John

Since most of the regulation is removed, that’s basically what this is, though this is a bittersweet move for a libertarian like me. While there is now more privitization and freedom in the net and communications area, the big boys already have uncle sam’s blessing and the power to crush the little guys.

Can we seriously argue that students in a “less desirable” part of Philadelphia do not deserve access to the tools that will help them succeed because a private corporation decided that it’s not worth their time? What about broadband access in schools and libraries should that disappear as well?

How can we expect to compete with the countries that do decide to provide more free and innovative tools to their citizens? What are we really afraid of losing? I can personally guarantee that Comcast, Verizon and SBC will not go belly up because of free internet spots popping up around the country. I can personally guarantee that giving broadband access to people that can afford it will in no way damage our economy, freedom or democracy.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?

Usually, the government collects the money and pays private companies to provide services, like garbage collection, electricity, and water. Oh, wait , some people pay for those services directly to the providers. Who happen to be regulated, but are still private.

The government steps in when a project is too expensive, like Defense, dams, bridges, and such, or needs to be standardized, like the development of a stable electricity grid. (Or provides for basic research, like DARPA and the Internet.) But even that stuff usually gets recontracted out to private companies, because they already have the know-how and organization, and the incentive to complete the job (Usually).

Governement has the power to raise money, and the know-how to make constituents happy (Usually). That’s about it. There is no doubt that government regulation is vital to many markets and industries, but that isn’t an argument for government to actually provide the service.

Can you seriously want the City of Berkeley to provide your wireless internet access?

Capitalism works great when customers get to choose the products and services they purchase. Capitalism fails when corporations can dictate terms to their customers. And I don’t want to hear any BS about how the marketplace will self-correct abhorrent corporate behavior.

“Is it fair for the city or state to tax little old ladies who don’t have a computer surviving on a pension to pay for your internet?”

Sure it is. I mean, I pay taxes on roads I never drive on, taxes on libraries that I never visit, and in parks I never visit. What’s so different about this. If my local government wants to build a WIFI grid over my community, so be it, it will aid in increasing the quality of living for the majority.

1. A government funded/run project does NOT preempt private business from creating competing projects.

2. Preventing local governments from providing any services it sees fit creates dangerous precedents. One must remember that this prevents municipalities from building networks where no private services exists. If knome alaska, where no private provider is likely to setup a city-wide wi-fi network due to cost/benefit considerations, wants one what exactly is their recourse? Ah yes but if no private company wants to build a network there… Does anyone seriously believe that private carriers will allow public networks anywhere when all they have to do to prevent it is feign possible interest in the area? What of public universities and high schools? If a university wants to setup a campus wide wi-fi network they cannot?(private companies are especially not likely to pass up this oppotunity) Should students be force to subscribe to private carriers if they want portable internet access?

3. Why stop at telecoms? Why not create legislature favoring private police, firefighting, garbage disposal? Such a time did actually exist, during which if you could not pay for these services you simply did not get them.

4. One need not go so far as the space program or the military: privatization of basic services in the third world is regarded as a nearly universal disaster. Services are expensive and provided only to those who can pay, anyone who can’t must learn to do without. And in the third world we are not talking about WI-FI.

5. The greates danger here is that none of the oversight mecanisms that exist for public institutions regulate private companies. In fact, those mediocre oversight mecanisms that DO exist are being actively torn down by lawmakers, under pressure by lobbyists, with alarming efficiency. In fact, the threat of a public provision of currently private ventures are just about the only form of effective oversight for these companies, so eliminationg the possibility simply encourages abuse by private companies.

6. This history shows us arguement is particularly silly, as has been noted already. One need not search high and low for examples of projects that never ever would have happened had they been left to the private sector. Examples have already been listed to which I would only remind people that digital computers themselves are a government invention.

Big and important projects are never done by private-enterprise/competition. Herod’s aquaduct to the Space Program..even the Internet. All done by governments. This notion that “history teaches us” is bullshit. You’re parroting something you heard. Go study history instead of being a robot with these cliches.

I wonder how many of these free-enterprsie de-regulation absolutists think that national defense should be turned over to private enterprise too? You’d think that would make sense to them. How come that never comes up in the conversation?