Bogus Experts Fight Your Right To Broadband

An anonymous reader writes, "Karl Bode of Broadband Reports takes aim at supposed telecom experts and think tankers who profess to love the 'free market,' but want to ban the country's un-wired towns and cities from offering broadband to their residents. If you didn't know, incumbent providers frequently determine towns and cities unprofitable to serve (fine), but then turn around and lobby for laws that make it illegal to serve themselves (not so fine). They then pay experts to profess their love for a free market and deregulation — unless that regulation helps their bottom line. A simple point: 'Strange how such rabid fans of a free-market wouldn't be interested in allowing market darwinism to play out.'"

Not really anything new

If you are really a fan of a free market, you'd understand the reality that regulation means that it isn't free. Restrictions mean it isn't free. Taxation means it isn't free. Licensing means it isn't free.

What we really see here are Statists who use th

Re:

There are two ways to conduct business: competitively, or with the help of the State.

Well that smacks of black and white thinking, doesn't it? You mean there's no middle ground between those two?

Re:

There isn't, is there? If we rephrase it to what they mean minus the emotive language - free or State regulated - there is clearly no middle ground. If it's a bit State regulated, it's State regulated. If not, it's free.

Re:

You treat the State as if it were completely external to human, social processes, when it really is such a process itself. You've completely essentialized the components of your model to something completely outside of reality.

It's useless to round all fuzzy values to 1

If it's a bit State regulated, it's State regulated. If not, it's free.

If false is the law of the jungle and true is totalitarianism, then whether a particular enterprise is regulated by the state is a fuzzy-valued membership function [wikipedia.org], not a boolean-valued indicator function [wikipedia.org]. The prohibitions of murder and bank robbery are state regulations; therefore, all business is state regulated to some degree. Your way of defuzzifying [wikipedia.org] this, by rounding all fuzzy values greater than false to true, makes your logic useless.

Re:Not really anything new

"Competitively" is a good thing - because state help shifts the burden of business' poor planning from this business to the taxpayer. There is also no "middle ground" - either you have help or you don't, you succeed by your own merits or have assistance or gimped opponents.

But what if the State does the opposit of helping - i.e enact regulations that shift the burden from the taxpayer to the private corporation, and make corporations responsible for actions like pollution and product safety? That's not "free" and it's not "helping" - so I guess there must be more than two options, huh?

Re:

Regulations, licensing, taxations, embargoes, tariffs, duties and other "pro-market" structures are "legal" uses of force by the State for one thing and one thing only: to take care of the businesses friendly with the State.

Yeah. Because businesses li

Re:

Yeah. Because businesses like paying license fees, taxes, tariffs, and duties, and having their goods embargoed.

No, but established, big businesses can pay them better, and keep track of them with their legal staff better than smaller or future competiti

Re:

Yeah. Because businesses like paying license fees, taxes, tariffs, and duties, and having their goods embargoed.

"Business" as such, is indeed hurt by these. But don't make the fallacy of composition -- specific businesses can certainly benefit from them t

Re:

I love the free market because I love watching markets change to meet the needs of the consumers (demand) as well as the manufacturers (supply). I love seeing both sides of a barter or exchange profit from that exchange, rather than one side gaining and on

Free

The thing about "free" markets, is that they don't really exist. Without state intervention, regulation and domination will simply come from within markets. Monopolies, cartels, exclusivity deals that lock out new players, etc. State interference is a small loss of market freedom that prevents vastly greater losses in market freedom. It's no different than personal freedom -- you could try living in a society where the government doesn't intervene at all, but it would take a matter of days for gangs, organized crime, warlords, and other forces to strip your freedom away from you completely. That's why governments are created -- so that the limitations on freedom can be managed and minimized. Doing away with government regulation completely results in vastly greater losses of freedom.

