I am an unpaid mouthpiece for free enterprise. I am currently on long-term medical leave from a NON telecom company.
It is wrong for SBC to achieve monopoly via political maneuvering, and it is wrong for the local government to build a tax-subsidized monopoly. The only fair thing to do is let all interested parties offer service. If no one finds it economical to do so, that doesn't imply a government mandate. It might be nice if we all had original
17th century oil paintings in our houses, but "nice" doesn't cut it.One wouldn't expect government dollars to pay for that (or perhaps we would -- gee, 17th century oil-paintings are "art" and deserve government museums, but Elvis Presley is not art, so he can pitch his music commercially ...)
Once the government has run off all competition by use of subsidies, who will keep their efforts economical? Will it work like schools, roads, and the mail, where there is no fraud, waste, or controversy? Give me a break. When government is the dominant player, things get broken. Do you really trust the people who won't patch potholes or widen the highways, yet take billions in road-maintenance money, to provide you with better and better internet connections "for free?" With SBC competing against others, they have to offer better service to earn your repeat business. With the city, you wind up with no choice.
I understand you think SBC and others can still compete. Just like private schools compete with public. But it's not real competition, when the public schools have a $10k/student subsidy. And it won't be the same with wireless, either.
=John= snipped-for-privacy@jshelton.com