Too funny.... laughable.... Really

On a smaller scale (and pay-for operation I might add) there is wifi available in my little town of 1800 people. One antenna (mounted on the town's water tower) suffices for signal, and the local computer shop owner (pretty ok guy, sucks on getting new stuff in though - he'd rather charge you labor and fix your old one) controls the ISP. He guarantees 3megs up 24/7, but charges more than the local cable company does for their 3meg service (guess which one I went with? Gawd I'm a cheap old fart).

Reading about Hack got me thinking - what if the City (if you could call it that) set up a Municipal ISP and included the charges for it on each month's water bill, charging only slightly more than overhead and sticking the profits into the city's coffers?

/me starts pondering.
/me ponders some more.
/me decides to run for Mayor on that platform.

SuperDooper

OK let's deal with the ellipsis shall we? Firstly, it is not grammar or syntax, neither is it accepted punctuation. It is a publisher's or author's tool, and is used to handle quotations

In its "correct" format it consists of three full stops or dots. Any more or less and it is NOT an ellipsis.

Typical usage is where you want to quote something, but not all of it. You would:

" quote this bit...then this bit...then this bit"

It is almost the antithesis of: at a recent council meeting, Mr Hack said "it [WiFi] will put our county on the technology map"

In this instance, you are quoting from a speech about a subject that is "understood" by the audience, so you have to add bits to make it clear to a reader who was not present. These are indicated by [xxxxx].

Whilst I am in this humour, I must mention (sicut). You add this after you quote something that is incorrect, to indicate that it was not your mistake.

Now, back to the topic:



/me goes to check my charge out rates for advanced English tuition

:D ZT3000

Interesting points. Over here the state provides a number of essential services such as healthcare and education. Sure, you can get them privately if you want, but the state provides fundamental services out of taxation.

Not so long ago, strategic industries such as coal, steel, gas, water, electricity, telecommunications etc were state run monopolies (with a few minor exceptions/anomalies). These have now been returned to the private sector, but there is still government control.

For example, I get my broadband and telephone services from the former state monopolist. However, I could go to another supplier, only I would be using the same infrastructure. The monopolist has to sell service at cost to other entities who then compete for my business by offering me different plans or whatever. The same goes for gas and electricity.

So, I see nothing wrong in government controlling the service, providing that they franchise the supply to private organisations. It is a bit like the government controlling airspace is it not?

just a few thoughts :)

[Getting off-topic here, long post - beware-]

Nihil,

Quote:

---

So, I see nothing wrong in government controlling the service, providing that they franchise the supply to private organisations.

---

And I, on the other hand, see nothing right in government *controlling* (distributing) the services that free market economy business has created. Government doesn't create the resources, government should not be allowed to usurp ownership or regulate the supply, except in unusual circumstances where the free market economy has broken down for the greater populace.

America started as groups of pilgrims (from various nations) that were escaping oppressive over-regulating governments and/or people looking for a new start, including pilgrims from England, Germany, etc. I don't see where a free market economy cannot successfully provide necessary services with a bit of regulation as a check and balance.

Why would we want to abdicate a portion of our economy or necessary services to the government, who has NO expertise in the particular field and who continually finds new ways to tax or regulate our efforts?
The US goverment is interferring in our lives and in our businesses more and more each passing year with the laws that are passed (which law the normal citizen/business owner has no clue of, until it's too late).

One infiltration trick the US Goverment uses is to offer financial benefits to businesses with strict rules on how that monetary benefit is to be used, disregarding the businesses existing expertise. Later on, once the businesses are regularly hooked (like a junkie) on the federal grants and monetary benefits, the government changes the rules to their greater favor, further putting the once freer business in a nightmarish position of trying to redefine their business according to ever changing government regulatory rulings. The US medical industry is one prime example of massive government intrusion based on federal payouts that actually turn into nearly government administrative run entities.

Consider takeover of electricity for an example. A few years ago San Francisco voters turned down for the second time the idea of the city taking over the local electric utility than the idea pops up all over California, Florida and other states. In many places, consultants have come to town touting the benefits of having the city force private utilities to sell them their assets. And of course hire the consultants to help with the process.

Proponents of “municipalizing” utilities make big claims about new revenue for the city and lower electricity bills for residents. But the truth is whole other kettle of fish.

