Dell Joins Muni Debate Michael Dell fights incumbent bans A few months ago Intel announced they'd be supporting muni-broadband projects and opposing state-bans (largely because they hope their Wimax technology will be an incumbent alternative). Now the Austin business Journal reports that Michael Dell has thrown his hat in the ring to oppose cable and bell efforts to ban muni-broadband. With Austin set to host the World Congress on IT in 2006, many in the Texas IT industry are concerned efforts to ban community broadband could make them appear to be a "broadband backwater."
|
  TomekPremium
join:2002-01-30
Valley Stream, NY | Very Good Dell will see it as possibility to expand their offer packages. It's good to see corporations vs corporations. At least odds of winning are better than corporation (monopoly) vs John Doe.
--
Semper Fidelis | |
| | | Race to the ToP! This should be fun. Who can pay off the most people with the most money is the clear winner.
Pro:
Intel
Dell
Con:
Comcast
TW
Cox
Verizon
SBC
... need I go on? | |
|  |  BonezXBasement DwellerPremium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | Re: Race to the ToP! microsoft should get in on that, they could "provide" the platform for the bandwidth regulation to clients. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Put Up or Shut Up The only reason Michael Dell supports taxpayer-provided broadband is because it has the potential to drive more computer sales.
If Michael Dell thinks areas under-served by broadband ISPs deserve to have connectivity, then why doesn't he put any of his own money behind a private effort to get these places connected?
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! | |
| | | | Re: Put Up or Shut Up That's what we used to call in debate class a straw-man argument.
Because Dell opposes incumbent efforts to ban broadband means he has to fund its deployment? What kind of warped logic is that? | |
| | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by Minister:That's what we used to call in debate class a straw-man argument. Seeing where someone actually invests their money is a much more accurate measurement of where he/she stands on the issues than just listening to his/her statements. You can throw any debate-class tactic you want at what I said but it still stands true regardless.
said by Minister:Because Dell opposes incumbent efforts to ban broadband means he has to fund its deployment? What kind of warped logic is that? Because Michael Dell is in a position in which he can effect change on this issue. I don't see why my local taxes should have to increase so that his stock price goes up. I've got no problem with him making money, but he certainly doesn't need mis-spent local government tax revenue helping him out with that.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! | |
|
|  MinvarenPremium
join:2001-07-26
Houston, TX | More than likely, it's actually due to Intel's strong backing of Dell.
If Intel is pushing Wimax, and Dell is perhaps their biggest reseller... Dell will push Wimax too. I doubt there is any Grand Benevolence(tm) here. | |
| |  JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD | Maybe Michael Dell will back some revenue bonds to finance muni deployments. Remember, most muni deployments aren't backed by tax revenue. | |
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Put Up or Shut Up said by JTRockville:Maybe Michael Dell will back some revenue bonds to finance muni deployments. Remember, most muni deployments aren't backed by tax revenue. I don't think the government should get into the broadband business at all, but a more practical approach might be for interested citizens to form local non-profit organizations which could focus entirely on providing broadband in under-served areas. This approach allows for all money used to be focused 100% on broadband deployment, keeps the government's meddling out of the picture and assures that all money used stays in the community served.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! | |
| | | | JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD | Re: Put Up or Shut Up That's pretty much how muni systems are deployed now. If you consider that "the government" is made up of "the people", or representatives of "the people", then that's exactly how muni systems are deployed now. | |
| | | | |  Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | Re: Put Up or Shut Up said by JTRockville:If you consider that "the government" is made up of "the people", or representatives of "the people", then that's exactly how muni systems are deployed now. There's a subtle difference tho. In Pittsburgh "The People" voted down government funding of 2 new stadiums and a convention center in a referendum. A couple months later "The People" in the form of a government representative and a rider on a bill decided to do just the opposite.
Keeping government reps. as far away as possible from broadband non-profits seems like a really good idea to me.
--
Beagles really should come in convienent 10 packs. | |
| | | | | | JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD | Re: Put Up or Shut Up If your representatives refuse to represent you, vote 'em out. If private ventures don't serve your needs, you have no recourse. | |
| | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Put Up or Shut Up said by JTRockville:If private ventures don't serve your needs, you have no recourse. Sure you do. You can invest in a competing venture or start your own. At the very least if you don't like the service provided by a private company you don't have to buy their services.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Put Up or Shut Up ah yes. everyone has access to millions of dollars of investment capital to fund such ventures. riiiiiiiiiiight.
hey straw man, have you ever seen "it's a wonderful life?" george bailey doesn't go crawling to Mr. Potter because he wants to...Potter just has enough money to dispense thousands at a clip. who in the world is going to be the Mr. Potter here? non-existent venture capitalists?
if YOU don't like your local gov't helping you out, so be it. there just isn't any good reason you can give to stop others from believing locals have the $$ and the answers to this problem. as you say, if you don't lke the service, don't use it! | |
|
| | | | | | Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | If private ventures don't serve the customers needs they run out of money, and if truly private it has little effect on me if they rot and die. In the case of governments, screwups are ultimately borne by the citizenry. Promises of private backing in theory should protect the citizenry, but they don't because it's all too easy for local politicians to change the terms in order to offer up political cookies to the highest bidder, and if the backer goes bankrupt then all bets are off.
