RE: [DDN] HR 2726 - "Preserving Innovation in Telecommunications"

Charlie Meisch Wed, 15 Jun 2005 18:00:26 -0700

Quite possibly - I doubt that's the intent, but the more I think about itthe more I think this bill is written so ham-handedly that it could have fargreater negative impact than intended. Is it scheduled for a hearing? Ithink it can be tightened to prevent local governments from wiring their ownschools with fiber or creating wi-fi networks for government use.Similarly, we need to protect, not restrict, access to unlicensed spectrumand the law ought to say so specifically.


As to Steve's point, however, I think the bill is quite clear:

"neither any State or local government, nor any entity affiliated with sucha government, shall provide any telecommunications, telecommunicationsservice, information service, or cable service in any geographic area withinthe jurisdiction of such government in which a corporation or other privateentity that is not affiliated with any State or local government is offeringa substantially similar service."

I read this as: don't offer a service in an area where the private sector isalready offering a service. Is it an impossible stretch of the imaginationto say that where private companies are NOT offering a service that thegovernment MAY do so? Do others disagree?

 ----Original Message Follows---- From: "AudreyBorus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: The Digital Divide Networkdiscussion group<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "TheDigital Divide Network discussiongroup"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [DDN] HR2726 - "Preserving Innovation in Telecommunications" Date: Wed,15 Jun 2005 16:58:13 -0400 Please excuse my ignorance, but would thisbill try and usurp the unlicensed spectrum that munis and such are currentlyusing? AudreyBorus EDC [EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________ From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Charlie Meisch Sent:Tue 6/14/2005 8:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re:[DDN] HR 2726 - "Preserving Innovation inTelecommunications" Jacqueline, I'll take astab at it from both sides, if you'll indulge me The idea behind thebill, officially speaking, is that it's bad economic policy to havegovernment entities competing directly with private firms. This is truein any market, particularly in ones where the government entity hasadvantages over private firms. In the case of communications,local governments can regulate the construction of networks, levy taxeson the companies that do so, charge for access to the poles and otherpublic utilities, and so on. On top of that, governments areplaying with a large pool of money - taxes - and they can borrow moneyvery easily, whereas private companies risk much more when they investand therefore are careful not to put money into losing verntures (intheory, of course). Governments, on the other hand, are less reticent toabandon a failing project, since they can continue to throw money at it.Corporate shareholders won't stand for that. There are other, morecomplex economic arguments that frankly are over my head, but thebasic message is that governments have advantages. All of thismakes for the case that if governments are allowed to compete directlywith private industry, private firms have less incentive to innovate andinvest. So the Sessions bill would prevent a government entity fromentering a private market. At the same time, however, if theprivate market fails to address some demand, the bill permits localgovernments to step in and provide services. Opposition to thisidea comes from the school of thought that the market has in fact failedbecause there are millions of Americans who have yet to adopt broadbandInternet use, largely due to price but in part because someareas, typically in hard-to-reach rural America, are not sufficentlyserved by the private sector. Thus, it is the government's duty to stepin and provide broadband. The way I see it, there are variouslevels of support for this view - to some, the absence of basic broadbandinfrastructure justifies a publicly-financed buildout to underservedareas. To others, the fact that millions of Americans can't affordbroadband justifies a public network, offered at a fixed low price, tocompete directly with the private sector offerings. Still others arguethat local governments offer other basic services (water, electricity,sewer, gas, garbage collection) well enough and therefore they shouldoffer broadband as well - and perhaps cable television and telephone,while we're at it. As far as the Sessions bill goes, the key bit ofnews has been that the Congressman has strong ties to SBC, a telephonecompany that would gain from not having to fight with every municipalityin its region. That's disappointing, since I actually think the billisn't terrible - it's far less onerous than some of the laws that statelegislatures have passed in the last 12 months. I hope this ismarginally helpful. I've probably omitted a few arguments and details oneither side, but I'd love to get some discussion going on this if peopleare jazzed about it. Cheers, CharlieMeisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----OriginalMessage Follows---- From: JacquelineMorris &lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]&gt; Reply-To: TheDigital Divide Network discussiongroup&lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]&gt; To: TheDigital Divide Networkdiscussion group&lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]&gt; Subject:Re: [DDN] HR 2726 - &quot;Preserving Innovation inTelecommunications&quot; Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:56:31+0200 I absolutely can't understand how the USCongress can even think to propose a law like this, preventingmunicipalities from serving their taxpaying constituents! Isthis the greatest democracy in the world in action? Can a UScitizen try to explain to those of us not fromthe US? Jacqueline On 6/14/05, BobJ &lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]&gt; wrote: &gt; &gt; &gt; &lt;snip&gt; &gt;Susan, &gt; Thank you for pointing this latest attemptby telcoms &gt; to preserve the duopoly they currentlyenjoy. &gt; I believe this is very much DDN related, and anexample &gt; of how corporate greed, (i.e, no amount ofprofit is ever &gt; enough), overides any thoughts ofcommon access or public &gt; interest. &gt; Bob Johnson &gt; PAI, Inc. &gt; &gt; http://www.freepress.net/communityinternet/ &gt; &gt; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.2726: &gt; &gt; http://www.rense.com/general66/dk.htm &gt; &gt; &gt;Susan &gt; &gt; -- &gt;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ &gt;Silvergate Consulting &gt; San Diego CA &gt;619 . 316 . 6022 &gt; _______________________________________________ &gt; DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list &gt;DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org &gt; http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide &gt; To unsubscribe, send a message to[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in thebody of the message. &gt; &gt; _______________________________________________ &gt; DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list &gt;DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org &gt; http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide &gt; To unsubscribe, send a message to[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in thebody of themessage. &gt; -- ______________________ Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&amp;TMusic andvideos online _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe,send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the wordUNSUBSCRIBE in the body of themessage. _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDEmailinglist DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide Tounsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] withthe word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. <<winmail.dat>> _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDEmailinglist DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide Tounsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] withthe word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message. 



_______________________________________________
DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list
DIGITALDIVIDE@mailman.edc.org
http://mailman.edc.org/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide
To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE 
in the body of the message.

RE: [DDN] HR 2726 - "Preserving Innovation in Telecommunications"

Reply via email to