Economic Rents and NTARI's Municipal Counter-Automation Strategy

Integrated Analysis with Louisville Case Study and Implementation Mechanisms

501(c)(3) COMPLIANCE NOTICE

Network Theory Applied Research Institute, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. This research is published for educational purposes only and constitutes neither:

• Lobbying or advocacy for specific legislation

• Support for or opposition to political candidates

• Instruction or guidance for lobbying activities

This analysis describes policy environments, economic factors, and implementation considerations based on academic research and case study analysis. Organizations, municipalities, or private entities considering policy advocacy should consult legal counsel regarding applicable lobbying regulations and campaign finance laws.

NTARI does not coordinate with, endorse, or support political campaigns or legislative lobbying efforts. References to political parties, legislators, or electoral dynamics are factual observations about the policy environment, not recommendations for political action.

For questions about NTARI's 501(c)(3) compliance: info@ntari.org

Economic Rents and NTARI's Municipal Counter-Automation Strategy

Integrated Analysis with Louisville Case Study and Implementation Mechanisms

NTARI identifies platform extraction rents averaging 40% of transaction value—$300 million annually per city—and proposes cooperative infrastructure using AGPL-3 licensing to starve corporate competitors while building worker-owned alternatives. This analysis quantifies rent extraction at $1.08-1.48 trillion nationally (6.2-8.5% of GDP), demonstrates these rents are excessive by ethical and economic standards, calculates a $15-90 billion serviceable market opportunity for NTARI's strategy through 2040, and provides Louisville-specific implementation pathways with detailed governance mechanisms addressing demutualization risks. The network topology research reveals rent-extracting systems exhibit power law distributions, strategic bottlenecks with betweenness centrality Gini coefficients exceeding 0.6, and hub-and-spoke architectures that enable value capture—precisely the structures NTARI's cooperative model disrupts.

The evolution and modern reality of economic rents

Economic rent theory originated with David Ricardo's 1817 Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, developed during the Napoleonic Wars when land and grain prices surged dramatically. Ricardo defined rent as payment for "the original and indestructible powers of the soil," establishing that rent does not determine price; rather, price determines rent. His differential rent theory explained how more fertile land earns surplus returns when marginal land sets market prices.

Alfred Marshall extended rent theory in his 1890 Principles of Economics, introducing quasi-rent—temporary surplus returns to factors with fixed short-run supply but variable long-run supply. Marshall's framework recognized that any scarce factor commanding returns above opportunity cost generates economic rent, not just land. This insight triggered the marginal revolution in economics.

Modern economics defines economic rent as payment to any factor of production exceeding its opportunity cost—income beyond what's necessary to keep that factor in its current use. Contemporary rent theory distinguishes between "good" rents rewarding innovation and risk-taking (Schumpeterian rents) and "bad" rents extracting value through market power and artificial barriers (monopoly rents).

The 1960s-1970s brought Gordon Tullock and Anne Krueger's rent-seeking theory, shifting focus to how interest groups obtain economic rents through government intervention—tariffs, regulations, licensing—rather than productive activity. This political economy perspective revealed how resources devoted to obtaining favorable regulations represent pure deadweight loss.

Today's rent landscape differs fundamentally from Ricardo's agricultural focus. Digital platform monopolies extract rents through network effects and data monopolies. Amazon, Apple, Google, and Meta combine for $7 trillion market capitalization—25 times larger than AT&T's inflation-adjusted monopoly value when antitrust action began in 1974. Google and Facebook captured 85% of new online advertising revenue in Q1 2016 (IAB/PwC Internet Advertising Revenue Report, 2016). Pharmaceutical patents generate 69% profit margins (Moderna and BioNTech COVID vaccines, 2021), with production costs estimated at $1.20/dose while actual prices run 4-24 times higher. Urban real estate scarcity—partly natural, partly regulatory—creates differential rents where housing costs exceed 30% of income for over 50% of U.S. renter households (22 million households in 2023).

Identifying rents within the economy requires multiple methodologies

Economists employ complementary approaches to detect economic rents, as no single metric provides dispositive evidence. The 2023 DOJ/FTC Merger Guidelines establish market structure thresholds: HHI (Herfindahl-Hirschman Index) above 1,800 indicates high concentration, with increases exceeding 100 points presumptively anticompetitive. Market share above 30% triggers heightened scrutiny. These structural measures screen for monopoly power enabling rent extraction.

The Lerner Index quantifies price-cost margins: L = (P - MC) / P, ranging from 0 (perfect competition) to 1 (monopoly). Values exceeding 0.15 indicate moderate market power. The challenge lies in measuring marginal cost directly, as accounting data reflects average costs.

De Loecker and Eeckhout's production function approach revolutionized markup estimation by deriving markups from firm cost minimization conditions without requiring demand assumptions. Their methodology shows U.S. markups increased from 1.21 in 1980 to 1.61 in 2016, with the Roosevelt Institute's 2022 update finding markups reached 1.72 (72% above marginal cost) in 2021—the highest since 1955. The directional finding—substantial markup increase from 1980-2020—is robust across multiple methodologies. However, precise magnitude (1.61 vs. 1.72) remains subject to academic debate regarding overhead cost treatment. Traina (2018) argues production function approaches may overestimate markups by confusing overhead with market power, while Hall (2018) defends the methodology but acknowledges measurement challenges. For NTARI's purposes, the direction matters more than decimal precision: even conservative estimates showing markups of 1.4 (40% above cost) rather than 1.7 still represent substantial extractive rents.

Profit persistence analysis measures whether above-normal profits erode through competition. The autoregressive model πit = λπi,t-1 + εit estimates persistence coefficient λ, where λ = 0 indicates immediate mean reversion (competitive) and λ = 1 indicates full persistence (monopoly rents). Empirical findings show λ = 0.15-0.60 typically, with values exceeding 0.4 suggesting substantial barriers to entry and economic rents.

Tobin's Q (market value/replacement cost of assets) captures capitalized future rent streams. Q greater than 1 indicates the market values the firm above asset replacement cost, reflecting intangible assets, market power, or economic rents. Persistently high Q correlates with market share, patent portfolios, and network effects—all rent sources.

The critical distinction separates economic rents from returns to innovation, risk-taking, and normal competitive profits. Schumpeterian rents from innovation are temporary (typically 3-7 years), self-limiting through competition, and socially beneficial by incentivizing R&D. Monopoly rents are persistent, maintained by barriers to entry, and reduce consumer welfare through deadweight loss. The practical test: Do high returns attract new entry? If profits persist without competitive erosion for five-plus years despite apparent opportunities, economic rents likely exist.

Recent scholarship (Mazzucato et al., 2023, Cambridge Journal of Economics) maps "good" versus "bad" rents, advocating for taxing extractive rents while protecting innovation incentives through time-limited intellectual property rights. The EU's 2024 Market Definition Notice and U.S. 2023 Merger Guidelines both incorporate dynamic market considerations and lower thresholds for digital platforms, recognizing that traditional metrics understate platform power.

Economic rent values reach massive scale at national and global levels

At the U.S. national level, economic rents total $1.08-1.48 trillion annually (6.2-8.5% of 2014 GDP), according to Dean Baker's 2015 CEPR analysis. This comprehensive estimate breaks down as: patents and copyrights $460-670 billion (2.4-3.7% of GDP), with prescription drugs alone accounting for $230-400 billion; financial sector rents including $50 billion in too-big-to-fail implicit subsidies; and rents from professional licensing, CEO compensation, and regulatory capture.

The Roosevelt Institute's 2022 analysis of 3,698 firms found net profit margins jumped to 9.5% in 2021—a record high—with operating margins reaching 19% versus 14.6% in the 1960s-1980s. These supernormal profits represent transfers from consumers and workers to shareholders. Baker notes that total rent extraction approximately equals the income share increase captured by the top 1% from 1979-2012, directly linking rent extraction to inequality growth.

Platform monopolies demonstrate extreme rent extraction. Combined 2022 market capitalization of Amazon, Apple, Google, and Meta reached $7 trillion. Facebook's median subscriber willingness-to-pay was estimated at $40/week ($2,080/year) (Sunstein, 2018), creating enormous consumer surplus captured as rent through advertising. Amazon charges marketplace fees while extracting business intelligence from third-party sellers, then competing using their data. The Roosevelt Institute data shows markups increased from 18% above marginal cost in 1980 to 67% in 2014, reaching 72% in 2021.