--
Beagles really should come in convienent 10 packs. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Put Up or Shut Up How about you stop the moronic comments and think, instead?
We're a 2 man ISP, and if some public entity decides to deploy broadband to cover where I do, theyre' going to use 10X the amount I will, take my money from me, and then use that money to put me out of business.
Then they'll find they operate at a loss, can't afford to continue operations, shut it down, liquidate assets to some corporation at a huge loss, and then we're back where we started... No broadband, and I just lost everything I put into it.
But then again, isn't that the dream of socialists everywhere? Everyone dependent upon handouts and nobody making a profit? | |
| | | | | | JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: Put Up or Shut Up As it is now, you have no guarantee a private venture won't compete with you. I hope your business model isn't based on having no competition.
Competitors will distinguish themselves on many levels aside from price:
• reliability
• speed
• customer service
• "extras" (email, webspace, newsgroups, premium content)
Since you are operating with a profit, certainly you can excel in one or more of those areas. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Put Up or Shut Up JTRockville:
The problem with that rationale is that you're assuming that the muni project must also operate with a profit. If were both operating it the black, then competition will take place, and the customer will win. But most muni networks don't operate in the black, which means they can throw as much money as they want into the network, to drive the private companies out of business. And in the end all the customer gets is cheap internet in exchange for higher taxes, or maybe a higher phone or electric bill.
neofast:
Just watch out that your local government doesn't conveniently forget that you're there for a few months so they can justify taking on "The Big Corporations", by stealing all of your customers. And the figures are more like 100X the cost of a smartly done network.
Ok, let me hear the “They are profitable, it only takes a few years to pay off a 40 million dollar network by selling $20 internet” arguments. | |
|
| | | | |  Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1
 ·Embarq Now Centu..
| said by neofast:How about you stop the moronic comments and think, instead? ((snipped)) But then again, isn't that the dream of socialists everywhere? Everyone dependent upon handouts and nobody making a profit? My, my. How did I know the socialist tag would come flying? BTW, I'm not a socialist; neither am I a dupe for cronyism.
And I don't think you need to worry about what I *think* with guys on your side telling us that "mom and pop" companies are a thing of the past.
I also don't *think* your 2 man business has anything to worry about from a municipal BB coming around to put you out of business.
If I were you, I'd *think* a lot more about a commercial enterprise (larger than 2 man, I assure you) burying you without a second thought and laughing like Enron and 'Aunt Millie' while they do it. If a Muni-bb DID threaten your livelihood, I *think* you'd at least get a word in edgewise and sympathy from your small-business brethren; good luck crying for salvation when a commercial outfit gobbles up your revenue customer by customer.
PS: I trust they'll use stronger words than "moron" while they're staking you out for slaughter. *Think* about that.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass | |
| | | | | | | Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | Re: Put Up or Shut Up Whether you want to admit it or not, your ideas are socialist. A look at your post history is all that's needed. You constantly say the government should help this or that person or suggest intervention(punishment) when someone turns an excellent profit.
Then anytime anyone uses strong words to refer to your ideas you go the "smart people don't use such words" route and ignore any other content. You did it to me the other day because I referred to your "stupid idea" (stupid because you had to ignore certain facts in order for it to make sense)
--
Beagles really should come in convienent 10 packs. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Put Up or Shut Up quote:
You constantly say the government should help this or that person
So, you live on an island? Gov't doesn't help you at all? Are you your own police force, fire department, garbage collection...national defense? EPA? FTC? You've never used a student loan? Attended a public university? Driven on an interstate highway? Eaten food that's been inspected?
