Sorry for the delayed reply, I was oot this weekend.
Lemme try to clarify. I think, open systems generally have proven to be a catalyst for innovation, participation and value creation, as the Internet being the foremost example. So I dont think you'll find much disagreement -- the principle of openness is better for society overall.
Now Im a believer in capitalism -- so if a private enterprise invests in building a network, under normal market conditions, then they are entitled to pursue a closed network strategy if they chose, since it is their asset. Examples here might include Sprint PCS or even FedEX -- neither has any public obligation to openness or sharing.
But I believe the telco and cable infrastructures should be open to all provider and this should be LEGALLY MANDATORY, primarily for historical reasons, though different for each.
The Baby Bells did not build their networks under anything approaching market conditions. They built it over 100 years of regulated monopoly. Why should they now be allowed to privatize this asset (the US telecom network) while avoiding their public obligations upon which we made this deal? US citizens (Ma Bell called them ratepayers) have paid for this network -- why do these companies get to keep the title?
I use an analogy to the US Interstate Highway system -- we didn't let the concrete contractor collect and keep the tolls in perpetuity, did we? We didn't let some private company control this vital strategic asset, where they could control what type of vehicles, speed, and cost? Yet thats what has happened with America's telecommunications network. I believe the FCC has stolen this from US citizens, but the issues are opaque, and the money/power of RBOCs carried the day. It is criminal.
Now cable operators deployed under different franchise agreements, so their obligations varied by municipality. Nevertheless, they built these networks under agreements to offer television programming. Internet Access was not historically covered. Now I don't know but seems to me, that since many (most?) like Manhattan, included open channels for "public access" that at minimum, there should be similar OPEN access on Internet offerings, esp. because these services were not envisioned in original franchise agreement.
The strongest argument that we have succumbed to a duopoly for broadband internet is the overwhelmingly asymmetry of their current offerings. This is based upon SUPPLIER preferences, not market needs, and unfortunately these limitations on upstream bandwidth will be a major barrier to future Internet growth and innovation.
Wireless Internet, if offered by municipality, should be offered free or greatly subsidized (again, IMHO), primarily in under-served communities, as well as public spaces throughout the city.
--------------------> Joe
At 3:27 PM -0400 4/30/05, Dustin Goodwin wrote:
Joe,
Is it fair to say that access to a new last mile system is generally better for your business? I hear a lot of ISPs requesting the FCC help them open the LEC DSL systems, CableCo system, etc. In fact I hear them saying the gov should spend tax dollars if it will help open these last mile systems to them. I feel there is inherent contradiction in Alex's argument. Open cable systems and open DSL systems and open powerline systems are good for ISPs but a open wireless last mile solution is bad????? Please help me understand.
- Dustin -
Joe Plotkin wrote:
Alex, first of all I want to say that I always appreciate your perspective, since I really respect what you do in this marketplace (which we both know aint easy). Even when I disagree with you, your arguments are well thought out and often bring out important points into sharper focus.
In this case, you've brought out the secondary argument about the role of government and our tax dollars in a way I hadnt thought of it before. Which is: is there only one correct model for muni wifi? Unfortunately, I think you want to have it both ways, which I do find problematic. What I mean is this: if a municipality provides free wifi, then you object because, you say, they give away what you charge for (another point I'll disagree with later). However, if they put it out to the highest bidder (NYC lightpoles), which is less onerous on taxpayers, you decry it as shutting you out.
I agree that the open model (Philly), allowing all ISPs to provide services is the best model. However, far more urgently, that model should be applied to all last mile RBOC wireline facilities. Especially fiber. As Im sure you know too well, the FCC has decreed otherwise, I believe to the detriment of our economy overall, and ISPs specifically. That is true lock out from an essential facility and unfair in the extreme. Because we've allowed private control of public telecom infrastructure, which was built as regulated monopoly, a public trust.
In contrast to the re-monopolization of the wireline first/last mile, I dont think muni wireless is a threat to Pilosoft or Bway because they will not be giving away what we charge for. Will they have full coverage? Not any time soon, if ever. Tech support? email accounts? IP address? Despite your valiant arguments, I think my public library analogy still holds. Yeah, you are right, some rich people will eat for free (or read every new book for free), when they really should be our paying customers. But I ask you, how many customers has Pilosoft lost to free wifi? Now how many to cheap cable or Vz offers?
Bway.net has picked up many customers because we encourage free public wifi sharing of their DSL connection. We haven't lost a single customer who said they could get their neighbors wifi signal instead. Cable? Lots. Vz? Lots more.
Alternatively, do you have any plans to offer service in NYC as a WISP? If we gave folks Internet coupons (like food stamps) would you be building in these under-served nabes? Personally, I dont see a profitable business model -- so I see an important opportunity for government, perhaps with help from non-profits like NYCwireless, to step in and provide basic connectivity.