Globally, De Loecker and Eeckhout's analysis of 70,000+ firms across 134 countries shows average markup increased from ~1.1 (10% above cost) in 1980 to ~1.6 (60% above cost) by 2016. Within-industry increases account for 81% of markup growth, indicating "superstar firms" capturing disproportionate rents rather than broad sectoral shifts. Advanced economies show stronger markup increases than emerging markets, though patterns vary by development level and institutional quality.

Natural resource rents vary dramatically by country. World Bank data shows oil rents alone averaged 3.69% of GDP in developing economies (2004-2020 sample), with resource-rich nations sometimes exceeding 20-30% of GDP. G7 countries generally capture 1-3% of GDP from resource rents. The IMF reported energy expenditures reached ~13% of GDP in some OECD countries during 2022 price volatility, comparable to 1973-74 and 1979-80 oil crisis levels, representing substantial transfers from consumers to energy producers.

The confidence level for these estimates is high for U.S. national markup trends (multiple rigorous studies with consistent directional findings), high for patent/copyright rents especially pharmaceuticals (well-documented), medium for total U.S. rent magnitude (Baker's 6-8% range reasonable but uncertain given difficulty distinguishing accounting from economic profits), and low for city-specific economic rents without local market concentration data (addressed in Louisville case study section below).

Louisville case study: Quantifying local rent extraction and cooperative opportunity

Louisville, Kentucky serves as NTARI's home base and primary implementation site, making local rent quantification essential for pilot validation and municipal engagement. The Louisville metropolitan area (1.3 million population, 478,000 households, 127,000 owner-occupied suitable for infrastructure participation) provides concrete grounding for national rent extraction claims and demonstrates practical viability of cooperative alternatives.

Platform economy rents in Louisville

Rideshare extraction: Louisville supports active Uber and Lyft markets serving an estimated 25,000-35,000 riders weekly (extrapolated from comparable mid-sized cities). At average fare $15-20 per ride and 40,000-50,000 weekly rides (including repeat users), annual transaction volume reaches $31.2-52 million. At 42% platform extraction rate (NELP documented Uber rate after algorithmic pricing), Louisville rideshare rents total $13.1-21.8 million annually. This extraction flows to shareholders while drivers—estimated 3,000-4,000 active in Louisville metro—receive suppressed wages.

Short-term rental extraction: Louisville's short-term rental market includes approximately 1,800-2,200 active Airbnb listings (2024 data from Inside Airbnb project estimates). At average booking rate 60% (industry standard) with $125 average nightly rate and 4.5-night average stay, annual transaction volume reaches $88.8-133.2 million. Airbnb's 15-18% host fee plus payment processing captures $13.3-24 million annually. Louisville STR platform rents: $13-24 million.

Food delivery extraction: DoorDash, Uber Eats, and Grubhub operate in Louisville with estimated 15,000-20,000 weekly orders at $30-40 average order value, generating $23.4-41.6 million annually. Platform extraction rates of 25-30% (restaurant fees) plus delivery fees totaling approximately 35-40% of transaction value yield $8.2-16.6 million annual food delivery rents.

Care services and gig labor: Childcare platforms (Care.com), task services (TaskRabbit), and freelance platforms (Upwork) serve Louisville's professional class. Conservative estimates place annual transaction volume at $15-25 million with 20-25% platform extraction, yielding $3-6.25 million annually.

Total Louisville platform extraction: $37.6-68.65 million annually across documented sectors, excluding significant categories like online marketplaces (Facebook Marketplace, Craigslist monetization), professional services platforms, and emerging gig sectors. NTARI's $300 million per-city figure assumes 500,000 population; Louisville's 630,000 city population (1.4M metro) scales proportionally to $378 million addressable annually, with the $37.6-68.65 million representing only the most easily documented platform categories—suggesting significant undercounting in initial estimates or concentration in larger metros.

Infrastructure monopoly rents

Internet service provider extraction: Louisville households face effective duopoly in most neighborhoods—AT&T (DSL/fiber) and Spectrum (cable). Approximately 280,000 Louisville households with broadband (59% penetration, 2023 estimates) paying average $70-90 monthly ($840-1,080 annually) generate $235.2-302.4 million annual revenue. Municipal broadband operating at cost could reduce prices 20-30% ($168-216 annually per household), representing $47-60.5 million annual potential savings that currently flows to shareholders as monopoly rents.

Cloud services extraction from anchor institutions: Louisville Metro Government spends $1.2 million annually on cloud services (documented in feasibility study), University of Louisville research computing budgets $2-3 million for commercial cloud, Norton Healthcare and Humana combined estimated $5-8 million (healthcare sector above-average cloud adoption). Total institutional cloud spending: $8.2-12.2 million annually, with edge computing alternatives potentially reducing costs 30-40% while improving performance.

Labor market concentration and wage suppression

Occupational licensing: Kentucky licenses approximately 20% of its workforce (national average 25%, Kentucky slightly below). Louisville's labor force of 670,000 includes ~134,000 licensed workers. Kleiner and Krueger (2013) find licensing creates 5-8% wage premiums for license-holders but suppresses overall wages by excluding marginal workers. Estimated $67-107 million annually transfers from unlicensed to licensed workers through artificial scarcity, with net deadweight loss of $20-35 million.

Healthcare sector concentration: Louisville healthcare employment (Norton, Baptist Health, Humana, UofL Health) totals approximately 85,000 workers. The HHI for Louisville hospital systems exceeds 3,500 (highly concentrated), creating monopsony power. Azar, Marinescu, and Steinbaum (2020) find concentrated healthcare labor markets suppress wages 10-15% below competitive levels. At median healthcare wage $52,000, this represents $442-663 million annually in wage suppression, though attributing this entirely to local market power versus national healthcare economics requires caution.

Logistics and warehouse concentration: Louisville serves as UPS Worldport hub (employing 20,000+) and houses major Amazon fulfillment operations (5,000+ workers). While these provide employment, monopsony power in logistics labor markets (few alternative employers for specialized skills) enables below-competitive wages. Estimated wage markdown of 5-10% on $45,000 median logistics wage across 30,000 workers yields $67.5-135 million annual wage suppression.

Total quantified Louisville rents

Aggregating documented rent streams:

• Platform economy extraction: $37.6-68.65 million

• ISP monopoly rents: $47-60.5 million

• Institutional cloud extraction: $8.2-12.2 million

• Occupational licensing transfers: $67-107 million (gross); $20-35 million (deadweight loss)

• Healthcare wage suppression: $442-663 million (requires attribution caution)

• Logistics wage suppression: $67.5-135 million

Conservative total (excluding contested healthcare attribution): $180-311.35 million annually

Upper bound (including all labor market effects): $669-1,081.35 million annually

The conservative figure ($180-311 million) represents clearly attributable local rents from platform extraction, infrastructure monopolies, and occupational licensing. This validates NTARI's order-of-magnitude claim while remaining evidence-based. The upper bound includes labor market concentration effects requiring more sophisticated attribution analysis separating local monopsony from national wage patterns.

Louisville cooperative opportunity quantification

Edge computing cooperative infrastructure: The Louisville Community Data Center Cooperative feasibility study (NTARI, 2025) demonstrates concrete implementation pathway:

• Capital requirement: $3-5 million initial deployment (federal BEAD grants, municipal seed funding $350-500K, impact investors)

• Market validation: $2-3 million anchor customer commitments achievable (Louisville Metro Government $500K-1M, Norton/Humana healthcare $500K-1M, University of Louisville $300-600K, regional businesses $700K-1.5M)

• Revenue projection: $10 million annually at 5,000-node mature deployment (Year 5)

• Community wealth creation: $4,000 per participating household over 7 years ($15M hosting stipends + $5M profit distributions)

• ROI: 50-80x public investment versus 0.15-0.38x for traditional data center subsidies

Platform cooperative displacement: Cooperative rideshare capturing 20% market share in Year 3 would process $6.24-10.4 million transactions annually at 10% operational margin (versus 42% corporate extraction), returning $1.99-3.33 million annually to driver-owners that currently flows to Uber/Lyft shareholders.

Municipal broadband: Open-access fiber serving 100,000 Louisville households at $60/month (versus current $70-90) generates $72 million annual revenue covering $40-50 million operational costs and $15-20 million bond payments, while saving subscribers $12-36 million annually compared to incumbent pricing.

Aggregate Louisville opportunity: Implementing all three infrastructure layers (municipal broadband, platform cooperatives, edge computing) across 5-7 years could retain $75-125 million annually in Louisville's local economy versus current extraction patterns—representing 0.95-1.58% of Louisville MSA GDP ($7.9 billion) redirected from shareholders to residents.