Somehow I doubt all of the above. Those who would question government's role in these matters hasn't really pondered what government does (and quite well) on a daily basis. I bet you're part of that "the government sucks" crowd that has it's collective head up its ASS in regards to facets of life we as Americans take for granted. | |
| | | | | | | | | Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
| Re: Put Up or Shut Up said by garagerock: quote:
You constantly say the government should help this or that person
So, you live on an island? Gov't doesn't help you at all? Are you your own police force, fire department, garbage collection...national defense? EPA? FTC? You've never used a student loan? Attended a public university? Driven on an interstate highway? Eaten food that's been inspected? Somehow I doubt all of the above. Those who would question government's role in these matters hasn't really pondered what government does (and quite well) on a daily basis. I bet you're part of that "the government sucks" crowd that has it's collective head up its ASS in regards to facets of life we as Americans take for granted. Good points 
Most, but not all, who argue against Muni-BB are using the 'socialist' cop-out as the basis for their stance. They advance less government because government is inept, yet I'd bet half or more of them just voted for an administration that currently has the largest and most inept government in recent history.
It's trying to have it both ways: government is so inept it can't get out of its own way :: you can't let government compete or provide services that private industry does because it'll put people out of business.
Which is it?
If govt is so damn inept then how is it exactly that they're able to put any enterprise out of business when they can't agree on anything or balance a budget?
This leaves the anti-munis to cherry pick positions in this regard: government is good as long as it stays out of the way of higher corporate profits or providing -- by whatever means -- a decent standard of living for its citizens. ostensibly because Government is supposed to work for the people and not against it: helping people is tantamount to creating a Welfare State where we'll all end up on the dole, crying and whining for handouts; and, competing with business is not in the best interests of a free market.
The problem I see with this theory is that Government is enmeshed with corporate america so deeply that lines are now blurred, making the traditional argument murky at best. We're moving from a mixed economy to a sort of hybrid where pure capitalism is wedded to government to create a corporate state with minimal oversight (I think that defines fascism when media is under the umbrella). Privatization is just what it implies: taking away basic checks and balances put in place and enforced by government that are a vital protection from the cronyism that leads to blatant exploitation at every turn. I can't help but see their argument as fear of true competition -- something lost due to collusion by the major players. The bottom line is rapacious profit. Look at what Comcast just announced for first quarter profts. And yet prices will go up sure as sunshine.
The muni debate, it seems to me, is one of pure ideology & hyperbole, when it should be a rational discussion about how to create more affordable Internet access for all that want it.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Put Up or Shut Up quote:
The muni debate, it seems to me, is one of pure ideology & hyperbole, when it should be a rational discussion about how to create more affordable Internet access for all that want it
Agreed. But the reactionaries that would deride these projects are saying just that-nobody should help anyone get affordable internet access, esp. the government...despite bond issues eating the upfront cost altogether.
I'm not sure I understand anyone who would stop anyone from getting into the broadband business, even if it is your local government. Utilities of all stripes started out life in most small towns being owned and ran by the local governments...why is this any different?
If the projects fail, fine. Pull the plug. Stop writing checks. What I fail to understand is why the attack dogs would stop anyone from even trying. But we're back again at the "don't help anyone with anything...unless it's me!" mentality. | |
| | | | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Put Up or Shut Up said by garagerock:If the projects fail, fine. Pull the plug. Stop writing checks. What I fail to understand is why the attack dogs would stop anyone from even trying. But we're back again at the "don't help anyone with anything...unless it's me!" mentality. I would agree with you if it was only that easy. Government programs can accomplish absolutely nothing for many, many years and still get regular funding increases. Once the government starts financing something, that something will do everything in its power to make sure it stays funded, no matter how bad of a job it does.
The only solution which provides full accountability is one that is not run by the government. If it fails, then the only people who are screwed are the shareholders of that venture. No one else's pocket would be picked to bail it out.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! | |
|
| | | | | | | Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
| said by Combat Chuck:Whether you want to admit it or not, your ideas are socialist. A look at your post history is all that's needed. You constantly say the government should help this or that person or suggest intervention(punishment) when someone turns an excellent profit. Then anytime anyone uses strong words to refer to your ideas you go the "smart people don't use such words" route and ignore any other content. You did it to me the other day because I referred to your "stupid idea" (stupid because you had to ignore certain facts in order for it to make sense) Feel free to use my post history to bolster your points; I've nothing to hide (I wouldn't post here if I did!).
I wish you'd back up SOMETHING you say with a fact or linked citation rather than with empty rhetoric. Feel free to do so on these points for practice. I'll be glad to reply to your accusations (what you put in quotes):
** You quote me with "smart people don't use such words"
Do I write that somewhere? Please provide a link to a post where I do.
** You write (as a quote) that, "[I] constantly say the government should help this or that person or suggest intervention(punishment) when someone turns an excellent profit."
Please provide examples of where I do just what you state.
The post / exchange you allude to is here:
Where YOU call my ideas stupid!
