Jon, Thanks for that post. It echoes my sentiments exactly. The digital divide is a harsh reality, and a classic example of a market failure where government action, whether in the form of direct services or incentives to the private sector, is absolutely appropriate. This is not about beating up on big bad evil corporations. No corporation is inherently evil. But when bottom-line concerns trump the public good, such as when telcos' or cable providers' monopolistic practices actually stifle innovation and competition, government should step in to make sure business plays fairly (and competitively) and underserved communities get the services they deserve. The libertarians among us should be more concerned about large corporations stifling competition and innovation, which is what the Pennsylvania law does, than they should about taxpayer dollars going to support greater innovation and competition. -- Leif Utne Associate Editor, Utne Magazine 612.338.5040 x348 www.utne.com http://public.xdi.org/=Leif.Utne -- On Mar 1, 2005, at 1:22 PM, Jon Kerr wrote: > At the risk of further tiring some readers on this subject, I'd offer a > couple of points: > First, no one in Saint Paul at least has yet talked about a > municipally-run > system. We are talking about how to best develop and promte citywide, > affordable broadband access through whatever structure is feasible. It > could > be (exclusive or non-exclusive) franchising, a series of licenses for > different geographic or other service areas, lottery, I don't know. > But all options are very much on the table and ideas are appreciated. > Second, there are parts of Saint Paul that effectively have no DSL > option > and thus effectively no competition at the moment. It is hard to talk > about > the free market meeting needs in that climate. > Third, there are areas of our community whose needs have never been and > likely never will be met by the free market without some sort of > intervention or special effort. There really is a digital divide in > many of > our communities that starts with money (any yes, there really are > working > poor and those who are trying their best to find a better lifestyle to > whom > even $20 month is significant) but may also include language, > education, and > other factors. I would encourage any ISP owners to explain how they are > currently addressing or would be willing to voluntarily address this. > Finally, the mention of "phone service, cable TV, and cellular/pcs > services" is interesting. The fact is many of those services do > currently > have some access requirements. More importantly, they may very well > all soon > be delivered by wireless broadband - a tremendous opportunity for some > but > also a threat to some existing semi-monopolistic providers of those > services > who ironically are doing their best to block market adaptations. > No one wants to hurt small businesses in this sorting out period, > especially > this writer. Yet is it unreasonable for cities to hope to improve > services > and cut costs in these times when that's what everybody tells them they > don't want to pay more taxes? And is it unreasonable to hope we can > find a > way to create a non-balkanized, comprehensive broadband access system > that > lets everyone better appreciate the benefits of technological advances? > To answer "yes" certainly won't mean the end of life. But in my humble > opinion it will mean turning away from a potential improvement of > civic and > democratic interactions. And it will mean possibly accepting permanent > technological gulf between have's and have not's that ultimately > limits how > far the market can grow - thus limiting everybody's economic and other > opportunities. > But again, I welcome hearing alternative visions or proposals. > Jon Kerr > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jon Clark" <jsclark at visi.com> > To: <tcwug-list at tcwug.org> > Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 10:18 AM > Subject: [tcwug-list] Fwd: Defend Community Internet > > >> I agree with Matthew, primarily for the following reason: if you >> think you >> can make a case for government-run, free (or heavily subsidized) >> internet >> access, then why not endorse the same thing with (at least) phone >> service, >> cable TV, and cellular/pcs services? The only possible defense of this >> approach is if a particular area completely lacks and options for >> connectivity and no private provider will offer anything there. This >> approach would be a VERY difficult justification for urban St. Paul. >> >> You may not like your choices - Comcast, Qwest, Covad and perhaps a >> few >> others - but the fact is that you have choices. Lawrence Lessig's >> argument >> is hollow - he is implying that because the US didn't take the same > approach >> as many Asian countries (such as South Korea or Singapore, where >> average >> home broadband speeds are almost 10Mbit and proportionately cost less >> than > 1 >> MBit in the US), we are destined to wallow in Broadband purgatory and >> we >> need local and state governments to 'save' us from the evil, greedy >> corporations. >> >> Statements like 'free wireless access increases the value of public >> spaces >> just as, well, streetlamps do' - make me paint a mental picture of a >> whole >> park full of people tethered to some kind of small, portable device, > typing, >> browsing or yammering away with little sense of their surroundings. >> Do you >> think most people who would sit in a park to spend the entire time > browsing >> around on the internet even care they are sitting in a park? While my > sense >> of competitiveness tells me I would like bragging rights to cheap, >> ubiquitous and thorough wireless broadband coverage, I have to remind > myself >> that it is not VITAL to our existence in the global economy. >> >> Why do the cities want it? So they can have free, real-time database > lookups >> for their police forces' laptops as they ride around in their squads. > Great, >> what else? Is there something else *vital* to their core mission(s) >> that >> require that kind of access? >> >> Everyone has a different perspective, I understand this. Personally, I > have >> two a/b/g / bluetooth / 1xRTT enabled laptops, 4 cell phones (all with >> bluetooth and at least EDGE or 1XRTT), a blackberry (hacked for >> dial-up >> 1XRTT access over bluetooth), a Win Mobile 2003 smartphone with bt, > 802.11g >> and quad-band gsm/gprs/edge. I just finished deploying a/b/g wireless >> to a >> 70,000 square foot building that includes multiple SSID's, LEAP and >> QoS > for >> Cisco Wi-Fi phones (which are pretty slick, btw). But you know what? >> You >> have to unplug from time to time for your own sanity... >> >> Just my $0.02. >> >> -Jon >> jsclark at visi.com >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Matthew S. Hallacy" <poptix at techmonkeys.org> >> To: "Leif Utne" <leif at utne.com>; <tcwug-list at tcwug.org> >> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 1:36 AM >> Subject: Re: [tcwug-list] Fwd: Defend Community Internet >> >> >>> You know what guys, this is getting old. I happen to run a small >>> wireless ISP west of the cities, I'm on mailing lists full of people >>> who also run wireless ISP's. >>> >>> The government should not be competing against the private sector >>> 99.999% of the time, the Twin Cities area has more than sufficient >>> internet access options, and what is being proposed is a huge waste >>> of tax dollars. >>> >>> Broadband is $20/mo for DSL from companies like MSN, $42.95 for >>> faster >>> service from the likes of Comcast or RoadRunner. If you can't afford > that >>> then perhaps you need to GET A JOB, or visit the public library for >>> your >>> downloading needs. >>> >>> If St Paul really has issues with lack of "quality" broadband they > should >>> terminate their contract with comcast to run their cable network and > find >>> someone else that will do it to their liking. >>> >>> I challenge you all to consider what would happen to *your* job if >>> the >>> government came in and started using your own tax dollars to compete > with >>> you. >>> >>> And stop blaming the big bad monopolies, your local city council are >>> the >>> ones giving them free reign over the cable networks. Your state and >>> federal >>> goverments are the ones giving them corporate welfare that lets them >>> undercut >>> the prices of local competition, and YOU are the ones electing those >>> government officials. Blame yourself. >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, > Minnesota >> tcwug-list at tcwug.org >> http://mailman.tcwug.org/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, > Minnesota > tcwug-list at tcwug.org > http://mailman.tcwug.org/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list >