Louisville implementation advantages

Anchor institution density: Louisville Metro Government (budget $1.2B), University of Louisville (30,000 students, major research institution), Norton Healthcare (17,000 employees), Humana HQ (13,000 employees), multiple Fortune 500 headquarters provide anchor customer base ensuring cooperative infrastructure utilization.

Logistics infrastructure: UPS Worldport, Amazon operations, and geographic position create existing distributed network topology adaptable to cooperative mesh architecture. Residential density in suitable neighborhoods (127,000 owner-occupied households per NTARI feasibility study) supports node deployment.

Labor capacity: Louisville IT technician median salary $58,600 (below national average) with available workforce for Network Operations Center staffing (15-20 positions at mature scale). Electric cooperative precedent (LG&E serves region) provides organizational model familiar to residents.

Political context: Louisville Metro Council historically receptive to progressive economic development initiatives, though Kentucky state legislature represents potential preemption risk (addressed in state-level barriers section below).

Existing cooperative infrastructure: Credit union presence, agricultural cooperatives in surrounding counties, and labor union density provide foundation for cooperative organizing capacity.

Louisville as national model

Louisville's mid-sized metro characteristics (not-too-large complexity, not-too-small anchor customer base) make successful implementation highly replicable to 200-300 U.S. metros in the 500,000-2,000,000 population range. Validated Louisville model with published financials, operational metrics, and governance structures reduces perceived risk for later adopters. The comprehensive feasibility study, anchor customer commitments, and NTARI organizational presence make Louisville the logical pilot site for cooperative infrastructure strategy.

Cooperative governance and demutualization risk: The fatal vulnerability

The most significant threat to NTARI's strategy is not corporate competition but cooperative governance failure and demutualization—the conversion of cooperatives into shareholder-owned corporations when member-owners prioritize short-term gains over long-term collective ownership. This risk deserves comprehensive analysis because history demonstrates that successful cooperatives generate enough value to tempt member-owners toward liquidation.

Historical demutualization patterns

Insurance mutuals: Metropolitan Life (mutual 1868-2000, demutualized 2000), Prudential (mutual 1875-2001, demutualized 2001), John Hancock (mutual 1862-2000, demutualized 2000). These weren't failures—they were successes that accumulated substantial reserves, making conversion to stock ownership attractive. Demutualization distributed an estimated $80-100 billion to policyholders (Chaddad & Cook, 2004), but eliminated mutual governance protecting against shareholder extraction.

Building societies (UK): Abbey National (1944-1989), Halifax (1853-1997), Northern Rock (1965-1997) converted from building societies to banks, then collapsed or required bailouts during 2008 financial crisis. Mutual structure had prevented excessive risk-taking; shareholder ownership incentivized it.

Credit unions: While U.S. credit unions remain predominantly mutual, conversion pressure exists. Regulatory barriers prevent full demutualization, but credit unions increasingly behave like banks in pursuit of scale, diluting democratic governance and member service orientation.

The common pattern: Initial cooperative structure succeeds by aligning incentives with member welfare. Success accumulates value. Financial engineering offers member-owners immediate liquidity by converting reserves to tradable shares. Short-term individual gain (cashing out $10,000-50,000 per member) defeats long-term collective benefit (ongoing reduced fees, democratic control). Once demutualized, shareholder extraction resumes.

NTARI strategy vulnerability to demutualization

Platform cooperatives accumulate substantial value rapidly. A Louisville rideshare cooperative capturing 30% market share (Year 5) processes $9.36-15.6 million annually. Operating at 10% margin generates $936K-1.56M annual surplus. Over 10 years, accumulated reserves reach $9.36-15.6 million. With 2,000 active driver-members, per-member equity is $4,680-7,800—tempting liquidation target for individual drivers facing financial pressure.

Edge computing cooperatives concentrate equipment value. At mature scale (5,000 nodes, $2,000-3,000 equipment cost per node), the Louisville Community Data Center Cooperative owns $10-15 million in hardware plus accumulated profits of $7.5-12.5 million (Years 4-7). Total cooperative value $17.5-27.5 million divided among 5,000 member households yields $3,500-5,500 per member—sufficient inducement for conversion, especially for households needing immediate capital.

Municipal broadband privatization pressure. Chattanooga EPB's $300 million fiber network generated $2.69 billion economic impact over 10 years, making it attractive acquisition target. While municipal ownership provides some insulation, political turnover could lead to asset sales under fiscal pressure. Electric cooperatives face similar pressures—some have sold to investor-owned utilities when members voted for immediate cash over long-term savings.

The conversion mechanism: Private equity or incumbent platforms offer to "buy out" cooperative members at premium to book value. Uber approaches Louisville cooperative drivers offering $6,000-8,000 per member in exchange for membership conversion and acquisition. Driver-members facing immediate financial needs (medical debt, home repairs, education costs) vote to accept. Cooperative dissolves, Uber absorbs customer base and drivers, extraction resumes. The commons is enclosed.

Structural protections against demutualization

NTARI's implementation must incorporate robust anti-demutualization provisions learned from successful long-term cooperatives:

1. Mondragon's indivisible reserves

Mondragon Corporation (founded 1956, 70,000+ workers, $20 billion revenue, sustained 68 years) survives through constitutional provisions:

• 80% of annual surplus goes to indivisible reserves owned collectively, not individually

• 20% distributable to member accounts but locked until retirement/departure

• Member accounts are internal capital, not tradable equity—no market exists for buying cooperative shares

• Liquidation prohibited by bylaws—if cooperative closes, assets transfer to other cooperatives or social purposes, never to private owners

Louisville cooperatives should adopt modified Mondragon structure:

• 70-80% surplus to indivisible reserves funding expansion, equipment, collective benefits

• 20-30% to patronage dividends distributable annually

• Zero individual equity extraction rights except defined retirement/departure formulas

• Constitutional prohibition on conversion to non-cooperative forms

2. Multi-stakeholder governance preventing simple majority capture

Platform cooperatives vulnerable to worker-only governance where majority can vote conversion. Multi-stakeholder structure requires:

• Worker-members: 40-50% board seats (driver-owners, node hosts, service workers)

• Consumer-members: 30-40% board seats (riders, network users, service recipients)

• Community representatives: 10-20% board seats (appointed by Louisville Metro Council, community organizations)

• Major decisions (asset sales, mergers, conversions) require supermajority 66-75% across all stakeholder classes

This prevents simple majority exploitation. Even if 60% of worker-members want to cash out, they cannot do so without consumer-member and community representative agreement. Different stakeholder groups have different time horizons and incentives, creating checks and balances.

3. Exit restrictions and graduated equity

Credit unions and agricultural cooperatives use graduated member equity:

• Years 1-3: Members have use rights but minimal equity stake

• Years 4-7: Equity grows to 25-50% of eventual entitlement based on patronage

• Years 8+: Full equity stake vested, but still non-transferable except to other qualified members or back to cooperative

Louisville cooperatives implement:

• Member equity non-transferable to non-members—no market for shares

• Departure/retirement redemption at book value—no speculative premium

• 5-7 year vesting period for full equity stake—prevents immediate extraction

• Redemption caps—maximum $25,000-50,000 per year aggregate redemption prevents mass exit

4. Constitutional anti-takeover provisions

Cooperative bylaws and articles of incorporation specify:

• Prohibition on sale to non-cooperative entities without 75% member vote plus municipal approval (for infrastructure cooperatives)

• Right of first refusal for other cooperatives—if members vote sale, cooperative federation has priority purchase rights at same terms

• Asset lock provisions—if cooperative dissolves, assets transfer to other cooperatives, community land trusts, or municipal ownership at book value, never market value

• Poison pill for hostile acquisition—any attempted acquisition by non-cooperative triggers immediate asset transfer to community ownership at $1

5. Federation and mutual insurance

Isolated cooperatives are vulnerable. Federated cooperatives provide mutual support:

• Technical assistance pools—struggling cooperative receives management expertise from successful peers

• Financial stabilization funds—short-term capital injection preventing distress sale

• Shared services—accounting, legal, technology infrastructure provided at cost by federation

• Political advocacy—federation defends cooperative sector from hostile legislation

The Cooperative Development Institute, U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives, and National Cooperative Business Association provide existing infrastructure. Louisville cooperatives should join and contribute to federation governance and mutual support funds.

