From: John Cuccia 

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:19:34 -0400, "Mark"
 wrote:

>So splain sumpin to me guys. Many of you that seem to want government
>supplied broadband are in the same camp that's been expressing grave
>misgivings about the government intruding into your privacy via the Patriot
>Act.

I think there's a huge difference between my local government and the
federal government. (Hint: it isn't the locals who want to know what I'm
reading at the library).  Besides, locals are much more easily held
accountable than feds.   I can go talk to our City-Parish
President and/or council members if I need to.

In this particular case, Mr. Sessions wants to protect the monopoly status
of incumbent service providers, one of whom in which he has a vested
interest, at the expense of the wishes of local governments. Given the need
for private corporations to make a profit, small markets   like mine will
not see enhanced broadband services (ADSL2+,
VDSL2), for many, many years, if ever.   Private companies simply
can't spend the money on projects that don't yield a profit in short order.
 Local governments, not constrained by the need to satisfy the stock
market, can take a longer view of the infrastructure needs of their
communitiels.

>Yet, now you're on the side of the government taking over your access to the
>Internet?

I'm on the side of my local electric company providing broadband services,
including internet access, cable tv, and telephone service.

> Aren't you willingly removing a layer between you and them?

Sure.  But it's a different "them".

>we know free markets work better than government does.

That's not he case with respect to electrical service here.  We pay less
than those serviced by private industry.  Our utility system is efficiently
run and doesn't need to make a profit, it only needs to cover the costs of
operations.

>I have no doubt that I'd be paying
>less than almost $50/month for cable if competition were allowed.

Who is disallowing the competition?

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5