Frankly, I'm shocked that you would think that states should be forbidden to provide services THAT THE FREE MARKET DOESN'T PROVIDE. Small towns can't get high-speed, because no merchants want to provide it. It's not worth it. But if the people of that state feel that they want that service, and are willing to pay for it, what's wrong with them banding together to set that service up themselves? Should construction firms be able to pass laws preventing you and your neighbour from collaborating to build a tool shed that you can then share? A state is no different from you and neighbour working together -- it simply occurs at a larger scale.

Finally, state-run businesses don't necessarily interfere with the functioning of competitors. Frequently, governments will create an organization to supply some service that the free market doesn't provide, and then once it has been established, they split it up and sell it off to merchants who are willing to run these services now that they've been established and proven.

Socialism vs Capitalism isn't a one-or-the-other choice. There are productive balances that can be achieved between total government management of everything and slavery to an oligarchy of industrialists.

But seriously -- how do YOU think small towns should get services like broadband, water-purification plants, sewer systems, and whatnot?

Lastly -- "neoliberal Senators who think that minimum wage laws protect the freedoms of workers"?! You sir, are officially a retard. Neoliberalism is exactly the opposite of that. Neoliberalism is the philosophy that YOU are endorsing in your post -- that of total deregulation. Sorry man, but you're a neoliberal. I know, I know, anything associated with the word "liberal" is automatically evil because of that association with freedom, but deal with it.

Re:Free

1: Socialism and capitalism are coexisting RIGHT NOW. Unless you believe that your ridiculous anarchist fantasy could survive the predations of organized nations using just its privatized, non-communist military. Every nation has a completely communist, authoritarian military. The military produces no goods and subsists entirely off of taxation of the labour of real people. The same goes for the police, and indeed the government itself. Are we socialist? Hardly. You don't have to choose, and anyone who suggests otherwise is just some kind of deranged fanatic that's one pamphlet away from assasinating people and blowing up buildings.

"If there are enough people in your town that want a broadband connection, they'll get together and cough up the dough to get it there."

What the hell do you call that, if not a government? It may not be a federal or state government, but it's people organizing and consolidating money and power to accomplish goals. That's government (probably municipal in this case). That's why anarchy never works. People invariably want to gather together to accomplish goals that they couldn't achieve on their own. Rather than waste all their time overseeing every aspect of the project, they appoint a few people to manage it while everyone else just contributes resources and gets back to their own work. Now they have a government and taxes.

Centuries of ... human nature have made us accept that organization is natural, unavoidable, and overwhelming. The most organized group will, at best, assimilate the rest; as often as not, it will annihilate them.

I work for a living. I work fucking hard at shitty jobs to pay for school so that I can do better, more valuable jobs at some point. Unlike the cowards I deal with everyday, paying a few taxes doesn't reduce me to fits of crying and impotence. I drive our roads, I use our sewer systems. I benefit from a government that defends the border and fights crime without my needing a personal bodyguard. I benefit from the fact that the government stomps monopolies and prevents them from price-fixing or creating (much) artificial scarcity. We've seen anarchy -- anarchy is the five minutes before a warlord enslaves you and your family and puts you to work picking opium poppies at gunpoint. Anarchy is the window of opportunity for the worst kinds of government to establish themselves. Anarchy is so monstrous that it convinces everyone to put power into the hands of a despotic church or a monarchy, and thanks them for the safety of slavery.

So you know what? I'll take the minor hassle of a few taxes, and having to fill out a few forms now and then. It's that, or paying ten times as much in protection money to the local organized crime ring that has a monopoly on security and murders anyone that tries to compete.

The real crux of it is that democracy trumps economics. If 50%+1 of the people say that we should all pay taxes for a health care system, we do it. If 50%+1 of the people say we turn the rest into dog food, we do it. There are balances to prevent rash, insane changes, but ultimately the people can do anything. The people want a national bank to buffer against economic fluctuations (imagine if entire military had to be sold for scrap everytime there was a downturn), so we do it. The people don't want losing a job or becoming too sick to work to be a death-sentence, so we establish a welfare system. The people don't want to have the spend time and money doing background checks into supposed hospitals and doctors everytime they have a medical emergency, so the government regulates hospitals and medical licensing. Are you tyrant enough to say that we should cast aside democracy because of your weak spine in the face of a deduction from your paycheque -- a paycheque that is already being scaled-up to take that deduction into account?

