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

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

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

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> that's a lot of ranting and raving but not much in the way of a
> constructive alternative.  

If you believe that then clearly you haven't read my previous
postings, so I can't see much point in spending a lot of time
composing a reply to this.  But, being the hardheaded bastard that
I am...

> This bill imposes (or the last version I
> read) profitability constraints that many ventures can't manage to
> fulfill in the timeline it required.  

So more taxpayers subsidizing unprofitable businesses, only masked
in the name of "municipal?"  I'll pass, thanks.

> I think what most of us want is
> local governments to have the option to create networks when citizens
> aren't being well served.

This bill does not take that option away.

>  I also am also for local control (not the
> state --where I have less say-- telling my local government -- where I
> have more say -- what to do).  

Generally speaking, so am I.  What I am not for is the ability of
the local government to grant itself a monopoly on providing
bandwidth, thereby locking out competition forevermore.  No
purely private company would be able to compete against a taxpayer
subsidized "company" so without this bill, a local government
that goes into the broadband business becomes a monopoly.

> Don't worry you'll still have that
> wonderful time warner network and wonderful customer service they're so
> known for.  

For all the ranting and raving against time-warner, their network
fills my needs very adequately and for a reasonable price.  Would more
bandwidth be nice? Sure, but who wouldn't say that.  And quite simply,
we are not all entitled to service that fulfills our every whim.

> Just there may be alternatives as well.  

At least where I live, there are.  DSL, satellite and clearwire
among others.

> If you are in a
> municipality that wants to create one you can vote against it or the
> people that support it.  Meanwhile your neighbors will be more prosperous.

Your proposing that the sole factor determining prosperity is 'net access?

> Rather than fighting this uphill battle to convince all of us that
> preserving the exclusive franchise of cable and telco is better than
> having one more alternative should folks vote (given that we haven't all
> adopted your moral views towards involuntary taxation) -- come up with a
> practical* alternative that will help bring high speed networks to rural
> communities that desire them (which promotes economic growth) and  frees
> us from the tyranny of Time Warner's monopoly.

I already have.  Private, non-profit coops.  The same model that
provides telephone and electric service in many rural areas today.

I also offer requiring local governments to NOT grant monopolies - by
way of franchise agreements - to existing private providers.  Or in
other words, "legalize competition."

I also offer accepting that nobody is necessarily *entitled* to
a certain level of 'net access if they choose to live in Sticksville,
NC.  I moved *from* the country to a more urban area to try and
improve my "lot in life" via access to things like more opportunities,
better connectivity, etc, instead of staying in Brunswick County
and whining about the lack of those things.

I'm sure there are lots of things many of us would like to have, but
can we all really expect the rest of society to subsidize our
requirements for unprofitable businesses?  I want a cable channel
that shows nothing but amateur wrestling 24x7, but I realize that
there's no market for it, so do you hear me whining about how
everybody else who doesn't care about amateur wrestling should have
to help fund it?


> Its easy to be "against" but what are you "for" rather than some
> half-baked untested political ideology -- give me a *practical*
> proposoal to free us from the crappy assed service of TWC and BellSouth
> etc.
> This is the crux of the problem of the libertarian party and
> professed libertarians in general, they give us nothing to support until
> we completely buy every bit of your ideology...which is unlikely (and
> most people's views soften when they have kids anyhow).  Run on the
> issues, nearly no one cares about the ideology.

This has nothing to do with libertarianism.  This has to do with me
questioning how this "Local Gov't Fair Competition Act" is a bad thing.
So far nobody, other than you, Andy, has even attempted to offer
any analysis of why it's bad.  And I find your argument to be pretty
weak to be honest.


TTYL,


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

iD8DBQFGprq8dkzqYMZbBuwRAhchAJ4icjmZLtkJw0IFj3Lf/hyy4wmuZgCgujm0
5a8c9ROQNTrCVnsdEylxHrg=
=TxZ2
-----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