Adriantm
@aol.com
| Who is paying for what?
Interesting that
a) the article at top glibly accuses us of doing our report on iProvo thanks to funding from AT&T
b) it appears almost no one in this entire discussion chain has even looked at, let alone read, the report. If you went to college, remember logic 101, perhaps the most famous fallacy is ad hominem. It doesn't matter what our motives were, you ought to be able to judge our arguments on its own merits. If not, you aren't knowledgeable enough on the issue that anyone should bother with your comments.
AT&T has very publicly favored muni wi-fi, so it is absurd to argue we did this study in response to their funding. Moreover, We don't get funding to do specific research. We do research and then ask for support from people and groups who find value in what we do.
We work on policy reforms that advance competition, markets, and individual responsibility and liberty. Muni wi-fi enterprises are on their face an example of the government getting involved in a business that is competitive and private and needs no government involvement. IF there is an exception, then the standard should be high before taxpayer money is put at risk in a commercial enterprise.
Our report on iProvo simply pulls together all of the existing data FROM THE CITY ITSELF and points out that if you look at the actual accounting, the enterprise is upside down and taxpayers are losing out. It isn't delivering on what it promised, and the costs just keep going up.
It is a simple story of facts. No ideology needed, or present. |