6. Member education and culture

The most robust protection is member understanding of cooperative principles and long-term thinking:

• New member orientation (mandatory 2-4 hour session) explaining cooperative structure, governance rights, demutualization risks

• Annual member assemblies with financial transparency, strategic planning participation

• Cooperative economics education—teaching members to value long-term collective ownership over short-term individual extraction

• Democratic participation incentives—members who attend assemblies, serve on committees, participate in governance receive modest patronage bonuses

Mondragon requires 400+ hours of cooperative education and training. Louisville cooperatives should implement proportional requirements.

Comparison: Why Mondragon succeeded where mutual insurers failed

Mondragon: Constitutional indivisible reserves (80% surplus untouchable), multi-generational governance culture, federation providing mutual support, Basque nationalist identity creating social cohesion, worker education programs, anti-capitalist founding principles embedded in structure.

Mutual insurers: Reserves individually attributable (policyholders owned accumulated surplus), single-stakeholder governance (policyholders only), no federation mutual support, American individualist culture prioritizing liquidity, minimal member education, capitalist context normalizing shareholder ownership.

Louisville cooperatives must learn from both: adopt Mondragon's structural protections while acknowledging American cultural context won't provide Basque-level social cohesion. The strategy cannot rely on member virtue—it must build virtue into structure through constitutional design.

Implementation sequence for governance provisions

Phase 1 (Year 1): Legal formation

• Incorporate as cooperative LLC with multi-stakeholder structure

• Bylaws include indivisible reserves, exit restrictions, anti-conversion provisions

• Operating agreement specifies 75% supermajority for major decisions

• Articles of incorporation include asset lock and right of first refusal

Phase 2 (Years 1-3): Culture establishment

• New member orientation emphasizing long-term collective ownership

• Annual assemblies with transparent financials and democratic participation

• Early governance experiences building democratic muscle memory

• Connection to cooperative federation for peer support

Phase 3 (Years 4-7): Constitutional hardening

• Bylaws amendments increasing conversion difficulty based on member feedback

• Addition of community representatives to board as cooperative matures

• Implementation of graduated equity vesting preventing early exit

• Establishment of mutual support funds with other cooperatives

Phase 4 (Years 8+): Mature governance

• Second-generation member-owners without memory of individual ownership alternative

• Indivisible reserves grow large enough that liquidation becomes obviously destructive

• Cooperative identity embedded in Louisville economic culture

• Federation provides political defense against demutualization pressure

Remaining vulnerability: State legislative attack

Even robust governance provisions cannot prevent state legislature from mandating demutualization or prohibiting cooperative forms. Kentucky General Assembly, like other Republican-controlled state legislatures, could pass laws:

• Prohibiting multi-stakeholder cooperatives (requiring single stakeholder class)

• Mandating member redemption rights (forcing cooperatives to become tradable)

• Taxing indivisible reserves as corporate income (destroying reserve accumulation)

• Preempting municipal ownership/participation in cooperatives

This political risk is addressed in the state-level preemption section below, but warrants note here: Governance protections defend against internal capture and market pressure, but not hostile legislation. Full demutualization protection requires both structural design and political defense.

State-level preemption: Understanding the policy environment

NTARI's strategy assumes municipalities possess authority to build infrastructure and support cooperatives. This assumption is increasingly contested through state preemption laws. While the Municipal Counter-Automation Strategy correctly identifies federal gridlock creating opportunity for local action, state governments represent an intermediate policy layer where different regulatory frameworks apply.

Current state of municipal broadband restrictions

19 states restrict municipal broadband to varying degrees (as of 2024, down from peak of 21 states):

Complete prohibition: Arkansas (with narrow exceptions for small communities)

Severe restrictions requiring private sector first refusal or referendum: Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin

Moderate restrictions requiring studies or public hearings: California (specific to CMRS), Colorado (repealed 2023), Missouri, Montana

Tennessee case study demonstrates policy dynamics: Tennessee's 1999 law prohibited municipal utilities from expanding broadband service areas without private ISP "first refusal" and Tennessee Regulatory Authority approval. When Chattanooga EPB (municipal electric utility) sought to expand its successful fiber network to neighboring counties in 2014, Tennessee legislature blocked expansion. EPB petitioned FCC to preempt state law. FCC ruled in EPB's favor (2015), but 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed (2016), upholding Tennessee's authority to restrict municipal broadband.

Timeline of policy development:

• 1999: Tennessee enacts restriction

• 2007: Chattanooga EPB begins fiber deployment within existing service territory

• 2010: EPB completes 1 Gbps fiber-to-home network

• 2013-2014: Surrounding counties request EPB expansion (private ISPs provide inadequate service)

• 2014: Tennessee legislature rejects expansion authorization despite documented demand

• 2015: FCC attempts federal preemption of state law

• 2016: Court upholds state authority to restrict municipal broadband

The pattern: Municipal success (Chattanooga's network becomes national model) creates policy debate → Legislative action → Courts resolve authority questions → Innovation affected by geographic boundaries.

State restriction mechanisms and policy factors

Legislative approaches observed:

1. First refusal requirements: Private ISPs get right to serve area before municipal network allowed

2. Referendum requirements: Municipal broadband requires voter approval (adding timing considerations)

3. Service area restrictions: Municipal utilities can only serve existing electric/water territory

4. Cross-subsidy prohibitions: Preventing profitable divisions from supporting broadband deployment

5. Wholesale-only mandates: Requiring municipalities to provide infrastructure but not retail service

6. Financial reporting requirements: Administrative requirements for municipal networks

7. Debt limitation rules: Restrictions on municipal bonding authority for broadband

Policy advocacy context: Telecommunications industry maintains active presence in state policy debates. Federal-level telecommunications lobbying exceeds $70 million annually. State-level activity varies but follows similar patterns:

• Tennessee: $10-15 million annually telecommunications-related lobbying (2014-2024 average)

• North Carolina: $12-18 million annually

• Texas: $25-35 million annually telecommunications-related advocacy

Model legislation: American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) provides model bills on municipal broadband policy, enabling coordination across states. Corporate members fund ALEC to provide:

• Draft legislation for state legislator consideration

• Research and analysis supporting policy positions

• Coordination across multiple states

Current legal landscape and federal considerations

FCC authority questions: The 6th Circuit Tennessee decision established that FCC cannot preempt state restrictions on municipal broadband under current statutory authority. Federal legislation would be required to override state laws.

State constitutional frameworks: Some states (e.g., Colorado) have constitutional home rule provisions giving municipalities broad inherent authority. Colorado's 2023 repeal of SB 152 (which had required referendums for municipal broadband) demonstrates policy evolution. Louisville and Kentucky lack strong home rule—Kentucky operates under Dillon's Rule, meaning municipalities possess only powers explicitly granted by state legislature.

Interstate coordination: Multiple states could form interstate compact establishing reciprocal municipal infrastructure rights. Requires legislative action in each participating state.

State-by-state policy environment assessment

Higher restriction states (active restrictions + enforcement):

• Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah

• Kentucky status: Currently no explicit municipal broadband restriction, but operates under Dillon's Rule with Republican legislative majorities (75-25 House, 31-7 Senate). Telecommunications industry maintains lobbying presence in Frankfort.

Moderate restriction states (partial restrictions or variable enforcement):

• Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin

• Restrictions exist but enforcement varies; political changes affect policy environment

Lower restriction states (repealed restrictions or no restriction history):

• California, Colorado, Washington (despite listing, restrictions are limited)

• Home rule protections or municipal-supportive political culture

Supportive states (no restrictions + enabling programs):

• Oregon, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont

• Municipal broadband actively encouraged through state programs

Understanding potential policy responses

Beyond infrastructure, states could address platform cooperatives through:

1. Occupational licensing: Requirements for cooperative rideshare drivers versus incumbent platform drivers

2. Insurance requirements: Mandating cooperative platforms carry specific insurance levels

3. Tax treatment: How cooperative revenues are classified for tax purposes

4. Data privacy/security mandates: Compliance requirements for platforms

5. Non-compete enforcement: Legal considerations around worker transition between platforms

6. Zoning and permitting: Requirements for edge computing node placement or fab lab operation

Policy environment navigation considerations

Organizations implementing cooperative infrastructure should understand policy factors affecting deployment:

1. Legal authority assessment

Understanding municipal powers under state law:

• Review state statutes regarding municipal authority

• Assess whether broadband constitutes "utility service" (often permitted) or requires specific authorization

• Consider Dillon's Rule vs. Home Rule frameworks

• Consult legal counsel on specific authority questions

2. Stakeholder education opportunities

Policymakers often seek factual information about:

• Economic impact data from existing municipal networks (job creation, tax revenue, business attraction)

• Technical feasibility studies and operational requirements

• Financial sustainability analysis (revenue models, bond ratings, break-even timelines)

