said by calvoiper :

Well, let's take the American Heritage 4th edition definition of "bigot", as reproduced on dictionary.com:

"One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

My opposition to buildout requirements isn't bigoted--indeed, support of buildout requirements, by using government to force service to "one's own group" would be evidence of "intolerance" of those who would desire to offer video and/or ISP services the same way EVERY OTHER RETAIL PRODUCT AND SERVICE is offered--where the retailer wants to offer it.

All I want is freedom for business to offer services when and where they choose--the same model used for everything from gas stations and supermarkets to physicians' offices and day care centers. No way a desire for that freedom is evidence of bigotry. You're trying to play a race card here, and it doesn't make any part of a winning hand.

Now if you think my strident condemnation of "political correctness", "socialist central planning", and "bureaucratic mediocrity" makes me a bigot about economic systems, that's a different issue--but when you say "bigot" in America today, it's almost universally thought of in racial or ethnic terms--and as I said, those cards don't win here.

I also will point out that you're redefining terms on the fly here, and nobody can argue with a moving target. ("Uh, I only meant universal buildout for "basic" services." But what about digital cable? Is it "basic"? Does your answer apply beyond Iowa City? What speed of broadband is "basic"? At what point will some navel-contemplating bureaucrat decide to double or quadruple the speed required as part of the "basic" buildout and drive my costs through the roof? [With my competitor's encouragement, of course.])

And then there's the REAL WINNER: You won't require me to serve an area I can "prove" won't be profitable. Oh wow! Of course, the bureaucrat passes on the "proof", and nobody compensates me for the effort to "prove" a non-market. What total discouraging hogwash!

And what's this stuff about not requiring mandatory buildout for overbuilders? First, how do you justify treating companies so differently? Second, if the non-initial market entrants are totally exempt from overbuild requirements, how is it a barrier? You've essentially made my point for me--to get competition, you have to scrap the buildout requirements. (Or are you playing the incumbent's game, saying that you're exempt as long as you don't offer anything the incumbent doesn't, but that any new offering has to meet the mandatory buildout? Incumbents LOVE that position because it limits their competition the field that the incumbents define.)

And I'm checking on Iowa City from other sources. You described your successes using quotes--were these taken from some publication? If so, I'd appreciate the reference or link. Maybe there has been successful cable regulation, and Iowa City might be the place--it's small enough, and idealistic enough, to carry it off, I suppose.

calvoiper