🚀 go-pugleaf

Mike Byrnes (mbyrnes@tpoint.net) wrote:
[...]
> I contend that internet access is *NOT* the same as utility services like
> water and electricity.

Why not?  Basic access to the net seems to be an "information utility"
service, it is something that people seem to be interested in and there
seems to be a valid argument that in the future those who do not have
such access will be at a significant disadvantage as will their children.
Electrification and the spread of the telephone networks all started out
just like internet dialtone; at first it was a luxury, but as the uses
of the service grew it became important enough that the population decided
to subsidize the construction of the infrastructure and regulate the 
service to make sure that everyone had fair and equal access.  How is
basic internet connectivity fundamentally different from services like
water, power, and roads given even a limited amount of foresight?

> An email message is *NOT* the same  thing as a deop of water or a
> watt of electicity.

True.  I have not heard of one instance where someone died because their
email account was shut off...

> Do I want my email/news/web browsing/electronic commerce activities
> delivered by a *POLITICAL* entity?  No way!  That's like suggesting
> that the City ought to get into the business of distributing newspapers.

No one is saying that all of your internet services will be delivered by
this service, only the ability to get packets out onto the net.  There
is nothing preventing you from getting your internet dialtone through
the city and then going to someone else for your other services.  It
is more like suggesting that the city build and maintain the roads that
newspaper delivery trucks use.

As far as your fear of a political entity delivering the service,
there are even some advantages and disadvantages.  The disadvantages
are obvious (slow to respond, possible political persecution based
upon information gathered, etc.) but the advantages are not quite so
obvious.  Public services are accountable to those they serve in ways
that private companies are not, an employee who reveals wasteful or
illegal activity in a public service is protected by law, while one
who does the same for a private service may end up being prosecuted
(at least based on some of the NDAs I have signed over the years :)
A public service is regulated in what it can charge and in municipal
services there is no real research or innovation to be diminished by
price caps (the phone company argument...)  Additionally, if the city
were to provide internet dialtone then its actions would be regulated
by law, the first amendment would apply in full; the same cannot be
said about a private entity providing internet access.

In some cases it is even possible for a city to provide better raw
bandwidth to the home than a private company.  For example, the city
would be able to put fiber to your doorstep a lot sooner than the
phone or cable companies could.  If the phone companies want to dig up
a street to put in a cable they ask the city, if they city wants to do
it they just schedule it and post the signs notifying commuters.
There is also an existing infrastructure that could be used to put
this in place quickly if it was wanted, it does not take a lot to
snake a fiber network through the existing sewer, water, and electric
networks and the savings that could be realized in billing for those
services (no more need for someone to check your meter, it can be done
via the fiber) would offset the cost of installing and maintaining the
network. 

> Too close to a censorship opportunity for me.

Or is it too close to your current business opportunity?  As someone
with a financial interest in keeping the city out of the internet 
access business you should probably put a disclaimer in so that your
statements are taken in the context of someone who would be competing
with the city in this aspect.  For someone in the internet business 
you seem to know very little about how the low-level protocols work;
it is impossible to truly censor the net.  If you can get a packet 
from point A inside the boundaries of the censoring entity to point B
outside that boundary (any packet, a DNS request, email messages, 
whatever...) then the censors lose.  If you cannot get to the outside
world then it really isn't internet access, is it?

I too have an interest in providing dialup internet service in Austin
with my current employer, but I am of a slightly different opinion
regarding the City of Austin providing internet access: I am all for it.
Providing dialup services suck.  The margin is low, the problems are
difficult to discover, and dealing with the phone company about
problems is like taking a vacation in hell.  I would love it if
someone else could provide the dialup services at an inexpensive rate
and to everyone who wanted it.  Then again, this should also be taken
with a grain of salt because I think my service would make more money
if everyone had ubiquitous internet access.

Currently more than half of our subscribers are people who get their
basic internet access through some other source.  People from around
the world (and a lot from businesses in town and other service
providers such as you) come to us because they feel that we provide
better _service_ or who want a private account they can trust.
Somehow I do not think that a municipal network will provide
outstanding service to its users, and am willing to bet that there
will be a lot of people out there willing to pay a few bucks a month
extra to get the sort of service they are looking for.... :)

jim