Funny how the other night, WTTW/Chicago Tonight covered 4G wireless communications and there was no historical reference to City’s intention (or interest) in establishing a city-wide wireless network several years back. We get stuck on the totemism of the new technology and don’t discuss any deeper issues of collective investment in our common destiny. This is the City where we privatize everything, and sell off (or sell out?) our future first.
If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up the people to gather wood, divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
In this, a lesson for the Digital Excellence movement, not unlike Daniel Burnham’s call to make no small plans.
Isn’t it time to wake up? Ask a respectable economist the definition of a competitive market and you may be surprised to learn that the telecommunications and “broadband” sector don’t fit the bill. In order for the consumer and the pubic to benefit from a competitive market we need to be sure we have one. A duopoly is no better than a monopoly – indeed this is the market that put the USA at the #20 ranking. The #20 spot doesn’t tell enough of the story either. You’ll need to look at relative cost/bit transit. We’re number 20 driving along in a 2-cylinder engine car, while other countries have an F15.
City ownership isn’t “monopoly” – that’s just the distraction of the duopolists. City ownership would be a civic service aimed at the public interest, not at the narrow interest that tries to squeeze the most money out of the copper infrastructure or cripple the Internet and stifle creativity because they can’t adapt.
The first rule of any network from a business perspective – buy or build your own when you can – don’t rent. That’s the mistake cities have been making for years. If it’s good enough for the private sector to own their own networks – let the people benefit from the same economic logic.
This was a reaction to some of the ideas expressed on the Seattle Post Globe.
I’ve always liked the saying that the Lottery is a Tax on people who are bad at math.
I’ve got a new adage, based on reading Sascha’s brief note on what the Australians are investing in their broadband infrastructure, by comparison with our meager and near meaningless investment.
The new adage: Bad Government is a Tax on a People (Who are Bad at Math)
The adage may seem out of place given that our friends in the Southern Hemisphere are investing close to $1,400 per person, whereas in the USA it would be closer to $25 per person, but my point is that we just don’t understand the math, first of relative speeds provided by our infrastructure compared with those being deployed elsewhere, and second by the relative costs per bit/transit of any data we are passing over our networks (compared with relative cost/speeds elsewhere) and third, the real costs necessary for a meaningful investment as opposed to either lip-service investments or sweetheart deals for selected entrenched interests.
The heart of the adage is this: we really need to understand relative scale, scope and value when we make any collective judgment or investment. (And likewise when we foreclose any option.)
Personally, I’m a bit more cautious when it comes to the notion of national broadband strategy. I want more freedom for diverse range of actors ranging from community to local government to private sector.