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

["Cristóbal Palmer" <cristobalpalmer AT gmail.com>]

On 7/24/07, Phillip Rhodes <mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk> wrote:
> You lost me here.  The bill you all seem to be arguing against does
> not prevent rational people from having an effect on policy that
> has direct consequences in their lives.  It just imposes a few
> requirements to protect people against acts of stupidity or malice
> perpetrated by their local government.

A few? It imposes one requirement that hamstrings the whole endeavor!
The _point_ of having the government step in and provide a broadband
infrastructure is that it _can't_ be profitable right now in some
rural areas, so no business would do it. Requiring local government to
figure out how to make it profitable is EXACTLY THE SAME as requiring
them not to do it if you're in a rural area. Why does it need to be
profitable? The point is that integrating rural economies into the
information economy that our country is becoming is an obvious
necessity and social good. It doesn't need to be profitable. In fact,
if we wait until it's profitable we'll have waited too long and those
rural economies will be dangerously far behind.

> Stupidity would be the local leaders deciding to build a network
> on ridiculously inferior technology without giving the public
> a chance for input.

Where has this happened? Where is this likely to happen? We _know_
that rural communities are currently being under-served by
profit-driven ISPs. We can see it happening now. Let's address that
real threat rather than the imagined threat of a possibly-inferior
network.

> Malice would be the effect of corruption where LocalGov
> contracts out building and maintaining their network
> to a contractor, based on kickbacks or nepotism, and
> signs a less-favorable-than-possible deal.

This bill doesn't stop that. This is not a risk that is relevant to
the discussion. Kickbacks and nepotism happen everywhere: business,
government, rec soccer, the NBA (y'all heard about the ref betting on
matches, right?). Of _course_ people want policies that help to avoid
corruption, but we want that everywhere. It's no more of a risk with
local government than it is with TWC.

Cheers,
--
Cristóbal M. Palmer
celebrating 15 years of sunsite/metalab/ibiblio:
http://tinyurl.com/2o8hj4