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

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

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

Cristóbal Palmer wrote:

> 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. 

Not even a not-for-profit cooperative?

> 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 proposed bill doesn't impose any more stringent a demand
that that the service not run at a loss (or maybe generate
1 cent in profit).  So if we assume LocalGov can run
almost exactly at break-even, I think that's a case where LocalGov
still provides this service, where a for-profit business would steer
clear.

And the reason it should not run at a loss is because allowing that
would eliminate almost all private sector competition.  At least
for-profit competition, as no for-profit company could compete with
a business that can run at a perpetual loss.  Probably even a non-profit
coop couldn't compete with that.  So once one allows this, one is locked
into whatever LocalGov deems fit to provide, pretty much forevermore.
Barring replacing the county commissioners / town council en-masse,
which may or may not be likely or possible.

>> 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? 

Relative to broadband specifically, it may not have happened.  It
certainly has happened with plenty of other LocalGov projects.  I
remember when Brunswick County contracted for the radio system for 911
when they first got E-911 service... they - either out of malice or
stupidity - payed far more than needed, and got a crappy system which
had to be replaced (at the expense of another few million dollars)
only a decade later.

> 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.

Sure, let's address it.  Let's address it any number of ways.  I've
already said I'm fine with that.  But (in the context of this
discussion anyway) I just ask that they spend my tax dollars
wisely.. Some of us want that opportunity to have a voice in the
process that this bill would require.  Why do you want to deny
us that?

> 
>> 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. 

It would help.  Requiring public hearings, business plan
disclosure, etc. would certainly give the public a chance
to notice if things weren't on the up and up.  And if
enough people protest, it might prevent it.

Of course this could turn into an argument for more
transparency in government in general, which I always
advocate.

> This is not a risk that is relevant to
> the discussion. <snip> It's no more of a risk with
> local government than it is with TWC.

I disagree.  I think it is a real risk, and in the context
of talking about how LocalGov spends our tax money (which
they could do if this bill doesn't pass) I ask again: don't
we want every opportunity to make sure that money is spent
as wisely as possible?

In the case of TWC, I don't really care about the
internal details of how they run their business.  They
offer a product, for a price. I can buy it or not.  If kickbacks
and nepotism hurt their efficiency enough, it pushes their prices
higher and I quit buying their product.  If LocalGov wastes my tax
money through nepotism or kickbacks, I don't have a choice.


TTYL,


Phil

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

iD8DBQFGps+UdkzqYMZbBuwRAkJ/AKDKYqUYktAXYaCxtQgo4ov8i5OrHACg3TVV
AKFjVORw7+U5i4C+GPwzz/Y=
=WRoE
-----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