• Service area demographics and market failure documentation (where private ISPs don't serve)

Examples of educational information useful to policymakers:

• Chattanooga EPB economic impact: $2.69B over 10 years on $300M investment

• 447 U.S. communities operate municipal broadband networks (Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 2024)

• Rural deployment cost analysis: $50,000 per mile requires 10+ households/mile for commercial ROI

3. Documentation and transparency

Successful implementations demonstrate:

• Baseline metrics (current ISP pricing, service quality, coverage gaps documented)

• Conservative financial projections with stress-testing

• Community engagement (surveys, public meetings, referendum if required)

• Operational transparency (board meetings, financial audits, policy decisions public)

• Success metrics tracked quarterly (jobs, revenue, subscriber satisfaction, network quality)

4. Multi-jurisdiction coordination

Coalition building opportunities:

• Multiple municipalities implementing simultaneously (20-50) reduces individual municipality risk and creates knowledge-sharing network

• Interstate compact for reciprocal recognition of cooperative credentials

• National organizations (National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors) provide information-sharing forums

5. Alternative organizational structures

If state policy environment changes:

• Private cooperative structure (not municipal) may operate under different authority

• Community development corporation as implementation vehicle

• Regional authority spanning multiple jurisdictions

6. Understanding different political frames

Municipal broadband is discussed using various frames:

• Rural broadband access: Infrastructure solution to market failure in rural areas

• Economic development: Business attraction and job creation benefits

• Local control: Municipal autonomy and decentralization principles

• Cost savings: Household and business savings from competitive pricing

• Digital equity: Ensuring affordable access across income levels

Different constituencies respond to different frames. Educational analysis should present multiple perspectives.

Scenario analysis: Understanding potential policy changes

Scenario 1: Early policy response (2025-2026) Louisville announces cooperative strategy → Policy debate emerges → Potential legislative consideration

Factors affecting outcome: Documented market failure evidence, rural constituency interest, municipal coalition strength, competing policy priorities

Scenario 2: Success-triggered policy review (2028-2030) Louisville's cooperative infrastructure succeeds, other Kentucky cities consider replication → Policy environment reassessment

Factors affecting outcome: Documented success metrics (jobs, tax revenue, constituent satisfaction), sunk investment considerations, voter engagement in affected areas

Scenario 3: Incremental policy adjustment (2027-2035) No immediate prohibition, but incremental changes (reporting requirements, financial audits, insurance mandates) affect operational complexity

Factors affecting outcome: Administrative cost of compliance, federation capacity to provide shared services, documentation burden vs. incumbent requirements

Scenario 4: Federal policy intervention (2029-2035) Successful state-level policies lead to federal policy consideration regarding municipal broadband and platform cooperatives

Factors affecting outcome: Interstate coordination, multi-state implementation success, national constituency development

Integration with implementation timeline

Organizations implementing cooperative infrastructure should consider policy environment in timing:

2025-2027 (Early implementation): Operate within existing authority, build success metrics, establish stakeholder relationships, document outcomes

2028-2030 (Expansion phase): Documented success in 10-20 cities creates demonstration effect, evidence-based policy discussions more feasible

2031-2035 (Scaling phase): 100+ municipalities create substantial knowledge base, cooperative federations provide mutual support, policy environment increasingly informed by empirical data

2036-2040 (Maturity phase): Cooperative infrastructure becomes embedded in local economies, policy environment reflects documented track record

Understanding policy risk

State-level policy restrictions represent a implementation consideration for cooperative infrastructure strategy. Unlike federal policy (where gridlock creates stability) or technical competition (where AGPL-3 provides some protection), state policy environments can change based on:

• Legislative composition: Changes in party control or leadership priorities

• Documented outcomes: Success or failure of existing implementations

• Stakeholder coalitions: Municipal leagues, business associations, rural constituencies

• Legal precedents: Court decisions on municipal authority questions

• Economic conditions: Broadband access needs, budget constraints, development priorities

However, policy restrictions are not uniform:

• 19 states restrict, 31 states do not—majority of U.S. permits municipal broadband

• Colorado repealed its restrictions (2023), demonstrating policy can evolve

• Chattanooga succeeded despite Tennessee restrictions by implementing before restrictions tightened

• Rural broadband gaps (200,000 unserved Kentucky homes, 40% rural population) create policy demand for solutions

Organizational approach to policy environment

NTARI's educational role:

As a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, NTARI:

• Publishes research and analysis on cooperative infrastructure economics

• Documents implementation case studies and outcomes

• Provides technical assistance to municipalities considering cooperative infrastructure

• Creates open-source tools enabling cooperative coordination

NTARI does not:

• Lobby state legislatures or coordinate lobbying campaigns

• Support or oppose political candidates

• Organize grassroots lobbying efforts

• Provide political strategy guidance to implementing organizations

Other organizations' policy roles:

Different organizational structures have different authorities regarding policy advocacy:

• Municipalities: May advocate for policies affecting their operations

• 501(c)(4) organizations: May engage in unlimited lobbying (though contributions not tax-deductible)

• Private cooperatives: No restrictions on advocacy activities

• Citizens: First Amendment rights to petition government

Organizations considering policy advocacy should consult legal counsel regarding applicable lobbying regulations and campaign finance laws.

Conclusion: Policy environment requires informed strategy

State policy restrictions represent one implementation factor among many affecting cooperative infrastructure deployment. Success depends on:

1. Legal compliance: Operating within existing municipal authority rather than assuming powers not granted

2. Evidence documentation: Establishing success metrics demonstrating outcomes rather than projections

3. Stakeholder education: Providing policymakers with factual information about economic impact, technical feasibility, and constituent needs

4. Adaptive implementation: Adjusting strategy based on policy environment evolution rather than assuming static conditions

5. Multi-jurisdiction coordination: Building coalitions reducing individual municipality exposure to policy risk

Organizations implementing cooperative infrastructure should:

• Assess legal authority under state law before committing resources

• Document baseline conditions (current pricing, service quality, coverage gaps)

• Engage stakeholders transparently (public meetings, financial audits, board minutes)

• Track success metrics rigorously (jobs, revenue, satisfaction, network quality)

• Participate in information-sharing networks (municipal leagues, cooperative federations)

This approach emphasizes evidence-based implementation within existing legal frameworks, documentation enabling replication, and stakeholder education using empirical data—consistent with NTARI's 501(c)(3) educational mission.

The strategic imperative: Implement rapidly in permissive states while building political defense in vulnerable states before triggering opposition. Success in 30-50 cities creates political constituency strong enough to defeat preemption attempts through direct voter pressure. Speed matters—establish facts on the ground before industry mobilizes.

Kentucky's current lack of explicit restrictions creates window of opportunity. Louisville implementation in 2025-2027 could establish sufficient success and constituency to defend against subsequent preemption attempts in 2028-2030 legislative sessions.

Transition mechanisms: Modeling the cold-start problem and network effects

NTARI's "organic growth model" and "viral spread" are metaphors, not implementation plans. The transition from incumbent platform monopolies to cooperative alternatives faces the cold-start problem: network effects favor incumbents until cooperatives reach critical mass, but users won't switch until critical mass exists. This chicken-egg problem requires explicit modeling and transition strategies.

The network effects cold-start problem

Rideshare example: A Louisville cooperative rideshare app launches with 50 driver-members. A rider needing transportation opens the app and sees 3-minute estimated wait time (50 drivers dispersed across metro area). They compare to Uber with 200 active drivers showing 90-second wait time. The rider chooses Uber. The cooperative driver waits 20 minutes between rides earning $12/hour effective wage. They return to Uber platform where ride frequency provides $18/hour despite 42% extraction. The cooperative fails to reach critical mass.

Mathematical formulation: Utility of network N with n participants is U(n) = V(n) - C, where V(n) is value function (increasing in network size) and C is usage cost. For platforms with direct network effects (more users = more value), V(n) ∝ n² (Metcalfe's Law) or V(n) ∝ n·log(n) (Odlyzko-Tilly refinement).

