Karl Bode at BroadbandReports.com rants about how the network neutrality "debate" uses sock puppets and astroturf: Bode focuses his laser beam on the think-tanks-for-hire that write about telecom policy without clearly identifying their sources of funding, including a new coalition that advises, among other things, once again restricting municipal ownership, investment, and operation in broadband. It feels so...early 2005 to me. (Astroturf: Fake consumer groups and grassroots efforts that are paid for by vested interests. Sock puppets: Parties designed to appear to be independent that provide confirmation for ideas that are actually directly controlled by the vested interest.)
Bodes speaks to the heart of the issue, especially when so-called conservatives (rather than the unpaid-for conservatives with actual conservative beliefs) push tools to disable competition: "While there are certainly flaws with many municipal broadband models, these are decisions that should be made by the communities themselves, not subjective analysts on the payroll of major telecom providers. Fans of a free market should be eager to see the organic free-market at work. If these municipal broadband operations are such a flawed idea: let them fail....
"The reality is that these groups only oppose regulation when it runs contrary to the interests of their corporate financiers and their own portfolios. For the right price, these groups would find regulations preventing the dumping of toxic chemicals into river water equally 'unnecessary.' They'd quickly offer expert analysis and statistics suggesting mutant frogs are a boon to the local ecosystem."
I too have no problem with an organic economy but assuming your name is Tweed and your lineage can be traced back to a place called Tammany Hall the idea of government bidding for contracts would make even the most die hard New Dealer shudder. To that end I should remind anyone who believes in government free market prowess the miserable, subsidized failure Amtrak has been and vis a vis that same finality to a muni disaster it is the taxpayer who will pay when we "let them fail."
[Editor's note: As opposed to the success of subsidized air travel? Air travel receives untold billions of dollars of government funding for support that's only partly paid back by the private beneficiaries (or victims in the case of bankruptcies).--gf]
The other flaw in Bode's argument is with municipalities making their own decisions. How exactly, does one make an informed decision? In most cases you gather as much
information as possible. The reality in today's world of
government are that lobbyists and think tanks are vital tools for gathering information. That information may be slanted to support one view, but you can't rant against think tanks in the same sentence that you support
municipalities "making their own decision."
I think the argument here has to be binary. Either you think the government should put up muni networks for wireless broadband or you don't. Unless the government starts making taxes optional they should be kept out of any discussions that include the words, "free market".
"That information may be slanted to support one view, but you can't rant against think tanks in the same sentence that you support
municipalities "making their own decision."
Of course you can. Are we pretending that cities are incapable of understanding the nuances of funding and operating networks without think tanks? That there are no truly objective sources of information available?
I would feel bad for the city that takes the analysis of individuals such as Joseph Bast as anything other than political policy shaping propaganda.
[Editor's note: Some people look to the general, long-term governance of cities like Philadelphia, and apply this to the management of all funds and all programs in every city. --gf]
Yes, cities are incapable of understanding the nuances of funding and operating Wireless Mesh networks for Internet access without think tanks. You really think some glad-handing politician has the time to do detailed research on the pros and cons of municipally funded wireless Internet access? If so, you're dreaming.
The irony, of course, is that Karl's bitter, uninformed rant is a level beneath the research done by think tanks. Both parties have an agenda, but at least think tanks have some concept of political realities.
Karl Bode's rant was utterly moronic. He spends most of his words attacking the legitimacy of his opponents, admits such attacks aren't germane to the issue, and then goes on to make some more of them. Duh.
I'm opposed to the network neutrality regulations proposed in this session of Congress, and I've made my opposition public. Nobody is paying me to do this, it's an issue that I happen to feel is important, and therefore I've spoken out on it as a private citizen. The response from employees of public interest advocacy corporations like Public Knowledge, Free Press, and the Berkman Center was to call me a troll, a telco shill, and that sort of thing. They can't win on the merits so they call names.
The people who engage in this petty name-calling are simply trying to deflect attention away from their ignorance of the issues. The Internet has never been regulated as they propose and it's done just fine.
As far as Muni Wi-Fi goes, there is no need in most areas for the government to jump in and do things the private sector is willing to do. In fact, the government's track record at doing these sort of things doesn't fill one with confidence. If a small rural town wants to build a community network because there won't be one otherwise, I have no problem with their doing so; it's just like CATV or Rural Electrification, a necessary use of government resources.
But for the governments of cities like Portland, Frisco, and Philly to do likewise is a waste of taxpayer money, an unreasonable restraint on the free market, and its result will be a reduction in consumer choice.
Nobody paid me to say that, so either deal with it on the merits or ignore it.
"Karl Bode's rant was utterly moronic. He spends most of his words attacking the legitimacy of his opponents, admits such attacks aren't germane to the issue, and then goes on to make some more of them. Duh."
Of course I attack them. They're lying. These deep pocketed groups are using sophisticated propaganda to stupefy and manipulate the general public. Sorry, that doesn't deserve back pats and hugs -- nor tightly worded and peaceful reasonable retorts -- it deserves an ass kicking.
"But for the governments of cities like Portland, Frisco, and Philly to do likewise is a waste of taxpayer money, an unreasonable restraint on the free market, and its result will be a reduction in consumer choice."
That's up to them to decide, not you. That's my whole point. If you love the free market so much, and believe so soundly in the inevitable failure of these proposals, just sit back and let them try.