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

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

On 7/25/07, Phillip Rhodes <mindcrime AT cpphacker.co.uk> wrote:
> And the reason it should not run at a loss is because allowing that
> would eliminate almost all private sector competition.

Firstly, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Why is it inherently bad?
OWASA has no competition here in Carrboro, but I can still happily poo
and flush.

Secondly, I don't believe that it's actually true. Companies can
differentiate themselves on service, speed, security, or any number of
other features that people might wish to pay for. You can't know that
all "competition" would be knocked out.

> At least
> for-profit competition, as no for-profit company could compete with
> a business that can run at a perpetual loss.

Really? How does UPS make money in rural towns? How does FedEx?

Look here:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+39USC101

at section (b). Even in small towns there's often a FedEx drop box.
You can send something via UPS to any continental US zip code afaik.

> So once one allows this, one is locked
> into whatever LocalGov deems fit to provide, pretty much forevermore.

Nope. Just until we change the laws, which reasonable people should do
now and again. What we should be wary of is adding departments or
boards--those take on a life of their own and fight for their
existence.

> But (in the context of this
> discussion anyway) I just ask that they spend my tax dollars
> wisely..

Then lobby them (_your_ local government) to ensure that they do spend
your tax dollars wisely. You want a law passed that would make the
decision by default for all counties.

> 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?

How am I denying you a voice by opposing the bill? You can still lobby
your local representatives about a Municipal-run ISP without this
bill. You can still demand disclosure.

> 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.

If the bill were about sunshine, then I wouldn't object. It's not
about that. It's about forcing municipalities to be "in competition"
with commercial ISPs, which is stupid. It may have admirable sunshine
qualities in it, but that doesn't make this a good bill.

> 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.

What if the kickback involves prioritizing the traffic of one company
(say a media or search company) other over traffic? What about
blocking bittorrent? What about hijacking DNS (*cough* Earthlink
*cough*)? What if it involves any number of other shady business
practices that most consumers don't understand but are clearly unfair
and benefit the incumbent? I think there are tons of reasons to
mistrust for-profit ISPs that more than outweigh the reasons to
mistrust a municipal ISP.

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