From: John Cuccia 

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 22:58:37 -0400, "Mark"
 wrote:

>As long as you understand that what you're saying is that what they're
>undertaking is not a feasible direction to take.

It isn't feasible for a private corporation that needs to produce profits
*now*.  For a government not driven by that imperative (think long-term
bond financing), it is feasible.

>What you're saying in
>effect is that you'd rather the local government committed to higher taxes
>to supply something that isn't really feasible,

My government isn't raising taxes.  If the local utilities fiber initiative
is approved by the citizenry in July, they will start with a pilot.  If the
pilot service is adopted at a rate covers expenses, they will proceed,
otherwise, they will not.

>and further you have to
>accept that you want them to do this even though the majority of the
>citizens are perfectly happy sending $20 to AOL for dial-up.

My local utility won't proceed without approval of a majority of voters. 
We vote on July 16.

Let's assume that the citizens of Lafayette, LA allow, via referendum,
their local utility to extend its existing fiber loop (already connecting
all city/parish offices, schools, and electrical substations)  to
neighborhoods, homes and businesses.  What business is that of the federal
government?

>> I'm on the side of my local electric company providing broadband
>> services, including internet access, cable tv, and telephone service.
>
>Yes, that sounds attractive, and I understand that you're saying the bill
>proposed won't allow that, so it's a bit of a "Catch-22" in
that regard.

It's not a "Catch-22", it's a blatant attempt, by someone whose
career and financial health were and are tied to a phone company, to
eliminate competition against phone companies.

>>> Aren't you willingly removing a layer between you and them?
>>
>> Sure.  But it's a different "them".
>
>Repeating, I don't see that difference as clearly as you do.

That's your problem.  Our local government is comprised primarily of
Republican businessmen, fiscally conservative and with the best interests
of the community at heart.  They serve their two terms then go back to work
at their real jobs.

>>>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.
>
>You have socialized electricity too? Fine, you see $x on your electric bill,
>but that's subsidized by $y more dollars in your property tax etc.

No Mark, we don't have socialized electricty.   Our municipally owned
utility isn't subsidized by taxpayer money at all, they charge enough to
cover expenses and produce enough electricity to sell to other communities
and private utility companies.  It is simply a well-run enterprise that has
served this community for decades.   I'm quite
happy for them to have a go at broadband infrastructure provisioning.

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