dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
23
share rss forum feed


Raptor
Not a Dumptruck

join:2001-10-21
London, ON

1 recommendation

reply to chamberc

Re: Uh... feel free to build out your own nationwide network...

Many try, tough to do with AT&T and others lobby the local gov't to ban such an action. Funny how that works eh?
--
....where's my fiber?


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Many would argue that it's inappropriate for municipal government to be in the broadband business. Want to see the difference between private and municipal employees? Follow around a private garbage truck, then a public one, and watch the difference in haste between the two sets of employees.

I would take issue with lobbying to prevent private upstarts, but what's the problem if a state government deems it inappropriate for their municipalities to be in the broadband business? States set the rules for their political subdivisions, and with very few exceptions they can do whatever they want.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

said by Crookshanks:

Many would argue that it's inappropriate for municipal government to be in the broadband business. Want to see the difference between private and municipal employees? Follow around a private garbage truck, then a public one, and watch the difference in haste between the two sets of employees.

Where I live we've had both and the privately run trucks the employees do a pretty poor job.

itguy05

join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA
reply to Crookshanks

said by Crookshanks:

Many would argue that it's inappropriate for municipal government to be in the broadband business. Want to see the difference between private and municipal employees? Follow around a private garbage truck, then a public one, and watch the difference in haste between the two sets of employees.

I think I'd rather have the municipal owned utility. We moved from a location that was serviced for a for-profit water company where we paid ~$30 a month for water. Now we are on a municipal owned system and pay ~$30 per QUARTER. Why? The municipality can't make a profit on what they sell us.


Raptor
Not a Dumptruck

join:2001-10-21
London, ON
Reviews:
·Rogers Hi-Speed

1 recommendation

reply to Crookshanks

The public v. private can always go either way depending on the services being offered, locale, time of year, etc.

The problem is apparent when you can see that it's a law been put into place only to serve existing business. Arguing that the law was put into place with the conviction that it will stave off yet another endless public money pit seems a bit presumptuous.

As per the inappropriateness, I understand that point and can certainly agree that there are instances where that would apply. The government is the government, or it should be anyway. If all is running well then they shouldn't have to get into a service that one would hope would be efficiently run by private enterprise. They should stick to what they do and run the municipality/state/province/etc. One could also argue that as time moves forward, the idea of internet access and it's level of use within our society is slowly moving it towards being a Utility (i.e. power, water, gas, etc.)

Ignoring other industries for a moment, I think many would agree that there are some very glaring and obvious examples in the residential broadband industry where the private lobby stomps on a muni start-up, lest they have to offer something better than $50/mo 5-mbit connections.

The very definition of capitalism by which a private business would be run by in an area where they may be the sole service provider steers them towards a model of how much cash can they pull in providing the lowest amount of service. A municipal upstart is something that local residents can agree on to pay for themselves (local democracy at work) assuming a value added proposal is put forth and it means better service and/or more cash in their pocket eventually.

Any provided public service can be thought of as another horse in the race. We can speak of bloat in the public sector all day, but it happens privately too. So I think that's a non-starter against muni broadband.
--
....where's my fiber?



NotTheMama
What Would Earl Do?

join:2012-12-06
reply to Crookshanks

Given the growing list of local and state government services and information provided only online, it's going to become more than just appropriate for every government entity to be in the broadband business, it's going to be essential--one way or another, even if it only means forcing "private" ISPs to provide service, to "put up or shut up" as it were.
--
"Face piles of trials with smiles; it riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave."



Twaddle

@sbcglobal.net
reply to Crookshanks

Where is the public sector getting their Internet services and who is supplying them and who is paying for them?
If the public has no viable Internet services then the govt can't use the internet for communication, etc and will need to provide counter space and a person to provide the informational services to the public. No state/Federal Income Tax submissions, no DMV registrations etc. Post ALL legislation in a hard copy format for public access. It's a two edged sword. If the ATT/Bell Souths and the Verizons don't want to provide needed services then they can pay through the the nose for the easements and rights of ways on public and private property and pay for land, rights of ways easements just like everyone else. After all public property should be costing them more to use as well.


rahvin112

join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT

1 recommendation

reply to Crookshanks

Those doing the arguing are often doing so without a whit of knowledge on the issue. Most people aren't old enough to remember when this country wired power and telephone into the rural areas but in almost every case it was done with a municipal coop project.

Later after the fixed capital costs were recovered the existing facilities were sold to the utility monopoly under the promise that future costs and service requirements would be regulated by the state to preserve the investment of the local community. In the process state utility regulation boards were setup and implemented service requirements and price limits. Most of these "no-muni" laws also take the step of gutting that regulation as well.

So why should a company that purchased these lines under an agreement that required service and price controls get to wave those requirements while at the same time preventing the communities from providing for themselves just like they did originally?