Not surprising at all: public internet access is the least commerically viable use of municipal wireless networks. (via Techdirt)

But I’m skeptical of their alternative justification: mobile business applications. Smart meters for utilities, for example, may be valuable, but remains at a trial stage - and have been for a long time. The enormous expenditure required to equip homes with smart meters may not offer utility companies much benefit.

As the price of equipment goes down, that may change.

As far as the business applications case is concerned, wireless networks already face competition in Australia. For instance, IT managers, building mobile applications, will have a choice between commerical offerings like Telstra’s NextG, or Unwired’s broadband internet, as well as Sydney’s proposed public wireless network.

The public access case for municipal wireless was never strong, and I’m not sure how strong the business application case is either. But, considering the recent enthusiasm of state governments for subsidies infrastructure rollouts, we’ll probably be able to properly assess that soon.

I had a piece in yesterday’s Sunday Age on dobbing, a big, big issue facing Australia today. Reliably, the gang at Larvartus Prodeo piles on.

Andrew Norton comments here. I don’t think our positions are significantly different. Andrew argues that the appropriate judge between what is legitimate and illegitimate dobbing is the extent to which the infraction harms the broader community. Drug use and jaywalking are therefore exempt from dobbing, but water cheating is not.

My argument is that our reaction to dobbing is largely defined by the extent to which we consider a law legitimate. As I write in the article:

Dobbing in a thief is unobjectionable. But dobbing in a water cheat or a slightly faster driver seems un-Australian or anti-social. This perhaps makes sense: these latter laws are not as well accepted by the individuals and the community.

It’s easy to sympathise with a home owner who waters on the wrong day, or splashes water on the roof of their car to give it a quick rinse. If we dob them in, it seems as if they’re being punished for a crime they didn’t really commit.

Laws against excessive water use may very well be legitimate. Our government may very well know is better for us, and be pursuing the most appropriate policy. But the public reaction to individuals being dobbed in over excess water use seems to demonstrate a certain skepticism about the legitimacy of that policy. This may very well change, as the law gains greater acceptance.

Also, curse my lack of internet at home.

In San Francisco, the mayor is frustrated to learn that politics can interfere with building its free (for speeds of up to 300kbps!) wireless network

James Buchanan, explaining the challenge of a belief in classical liberalism:

Equal liberty is a two way street. A person may be quite firm in a commitment involving attempts by others to impose their values; freedom from coercion is a quasi-universal desire. But a willingness to refrain from imposing one’s own values on others is a less recognized and surely less widely accepted commitment that is also essential. ‘Don’t tell me what to do’ and Do what I say’ - these are not compatible admonitions. Classical liberalism allows for no naturally privileged class or group, along any dimension. Acceptance of this elemental principle is difficult for many.

From ‘Classical Liberalism as an organising ideal’, printed in Why I, Too, Am Not A Conservative.

I made The Australian today, with a paper on the Labor Party’s new-look industry policy, co-written with Sinclair Davidson: Thumping the Table: Key Questions for the Labor Party’s ‘Industry Policy’

I’ve been moving house over the past week and have consequently been without internet access. A real pain, but it encourages me to draw. Two new pictures below.

I have an article in Online Opinion today on grandiose broadband plans by governments: “Broadband Internet - getting the framework right“

With the exception of scale, in what way does Microsoft giving away free laptops loaded with Vista to bloggers differ from the practice of providing free - and unsolicited - review copies of books to magazine editors? Free copies of software, hardware, books, and so forth are the norm in industries which rely on independent reviewing for their reputation.

Nonetheless, Tony Healy at Larvatus Prodeo writes,

Microsoft and PR firm Edelman have been sprung in an embarrasing pseudo astroturf operation intended to promote the forthcoming operating system Vista.

…continuing a tradition of abusing the term ‘astroturf’ at that site.

I’m not sure I can see the ethical problems for Microsoft or the bloggers - it is the obligation of the reviewer, if he or she wants to remain trustworthy, to give a review of the product honestly. If a reviewer’s ethical standards collapse with the first free gift then they won’t remain a trusted reviewer for very long.

See what I’m trying to do?