A loan at sub market rates is a subsidy. The government could have collected more interest in a bond and therefore, lost money. I am not saying there was absolutely zero positive outcome, just that there is always a substantial negative impact as well. No innovation due to a lack of demand being one huge one. I know you benevolent from these programs so I have no interest in debating the point. I find a difference between the highway system which benefits all and RUS that only benefits one side, the consumer.
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016, 11:32 AM Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > I think that the Rural Electrification Administration (REA, later renamed > the RUS) was probably the best government program ever created. You could > borrow at 1% or 2%, build a power company or later a telephone company, and > serve unserved people. > > Create businesses that would help other businesses flourish. It was even > a profit center for the USDA and until broadband came along, never had a > single default in its entire history. > > There were no subsidies. It was a loan program. > > A shining example of good things bureaucrats can do. > > *From:* Lewis Bergman > *Sent:* Saturday, October 29, 2016 10:11 AM > *To:* af@afmug.com > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber > > > I am confused. I don't know why anyone should get government money for not > doing something or being unable to compete. Of course once the government > gets involved in subsidizing anything it skews the whole market so it's > difficult to get them out. > > That lambeth utopia explanation is a great example of why government > should be involved in so few operations. > > I have to wonder if the government wouldn't have subsidized rural electric > coop buildouts all those years ago how much farther along solar would be > now. Yea rural folks would be in the dark for forty years buteverything has > a choice. > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2016, 10:41 AM Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: > > Compound question. > They open up market to content providers and others that do not own > infrastructure in a given area. Similar to the whole CLEC idea 20 years > ago. But this time the facility owners are not forced to share, they are > going into it with the idea of sharing. Much greater chance of good > success > than the CLEC experiment. > > Great if I am a provider of services, and then I can come into your area, > compete with you wireless system, using guvmnt provided fiber... > > But yes, they compete with private facility owners. Unfairly so. They > must > be able to pull their own weight or it is a double crime. > > I remember back in the 1960s, my dad getting "soil bank" payments for not > farming some of his fields. I think that muni and govt fiber systems > should > do the same thing for the WISPS they are hurting... > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: fiber...@mail.com > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2016 7:34 AM > To: af@afmug.com > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber > > Chuck, > > Do you feel government built/owned last mile open acces dark fiber networks > are a detriment to the market and/or compete with private companies? > > Jared > > > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 at 11:37 PM > > From: ch...@wbmfg.com > > To: af@afmug.com > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Ammon City fiber > > > > From: fiber...@mail.com > > > by government. Arguably water and sewer. I have lived in cities with > > > two > > > power companies. But all the rest should be done by commercial > > > providers. > > Why do you draw the line at the utilities and the infrastructure you > > listed? What makes them so special? > > > > Duplication of public utilities is typically not in the public's > interest. > > Duplicate sewer systems would not give a better value to anyone. Ditto > > water. Power lines use up lots of public utility easements and are best > > left to one company serving for that reason. There is only so much room > > for > > streets. > > > > The same philosophy used to apply to airlines, truck lines, railroads, > > still > > applies to taxi companies in some areas but most of those have been > > deregulated and open to competition. > > > > Same thing happened to telecom. It was deregulated to encourage > > competition > > and choice of providers. Allowing government entities to re-enter that > > market is a reversal of policy as public utilities are considered quazi > > public entities. Do they want monopolies or do they want competition... > > If > > they want a free market, they should stay out of it. > > > > > > > More importantly government should never compete with businesses. > > > They have many unfair advantages. > > What unfair advantages do you feel they have? > > > > They do not pay taxes. Property, personal property, income, corporate, > > excise etc etc. > > (Ask Bountiful city how much property tax they pay on the fiber system. ) > > They do not pay ROW access fees or impact fees. > > They have the power to tax to finance competition. > > They have the power to limit access to competitors. > > They have the power to grant permits without delay and without burden. > > They have the ability to market to all residents without additional > > burden. > > They have the color of government approval on their activities. > > They can force all to participate in funding a business that by its very > > nature can hurt other businesses and even force them out of business. > > > > > >
