Dana, I must respectfully disagree with your statement that government and private water companies serve two different markets. My water company is a publicly traded commercial corporation. They are not a government entity. They have bought the land for their reservoirs and all their equipment and infrastructure with funds provided by their stockholders. They do a fine job. So far no one has disagreed with my uncertain statement the NYC does not provide water meters so I assume that I was correct, so in that respect the private corporation does a much better job in that it can detect waste due to leaks and enforce restrictions during time of drought.
Respectfully, Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Dana Spiegel > Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2006 2:44 PM > To: Rob Kelley > Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net > Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read! > > > And of course, herein lies yet another good example. Coca-cola does > sell us our water. Go to any supermarket and you can buy > water by the > gallon from any number of companies. But this doesn't mean that your > government turns off the water utility. If they did that, people > wouldn't be able to live. Water Utilities and Private water > companies > serve two different markets and purposes. And they are compatible > with each other. > > Dana Spiegel > Executive Director > NYCwireless > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.NYCwireless.net > +1 917 402 0422 > > Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info > > > On Jan 7, 2006, at 9:59 PM, Rob Kelley wrote: > > > I agree the market is not going to solve this one. > > > > New York City has a water supply. City leaders made it a > priority to > > control this and built reservoirs. Having this steady, > reliable and > > affordable supply expanded the city's growth rate and tax base. > > > > Now what about our broadband supply, especially compared to South > > Korea? Not so good. > > > > Put another way, what if the city leaders didn't have the foresight > > back then about ensuring steady, reliable, and affordable supply? > > What > > if instead Coca-Cola sold you your water? > > > > Broadband is a crucial part of a municipality's infrastructure. > > > > For the sake of its future New York City needs a clear broadband > > policy > > NOW. > > > > Rob > > > > > > --- "Schainbaum, Robert" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Citywide or statewide franchise, makes no difference. Still a > >> franchise and still a state-granted monopoly. What is the problem > >> with monopoly? > >> Well, the classical analysis finds dead-weight costs. What's the > >> problem > >> with a state-granted monopoly? Well, there's at least two. > First, an > >> ordinary monopoly might be disentrenched. That's at least > the belief > >> of > >> some people in some economics depts. Second, competition > for grant of > >> > >> the monopoly through use of influence with the local government, > >> whether that be a municipal or a state government, just > seems to lead > >> to obviously sub-optimal outcomes. > >> > >> Jim Henry wrote: > >> > >>> Look to the franchising issue to change, if not go away. > Due to the > >> ILECs > >>> entering the video market they are trying their very best NOT to > >> have to > >>> jump through all the hoops the cable company's were forced to. > >> They've > >>> already gotten the law changed in Texas to where a > company can apply > >> for a > >>> state wide franchise rather than have to apply for a > franchise with > >> each > >>> municipality. Since municipal video franchises were just a way for > >> the > >>> munipalities to extort all kinds of services for free or > discount in > >> return > >>> for the franchise, this should be at least some improvement. I'm > >> sure the > >>> cable company's are not going to sit still and allow this > to change > >> for > >>> Verizon, Quest, and SBC(AT&T) and not have a level > playing field so > >> they > >>> will do their utmost to be included in these changes or > get the law > >> changed > >>> back so that the ILECs must compete with the same rules. Jim > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > >>>> Of Schainbaum, Robert > >>>> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 8:13 PM > >>>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net > >>>> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read! > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Subsidy or no subsidy, we only have to consider the far > >>>> superior quality > >>>> of South Korean broadband to realize that the entire notion > >>>> of providing > >>>> a market solution to satisfy a market need has absolutely > >>>> broken down in > >>>> the case of our country. It has always seemed to me that the > >>>> underylying > >>>> theme theme in the capitalistic creed is a lack of orthodoxy. > >>>> It seems a > >>>> failure of the creed to ignore the crucial fact that private > >>>> solutions > >>>> to telecommunications problems in the US or through the > >>>> private economy > >>>> usually (if not always) involve the grant of a local > >>>> franchise. I don't > >>>> see why the municipality can't grant itself the franchise. > >>>> I'm tired of > >>>> any reflex response that fails to take account of our > >>>> surpassing failure > >>>> in this crucial are of our business and social infrastructure. > >>>> > >>>> Jim Henry wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Lars, > >>>>> Perhaps there is no subsidy in your case. I may have > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> mis-understood. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> If the municipality involved did not fund the fiber > build with tax > >> > >>>>> dollars, and is making a profit on the network, which is > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> necessary in > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> order to support and maintain the fiber network, then there > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> is none. I > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> do feel it would be much better, more efficient, and more > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> economical to > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> have the network operated and maintained by a commercial > >> enterprise > >>>>> than a government entity. As to the cost of your Internet > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> connection, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> it sounds like a good deal to me and I did not want to imply > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> otherwise. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Jim > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > >>>>>> Of Lars Aronsson > >>>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 4:33 PM > >>>>>> To: 'nycwireless' > >>>>>> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read! > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jim Henry wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'd be willing to bet you are not counting the taxes you and > >> your > >>>>>>> fellow subjects pay for that municipal fiber network as > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>> part of that > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>>> $40/month. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> Does every ISP in Manhattan dig the streets to lay > down their own > >>>>>> cables? How does that work in this era of telecom > deregulation? > >>>>>> Since city streets (and street lights) are a municipal > monopoly, > >>>>>> it makes sense to have one municipal ditch with one municipal > >>>>>> fiber infrastructre, where telcos and ISPs can rent fibers or > >>>>>> bandwidth at or near cost price. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> My ISP is a private corporation that pays for using > the municipal > >>>>>> fiber, and their money comes from my $40/month. I don't see > >> where > >>>>>> any subsidy would come in. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You're probably right that I pay a higher income tax, > and I'm not > >>>>>> defending that. I'm just curious how you could help > me to find a > >> > >>>>>> more efficient broadband solution than the one I already > >>>>>> have. Where and how do you live and what do you pay for > >> broadband? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Lars Aronsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > >>>>>> Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > >>>>>> Un/Subscribe: > >>>>>> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > >>>>>> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message. > >>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >>>>>> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release > >>>>>> Date: 1/5/2006 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > >>>>> Un/Subscribe: > >>>>> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > >> > > === message truncated === > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________ > > Yahoo! DSL - Something to write home about. > > Just $16.99/mo. or less. > > dsl.yahoo.com > > > > -- > > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > > Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/ > > nycwireless/ > > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > -- > NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ > Un/Subscribe: > http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ > Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release > Date: 1/5/2006 > > -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
