Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] The Local Gov't Fair Competition Act.

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <acoliver AT buni.org>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] The Local Gov't Fair Competition Act.
  • Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:29:31 -0400


It's *not* fair. That's undoubtedly true. But life isn't fair.
Anyway, the "representative government" you think so highly of created
this system, and it is what it is. I'd love to see a different system
where highways are maintained by either private for profit businesses
OR non-profit cooperatives, and funded through usage fees, as opposed
to the current tax supported model.

We did that already: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Klein.Majewski.Turnpikes
It had a huge freeloader problem (solvable with modern technology perhaps) and a perhaps larger problem... they weren't profitable. Wealthy investors invested for social prestige. The social pressures of society that supported them (especially since they were dependent on wealthy folks) no longer exist, nor do the economic proportions.

I'd like a system where there was competition for high speed networking, content (okay boxing matches) and rural communities were served but without ripping up my front yard every week to bury cable as some fly by night goes belly up. Perhaps when technology catches up this will be possible via private funding. Power companies and cable companies are generally suggested to be "natural monopolies" at least for the moment. The problem is that while real estate law allows the municipality to grant an "easement" of your property rights to allow them to rip up that section of your yard nearest to the road on a weekly basis...you probably would not be favorable to that (I wouldn't). Secondly, paying only willing property owners for use of that part of their land and running the cable around unwilling property owners would make modern high speed networks (and not so modern phone, sewage, etc) impractical. There is a major public interest in sewage systems BTW. Screw your property rights to have an "open pipe" and leak your feces into your own yard while spreading the plague, etc...but I digress. So there will be a monopoly here so long as land owners have the right to not have their easement "overused" and technology does not provide a "better" way.

Until then the clearest route to competition is local governments. Frankly I can't see any of my neighbors objecting to what would be a very small tax if my neighborhood was then served (we don't have any local government to speak of which is but one of the many reasons I live here) as it would STILL be cheaper than what time warner charges and it simply could not be of lower quality. Since cable usage is nearly unanimous and judging from the number of wireless networks in my neighborhood, I'd say high speed network usage is probably nearing it as well..

In my neighborhood we have no home owners association (another reason I live here) and people of various diverse backgrounds live together mostly harmoniously. We do have, however, the non-representative government you seek. It is a little old lady with a dog. She tells us when our hedges grow too high or our empty trashcan stays out an extra day (she puts it to back in our driveway). No one elected her, she elected herself. If you lived here and didn't want to pay your internet tax she'd sick her dog on you only releasing your ankle when you agreed to move out.

-Andy
--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page