russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA | In other news, dog bites man
The Reason Foundation coming out against government-funded projects isn't exactly what I'd call news. They're biased (and admittedly so), but to claim they're acting based on bribes from AT&T is way over the top. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| said by russotto  :The Reason Foundation coming out against government-funded projects isn't exactly what I'd call news. They're biased (and admittedly so), but to claim they're acting based on bribes from AT&T is way over the top. On the contrary it is absolutely proven, see their $100,000 from AT&T and the subsequent "analysis" heavily favoring a position that is sweet candy for AT&T.
It quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck then how should we call it?  |
|
operagost
join:1999-08-02
Spring City, PA | Correlation does not prove causation.
Money changed hands, but it can't be labeled a "bribe" unless you have other evidence to the fact. |
|
exocet_cm
I am the law
Premium
join:2003-03-23
New Orleans, LA
clubs:  
 ·Cox HSI
·Suddenlink
·Cingular Wireless
 ·AT&T Southeast
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to kamm
quote:
It quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck then how should we call it?
We should call it dead. I like duck hunting with my 12 Guage Browning.
--
"I have measured out my life with coffee spoons..." - T.S Eliot
I'll take "things only I know" for a thousand Alex.
Ma Blog »johnball.wordpress.com
|
|
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
2 edits | Yeah, but what do you expect from a bunch of libertardians?
The Libertarians think there should be no government at all and private companies should own everything. |
|
johnh123
join:2002-11-19
Chicago, IL | reply to kamm
Re: In other news, dog bites man
Had they done a paper on it, they would have had the same position even if the muni's had given them the money. They will always take the no-government position. Move along, nothing to see here. |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| reply to kamm
said by kamm : On the contrary it is absolutely proven, see their $100,000 from AT&T and the subsequent "analysis" heavily favoring a position that is sweet candy for AT&T.It quacks like a duck, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck then how should we call it? Perhaps if you had been following the Reason Foundation's positions for the last 20 years you would know that this was the completely predictable position by people who steadfastly value liberty and see increased government as a threat to that (even when the people want it).
There are plenty of places where the analysis follows the funding, but here it's the other way around.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| reply to b10010011
Re: Yeah, but what do you expect from a bunch of libertardians?
said by b10010011 :The Libertarians think there should be no government at all and private companies should own everything. There are no libertarians who believe that there should be no government: only those who believe in limiting the government's role to those where it has an inherent monopoly (usually involving the use of force, such as enforcing contracts or preventing citizens from harming each other).
What you're thinking of are anarchists.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
4 edits | Eh, while you're painting an accurate picture of the Libertarian philosophy (albeit a little rosy), most of these think tanks simply use the Libertarian platform as a framework for the real agenda, which is to weaken government oversight, eliminate regulation, and increase revenue. Pretty much at any cost...
They really would be happy with no government and corporate control of everything. It's really pretty disingenuous to pretend this is a position that values liberty and independence, as they've simply bastardized the Libertarian philosophy for financial gain.
What kind of Libertarian wants the federal government passing federal laws (lobbied for by telcos) telling them their town can't vote? No, Big government is just fine with these folks provided it's creating better profit margins and doing what they tell it to.
Like the heartland Institute, who obfuscates their donors, and pretends to work the Libertarian agenda by calling claims that Tobacco smoking causes cancer "junk science" and pretending to be for "smoker's rights"....while getting funds from all the major tobacco companies.
Not that I don't find the "value liberty" schtick highly heart-warming, but it's paper god damn thin. Libertarianism in this particular incarnation is about greed. Nothing more. |
|
Timmn
join:2000-04-23
Tinley Park, IL
·AT&T Yahoo
| I don't see what their problem is......
Especially if the incumbent providers will not provide service.
The only argument I can think of would be that if the incumbents feel that they can't provide service for a particular area, then it would be a waste of the taxpayer's money for the local government to provide it.
So, in the end, if the incumbents feel that they can't provide your town/area with service, you're just SOL.
That is stupid, if I pay taxes to my local area and it was not served by any incumbents, and the local government said they wanted to provide it, put it to a vote, and it passed, why should anyone tell them they can't do it? |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
3 edits |  Read the full report if you want to see what they said ...
........instead of just the BBR take on what they said:
»www.reason.org/ps349.pdf
Even if you don't agree with them, they did a nice job compiling facts on all the municipal broadband systems out there. See Appendix A starting on page 29 of the above link.
