With all the buzz around San Francisco’s citywide Wi-Fi project, Intel’s Digital Communities Initiative and Philadelphia’s choice of HP and Earthlink, do you think the people who like to charge $60+ for “narrowband” are sitting around enjoying a holiday in the Med? Not at all. They’ve been busy doing what they always do: getting their friends to write reports attacking With all the buzz around San Francisco’s citywide Wi-Fi project, Intel’s Digital Communities Initiative and Philadelphia’s choice of HP and Earthlink, do you think the people who like to charge $60+ for “narrowband” are sitting around enjoying a holiday in the Med? Not at all. They’ve been busy doing what they always do: getting their friends to write reports attacking municipally supported broadband deployments.
I found this article today on Bignewsnetwork.com and it says in part:
Michael Balhoff, a telecommunications expert and managing partner with Balhoff and Rowe, said his company will issue a 250-page report in two weeks that will say state municipalities should not compete in this industry.
Even though the telecommunications industry sponsored the report, Balhoff claimed the report is independent and factually based. He said there are many policy and financial risks involved.
“My belief is municipalities and governments should not get in unless there’s a true market failure,” he said.
First, I cannot see how anyone can be independent and factually based if he is paid by an industry which has a VERY big incentive not to see alternative networks built, whether it is by government entities or private competitors (independent ISPs).
Second, I do wonder how he defines as “true market failure”. In many countries, true market failure is the presence of a monopoly or duopoly that keeps prices of broadband high and bandwidth low. Maybe American “experts” have different opinions, of course, especially when they are paid by big companies.
If anyone sees this report, send it along.
I understand that a report like this could not possibly be independent. But not factually based because he has an interest in the company it benefits?