how-to block ads
|
garner11
join:2004-08-01
Concord, NH
1 edit | Government has a place in providing infrastructure
First off, let me correct myself. Qwest's first Utopia/iProvo attack was in 2001 with HB149. Latter they tried to stop it at the city level, and when they were unsuccessfull, they went back to the legislature in 2004. A more detailed report on the legislation, and Qwest promises can be found at: http://www.telecomchoices.org/left_cell/brady.3.10.04.htm.
Second, building a McDonald's to "create" business, and providing infrastructue to create business are not comparable. Nice try, but I think most intelligent people can see through that. You may still argue that municipal broadband doesn't have a place, but to argue that it is the same as building a McDonald's is ignorant at best.
There are many examples of municipal infrastructure: power, water, sewage, roads, airports, and seaports just to name a few. Furthermore both Utopia and iProvo are wholesale infrustructure providers... much like an airport. Every airline doesn't build there own airport. The city builds the airport and the airlines compete in providing service.
I consider myself, as many Utahns do, fiscally conservative. Utah is arguably the reddest state in nation, and Provo is one of the most conservative cities in America, yet there is a grassroots effort to build these networks. To me, that says, that you can support small government and still support government built infrastructure. The only thing I hate worse than big government is large (un)regulated monopolies. Public risk, private profits.
We may disagree about municipal broadband, but let's keep the debate intellectually honest. | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by garner11  :Second, building a McDonald's to "create" business, and providing infrastructue to create business are not comparable. Nice try, but I think most intelligent people can see through that. You may still argue that municipal broadband doesn't have a place, but to argue that it is the same as building a McDonald's is ignorant at best. Are you really that narrowminded?
My point was simple, governments job, in the private sector, is to create an environment for business to flourish. Government's job is not to directly compete with the private sector. So my BBR level example was that government doesn't build and run business, they attract it. In the government run Muni world, if it eliminates the private sector, then you also eliminate the tax revenue that comes with it. Government makes no wealth, it redistributes it. You should know this being a conservative.
There are many examples of municipal infrastructure: power, water, sewage, roads, airports, and seaports just to name a few. Yup! Thanks for making my point even better... Those are all "infrustructure." Can you name any Phone companies? TV Cable Companies? etc? Even then, though power companies do exist, they are few at best and have thier places. To this date, broadband has not been classified or defined by the FCC as a necessity. We need water, we need sewage, roads, airports, etc. Though the nation is advancing on the use of broadband, it has yet to be deemed more than an information service, not a public utility.
...yet there is a grassroots effort to build these networks. To me, that says, that you can support small government and still support government built infrastructure. The only thing I hate worse than big government is large (un)regulated monopolies. Public risk, private profits.
Don't get me started on this. Conservatives trying to get government involved in the private sector? A conservative? You just make my argument that conservatives are SELECTIVISTS in policy and it's the "what's best for me and my side" attitude. Getting government involved in the private sector where there is already operating entities smells like the Democrat way of 'have government do it all.' So don't start. There is nothing more I like than to debate a conservative.
We may disagree about municipal broadband, but let's keep the debate intellectually honest.
I have been, when are you going to start. | |
secnet
join:2005-04-13
Ludington, MI
| Re: Government has a place in providing infrastruc
Technically roads, airports, and the like are NOT necessities. We really could live without them, but we have chosen to advance in civilization. The Internet has now become an intricate part of society. It is almost necessary for every working class person to have a connection to the 'Net'. I do agree that the Democrat P.O.V. is use the gov't as a crutch, I think there is a difference though when it comes to city government creating an infrastructure versus the federal government. If the taxpayers are for it let em do it. If they are not, stop the gov't from improperly representing the people. As for legality issues the government is a business whether anyone wants to admit it on all levels(city, county, state, federal). | |
me and you
@comcast.net
| Something that you (fiberguy) apparently dont understand is that the cities(government) are not providing any phone services, internet services, or any other service over the fiber.
You cannot sign up for Orem city phone service, or Orem city internet. You cant even sign up for Utopia phone, or utopia internet. You CAN sign up for xmission internet, AT&T and several other PRIVATE sector for profit companies. Quest, Comcast, and who the heck else that wants to provide services is allowed. So tell me where has the private sector been elimated that you're talking about? We dont have to use the copper on the poles anymore? We dont have to put our telecommunications future into the hands of a boardroom looking to sqeeze more profits out of less service?
Why is it so bad that other for profit companies can now compete with the incumbents for consumer dollars? | |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| So, let me get this straight then.
These towns are pretty darn small right? From what I gather, not too many homes.
The group builds a vast fiber pipeline for an open architech for any company to come in and sell services across the delivery pipes.
I don't really see how this is going to lower prices to these people.
If I am right in my understanding lets say that 5 companies want to come in and sell services. They are not going to "resell" services right? So, they will all have to have head ends of their own filled with equipment to drive video services, internet service, and telephone services. A pretty big investment in equipment for all htose great toys that are required for delivering the services that fiber comands.
Now, each provider wanting to come in and sell has to have carriage agreements for video, buy backbone bandwidth for internet, and pay all the telco linkup fees and transport costs to carry calls.
Finally, back to the total population served. How much can these service providers expect or hope to get of this rather small area of homes each? Will there be enough to go around? Or, do some say it's not worth it and back out, (useless to sell in this small environment but not out of the question) or do some just fold? Then we are down to a provider or two. I am sure that Cable and Qwest both fail at this point becuase they can't and won't compete with fiber. The competition or choice becomes slim again and we are back to where we started only we have a fiber optics network with probably two providers.
Part of what drives competition is the ability to negotiate contracts on a national level. I really don't think major players in the industry (Cox, Comcast, SBC, Verizon, etc) would really want to come in to this environment..
so then what? Is this REALLY going to benefit the customer in the long run? I think all people see is fiber in their eyes - and fiber equals success.
I think these cities would have been better off working with both the cable companies and telephone companies to work together and build this backbone. Again, nother problem.
I just don't see this being the utopia that it wants to be. | |
|