You see, I'll debate freely -- anytime, anywhere -- and if I'm incorrect with facts or wrong-headed in viewpoint I'll be the first to admit it. You haven't written anything to refute what I've said. Your idea of proving a point is to simply say someone else is wrong. I'm sorry, but it takes a bit more work than that 
Now, do I think that Muni broadband should simply be implemented because someone thinks it's the best course? No, I do not. However, I also think that rational discussion on the subject is warranted because the BB industry in this country is getting very rich while people pay higher prices and the country as a whole falls behind other countries in per capita BB usage. There are various reasons for the fall in rank, I admit, but I don't think my other charges are that far off the mark. Look at the current situation with oil/gas. Crude futures went skyward and pump prices went up. We were told prices were due to supply & demand problems. Yet ALL the major oil companies just posted HUGE profits for the 1st quarter. You may think this is fine, but there are many that do not. Moreover, calling people socialists or stupid doesn't further intelligent debate.
** Note: on the linked thread above, I provided a reply with 33 citations on wages and worker rights. I notice you never replied to that. I also notice that when facts or links to proof of a position are included in a reply to your views, you either don't address that portion of the post or you attack the messenger. If you do that often enough, people will put you on their ignore list and you'll be arguing with yourself. I'd think on that for a bit. It's just a discussion, no one HAS to win or lose, and various points of view are healthy. If you don't agree with what you think are "socialist [ideas]," then point out exactly why that particular idea is socialist and why it's not good in your opinion. Ad hominem or shallow 'what you did or said' arguing is a waste of time.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass | |
|
| | | | | | | | said by Titus Pullo:said by neofast:How about you stop the moronic comments and think, instead? ((snipped)) But then again, isn't that the dream of socialists everywhere? Everyone dependent upon handouts and nobody making a profit? My, my. How did I know the socialist tag would come flying? BTW, I'm not a socialist; neither am I a dupe for cronyism. And I don't think you need to worry about what I *think* with guys on your side telling us that "mom and pop" companies are a thing of the past. I also don't *think* your 2 man business has anything to worry about from a municipal BB coming around to put you out of business. If I were you, I'd *think* a lot more about a commercial enterprise (larger than 2 man, I assure you) burying you without a second thought and laughing like Enron and 'Aunt Millie' while they do it. If a Muni-bb DID threaten your livelihood, I *think* you'd at least get a word in edgewise and sympathy from your small-business brethren; good luck crying for salvation when a commercial outfit gobbles up your revenue customer by customer. PS: I trust they'll use stronger words than "moron" while they're staking you out for slaughter. *Think* about that. Well, first off, I'd agree that YOU DON'T THINK, but beyond that, you haven't said much that's intelligent.
First, we're a new wireless operation, with a statistically extrapolated 5000 possible customers... and over 1000 square miles of area coverage. Statistically, given today's "take" rates of around 10%, we expect our short term customer base to be around 500 broadband customers, and long term around 800. And my business model is NOT built on there being no competition. I have DSL, Cable, and 2 other wireless providers - both well funded, and I'm the small guy. The "David" against the "Goliaths", and I have no doubt we'll win... PRECISELY because we're small.
Our prices beat DSL, Cable, and the wireless providers, and our service beats them all, as well.
But that's because they lease thousands of square feet of the most expensive office space around, we use a home office. They hire ALL productive work done, and all the management does is collect paychecks. We do it all.
You see, grasshopper, size is not everything... efficiency is. Sizing your operation to the market is wisdom... You're spouting tripe. In your world, it's not real until it has massive overhead and fails in spectacularly large bankruptices that make the regional or national news.
We'll just keep smiling and loving life... because there's simply no way they can keep up with us... | |
| | | | | | | | Titus PulloI came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
kudos:1 Reviews:
·Embarq Now Centu..
| Re: Put Up or Shut Up Good reply, but your beef isn't with me, it's with people that would put you of business. I think what you're doing is great and I wish you nothing but success. I'm more concerned with profit seeking mega-providers fighting solutions before they're in a position to (other than with lawyers from afar).
We don't disagree on the basics -- you simply misread my argument.
Best of luck to you.
--
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose." -- Frederick Douglass | |
|
| | | | | | | We're a 2 man ISP, and if some public entity decides to deploy broadband to cover where I do, theyre' going to use 10X the amount I will, take my money from me, and then use that money to put me out of business.
I would like an example of any 2 man Broadband provider that is not just reselling a large corporations network. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Put Up or Shut Up said by Orwell1984:
We're a 2 man ISP, and if some public entity decides to deploy broadband to cover where I do, theyre' going to use 10X the amount I will, take my money from me, and then use that money to put me out of business.