Only a fanatic suggests that an issue is black-and-white. There are always middle grounds. That's why

Re:

Let's clarify this now: a tax-funded (read: theft-funded) broadband setup is not the free market at work. The only way a tax-funded system is comparable to the free market is if all taxed individuals consent. Tax just one person to pay for a service the

Confusion & the 'Free Market'

Congratulations, I have a masters in computer science & you've managed to confuse me. I don't even know what I want anymore. I guess I want government regulation that prevents situations like the one I'm in. Where I can only buy Cox cable and only C

Re:Confusion & the 'Free Market'

"Congratulations, I have a masters in computer science & you've managed to confuse me."

Computer science majors are easy to confuse. Just ask them how to ask out a girl.

Re:Confusion & the 'Free Market'

Congratulations, you are a victim of state-mandated monopolies. Government regulation got you into this mess; the city signed a contract giving Cox exclusive rights to your town. It is illegal for another provider to string up lines and offer cable service

It is simple

Goverment helping people or doing nice things for them is Socialism. Socialism is BAD.

Throwing them to the wolves, however is not Socialism, therefore it must be good.

Re:

You need to smile more

like this ;-)

You're oversimplifying

Government helping people in the US is socialism. In fact, any social spending or infrastructure spending in the US is socialism. Paying for grandma's health care is socialism.

Paying Haliburton and other US contractors to rebuild Iraq--that's not socialism. The discriminator is this--who makes the money? If money is being spread among a bunch of little people, then that's socialism. If money is poured into a few large corporations whose executives make tens or hundreds of millions, then that's the free market. If it's profitable for the rich, it's the free market, but if you're giving money to a single mother of 2, then that's socialism. If you're helping the working poor pay their medical bills, that's socialism, and probably creeping totalitarianism.

But we can brag on TV about building schools for Iraqis, and that's NOT socialism. But--you guess it--large American corporations have won contracts to rebuild those schools, along with those huge military bases over there. What is an what is not socialism has more to do with who gets to pocket the money than it does with any fidelity to Karl Marx. Care to look into how much federal money was spent rebuilding New Orleans, compared to how much is spent on rebuilding Iraq? If you spend money in New Orleans, then small local firms may get some of the contracts, and the money may be spent, and most importantly earned, locally. If you spend in Iraq, all of the money goes into the coffers of large companies with sweetheart deals, such as Haliburton.

Small mom-and-pop contractors don't have contacts in the Department of Defense and White House. But if you get big enough, you get to engage in nation-building as part of someone's "vision," like PNAC, and then that isn't socialism, even if you're building the very things that WOULD be socialism if you were building it for Americans back home.

Re:You're oversimplifying

Sheesh, read what I wrote. If money is spent to rebuild infrastructure stateside, then those goods and services are still being provided, no? Even with government-financed health care, or universal internet access, or any such service, goods and services are still being provided. Yet critics wail "that isn't the job of government--you're making government too big!" even though they'll support the same purchases for Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. The only difference I can see between building infrastructure in Iraq and building it stateside is that if you build it overseas the contracts are funnelled to a few big-ticket companies, all of which have ties to the White House and Dept of Defense. If you spend the money stateside, more people benefit, but then you don't have high-paid lobbyists clamoring for infrastructure dollars anymore.

Yes, I'm aware of the textbook definition of socialism, thanks, but I was referring to the seemingly obvious fact that if you want to fund infrastructure (water plants, hospitals, power plants) with public funds, the same people who have no problem rebuilding Iraq will complain about encroaching socialism. If you're so concerned about it being a "handout" to give a poor single parent money to live, then institute work programs, and then you'll have the goods and services you care about. But no one is interested in any programs whose main beneficiaries are poor people.

