thing. Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, Zoroasterism, etc-ism, believe other things.
Each of those is a Religion. Where's the RW Hate in the above?
----- Keep those immigrants out of this country! What do they think, that America welcomes those tired, poor, huddled masses?-----
That statement comes from the left, therefore it is deceptive. The common belief on the Right is that MASSIVE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is ultimately bad for our country.
------ Creationism should be taught in public school science classes. Intelligent design should be given equal time as evolution in a science class......-----
I agree that the ID thing is happening in a few, well publicized cases. I'm not clear where you see RW Hate in this issue. I have however seen anger on the Left toward creationism; the kind of anger that is often an outward manifestation of hatred.
ID was a compromise from the Right. It's an example of how attempting to compromise with the left is so often ineffective. If the schools were equatable on the origin issue, they would present it as follows.
Darwinism states that life and people came to be in this manner.....
Creationism states that life and people came to be in this manner....
They could even give brief histories of ID or the FSM.
However, teaching something other than Darwinism is abhorrent to left leaning school boards. Their singlemindedness smacks of Zealotry. To present the full issue would require tolerance.
---- Abortion - individuals that believe abortion is wrong, and employ terrorist tactics towards abortion clinics....----
Let's see. Here you appear to link 2 things, that are 99.99% unrelated, by the thinnest of threads. We'll bring them forth from the murk and examine.
1st. Individuals that believe abortion is wrong....They certainly do! When asked by CBS/NYT whether abortion "should be available to anyone who wants it," the answers were: 1993 - 49%, 2003 - 35%, 2005 - 28% in the 18-29 yo women group. It seems to me that that group would embrace abortion more than any other. I don't know the entire poll, but would be interested in the full results, if you found and posted them.
Any RW Hate anywhere up there?
2nd. Abortion Clinic Bombings...etc. How many AC Bombings have there been in the last year? How about the year before that? And the one before that?
So how many clinic bombers are we talking about? Uh huh.
And what did that Evil Bush Administration appointed FBI director do when there was one?
Oh yea. Expended thousands of man hours and millions of dollars to hunt them down and bring them to justice.
Gee. It's almost like your NON-SPECIFIC statement was deceptive. Imagine that.
Here's an important difference between the left and the Right. When a RW nut job surfaces, we either hunt them down (Ruldoph, McVey, LaRouche) or keep a fair distance (David Duke).
The Right doesn't embrace it's nut jobs; unlike the left, who places theirs on a pedestal (Jessie Jackson, Virtual Child Porn King Larry Flint, Howard Dean).
------ Stem cell research - religious opposition to stem cell research....-----
YET ANOTHER DECEPTIVE (blanket) STATEMENT from the left. Do we even need to check anymore?
The Right opposes certain types of EMBRYONIC stem cell research. The Bush Administration opposes Federal Funding Research of Certain Lines of stem cells from embryos. That's a pretty narrow group.
And which media outlet is accurately portraying this issue?
-----Nice logical fallacy: I provide an example where a regulation fails to adequately solve the problems it was created to, and that suddenly equates to me being obsessed with porn.-----
What I actually said is that it is telling that Porn was the issue that rose to the top when you were searching for a Restricted Liberty.
I don't believe either you or the Left are obsessed with immersing yourselves in Porn. I do believe that the left is obsessed with the defense of Porn.
I see it as a case where the left observes the Right's objection to Pornography and automatically joins itself with Big Porn; if only to thwart whatever the Right may be up to.
Blindly becoming one with sewage, only to get back at your adversary, sounds like a symptom of hatred to me.
-----What happened to the responsibilities of the parents for raising their children, instead of creating a bunch of useless new laws and expecting the government to raise them? -----
I'm largely with you here. I believe parents are at their best when they directly protect their children from leftist influences, such as Hip Hop and MTV, Welfare Mentality, The Culture of Fashion and Public Schools.
The problem is the hue and cry from left leaning mouthpieces when the Right takes a proactive approach to their community outside of legislation, such as Ad Campaigns or Fostering Religious Environments. Why would the left object to such things unless it was a threat to them?
Edited for Redundant Redundancy
Re: Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate-ity Hate! Hate-ity Hate! > SPECIFIC Examples of LW hate? (...)
Close, but not quite what I was asking for. Listing leftist people you know does not sufficiently represent the entire left constituency. Assuming for a moment that every leftist that you have ever known is full of hate and anger, there are still many leftists with different demographics and attitudes. I was asking more along the lines of how hate is common among the left wing, but not the right. There are many people leaning various degrees towards the left, from the far left to just left of the middle. I was curious how such a statement could be applied to that broad spectrum leaning toward the left, but not the right. There are extremists from the entire spectrum, and I'm not seeing any more hate originating from the left than anywhere else. You state how the left embraces those like Larry Flint, while the Right distances themselves from those like David Duke. I'd say that there is no consensus regarding those individuals within their respective camps. There are plenty among the left who don't support Flint, and Duke obviously had enough support to be elected into office.
With regards to religion, I didn't say that all religious people were hateful extremists, but rather that there is a subset of religious people that are zealots. Is there any large religious denomination that can truthfully claim that none of its members have hated or tried to force their beliefs upon others? There are also many conflicts throughout history directly involving religion and those who strongly profess to be of a certain faith: the crusades, Shiites killing Sunnis and vice versa, the trial of Galileo.
> ID was a compromise from the Right.
Many saw it as a guise under which to circumvent the separation of church and state. We're talking about science classes in public schools. Also, many of the opponents weren't opposed to the idea of presenting the viewpoint in general and would have accepted it being a viable topic in a philosophy, religious studies, or other non-science classroom.
> If the schools were equatable on the origin issue, they would present it as follows. (...) However, teaching something other than Darwinism is abhorrent to left leaning school boards.