P.S.> There were 2 studies released 12/5/2006 by the Reason Foundation. The more generic municipal broadband one, including WiFi, linked above and another one exclusively addressing iProvo. The press has confused the 2 as it appears that BBR also has( »news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UT···2+iprovo ). Here is the report just addressing iProvo:
»www.reason.org/ps353.pdf |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| reply to Karl Bode
Re: Yeah, but what do you expect from a bunch of libertardians?
said by Karl Bode :Eh, while you're painting an accurate picture of the Libertarian philosophy (albeit a little rosy), most of these think tanks simply use the Libertarian platform as a framework for the real agenda, which is to weaken government oversight, eliminate regulation, and increase revenue. Pretty much at any cost... Oh, I believe that any honorable principle can be used as a cloak for an self-interested position, and I don't know enough about Heartland to comment, but I do know that the Reason Foundation has had a fully principled and consistent position for years. They're not a front for anybody.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site |
|
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to Steve
I don't know, I work with a hand full of Libertarians.
They all seem to think we don't need a government.
People would be "enlightened" and have no need for government.
You would simply challenge anyone that disagrees with you to a Dual to the Death. |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| reply to Steve
quote:
"As the new century begins, dominant assumptions about government, popular culture, and many social and business institutions are in transition. Some of these shifts reinforce traditional American ideas about liberty and limited government. But the backlash against free markets and increased choices is gaining ground in many quarters
.
from: »www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti···undation
If there is such a backlash against "free markets and increased choices", then what is their beef with municipal broadband?
1. It is another choice and competitor in the oh-so idealized "Free Market"
2. If the "free market" can't handle another competitor that either serves consumers better and/or where others will not, why is that bad for anyone?
The bottom line is that if the citizenry asks their municipal government (through a voter referendum) to provide municipal broadband, the idea that corporations can quash that request is an affront to the citizens liberty, the very thing this "thinktank" is supposedly protecting. |
|
JosephG6
join:2006-12-06
Athens, GA
| Libertarian Views - you are all wrong
Libertarians are not against this because poor AT&T would lose money. They are against this because it isn't the government's place to provide Wi-Fi. Re-read the Constitution folks. This is nothing less than vote buying. Next we will see all of you wanting free cell phone service at tax payers expense. If you want Wi-Fi throughout your city, go buy a broadband access card and leave me and my money alone. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | reply to b10010011
Re: Yeah, but what do you expect from a bunch of libertardians?
quote:
You would simply challenge anyone that disagrees with you to a Dual to the Death.
You'd probably die from unregulated polluted drinking water first. 
We defend toxic water drinker's rights! Our studies show that water contaminated with such pollutants as lead and mercury actually help DRIVE local economies! Let us band together under the pseudo Libertarian, pseudo free-market flag and put an end to evil big government's attempts to tell you what kind of carcinogens you can put into your body! Etc, etc, etc... |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA | reply to garagerock
There's a difference between having a view that you don't agree with, and claiming that view has been bought and paid for. Pick one. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Think Tanks...
Yet another reason I'm thoroughly convinced that there really isn't any thinking going on at "think tanks". Think tanks, such as Reason, Cato, Brookings, etc. more often than not START with a position and find data that supports their position while totally ignoring ANY or ALL contradictory data. Typically there's a lot of messaging of the data before hand as well so that when they run the stats it comes out in their favor.
It is why, for some odd reason, think tanks from different from political bents can always support their argument with numbers and "data" on the same issue.
And this is of course saying nothing about the whole Libertarian political ideology... They are all the same - Republican, Democrat, Libertarian...
--
Prove it... |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to JosephG6
Re: Libertarian Views - you are all wrong
said by JosephG6 :Libertarians are not against this because poor AT&T would lose money. They are against this because it isn't the government's place to provide Wi-Fi. Re-read the Constitution folks. The Constitution merely states, if read as it should be, that the FEDERAL government should not provide free wifi to the citizens as that is not its role. The Constitution does not state ANYTHING about whether or not a city or even a state can provide free wifi to its citizens. In fact, the Constitution states that it is well within the rights of cities or states to do so because those powers are not enumerated to the federal government and doing so is not prohibited by the Constitution.
And this has been today's civics lesson...
--
Prove it... |
|
Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL
| reply to JosephG6
If you were talking about the federal government providing wi-fi service I'd agree with you. But there is nothing in the Constitution restricting individual towns from providing such services. In fact the power lies with the people if you reread the 10th amendment. So if the people of a town or city wanted municipal broadband, they should be free to vote on it. |
|