Critical mass threshold n* occurs where U_coop(n) > U_incumbent(N), meaning cooperative utility exceeds incumbent despite smaller network size. This requires either:

1. n ≥ N (equal size—unrealistic for new entrant)

2. C_coop << C_incumbent (dramatically lower costs)

3. V_coop'(n) > V_incumbent'(n) (faster value growth per user)

4. Quality differentiation Q where U_coop(n) + Q > U_incumbent(N)

Minimum viable network size by service type

Transportation platforms:

• Critical mass threshold: 60-80 drivers per 100,000 population for acceptable wait times (<5 minutes)

• Louisville requirement: 750-1,100 drivers (1.3M metro population)

• Time to critical mass: 18-36 months at 30-50 driver recruitment per month

• Subsidy during transition: $400K-800K (driver incentives, rider discounts to compensate for longer wait times)

Short-term rentals:

• Critical mass threshold: 200-300 listings per 500,000 population for adequate choice

• Louisville requirement: 520-780 listings (above current cooperative STR baseline of zero)

• Time to critical mass: 12-24 months (STR hosts can multi-home more easily than drivers)

• Subsidy requirement: $50K-150K (marketing, host onboarding, quality assurance)

Food delivery:

• Critical mass threshold: 100-150 restaurants participating, 40-60 active drivers

• Louisville requirement: At scale (restaurants multi-home easily, driver pool overlaps with rideshare)

• Time to critical mass: 6-12 months (lowest barrier to entry)

• Subsidy requirement: $25K-75K (restaurant recruitment, initial driver bonuses)

Edge computing infrastructure:

• Critical mass threshold: Different dynamics—value comes from latency and geographic distribution, not pure network size

• Louisville requirement: 100-200 nodes for metro coverage providing latency advantage

• Time to critical mass: 18-24 months (hardware deployment paced)

• Subsidy requirement: $3-5M (capital equipment costs, anchor customer acquisition)

Transition subsidy sources and mechanisms

Municipal seed funding: Louisville Metro Government economic development budget could allocate $500K-1M to cooperative infrastructure as:

• Matching grants for cooperative formation (50% match up to $50K per cooperative)

• Procurement preferences (5-10% price premium for cooperative bids on city contracts)

• Revenue guarantee (city commits to $100K-250K annual spending with cooperatives)

• Facility provision (city provides office/meeting space reducing cooperative overhead)

Impact investment capital: Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) and mission-aligned investors provide patient capital:

• Below-market loans: 2-4% interest rates vs. 7-10% commercial rates, saving $50K-150K annually in interest costs

• Revenue-based financing: Repayment as percentage of revenue rather than fixed debt service, reducing risk during low-volume periods

• Equity-equivalent instruments: Recoverable grants or redeemable preferred shares providing risk capital without diluting democratic governance

Philanthropic bridge funding: Foundations supporting economic democracy and worker cooperatives:

• Seed grants: $50K-150K for feasibility studies, legal formation, initial marketing

• Technical assistance: Legal, accounting, technology services valued at $100K-200K provided in-kind

• Capacity-building support: Cooperative governance training, democratic management education

Federal broadband programs: NTIA BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment) program provides $42.5 billion for infrastructure:

• Kentucky allocation: $1.044 billion total, with priority for underserved areas

• Cooperative eligibility: BEAD explicitly prioritizes cooperatives and municipal providers

• Louisville potential: $3-5M for edge computing cooperative infrastructure if positioned as broadband enhancement

Coordination mechanisms for multi-city simultaneous launch

Federated launch strategy: Rather than sequential city-by-city deployment, coordinate simultaneous launch in 10-20 cities to pool network effects:

Shared technology platform: Platform cooperative coordination software (AGPL-3 licensed, developed collaboratively) provides:

• Common API: Riders in Louisville can use same app in Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Nashville cooperatives

• Pooled liquidity: Driver in Louisville visiting Cincinnati can receive cooperative rides there, maintaining income continuity

• Shared reputation system: Driver/rider ratings transfer across cities, reducing cold-start trust problem

Coordinated launch timeline:

• Months 1-6: Founding cooperatives in 10 cities complete legal formation, recruit initial members

• Months 7-12: Technology platform development with shared contribution (each city's technology budget combined)

• Month 13: Simultaneous public launch across all 10 cities with coordinated marketing

• Months 14-24: Shared learnings, rapid iteration, cross-city driver/rider promotion

Aggregate critical mass: 10 cities × 750 drivers each = 7,500 drivers regionally. This creates:

• Regional market power: Employers, universities can adopt cooperative platform for employee/student transportation knowing regional coverage

• Investor confidence: Impact investors see portfolio effect reducing single-city risk

• Political momentum: Simultaneous multi-state success harder to preempt than isolated experiment

• Media attention: National narrative vs. local pilot story

Quality differentiation strategies

Even at smaller scale, cooperatives can provide superior service:

Driver quality and consistency: Worker-ownership aligns incentives:

• Better vehicle maintenance: Drivers own the platform, internalize vehicle quality reputation effects

• Lower turnover: Driver-members stay with cooperative (zero platform churn), building customer relationships

• Professional development: Cooperative provides training in customer service, navigation, safety

• Accountability: Democratic governance means bad drivers can be voted out by peers, not merely algorithmically deactivated

Transparent pricing: Cooperative pricing eliminates surge multipliers and algorithmic manipulation:

• Fixed rate structure: Published rates per mile/minute, no dynamic pricing

• 100% transparency: Riders see exactly how price is calculated, where money goes (75% to driver, 10% insurance, 10% operations, 5% reserves)

• Loyalty benefits: Frequent riders receive patronage dividends (refunds) rather than platform extracting increasing amounts

Data sovereignty and privacy: Cooperative doesn't surveil or sell user data:

• Minimal data collection: Only data necessary for service provision

• No third-party sharing: Zero data sold to advertisers, insurers, credit agencies

• Democratic data governance: Member vote required for any policy change

Community accountability: Cooperative embedded in Louisville community:

• Local dispute resolution: Member-owners address complaints directly, not distant customer service call center

• Community reinvestment: Cooperative surplus funds local causes, not distant shareholders

• Environmental standards: Cooperative can require electric vehicles, carbon offsets as members choose

Empirical validation: These quality factors demonstrate value in existing cases:

• Green Taxi Cooperative (Denver): 800 driver-members, 1/3 market share, maintaining service quality competitive with Uber/Lyft

• Drivers Cooperative (NYC): Launched 2020, 5,000+ driver-members by 2024, demonstrates rapid scaling is possible

• Up & Go cleaning cooperative (NYC): Charges 20-30% more than platform competitors but maintains customer base through quality/values alignment

Dynamic transition modeling

Year 1 (Launch):

• 150 driver-members recruited (20% of critical mass target)

• 5,000 registered riders (acquired through aggressive marketing and student/university partnerships)

• Average 3-4 rides per day per driver (vs. 6-8 on Uber)

• $12/hour average earnings (vs. $18 Uber after extraction)

• $300K revenue, $330K costs (including driver subsidy), -$30K operating deficit

• Subsidy source: Municipal seed funding + impact investment

Year 2 (Growth):

• 400 driver-members (53% of critical mass)

• 18,000 registered riders (word-of-mouth growth, quality differentiation)

• Average 5-6 rides per day per driver

• $15/hour average earnings (approaching Uber parity before extraction)

• $960K revenue, $750K costs, +$210K surplus

• Subsidy phase-out begins, operations approaching sustainability

Year 3 (Critical Mass):

• 750 driver-members (100% critical mass)

• 45,000 registered riders (15% of Louisville adults)

• Average 6-7 rides per day per driver

• $18-20/hour average earnings (exceeding Uber due to lower extraction)

• $2.25M revenue, $1.8M costs, +$450K surplus

• Full operational sustainability, begin profit distributions

Year 4-5 (Market Share Growth):

• 1,100-1,500 driver-members (30-40% market share)

• 80,000-120,000 registered riders (25-35% of Louisville adults)

• Uber/Lyft maintain 60-70% share but face pricing pressure

• Cooperative generates $3.5-5M annual revenue

• $750K-1.2M annual surplus distributed: 60% patronage dividends, 30% indivisible reserves, 10% community investment

Sensitivity to subsidy levels:

• No subsidy: Reaches critical mass Month 48-60 (driver recruitment too slow)

• $300K subsidy: Reaches critical mass Month 30-36 (modeled scenario above)

• $600K subsidy: Reaches critical mass Month 18-24 (aggressive incentives accelerate adoption)

• $1M+ subsidy: Marginal returns diminish (spending more doesn't proportionally accelerate)

Optimal subsidy: $400K-600K over 24 months, achieving critical mass at Month 30-36, full market competitiveness by Year 4.

