[MW Forums]

The city of Philadelphia has reached an agreement with Verizon Communications Inc. that will let the municipal government deploy a citywide Wi-Fi network, but a carrier-backed bill that would let incumbent carriers block such projects has been signed into law by Pennsylvania's governor. more

[megatrick]

This is an important precedent to set. Goverment cannot and should not go into providing paid services using tax funds. It's simply a bad idea
Why don't you take over the oil industry, as is the plan in Russia, with the takeover of Yukos?
http://www.yukos.com/taxes.asp

[leicaman]

If they can force companies to actually be competitive, then I say more power to government sticking its nose in. The who concept of such services being monopolies is ludicrous. It's why we pay enormous cable TV bills every month. If the government wouldn't block competition in this way, I'd say keep government out. But since it's responsible for so many monopolies (RBOCs, Cable, etc.) then they must deal with anticopetitive pricing somehow.
I think Verizon's doing a great thing with their optical fiber to each house program. But I don't think Verizon has a right to guarantee itself monpolistic control over access to homes. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
In other words, if the government ensured competition, then you would be right.

[jmincey]

In reply to:

---

This is an important precedent to set. Goverment cannot and should not go into providing paid services using tax funds. It's simply a bad idea.

---

Why is it a bad idea? The government is composed of human beings. So are corporations. Merely because the human beings in corporations are theoretically responsive to a market does not mean they don't fall prey to the same psychology, egos, turf wars, empire building, covering one's behind, lack of discipline, etc., that prevails elsewhere. Corporations are not magical engines of productivity. There is plenty of inefficiency and incompetence in the private sector. (And government has a market too, and if it fails to adequately serve that market the people can respond by voting the leaders out.)
Meanwhile, what do you think the Postal Service is -- except a paid service using tax funds? Do you think a private firm would be willing to deliver your postal mail to some remote tiny hamlet in northern Alaska? With deregulation we are already seeing how the airlines are refusing service to smaller cities and towns. What about rural electrification? That, too, is a fee for service -- funded originally by tax dollars.
The governor of Pennsylanvia is clearly in the pocket of the telecom companies. (Besides, if government is so inept as many people like to believe, then what do all these mighty corporations -- these supposed engines of productivity -- have to FEAR from it? Why would Verizon have initially expended so much energy in opposing it in the first place?)

[rumplestiltskin]

In reply to:

---

This is an important precedent to set. Goverment cannot and should not go into providing paid services using tax funds. It's simply a bad idea

---

Yeah, right. Let individual taxpayers contract with snow removal operators to get their streets cleared. How about homeowners contracting with those mobsters who run the private garbage collection services? Let's not stop there. In the name of "individual freedom", why not permit the airlines to charge less for flights that are ignored by the FAA flight controllers? Is that too extreme? Okay; Are you willing to forego the government share of the cost to run the commuter trains?
/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[jmincey]

Comments such as those by megatrick are part of a political fundamentalism sweeping the USA which holds that government is ipso facto bad and the private sector is ipso facto good. It's not merely proposing an alternative ideology of governance but rather celebrates the notion that government is bad altogether. It's a mindless, robotic dogma which doesn't parse the merits of the issues on a case by case basis.

[bspears]

In reply to:

---

This is an important precedent to set. Goverment cannot and should not go into providing paid services using tax funds. It's simply a bad idea

---

What should we do about the post office?

[leicaman]

Absolutely, you got it right.
Check this story for evidence of how cities should not only have a right to compete, they already have a HIGHER tax burden than privately held companies when they provide such services. So the whole premise of his argument is so much "newspeak." It has no foundation in reality. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
http://www.siliconva...ey/10313755.htm