Of course, $100 given to a poor single mother will be pushed right back into the economy, creating just as many jobs as $100 given to Raytheon or some other weapons manufacturer. But everyone acts as if poor people burn their money in little bonfires, forgetting that a dollar spent by a bum is just as good at creating jobs as a dollar spent by a CEO. We basically just worship success, so we funnel money to big corporations as if we need more weapons. Hell, Congress just reauthorized weapons that the DoD said they didn't even need! So yes, the weapons companies are providing goods and services, but if we're buying goods and services we don't really need, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, then that's morally no different than paying poor people $2000 a month to pick up litter. It's just a wealth redistribution program, only one that gets the nod from the "I love the free market" types, while the other is labeled as "big government." Give me a break.

Re:You're oversimplifying

Iraqi construction companies should be rebuilding iraq... Financed by the american government.
The Iraqi construction companies built the country in the first place, and the american government destroyed it. American companies shouldn't be profiting at the expense of Iraq, Iraq should be compensated for their losses and this compensation should go into the local economy.

Re:

Sounds like you're talking about dictatorial 'communism'. Socialism is not that.

Re:

Federal money... What a joke. The federal government steals money from the population, either via taxation or inflation (see: Federal Reserve). I'm not particularly impressed with an organization that's so very generous with money it stole from myself a

Just business

Those communites may be unprofitable to service today, but if in five or 10 years the technology comes along to make it profitiable, then their lobbying will put them in a position to exploit it. As for the consumer in those communites today, tough. The cu

The customer first fad is over.

No its not, now its a marketing gimmick companies like AOL and major banks use to attract new customers.

Until you have signed up with them, they will do everything the can to make you feel like you are coming first, then as soon as they have you, they give

Market darwinism...

Obviously, no one has an intelligent design for creating new markets where none exist.

It makes me wonder

I suppose we'll never have to worry about seeing a Broadband Unification Board, will we?

You gotta fight

for your right
to brooaaaadband.

Re:

You gotta fight
for your right
to brooaaaadband.

Broadband is not a right, but partying is.

Bad idea

Nobody wants to hear it but I'll say it anyway: Municipally owned and operated ISPs are a bad idea. No matter how hot your technology is today, tomorrow's technology will be hotter and the municipality won't be able to react. Governments and government contractors never can. Their taxpayer-funded presence in the market will, however, serve as a very effective means of encouraging for-profit companies to go elsewhere.

I have direct experience with this in the dialup market in Altoona PA in the late '90s. If you weren't happy with the sponsored ISP, tough luck. The small ISPs pulled out when they couldn't compete with Joe Taxpayer. I worked for one of those ISPs.

You want municipal wireless? Fine, but understand that means you'll ONLY get whatever products and quality of service your town's government is capable of. Servers and static IPs? Ho ho, good luck. And you'll be the last town in the nation to get anything better.

Re:

You want municipal wireless? Fine, but understand that means you'll ONLY get whatever products and quality of service your town's government is capable of.

The current trend is for municipalities to take bids from private companies. It's the same way a

Re:

Seems obvious to me. Free marketeers are opposed to monopolies just like everyone else. When governments enter the private sector they behave very similarly to monopolies, because they aren't playing with their own money. This leads to market failure.

Re:

Sorry, I have to call BS on your premise.

Now, why should a private company, whose main responsibility is to make profits for their shareholders, voluntarily upgrade their technology, particularly when they enjoy a monopoly in their service area? And you a

Re:

No, you're wrong. You're making the assumption that a municipal wireless service will be a monopoly. As you state in your argument, their service will suck in pretty short order. That is when competitors step in and offer a "premium" service for a fee.

F

Re:

You cannot compete with free stuff.

I mean, how many people have plastic surgery, eh? Even though you could get a better product (improved looks), it costs you money, it's risky, and it's a pain in the neck. So most people decide their 'free' physical appea

Government competing with industry ? free market

Strange how such rabid fans of a free-market wouldn't be interested in allowing market darwinism to play out.