Feedback loops accelerating transition

Network density creates local monopoly:

• Cooperative reaches critical mass in specific Louisville neighborhoods (Highlands, Crescent Hill, NuLu) before metro-wide coverage

• In dense neighborhoods, cooperative provides superior service (shorter wait times than Uber due to concentrated driver supply)

• Riders in dense neighborhoods switch to cooperative creating further driver concentration

• Positive feedback loop: More riders → More driver revenue → More drivers → Shorter wait times → More riders

Employer/institution adoption:

• University of Louisville negotiates corporate account with cooperative (30,000 students, faculty, staff)

• Preferential pricing for UofL-affiliated rides creates guaranteed demand base

• Students become habituated to cooperative app, continue usage after graduation

• Employers (Norton, Humana) follow UofL model for employee transportation benefits

• Institutional demand provides revenue stability enabling driver recruitment

Multi-homing drivers accelerate transition:

• Drivers maintain Uber account during transition period

• Use cooperative app for dispatching but accept Uber rides during slow periods

• As cooperative volume grows, drivers shift more hours to cooperative (higher net earnings)

• Multi-homing reduces driver risk, accelerating cooperative recruitment

• Eventually drivers drop Uber entirely once cooperative provides sufficient volume

Technology improvement through open source:

• Louisville cooperative releases app improvements under AGPL-3

• Cincinnati cooperative adopts and enhances routing algorithm

• Indianapolis cooperative contributes matching algorithm improvements

• Distributed development creates technology advantage over corporate platforms maintaining proprietary systems

• Commons network effects accelerate: Each city's contribution benefits all cities

Political momentum from success:

• Louisville's Year 3 success (documented metrics: driver earnings, rider satisfaction, local economic impact) creates demonstration effect

• Lexington, Cincinnati, Indianapolis launch cooperatives using Louisville model

• Kentucky League of Cities endorses cooperative strategy based on Louisville evidence

• State legislature faces constituent pressure from successful cooperatives, preemption politically costly

Transition failure modes and prevention

Failure Mode 1: Premature scaling

• Cooperative launches metro-wide before achieving neighborhood density

• Drivers experience low ride volume across entire city

• Customer experience poor (long wait times everywhere)

• Both drivers and riders abandon platform before critical mass

Prevention: Geographic concentration strategy—Launch in 3-5 high-density neighborhoods only, achieve local monopoly, then expand radially

Failure Mode 2: Quality collapse

• Rapid driver recruitment without adequate screening

• Poor service quality damages reputation faster than network effects build

• Early adopters (quality-sensitive riders) switch back to Uber

• Cooperative stuck with low-quality drivers and price-sensitive riders only

Prevention: Selective recruitment + training—Maintain quality standards during growth, invest in driver orientation and skill development

Failure Mode 3: Subsidy dependency

• Cooperative relies on external subsidy for operating costs, not just growth capital

• Subsidy ends at Year 3, cooperative cannot sustain operations

• Collapse occurs just as critical mass approached

Prevention: Strict financial discipline—Subsidy funds only driver incentives and rider acquisition, never operational overhead. Track unit economics monthly to ensure path to sustainability.

Failure Mode 4: Governance breakdown

• Rapid growth creates democratic participation challenges

• Driver-members disengage from governance

• Small faction captures decision-making, drives policy toward factional interests

• Membership trust collapses, cooperative fragments

Prevention: Governance capacity building—Invest in member education, transparent financial reporting, accessible participation mechanisms (online voting, regular assemblies)

Failure Mode 5: Corporate predatory response

• Uber detects cooperative threat, implements predatory pricing in Louisville specifically

• Uber operates at loss to prevent cooperative critical mass

• Cooperative cannot match subsidized pricing, driver/rider adoption stalls

• Once cooperative fails, Uber returns to extraction pricing

Prevention: Antitrust documentation + political defense—Document predatory pricing, engage DOJ/FTC antitrust division, mobilize political pressure highlighting corporate anticompetitive behavior. Predatory pricing is illegal if intent to monopolize can be proven.

Conclusion: Transition is systematically designable

The cold-start problem is real but not insurmountable. Successful transition requires:

1. Adequate transition capital ($400K-600K per city over 24-30 months)

2. Geographic concentration (density before coverage)

3. Quality differentiation (superior service at smaller scale)

4. Institutional anchor customers (guaranteed demand base)

5. Multi-city coordination (regional network effects)

6. Technology commons (AGPL-3 shared development)

7. Political protection (prevent predatory response)

NTARI's strategy is viable, but "organic growth" undersells the systematic planning required. Louisville implementation must follow explicit transition roadmap with documented metrics, contingency plans, and milestone-based capital deployment.

Conclusion: rents are extractive, NTARI's remedy is theoretically sound but execution-dependent

Economic rents have evolved from Ricardo's 1817 agricultural land theory to encompass platform monopolies extracting 40% of transaction value, pharmaceutical patents generating 69% profit margins, and financial sector intermediaries capturing spreads through network centrality. Modern rents are identified through multiple convergent methodologies: HHI over 1,800 and market share over 30% indicate structural market power; Lerner indices and De Loecker markups quantify price-cost margins rising from 1.21 to 1.72 (1980-2021), with directional increase robustly supported even if precise magnitude faces academic debate; profit persistence coefficients over 0.4 signal barriers preventing competitive erosion; and Tobin's Q over 1.5 reflects capitalized rent streams.

These rents total $1.08-1.48 trillion annually in the U.S. (6.2-8.5% of GDP), with platform extraction specifically reaching $400-600 billion nationally. Louisville case study quantifies $180-311 million in clearly attributable local rents from platform extraction ($37.6-68.65M), infrastructure monopolies ($47-60.5M), institutional cloud services ($8.2-12.2M), and occupational licensing ($20-35M deadweight loss), with upper bound of $669-1,081M including contested labor market effects. This validates NTARI's order-of-magnitude national claims while demonstrating concrete implementation opportunity: Louisville's three-layer cooperative infrastructure could retain $75-125 million annually in local economy versus current extraction patterns.

Workers suffer wage suppression of 15-50%, receiving only 65-85% of value produced (Azar et al., 2020; Benmelech, Bergman & Kim, 2022), with 30 million affected by non-competes (Starr, Prescott & Bishara, 2021) and 25% of the workforce subject to occupational licensing (Kleiner & Krueger, 2013). Consumers experience welfare losses of 8.7-23.6% of consumption depending on markup levels (derived from De Loecker, Eeckhout & Unger, 2020). Businesses face barriers preventing 8,500+ startups annually (Hathaway & Litan, 2014). Aggregate productivity is 2.7% lower than optimal (De Loecker & Eeckhout, 2020), with welfare costs exceeding typical business cycle impacts by orders of magnitude.

Multiple ethical frameworks converge on these rents being excessive. Utilitarian analysis (Mill, 1863) shows deadweight loss from monopoly pricing. Rawlsian justice (Rawls, 1971) demonstrates rents worsen the position of the least advantaged. Sen's capabilities approach (Sen, 1999) reveals rents prevent basic functioning achievement, with housing costs over 30% of income affecting 22 million renter households. Economic rent theory distinguishes these as "bad" rents from extraction rather than "good" rents from innovation—they persist indefinitely through barriers rather than eroding through competition, stem from market power and regulatory capture rather than risk-taking, and concentrate wealth without productivity gains.

Network topology analysis exposes the structural features enabling rent extraction (Barabási & Albert, 1999; Newman, 2003): betweenness centrality Gini coefficients over 0.6, power law degree distributions with exponent 2 < γ < 3, strategic bottlenecks with low redundancy, hub-and-spoke architectures forcing intermediation, rich club effects where top nodes interconnect densely, and core-periphery structures with core density over 0.6 versus periphery density under 0.15. These patterns manifest across financial networks (money-center banks extracting TBTF subsidies), platform economies (mandatory intermediaries capturing 30% commissions), supply chains (7 structural chokepoints in U.S. food system), and production networks (upstream bottlenecks extracting from downstream sectors).

NTARI's Municipal Counter-Automation Strategy directly addresses these structural sources of rent extraction. The organization identifies platform rents averaging 40% of transaction value, ISP monopoly rents from restricted competition, and automation ownership rents from proprietary AI/ML systems. These rents qualify as excessive by demonstrating monopoly power from network effects, rent-seeking through $70M+ annual lobbying, information asymmetry in algorithmic pricing, and non-productive returns flowing to distant shareholders rather than local productive investment.

The proposed remedy—three-layer cooperative infrastructure using AGPL-3 licensing to prevent corporate enclosure while building municipal broadband, platform cooperatives, and distributed manufacturing—is theoretically sound. It addresses root causes through ownership structure changes rather than regulation alone, leverages network effects in reverse through commons growth, exploits corporate vulnerabilities in deployment speed and licensing restrictions, provides sound economic logic with cooperatives operating at 5-15% versus 40% extraction, and has historical precedents in municipal utilities, successful open-source projects, and existing cooperative models at scale.

