Jacqueline,
I'll take a stab at it from both sides, if you'll indulge me
The idea behind the bill, officially speaking, is that it's bad economic
policy to have government entities competing directly with private firms.
This is true in any market, particularly in ones where the government entity
has advantages over private firms. In the case of communications, local
governments can regulate the construction of networks, levy taxes on the
companies that do so, charge for access to the poles and other public
utilities, and so on.
On top of that, governments are playing with a large pool of money - taxes -
and they can borrow money very easily, whereas private companies risk much
more when they invest and therefore are careful not to put money into losing
verntures (in theory, of course). Governments, on the other hand, are less
reticent to abandon a failing project, since they can continue to throw
money at it. Corporate shareholders won't stand for that. There are other,
more complex economic arguments that frankly are over my head, but the basic
message is that governments have advantages.
All of this makes for the case that if governments are allowed to compete
directly with private industry, private firms have less incentive to
innovate and invest. So the Sessions bill would prevent a government entity
from entering a private market. At the same time, however, if the private
market fails to address some demand, the bill permits local governments to
step in and provide services.
Opposition to this idea comes from the school of thought that the market has
in fact failed because there are millions of Americans who have yet to adopt
broadband Internet use, largely due to price but in part because some areas,
typically in hard-to-reach rural America, are not sufficently served by the
private sector. Thus, it is the government's duty to step in and provide
broadband.
The way I see it, there are various levels of support for this view - to
some, the absence of basic broadband infrastructure justifies a
publicly-financed buildout to underserved areas. To others, the fact that
millions of Americans can't afford broadband justifies a public network,
offered at a fixed low price, to compete directly with the private sector
offerings. Still others argue that local governments offer other basic
services (water, electricity, sewer, gas, garbage collection) well enough
and therefore they should offer broadband as well - and perhaps cable
television and telephone, while we're at it.
As far as the Sessions bill goes, the key bit of news has been that the
Congressman has strong ties to SBC, a telephone company that would gain from
not having to fight with every municipality in its region. That's
disappointing, since I actually think the bill isn't terrible - it's far
less onerous than some of the laws that state legislatures have passed in
the last 12 months.
I hope this is marginally helpful. I've probably omitted a few arguments
and details on either side, but I'd love to get some discussion going on
this if people are jazzed about it.
Cheers,
Charlie Meisch
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<br><br><br>----Original Message Follows----<br>From: Jacqueline Morris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]><br>Reply-To: The Digital Divide Network
discussion group<[EMAIL PROTECTED]><br>To: The Digital
Divide Network discussion
group<[EMAIL PROTECTED]><br>Subject: Re: [DDN] HR 2726 -
"Preserving Innovation in Telecommunications"<br>Date: Wed, 15 Jun
2005 00:56:31 +0200<br><br>I absolutely can't understand how the US Congress
can even think to<br>propose a law like this, preventing municipalities from
serving their<br>taxpaying constituents! Is this the greatest democracy in
the world in<br>action? Can a US citizen try to explain to those of us not
from the<br>US?<br>Jacqueline<br><br>On 6/14/05, Bob J
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:<br> ><br> ><br> > <snip><br>
> Susan,<br> > Thank you for pointing this latest attempt by
telcoms<br> > to preserve the duopoly they currently enjoy.<br> > I
believe this is very much DDN related, and an example<br> > of how
corporate greed, (i.e, no amount of profit is ever<br> > enough),
overides any thoughts of common access or public<br> > interest.<br> >
Bob Johnson<br> > PAI, Inc.<br> ><br> >
http://www.freepress.net/communityinternet/<br> ><br> >
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.2726:<br> ><br> >
http://www.rense.com/general66/dk.htm<br> ><br> ><br> > Susan<br>
><br> > --<br> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<br> > Silvergate
Consulting<br> > San Diego CA<br> > 619 . 316 . 6022<br> >
_______________________________________________<br> > DIGITALDIVIDE
mailing list<br> > [email protected]<br> >
http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide<br> > To
unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.<br> ><br> >
_______________________________________________<br> > DIGITALDIVIDE
mailing list<br> > [email protected]<br> >
http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide<br> > To
unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.<br>
><br><br><br>--<br>______________________<br>Jacqueline
Morris<br>www.carnivalondenet.com<br>T&T Music and videos
online<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>DIGITALDIVIDE
mailing
list<br>[email protected]<br>http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide<br>To
unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.<br>
_______________________________________________
DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide
To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE
in the body of the message.