Government "competing" with industry is not a free market and there is no "market darwinism" to play out. Of the two competitors here, one can confiscate any amount of money they choose from everyone to pay for their service. It doesn't matter if anyone wants it, they need no voluntary "customers." They take whatever money they want and provide whatever service they want.

Pretending that a company can compete with government, where government forces everyone to pay for their service, is a terrible twist of the word "competition." It's like saying that Wendy's can "compete" with McDonalds if the government passes a new law that everyone has to pay to eat all their meals at McDonalds, and then can show up and get the food they already had to pay for for no additonal charge. In order to go to Wendy's, you have to also buy a McDonalds meal and throw it away. That's not "free market competition."

Note that I'm not saying anything in this post about whether or not municipalities should be allowed to offer internet access, or (and this is an entirely separate issue) whether or not they should do so. I'm just saying that calling government "competition" with free enterprise companies some sort of free market is absurd. It's not competition when one of the competitors gets to force everyone to "buy" their product, can charge whatever they want, can loose any amount of money without fear of going out of business, can provide any service and quality level with no effect on revenue, and can tax and regulate their competitors. Yes, there are some areas where a company manages to service the same sector government services in a different way, and I'm not saying it's impossible that some people would pay for another internet service even after paying for the government one, especially if the government one is run as badly as many government things are. But even if a lot of people end up paying for both the mandatory government service and a second, private service, it's still not free market competition.

Re:Government competing with industry ? free marke

Government "competing" with industry is not a free market and there is no "market darwinism" to play out. Of the two competitors here, one can confiscate any amount of money they choose from everyone to pay for their service. It doesn't matter if anyone w

Re:Government competing with industry ? free marke

Pretending that a company can compete with government, where government forces everyone to pay for their service, is a terrible twist of the word "competition." It's like saying that Wendy's can "compete" with McDonalds if the government passes a new law t

Substitute 'free market' for 'shareholder equity'

The assets deployed for the old tip-and-ring telephony were and are public trusts; protected monopolies for municipal utility use. Telcos have stolen these assets, their incumbent rights-of-way and easements for their own purposes-- shareholder return and

DUH!

Cable Tv companies make deals with localities they come into to make competition "illegal" so they dont have to compete. Hell TCI cablevision, now called Comcast demanded that not only cableTV operators could not come into the town I lived in when they s

Net neutrality

This is similar to the ridiculous advertisements the cable/telecom industry has been putting on TV regarding net neutrality. They proudly proclaim that they are defending the consumer against evil money-grubbing corporations like Google or Cisco, offering

Universal truth...

FTFA:

...the real agenda is simply maximizing revenue.

My history teacher told us that there are three keys to understanding American history:

1. Great Britain.

2. People are stupid.

3. Follow the money.

Great Britain doesn't apply here, of course, bu

Re:Universal truth...

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics, is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."

"Right to Broadband" - ?????

Boy, James Madison, George Mason, and the rest of those guys were sure forward thinking individuals! And I never even knew this was a right!

Re:

big company won't serve some small area, fights to keep anyone else from doing so, municipalities, private citizens, the Devil...

Re:

Can anyone explain to me what this story is actually about, in really simple terms,

Large ISPs deploy broadband first (only?) in big cities, where there are lots of potential customers in a small area, producing lots of revenue for their investment. They h

Re:

Yeah, 'cause we should just let anybody practice medicine. That won't come around to bite us in the ass at all.

Re:

Sometimes I figure anyone ought to be able to practice medicine. I'll keep taking my kids to the same, licensed guy though.

Maybe there ought to only be laws against lying about having a license or something. That's a tough issue for me. I haven't decid

Re:

A person should be allowed to do whatever he/she wishes, but must be held accountable for any resulting damage.

I'm nominally a Libertarian, and this extremity of thought still bothers me. Sometimes, after-the-fact consequences just don't cut it. Occas

Re:

Without (government) regulation, reputable doctors and health care providers would likely form their own associations which would certify that people were actually competent to practice medicine. And what's more, they might actually be run by medical expe