When it comes to cities who have put efforts into establishing
healthy communities of people, who should benefit from the harvesting of that spirit of a healthy community?

Consider the baseline expense (and income) to be derived from that same number of people were they to all be spreadout from each other as in a rural setting. The usual argument of companies which provide cable and WiFi and internet and so on is that there is no profit to be made in it. So they don’t do it.

When a confluence of interests occurs to cause people to congregate in more densely populated fashion, the same companies find it profitable to provide such services–harvesting the benefits of higher population density. But why should it be an axiom that they (who in many cases have done little to bring such communities together) and only they have the right to take the harvest. Why shouldn’t alternate economic geometries be considered where the axioms are different and the universe be one in which it is considered legitimate for some of the providers of cable and wifi and broadband be the cities who have worked so hard to establish the communities.

Cities provide police and fire protection in order that economic market places can flourish. Why can they not also provide ways for their citizens to communicate?

In most television today, you can see the effects of the “advertisement-push” economic model of delivering program content. You see almost certainly that the program content selected by such an economic driver is that of the lowest common denominator of interest or the most far out expression — when coupled with cheapness of production — you get what we have now in commercial television and radio (talk radio and survivor tv).

Shmoo, aka independentmusician
Boycott-Riaa admin

Also, as a Philly expat – it is always nice to see someone provide a “critical” assessment of Ed Rendell.

If there are some French blogger here, you can visit my blog where I talk about podcasting and litterature ! See you there !

http://litterature.canalblog.com

Also: David, the government is in the free hamburger business, in a limited way, in the form of food stamps. And personally, I do not object to my tax dollars being used to subsidize the food budgets of my poorest neighbors, as it benefits the entire society when its poorest members are not desperate to feed their starving kids. The point behind programs like food stamps, health subsidies, public education, and yes, municipal street lamps and highways, is explicitly that they are in the interest of the “public good”. Any concept of “right” simply does not enter into it — “right” is a moral term, reserved for philosophy and religion, and while it may well apply here, it’s irrelevant. For similar reasons, Jean-Fr�d�ric’s comments about “efficiencies” may well be valid, but in my opinion high-speed internet access is too important a resource to be concerned with such matters. While it’s undoubtedly true that the government would not be the most efficient provider of net access, it would be the most uniform provider, and that’s the point. Our society has been, and continues to be, so radically transformed by the net that it’s too important to leave to the market, which is by no means guaranteed to act in the interest of the public good. As a former EU citizen, I can tell you that they are currently eating our lunch in this area (as Prof. Lessig mentions in his ‘cast), and it is benefitting their societies and economies in countless ways. In short, screw the private companies — there are plenty of ways for them to make money that don’t critically impact our society.

Although I have to say I don’t agree with you on this topic.
David is right when he says that this way of thinking the competition and the market is flawed.

You’re right on one thing: WiFi in public places would definitely be a positive thing for municipalities.

But instead of making the government a new competitor, wouldn’t it be better to urge city governments to pass incentive measures to equip public places with WiFi?

The government, in fact, does not pay attention to one very important aspect of the fair and equitable competition: efficiency. Private companies do, as it is a matter of survival for them.

Putting the Government into the competition would disrupt the balance of the market, and, I believe, would weaken the position of private companies.

These conclusions were drawn from what we experience here in France where some areas are yet to be open to free competition (electricity, gaz, and to a certain extent, communication networks).

I really fail to see the value of a podcast that merely reads that which is written. To be honest, unless it clarifies or explains further, or somehow brings to life that which is already in the written text, I can read it faster, I can use a screen reader to make my own “podcast” without sucking down either your bandwidth or mine, and I can skip backwards and forwards scanning as rapidly as I want. It may well be the latest trend, but wouldn’t I do better to set something up to convert all interesting content into a spoken format so that I can listen if I prefer that over reading, perhaps while engaged in some leisure time or down time that cannot be avoided?