Re: IP: Gilmor's Broadband column...

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 07:47:07 -0400
To: farber () cis upenn edu, ip <ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com>
From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
Subject: Re: IP: Gilmor's  Broadband column...
Cc: Dan Gillmor <dgillmor () sjmercury com>, danb () bricklin com,
    bobf () frankston com
In-Reply-To: <B920C6C2.10F3A%dave () farber net>
References: <B91FBB65.DFCA%dgillmor () sjmercury com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

"half-baked libertarians?"

This advocate of high bandwidth connectivity would like just one thing, and
it has nothing to do with "federal assistance".   It has everything to do
with removing federal and state granted monopolies from ILECs and cable
companies, so it is possible to compete by innovation.

It may well be that some of the bigger Silicon Valley companies figure that
paying these ultimate sluggards to upgrade their plant is easier than
digging out the roots of the vicious cycle that bankrolls leading
politicians' campaigns, to avoid the risks of competing with innovative new
technologies and writing off a trillion dollars in junk bonds issued
against telecom "assets" that would be hard to sell for any price.

Just as we gave prime spectrum to the NAB members because they "promised"
to do HDTV, and gave AOLTW a pass in antitrust because they promised to
"open" up their network to ISPs...

Now we are going to give federal support to the ILECs and cable guys,
because they "promise" broadband to the home.

I predict in 5 years we'll be exactly where we are today, with the ILEC and
cable guys saying they don't see a "business model".   And no one will
wonder where all the federal money went...

At 07:09 AM 6/3/2002 +0900, Dave Farber wrote:

> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Dan Gillmor <dgillmor () sjmercury com>
> Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 12:09:09 -0700
> To: <farber () cis upenn edu>
> Subject: Broadband column...
>
> Dave --
>
> http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/business/3385556.htm
>
> --
>
> Dan Gillmor
> San Jose Mercury News
> +1-408-920-5016 Voice
> dgillmor () sjmercury com
> www.dangillmor.com
> PR People, please read:
> www.dangillmor.com/pr
>
>
>
>
> Even hypocrites can make a reasonable point, sometimes. The growing debate
> over federal assistance to build out the nation's high-speed data links is
> one such occasion.
>
> The technology industry's half-baked libertarians are pushing for a federal
> commitment to promote a worthwhile cause, near-universal broadband data
> connections. They're right, even if they're doing it mostly for their own
> benefit.
>
> They got a boost last week when a U.S. senator with an eye on the White
> House visited Silicon Valley on a pro-broadband mission. Like the industry's
> powers that be, Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman didn't offer remotely
> specific proposals, but his heart seems to be in the right place.
>
> The issue is vitally important, though few of the advocates for universal
> broadband seem to understand precisely why. Mostly they say we should have
> fast data connections because, well, it'll be good for us.
>
> There are all kinds of sound reasons to push broadband. Advocates tend to
> focus on fuzzy notions of goodness, saying that we won't know the best uses
> of high-speed connections until they're in place and entrepreneurs,
> entertainers, educators and everyone else figures out what to do with them.
> That's a variation on the ``Field of Dreams'' (``if you build it, he will
> come'') school of Big Projects, and it's undoubtedly true.
>
> National security is a more immediate, practical reason. In a world where
> terrorists can and will hunt for high-visibility targets offering
> high-density populations, we need the kind of decentralization -- of people
> and economic activity -- that broadband would make possible.

------ End of Forwarded Message

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/