BeeperPart Of The Problem
join:2001-09-27
Dayton, OH | reply to Jason Levine
Re: Why not said by Jason Levine: Can't have any of that competition stuff, now can we? Competition is good.
It is a bad thing to have a competitor who is also the rule maker, rule enforcer, and legal arbiter. It is a bad thing to have government own the means of production. It is a bad thing to have a competitor make good its losses with increased utility costs or higher taxes.
Government should stay out of data delivery and stick to what it does best, squander money.
--
Guaranteed Fear and Loathing. Abandon all hope. Prepare for the Weirdness. Get familiar with Cannibalism. |
 calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA | Well, it's not like the FCC or the state PUC would be getting into the business--cities don't have a great deal of regulatory enforcement power over ISPs.
In reality, it may depend on how much you view ISP service as a "utility" and how vital it is. Cities have a long and successful history delivering utility services. Most commonly, they have delivered water and sewer service. Many cities have municipal electric service, and municipal gas service is also found from time to time. Sometimes, the city ends up doing something because nobody else wants to--like garbage collection in tiny towns.
Finally, you will more often see situations where a city owned utility supports the general fund than one where the tax base supports the city owned utility. Why? Because it's almost always easier for the city government to raise the price of the utility service than for them to raise taxes--so budget shortfalls on either side often get plugged by utility rate increases.
Of course, if I worked for a whining Baby Bell that was more interested in spending time and money buying ATT than in building broadband capacity, I wouldn't want to see a city build its own network, either.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