First, municipalization is a long, contentious, litigious, and costly process. In California, the city of Corona has spent nearly $1 million so far in just getting ready for the process. The direct buyout cost will exceed $300 million including interest. Long Beach turned down municipalization not long ago when they saw the $500 million price tag.

Then add on the costs of lawyers, and be prepared to wait a long time to see any benefits. In 1987, Las Cruces, New Mexico decided to municipalize their privately owned utility. Thirteen years, dozens of lawsuits, and untold dollars later, the plan fell apart. The one sure thing in this process is litigation and local taxpayers supporting the lawyer full-employment plan.

With the state budget crunch meaning big cuts in revenue for local governments, cities are looking at cutbacks in healthcare and education. The money it takes to buy out the local electric utility can buy a lot of basic local services.

A second truth about municipalization is that people should not be fooled into thinking that a city takeover of electricity will mean low costs. Again in California, local officials in the cities of San Marcos and Palm Springs were outraged when cost savings estimates provided by consultants early on turned out later to be much too high. As for electric bills, municipal utilities do tend to charge less to residential customers, but they charge more to businesses. City residents pay for it one way or another.

Municipal utilities have suffered less from wholesale price variations, thanks to federal preference power, but in many states their prices are still way above the national average. Where electricity prices are falling is in states like Pennsylvania and Texas that did not botch their deregulation plans.

Finally, municipalization is such a bad idea, the rest of the world is going the opposite direction. Literally scores of countries are selling their municipal utilities, from Brazil to Oman, and from Australia to Germany. The UK sold all of its electric utilities in 1990 and the results have been falling prices, increasing safety, and increasing service quality, from what I've heard.

In the US more utilities have been privatized than municpalized in recent years. Fairbanks, Alaska sold its utility last year, and the Department of Defense has sold dozens of electric utilities on military bases and is in the process of selling more. There are about 1,000 towns and major cities with franchise arrangements with private electric utilities. Since 1988, fewer than 10 have tried to municipalize them, and some of them are still bogged down in red tape.

Any one of these issues should give one pause about municipalization. Together, they show that municipalization is bad policy.

Now, on the other hand:

There are a few telecom/technology projects by cities in the US that have created and run successful telecom networks.
(Judged how successful and/or pervasive is left to the reader's understanding).

Fiber to the Home project: http://www.ftthcouncil.org/newsroom....83088327945474

One such city is Provo, Utah. http://provo.org/util.telcom_main.html

Provo's Website explains;

Welcome to iProvo

iProvo | The Future Is Now
iProvo started as an idea...now it's a powerful piece of infrastructure. The concept is simple. Deliver fiber to every home and business in the Provo community. Fiber, thin glass threads that connect the Provo community to every corner of the world at phenomenal speed.

iProvo: A Public Private Partnership
iProvo's business model is unique. Provo City owns the infrastructure, a critical decision that assures fiber accessibility to every resident and business in Provo. Private businesses lease the system to deliver "triple play" retail services -voice, video and Internet via the ultra high speed capacity fiber of the iProvo network.

The iProvo system is being built for the long term, using the public investment in the infrastructure as a means to opening the door to competitive, advanced telecommunication offerings by the private sector.

As for Provo's choice of Fiber over Wireless,

The network will be fiber, rather than wireless, for the following reasons:

1) Wireless is a promising technology but will never provide the bandwidth of fiber.
2) Fiber bandwidth (ability to carry information) is tens of thousands times that of wireless.
3) Wireless technologies typically use unlicensed frequencies and are highly susceptible to interference.
4) Wireless technology by it’s very nature is not as secure as wired.
5) Wireless technology has line of sight and distance limits and is affected by weather.

It's my understanding that no city employees maintain or support the infrastructure, rather private technology companies.

Ahhh... Provo, Utah.... The birthplace of Wordperfect.... Memories.... ;)

Diese Antwort ist geradezu eine Beleidigung : Das kotzt mich an! Dis der Gedankengang Lecken Mich Hoden eben

Warum das Bumsen halten Sie bekanntzugeben auf Deutsch?
Es bildet meinen Kopf Hurt!

Yeah... He does that to me too......

Well.

As I see it, if the problem is anarchy, the only solution IS government.

You cannot leave it to private organisations to handle it.

Hell, next you will be putting Bill Gates in charge of anti trust legislation :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Tiger Shark
Yeah... He does that to me too......

---

I do?