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. >