More on: Rendell caves and signs HB30 - Verizon can prevent municipal networks statewide

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: gjones () ScottStringfellow com
Date: December 2, 2004 11:13:48 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: RE: [IP] More on: Rendell caves and signs HB30 - Verizon can 
prevent municipal networks statewide

While all this is a very interesting debate on the telecom outcome, I am
much more concerned about the granting of heretofore what were clearly
considered "sovereign" rights to a private company.  This is clearly a
very fundamental, dramatic, and grave shift in the entire foundation
upon which this country was founded.  No one elected anyone at Verizon
last time I looked.

I can't think of another example where a private company has veto power
or control over the actions of any governmental body.

Maybe some the lawyers out there can speak to the Constitutionality of
this law.

If this is acceptable, I am going to strongly lobby my local and state
government to allow me veto power over the granting of business licenses
to any potential competitor in my business.  Why not?  Ever smart
company in the country should be on the phone talking about this
legislation and how you want the same thing.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ip () v2 listbox com [mailto:owner-ip () v2 listbox com] On Behalf
Of David Farber
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 10:39 AM
To: Ip
Subject: [IP] More on: Rendell caves and signs HB30 - Verizon can
prevent municipal networks statewide


I consider this to be a very very important topic and will continue to
send relevant mailings on it

Dave

ps I am looking for someone who can defend the law


Begin forwarded message:

From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat org>
Date: December 2, 2004 9:57:59 AM EST
To: dave () farber net, Ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] More on: Rendell caves and signs HB30 - Verizon can
prevent municipal networks statewide

(For IP, if you'd like)

Dave:

I think that the point which most people are missing in this discussion
is as
follows: The reason Verizon and the other telcos are so concerned about
municipal networks is not the potential for government subsidies; it is
that
such networks would foil their attempts to regain a stranglehold on the
"last mile".

If a municipality builds and operates a network which allows any
provider to
"hop on" and deliver bandwidth and services, it is analogous to -- and
as
beneficial as -- maintaining local streets, which can be used by anyone
to operate a trucking company, a delivery service, etc. While it
is
probably not a good idea for the municipality to get into the trucking
business, it's a fine idea for it to maintain the streets. Could you
imagine
what it would be like if all of your local streets were toll roads
operated
by private delivery companies that wouldn't let other companies'
vehicles
use them? The situation that's currently evolving -- now that the FCC
seems
to be doing all it can to allow the ILECs to evict competitors from the
network for which the public paid under the Bell System -- is analogous.

One particular benefit of a shared municipal wireless network is that it
can help to ameliorate the problems caused by a lack of available RF
spectrum. There are only three non-overlapping Wi-Fi channels, shared by
untold millions of devices, and there is no protection against
interference. If each would-be bandwidth provider operates its own
access
points, the airwaves can quickly become overcrowded. And because anyone,
anywhere can fire up a transmitter, it is impossible to guarantee
reliable
service under the current FCC Part 15 rules. A shared network overcomes
this problem by reducing the number of systems which must operate
simultaneously
on the same band -- and also by providing better coverage than
individual
providers can afford. It also lowers entry costs; there's no need to
invest
in a capital-intensive network to get a new service up and running.

This is what the ILECs fear. Their goals are to re-monopolize the local
loop
and to forestall competition by ensuring -- to the extent that they can
--
that few or no other players can provide similar coverage or reliable
service.
They have successfully done this in Pennsylvania and will no doubt try
elsewhere.
And clueless or well bought politicians -- alas -- may let them.

--Brett Glass

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as gjones () scottstringfellow com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Scott & Stringfellow, Inc. is a wholly-owned non-bank subsidiary of BB&T
Corporation. THE SECURITIES SOLD, OFFERED OR RECOMMENDED BY SCOTT &
STRINGFELLOW, INC. ARE NOT A DEPOSIT, NOT FDIC INSURED, NOT GUARANTEED
BY THE BANK, NOT INSURED BY ANY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY AND MAY GO
DOWN IN VALUE.


Scott & Stringfellow, Inc. is a wholly-owned non-bank subsidiary of 
BB&T Corporation.
THE SECURITIES SOLD, OFFERED OR RECOMMENDED BY SCOTT & STRINGFELLOW,
INC. ARE NOT A DEPOSIT, NOT FDIC INSURED, NOT GUARANTEED BY THE BANK, 
NOT INSURED BY ANY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY AND MAY GO DOWN IN VALUE.


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/