Not all municipal connectivity is "good"

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Mary Shaw <mary.shaw () gmail com>
Reply-To: Mary Shaw <mary.shaw () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:12:18 -0500
To: <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] Not all municipal connectivity is "good"

Dave,

I imagine this distinction will be a challenge for a lot of municipal
officials, especially if they aren't heavy Internet users.

Municipal connectivity seems to be motivated as a form of public
utility. Think about other public utilities.  The city supplies
drinking water, and it is responsible for making the water safe and
maintaining the pressure in a certain range.  Only the public utiltiy
provides the content. In the past, cities had to grapple with whether
they should flouridate the water, but they've never offered the public
a choice of flouridated, nonflouridated, flavored, carbonated,
sugar-sweetened, nonsugar-sweetened, etc either on their own or
through a choice of providers.

Electricity may have a nominal choice of providers, but that's just an
accounting device to let you choose which company generates the power.
It's all delivered through the same lines, with the same technical
properties.  The choice of providers doesn't let you select 50 vs 60
cycles or 220 vs 110 volts.

Other utilities are similarly one size fits all, with the city
responsible for safety and reliability.

Internet connectivity is a very different beast. It's incumbent on the
advocates to do some serious education about the differences.

Mary


------ End of Forwarded Message


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

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