Not quite. Evolution and the origin of life are two separate issues. Evolution is a theory that describes species changing over time, and the possibility of speciation (the development of new species from existing one) occurring. Evolution has been demonstrated using the scientific method. Explaining the origin of life is a separate matter, and is not a specific component of evolutionary theory.
> Their singlemindedness smacks of Zealotry.
In a science class, is it so unreasonable to present theories that are established on scientific principles? I have yet to see any creationist theories like intelligent design that are unbiased and able to reach their conclusions through the scientific method (Life is complex, so therefore it must have been designed? How is that argument scientific?). Scientific theories are often formulated through objective analysis and empirical research; if results contradict an earlier theory, then scientists will usually try to find an explanation and update the theory. Intelligent design isn't a scientific theory; why should it be in a science classroom? There's not necessarily a backlash against anything other than evolution; it's more like an annoyed response to an attempt at sneaking in creationism through the back door.
> I believe parents are at their best when they directly protect their children from leftist influences, such as Hip Hop and MTV, Welfare Mentality, The Culture of Fashion and Public Schools...
You're entitled to your opinion. I believe that parents should provide their values to their own children and raise them responsibly, leaving others to decide how they run things for themselves.
When you say 'public schools' as 'leftist influences' that children should be 'protected from,' are you referring to all public educational institutions, including universities? Because if so, then I find it interesting that many of those public universities that should be 'protected' against are held in higher regard than a majority of private schools.
> The problem is the hue and cry from left leaning mouthpieces when the Right takes a proactive approach to their community outside of legislation, such as Ad Campaigns or Fostering Religious Environments.
I would say that it depends on how obtrusive those ad campaigns are, and how the religious environments are brought about. If the ad campaigns involve things like calling everyone on the phone like telemarketers (I think this applies to all obtrusive ad campaigns, actually), and the creation of a religious environment involves something along the lines of the intelligent design debate, then I can definitely see why the leftists were being upset. If the campaigns are not obtrusive to everyone not interested in them, then I bet a large percentage of the leftist side would not speak out against them.
NPR has a large bi-partisan listening audience, and makes efforts to present more than one side of the issues. Which media outlets would you call objective and unbiased? Which right-leaning media outlets do not 'parrot' right-wing campaigning points or arguments against the left?
With regards to anti-Fox News sentiment: I don't hate them, but neither do I respect their journalistic integrity. They fired two of their reporters for refusing to lie to the public about a milk related issue. The two reporters filed a lawsuit and the judge ruled in their favor. On an appeal, another judge ruled that FOX did not have to tell the truth in its broadcasts. Not exactly a source that I would rely on for accurate and unbiased information.
Billy, Devourer of Souls
Re: Every Action Has What?
said by kapil:I present to you, ladies and gentlemen, a textbook example of a thread highjack.
An Equal And Opposite Reaction.
(insert rant here)
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
| |MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
Re: I agree, let the market sort it out :)
said by Minister:How's it working out for them?
I believe this is essentially the plan in Utah, aka UTOPIA.
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.
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs.
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.
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?
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.
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs.
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.
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.
| |pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
Mount Airy, MD
How Is This Wrong?
quote: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.
Strange how such rabid fans of a free-market aren't interested in allowing market darwinism to play out.
Only SHATNER is Kirk.
| |NyQuil Kid8f The Nyquil Kid
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
[8F] The NyQuil Kid comes into town not looking for trouble...n00bz gang up, but he ain't seein' double,...pulls and draws, his deagles two...n00bz litter the ground you know it's true.
Re: People Who Live In Glass Houses It seems to me the concern isn't so much about objectivity. Subjectivity is fine if you're clearly a "Libertarian" or "consumer advocacy" site. The concern is these groups continually pretending that the agenda is increased broadband deployment or "real competition", when the goal is the idealistic quest for a powerless government, in order to achieve maximum revenue. It is greed dressed up as policy and consumer advocacy. There is a real problem with the use of sophisticated corporate propaganda to control the entire dialog over the direction of telecom policy. I think these are legitimate issues worth discussing.
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.
Horrible editiorial Another uninformed, knee-jerk, anti-telcom piece from Karl. Where do I even start?
However the real agenda, as always, is maximizing revenue for themselves and their constituents by eliminating all regulation, creating an utterly toothless regulatory authority, and letting the nation's largest corporations run wild.They're out to do this from Area 51 in their black helocopters when they're not flying jetliners into skyscrapers I presume? Do you no remember the AT&T / SBC merger when other telcoms were in fact calling for regulation? Yes, it may have been in their interests, but since when does any entity- public or private- make a habit of taking a position contrary to their own interests?
The reality is that these groups only oppose regulation when it runs contrary to the interests of their corporate financiers and their own portfolios. For the right price, these groups would find regulations preventing the dumping of toxic chemicals into river water equally "unnecessary".And you have evidence of this, or is it yet another sophmoric ad-hominem attack? Nevermind, we all know it's the latter.
Fans of a free market should be eager to see the organic free-market at work. If these municipal broadband operations are such a flawed idea: let them fail.Perhaps because municipally funded services don't play by the same rules as private industry. If municipal broadband loses money, they have a ready supply of taxpayer money to prop it back up. No private business can compete with that; take away the incentive to compete in an area, and you end up with a local government monopoly.
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.You seem to be under the delusion that the telcos can simply snap their fingers and make the infrastructure appear; or perhaps it's yet another telco conspiracy. You'd have a point if they weren't constantly expanding their broadband footprint, but they are and (as usual) you don't.
Maybe next time you can save some time and just summarize: Evil greedy telco corporations BAD!
Of course, that would summarize pretty much everything you write, wouldn't it Karl?