Print

Print


In response to Jim Frame's comments on profit-making, city-owned
utilities, if for some reason a city-owned utility found that it were
running at a profit, it could (and should) reduce rates and/or use those
profits to ensure affordability for everyone.
 
I guess my question was an attempt to uncover the motivations for a
municipality to own a network and Steve's comparison's to utilities made me
think of the fiasco with PG&E in San Francisco.  In that case, it's been
clearly documented that the utility could be taken over by the city and
reduce costs to users and the City. It doesn't seem too big a leap to me to
imagine a city "renting" communication network services from a provider
like PG&E and having everyone end up with high costs and potentially poor
service, while the provider makes a lot of money.
 
 
Lisa Schiff
School of Library and Information Studies
UC Berkeley
[log in to unmask]