------------------> Joe
At 3:27 PM -0400 4/29/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Michael Stearne wrote:
> 1) This will complete destruction of independent ISPs - one of major > reasons why we get customers is because we are not the incumbent cable > or phone company.
This may complete the destruction but aren't you blaming the destruction
of the market on the people putting the final nail in the coffin? Didn't the majority of the destruction come from AOL, phone and cable
companies and now you are defend Verizon who took more of your business
than muni wifi will?
AOL was never really a source of destruction - competition was fair. Destruction came after monopolies came into it.
Yes, I think adding a free city-owned monopoly wireless provider *is* a final nail in the coffin. Stick to city providing wireless transport service to all comers, who then can provide end-user service, and I'll be fine with that.
> 2) At towns with for-fee municipal broadband and independent ISPs - > essentially, my taxes are being used to compete with me. Doesn't > anyone think that this is wrong?
In that case, yes. But I think municipal access should be free for citizens. Private companies can add features to gain subscribers. You
> are saying that if a city gave a Yugo to each citizen, BMW would go out
of business in that city. I don't believe this.
Where does this end? Should city provide free food to everyone? Surely, that won't put McDonalds or Smith&Wollensky out of business. Just because *you* have a great idea to spend *my* tax money on does not make it good.
And if you are talking about 'benefit to society' - you are very much wrong. If it is in society's interest to help the needy connect to internet *at their home* (note, they can already get internet at libraries) - give them "wifi stamps" (analogous to food stamps) with which they can purchase the internet service from anyone they want. Wireless or not.
If it is in society's interest to run a wireless network (reducing the number of unsightly towers), then make city open the network to all ISPs, and sell "transport" service. ISPs then will be able to provide complete end-user service.
> 3) Your analogy with library is specious. There is a difference between > book you own and book you borrowed - you can't enjoy book you have > borrowed forever.
Muni Wifi would be borrowed, if the person wants to buy the book, they can buy it from you.
See, you are still not getting it. a) There's no difference between borrowed wifi and bought wifi.
b) There's a difference between borrowed book and bought book.
c) Thus, you are not providing a free library, you are providing free lunch. Sure, providing free lunch isn't going to run McDonalds out of business, but is it a good idea?
> 4) More correct analogy would be cities running soup kitchens and > serving food to citizens, ones who can and can't afford food alike. > That would doubtless be an honorable thing, however, not something > that is considered reasonable in this country.
Soup kitchens DO serve food to people that can afford it as well as people that can't. Why don't people who can afford food go to soup kitchens?
Since you apparently don't know: Soup kitchens are not run by the cities. They are ran by non-profits who may (and lately don't) get *part* of funding from cities to feed the hungry. Most of the funding is from voluntary donations.
> 5) If cities want to help deployment of wireless broadband, they should > not fight the building of wireless towers.
I don't think its "cities" that fight the building, its the citizens in those cities. The politic ans are only doing what their constituency wants. Do you think the constituency wanted Verizon to pass a bill in Pennsylvania limited what their city officials can do? (e.g. Muni Wifi if the citizens wanted it)
Do you think constituency had any clue what that is? If they did have a clue, do you think they have enough of understanding to reject 'free lunch'? If tomorrow some municipality decides to provide 1000$ to each resident, do you think the residents would complain? Do you think that its a good idea? Do you think that state should be able to preempt a city from following up on a stupid idea?
State powers are best excercised in preempting local opposition to building towers, not by giving *my* money to other companies so they can better compete with me.
> 6) If the concern is about poor people not being able to afford internet,
> provide monetary contribution to them, so they can buy access from anyone
> else. Or not buy, if the intarweb isn't their thing. But, preserve the
> choice of providers.
There will always be a choice of providers as long as there is a profitable business for people to be in. Capitalism is about adapting to market conditions. Think of all the business opportunities there will be if you are assured of ubiquitous Wifi in a given area. There can be applications there far bigger than what you can make as an ISP.
So, you are essentially saying that instead of being an ISP, I should do something else? In other words, you want to take my tax money and kill my existing business, and advising me to do something else instead? Nice.
-- Alex Pilosov | DSL, Colocation, Hosting Services President | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 877-PILOSOFT x601 Pilosoft, Inc. | http://www.pilosoft.com
-- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
--
======================= Joe Plotkin DSL/Marketing Bway.net - NYC's Best Internet ======================= Bway.net 459 Broadway, 2nd floor New York, NY 10013
vox: 212.982.9800 Boston: 617.848.0416 fax: 212.982.5499 efax: 772.365.5877 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] DSL info: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.bway.net ======================= Fight the Monopoly! http://www.TeleTruth.org ======================= -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