I would like an example of any 2 man Broadband provider that is not just reselling a large corporations network.
Fixed wireless.
Enough said. No need for a telco, millions of dollars, or spectacular bankruptcies in the news... | |
| | | | | | | | | Well, were a 5 man wireless ISP, and there are two others about our size in the area, does that still count? | |
|
| | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Actually perfect competition, the ideal of capitalism, is based on ZERO economic profit for all competitors. Government is there to fill the inefficiencies in the free markets. I DON'T think there should be muni broadband in areas where private enterprise is already providing service though. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Put Up or Shut Up The problem with your idea, is that munis freeze out private enterprise, to the detriment of all. | |
| | | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | Re: Put Up or Shut Up Umm.. how's that a problem with my idea? I said to only have muni's where private enterprise deams its unprofitable, and therefore doesn't service. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | im wondering if Verizon doesnt offer FIOS or DSL to an area what prevents SBC from building a network other then funds. if the FCC is enforcing monopolies then they are not serving the people as a government agency should.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: Put Up or Shut Up said by Kearnstd:im wondering if Verizon doesnt offer FIOS or DSL to an area what prevents SBC from building a network other then funds. if the FCC is enforcing monopolies then they are not serving the people as a government agency should. Nothing other than funds prevents anyone from building their own network. When I lived in State College, PA, a second cable company, now known as Conestoga, built their own cable TV/broadband/phone network on top of what was then AT&T Broadband and Verizon incumbent service. There's no FCC rule stating that there can be only one such provider for a given area, and if local governments are not allowing competitors to run their own service, then they should be sanctioned for breaking the law.
--
Hey Fast Eddie... you're next! | |
|
|  mocyclerPremium
join:2001-01-22
Naperville, IL
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by pnh102:The only reason Michael Dell supports taxpayer-provided broadband is because it has the potential to drive more computer sales. Funny how when the Bells oppose muni (because they stand to gain if it fails), they are bashed as a big bad money-sucking operation. But when Dell or Intel, also big bad money-sucking operations, support it (because they stand to gain if it succeeds), that's OK because it suits the muni-proponents' purpose.
But I'm sure Dell and Intel are placing people before profit and the fact Intel is the exclusive provider of microprocessors to Dell, and Dell is trying real hard to get into the internet router business has absolutely nothing to do with their positions.
Peace,
mocycler | |
|
 Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2 | none only if they made a dell with an AMD cpu Inside NOT intel inside | |
| |  wrileyI'M Sick Of Fixing Your Computer.Premium
join:2001-08-30
Edmonton, AB | Re: none Why? | |
| | | Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2 | Re: none i would love to see if they would sell more Amd computers or intel computers | |
|
approval from:
ahedge 
| Municipal vs private The situation we have with Broadband/High-Speed Internet access is very similar to a situation that developed during the turn of the century with electricity and coal. Quite simply, it is impossible for private companies to profit with broadband in certain parts of the country. A private company will not penetrate into certain rural or low-income areas. Some they incidentally hit, but most they do not.
Currently, US Broadband penetration is ranked 13th in the world. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong and Korea, 1 Gig/sec service is being readied.
Why is this?
Broadband is still very expensive for many Americans. Municipals generally provide cheaper broadband. I do not see how municipals kill competition. Frankly, they act like a company willing to work for the lowest bottom line, ZERO profit. I don't know if you guys knew, but its actually illegal for munis to use money collected via taxes and charges for other utility services to be used for broadband deployment. Munis do not have to charge anything more than they need to break even. They pay their employees and deploy the service system (though not the actual service, thats usually taken care of by a private party). TECHNICALLY, a giant corporation could do the same for a year or two, and probably beat the municipal from an honest, competitive stand point. Quite simply, IP service providers don't like municipal utilities because they ARE competition, very, very honest and tough competition at that. You can't gouge profits when the competiting interest is trying to offer the lowest price possible. Truth be told, private companies that haven't gone public/investor-owned can actually offer the cheapest service of all. They can be experts at deployment, only worry about paying their own salaries and beat the municipals when it comes to the development of new technologies.
I think another thing people forget is that it is individuals who often times have presented the IT revolutions of the past twenty years, and then sold their idea to privates for profits. It seems pretty clear that private companies aren't sparking the innovating or penetration in the US (just see the US international broadband ranking).
Of course, the US ALSO has the third largest population in the world, and far more rural areas than much of the East.
I guess the thing to remember is that without municipal utilities, there would still be many rural areas with no electricity or phone service, because its just not profitable to provide them it. When servicing four people in an obscure county, it is a municipal provider who will do the best job, or really, any job at all. | |
|
| |
|
|
