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

[Phillip Rhodes <mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> 
>> 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.

Reading the article you linked to, Andy, it sounds like private roads
were actually quite successful.  Of course once we went to taxpayer
supported roads this would drive private roads out of business, as
how can an entity compete against one that can collect subsidies in
the form of taxes?

> 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.  

And when the fly-by-night goes belly-up, their competitor couldn't just
buy out their existing infrastructure?  I really don't see this
scenario you're talking about where your yard is being ripped up weekly.
And Wi-Max technology should make that even less of an issue as it develops.

> 
> 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.

As I've already said, as long as participation is voluntary, I don't
object to it.  If all the people in a given geographic area want
to pool their resources to build a high-speed network, I say
more power to them.  I just don't think they should be able to force
unwilling participants to subsidize it.

And actually, from what you're saying, it almost sounds like your
arguing more for something like what I am talking about when
I speak of a "non-profit, voluntary, cooperative" than what I
typically think of when you say "local government."   As far as
the County or a City/Town doing this stuff, my objections to it
are based on a couple of issues:

1. Any business which is subsidized by taxes is going to have
an automatic (and IMO, probably insurmountable) advantage over
a "pure" private business.  So once you have this tax-supported
business in place, it becomes a de-facto monopoly as no private
business is going to try and compete with that.  This limits choice
in the long run.

2. What if the City/County/Town simply makes a bad decision, like
rolling out a network based on crappy technology?  Wouldn't you like the
option of not participating if they wanted to deploy GPRS as their
networking solution?

3. What if their decisions are just bad economically?  How many times
does a local government give a contract for building something like
this to one company, instead of one offering a better deal, because
the County Commissioner is buddies with the owner of the one outfit? Or
because of outright kickbacks, bribery, etc?  If the local government
is spending "our" tax money unwisely, wouldn't one want the option
to not support that entity?

And now that we're back to this, let's revisit the "Local Gov't Fair
Competition Act."  All it does is require local government entities to
publish a written business plan for their network, have public hearings
before doing it, and - in an older revision - mandated a popular
referendum to approve such a plan.  So why are you opposed to these
things?


TTYL,

Phil



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGnNYTdkzqYMZbBuwRAlelAKCAefAqRLBgaHENx76MGC5JH6LAzwCgxvVJ
3MOIEqvYyj8VPn5Y0jihN5o=
=yaWw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
begin:vcard
fn:Phillip Rhodes
n:Rhodes;Phillip
adr:;;P.O. Box 16905;Chapel Hill;NC;27516;USA
email;internet:mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk
tel;home:919-928-0236
url:http://www.linkedin.com/in/philliprhodes
version:2.1
end:vcard