Rob,
It just might have worked out just fine if NYC did not decide to be a
water provider. My water provider is a publicly traded corporation and we
have very high quality water here. Also, every customer has a water meter!
The more water we use, the more we pay. Now I don't know if this is still
true but I remember hearing several times over past decades, when there were
droughts in the Northeast U.S. was that there was always a problem getting
New Yorkers to conserve water, for they did not have water meters so there
was no way to enforce conservation. Again, not living in NYC I don't know
if this is still true or was ever true for that matter, but if so it
illustrates a real problem. It seems that if NYC did not have a profit
motive they would not have wanted to make the investment in meters. A
capitalistic enterprise is much more interested in protecting its assets so
they provide meters and those who use (or waste) the most water pay the most
money, and when a drought requires an actual reduction in water used, the
violators can be identified.
Or, look into how successful PGW, the Philadelphia Gas Works is. The
city is now trying to pressure the state PUC to force a commercial utility
to take it over.
Jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Rob Kelley
> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 9:59 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
>
>
> I agree the market is not going to solve this one.
>
> New York City has a water supply. City leaders made it a
> priority to control this and built reservoirs. Having this
> steady, reliable and affordable supply expanded the city's
> growth rate and tax base.
>
> Now what about our broadband supply, especially compared to
> South Korea? Not so good.
>
> Put another way, what if the city leaders didn't have the
> foresight back then about ensuring steady, reliable, and
> affordable supply? What
> if instead Coca-Cola sold you your water?
>
> Broadband is a crucial part of a municipality's infrastructure.
>
> For the sake of its future New York City needs a clear
> broadband policy NOW.
>
> Rob
>
>
> --- "Schainbaum, Robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Citywide or statewide franchise, makes no difference. Still a
> > franchise and still a state-granted monopoly. What is the
> problem with
> > monopoly?
> > Well, the classical analysis finds dead-weight costs. What's the
> > problem
> > with a state-granted monopoly? Well, there's at least two.
> First, an
> > ordinary monopoly might be disentrenched. That's at least the belief
> > of
> > some people in some economics depts. Second, competition
> for grant of
> >
> > the monopoly through use of influence with the local government,
> > whether that be a municipal or a state government, just
> seems to lead
> > to obviously sub-optimal outcomes.
> >
> > Jim Henry wrote:
> >
> > >Look to the franchising issue to change, if not go away.
> Due to the
> > ILECs
> > >entering the video market they are trying their very best NOT to
> > have to
> > >jump through all the hoops the cable company's were forced to.
> > They've
> > >already gotten the law changed in Texas to where a company
> can apply
> > for a
> > >state wide franchise rather than have to apply for a franchise with
> > each
> > >municipality. Since municipal video franchises were just a way for
> > the
> > >munipalities to extort all kinds of services for free or
> discount in
> > return
> > >for the franchise, this should be at least some improvement. I'm
> > sure the
> > >cable company's are not going to sit still and allow this to change
> > for
> > >Verizon, Quest, and SBC(AT&T) and not have a level playing field so
> > they
> > >will do their utmost to be included in these changes or get the law
> > changed
> > >back so that the ILECs must compete with the same rules. Jim
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> > >>Of Schainbaum, Robert
> > >>Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 8:13 PM
> > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
> > >>Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Subsidy or no subsidy, we only have to consider the far
> > >>superior quality
> > >>of South Korean broadband to realize that the entire notion
> > >>of providing
> > >>a market solution to satisfy a market need has absolutely
> > >>broken down in
> > >>the case of our country. It has always seemed to me that the
> > >>underylying
> > >>theme theme in the capitalistic creed is a lack of orthodoxy.
> > >>It seems a
> > >>failure of the creed to ignore the crucial fact that private
> > >>solutions
> > >>to telecommunications problems in the US or through the
> > >>private economy
> > >>usually (if not always) involve the grant of a local
> > >>franchise. I don't
> > >>see why the municipality can't grant itself the franchise.
> > >>I'm tired of
> > >>any reflex response that fails to take account of our
> > >>surpassing failure
> > >>in this crucial are of our business and social infrastructure.
> > >>
> > >>Jim Henry wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Lars,
> > >>> Perhaps there is no subsidy in your case. I may have
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>mis-understood.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>If the municipality involved did not fund the fiber
> build with tax
> >
> > >>>dollars, and is making a profit on the network, which is
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>necessary in
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>order to support and maintain the fiber network, then there
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>is none. I
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>do feel it would be much better, more efficient, and more
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>economical to
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>have the network operated and maintained by a commercial
> > enterprise
> > >>>than a government entity. As to the cost of your Internet
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>connection,
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>it sounds like a good deal to me and I did not want to imply
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>otherwise.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Jim
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>>-----Original Message-----
> > >>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> > >>>>Of Lars Aronsson
> > >>>>Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 4:33 PM
> > >>>>To: 'nycwireless'
> > >>>>Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Jim Henry wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>I'd be willing to bet you are not counting the taxes you and
> > your
> > >>>>>fellow subjects pay for that municipal fiber network as
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>part of that
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>>>$40/month.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>Does every ISP in Manhattan dig the streets to lay down
> their own
> > >>>>cables? How does that work in this era of telecom
> deregulation?
> > >>>>Since city streets (and street lights) are a municipal
> monopoly,
> > >>>>it makes sense to have one municipal ditch with one municipal
> > >>>>fiber infrastructre, where telcos and ISPs can rent fibers or
> > >>>>bandwidth at or near cost price.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>My ISP is a private corporation that pays for using the
> municipal
> > >>>>fiber, and their money comes from my $40/month. I don't see
> > where
> > >>>>any subsidy would come in.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>You're probably right that I pay a higher income tax,
> and I'm not
> > >>>>defending that. I'm just curious how you could help me
> to find a
> >
> > >>>>more efficient broadband solution than the one I already
> > >>>>have. Where and how do you live and what do you pay for
> > broadband?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>--
> > >>>> Lars Aronsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> > >>>> Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
> > >>>>--
> > >>>>NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> > >>>>Un/Subscribe:
> > >>>>http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> > >>>>Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>--
> > >>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
> > >>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > >>>>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release
> > >>>>Date: 1/5/2006
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>--
> > >>>NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> > >>>Un/Subscribe:
> > >>>http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> Yahoo! DSL - Something to write home about.
> Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> dsl.yahoo.com
>
> --
> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
> Un/Subscribe:
> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release
> Date: 1/5/2006
>
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