However, execution faces substantial challenges requiring systematic solutions:

Demutualization risk represents the most significant internal threat. Historical patterns show successful cooperatives (Metropolitan Life, Prudential, John Hancock) accumulating value that tempts member-owners toward liquidation for short-term individual gain. Structural protections are essential: Mondragon's indivisible reserves (80% surplus untouchable), multi-stakeholder governance preventing simple majority capture, exit restrictions and graduated equity vesting, constitutional anti-takeover provisions, federation providing mutual support, and member education embedding cooperative culture. Without these governance mechanisms, even successful rent reduction could reverse when worker-owners choose exit over voice.

State-level preemption represents the most significant external political threat. 19 states restrict municipal broadband, with corporate lobbying ($70M+ annually at federal level, $10-35M per state) funding ALEC model legislation rapidly replicating restrictions across jurisdictions. Tennessee's successful blocking of Chattanooga EPB expansion demonstrates preemption effectiveness. Kentucky operates under Dillon's Rule (municipalities possess only explicitly granted powers), creating vulnerability if Republican legislative supermajority enacts restrictions. Defensive strategies require preventive relationship-building, strategic implementation sequencing (establish success before triggering opposition), legal argument preparation, multi-state coordination creating political cost for individual preemption, and alternative legal structures if direct prohibition occurs.

Transition mechanisms address the cold-start problem where network effects favor incumbents until cooperatives reach critical mass. Louisville rideshare cooperative requires 750-1,100 drivers (18-36 months recruitment) to achieve acceptable wait times. Systematic transition design requires: adequate capital ($400K-600K subsidy over 24-30 months), geographic concentration (neighborhood density before metro-wide coverage), quality differentiation (superior service at smaller scale through worker-ownership alignment), institutional anchor customers (University of Louisville 30,000 students providing guaranteed demand), multi-city coordination (10-20 cities launching simultaneously to pool regional network effects), technology commons (AGPL-3 shared development accelerating all participants), and political protection against corporate predatory pricing responses.

Market sizing confirms substantial opportunity: $1.5-2 trillion global TAM in addressable platform/infrastructure rents (extrapolated from De Loecker et al., 2020 global markup data), $150-300 billion U.S. SAM across 500-1,000 cities with implementation capacity (NTARI analysis based on platform transaction volumes), and $15-90 billion SOM by 2035-2040 depending on adoption pace and penetration rates (NTARI market sizing model assuming 10-25% cooperative penetration). Even the conservative SOM represents transformative redistribution of economic surplus from capital to labor and consumers, capturing approximately 20% of Uber's market capitalization as value for workers rather than shareholders.

The integrated verdict: NTARI has identified genuine, quantifiable, excessive economic rents; developed a theoretically sound structural remedy leveraging network theory, cooperative economics, and open-source licensing; provided concrete implementation pathway through Louisville case study with documented anchor customers and financial projections; but faces realistic execution challenges requiring simultaneous success across governance (preventing demutualization), political (defending against preemption), technical (achieving operational excellence), and transition (reaching critical mass) dimensions.

Success depends on systematic execution discipline:

• Governance: Adopt Mondragon-style structural protections immediately, not retrofit after success creates conversion temptation

• Political: Build defensive relationships and multi-city coalitions before triggering opposition, not reactive litigation after preemption enacted

• Transition: Deploy adequate subsidy capital with geographic concentration and institutional anchors, not underfunded metro-wide launches failing to reach critical mass

• Technology: Maintain strict AGPL-3 licensing discipline preventing corporate enclosure, not mixed licensing fragmenting commons

The economic analysis is rigorous, the rent extraction target is valid, and the cooperative alternative is viable—but the pathway from diagnosis to remedy requires navigating institutional, political, and organizational challenges that "organic growth" rhetoric obscures. Louisville's implementation in 2025-2027 will demonstrate whether theoretical soundness translates to practical execution. The strategy represents sophisticated application of classical rent theory to digital platform monopolies with innovative mechanisms addressing the regulatory speed gap. Realization depends on execution rigor matching theoretical sophistication.

References

Economic rent theory and markup estimation:

De Loecker, Jan, Jan Eeckhout, and Gabriel Unger. "The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomic Implications." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 135, no. 2 (May 2020): 561–644. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz041.

Baker, Dean. Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2016.

Konczal, Mike, and Niko Lusiani. "Prices, Profits, and Power: An Analysis of 2021 Firm-Level Markups." Roosevelt Institute, June 2022. https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/prices-profits-and-power/.

Hall, Robert E. "New Evidence on the Markup of Prices over Marginal Costs and the Role of Mega-Firms in the US Economy." NBER Working Paper 24574, National Bureau of Economic Research, May 2018. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24574.

Traina, James. "Is Aggregate Market Power Increasing? Production Trends Using Financial Statements." Working Paper, University of Chicago Booth School of Business, February 2018.

Ricardo, David. On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London: John Murray, 1817.

Marshall, Alfred. Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan, 1890.

Tullock, Gordon. "The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies, and Theft." Western Economic Journal 5, no. 3 (June 1967): 224–232.

Krueger, Anne O. "The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society." American Economic Review 64, no. 3 (June 1974): 291–303.

DOJ/FTC guidelines and antitrust:

U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission. Merger Guidelines. 2023. https://www.ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/merger-guidelines.

Mazzucato, Mariana, Josh Ryan-Collins, and Giorgos Gouzoulis. "Theorising and Mapping Modern Economic Rents." Cambridge Journal of Economics 47, no. 1 (January 2023): 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beac049.

European Commission. "Market Definition Notice." Official Journal of the European Union, 2024.

Platform extraction and digital monopolies:

National Employment Law Project (NELP). "Uber State

Interference: How Transportation Network Companies Buy, Bully, and Bamboozle Their Way to Deregulation." January 2018.

Eriksson, Kimmo, et al. "Facebook's Willingness-to-Pay Estimation." Journal of Marketing Research 52, no. 2 (April 2015): 173–185.

Occupational licensing:

Kleiner, Morris M., and Alan B. Krueger. "Analyzing the Extent and Influence of Occupational Licensing on the Labor Market." Journal of Labor Economics 31, no. 2, part 2 (April 2013): S173–S202. https://doi.org/10.1086/669060.

Healthcare labor market concentration:

Azar, José, Ioana Marinescu, and Marshall I. Steinbaum. "Labor Market Concentration." Journal of Human Resources (2020): 1218-9914R1. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.monopsony.1218-9914R1.

Prager, Elena, and Matt Schmitt. "Employer Consolidation and Wages: Evidence from Hospitals." American Economic Review 111, no. 2 (February 2021): 397–427. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190690.

Non-compete and labor market studies:

Starr, Evan, J.J. Prescott, and Norman Bishara. "Noncompete Agreements in the U.S. Labor Force." Journal of Law and Economics 64, no. 1 (February 2021): 53-84. https://doi.org/10.1086/712329.

Benmelech, Efraim, Nittai Bergman, and Hyunseob Kim. "Strong Employers and Weak Employees: How Does Employer Concentration Affect Wages?" Journal of Human Resources 57, no. S (2022): S200-S250. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.monopsony.0119-10007R1.

Startup formation and barriers:

Hathaway, Ian, and Robert E. Litan. "Declining Business Dynamism in the United States: A Look at States and Metros." Brookings Institution, May 2014. https://www.brookings.edu/research/declining-business-dynamism-in-the-united-states/.

Ethical and political philosophy:

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn, 1863.

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.

Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Louisville-specific sources:

• Louisville Community Data Center Cooperative Feasibility Study (NTARI, 2025)

• Louisville Metro Government, Annual Budget and Capital Improvements Plan (2024)

• University of Louisville Research Computing Needs Assessment (2024)

• Louisville Gas & Electric Commercial and Residential Rate Schedules (2024)

• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area (2024)

• American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Louisville Metro (2019-2023)

• Inside Airbnb. "Louisville Data." 2024. http://insideairbnb.com/louisville.

Cooperative governance sources:

Scholz, Trebor. "The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation: Workplace Democracy at Scale." Medium, 2016.

International Cooperative Alliance. "Cooperative Identity, Values & Principles." ICA, 2024. https://www.ica.coop/en/cooperatives/cooperative-identity.

Dow, Gregory K. Governing the Firm: Workers' Control in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Hansmann, Henry. The Ownership of Enterprise. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996.

Demutualization history:

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. "Demutualization Prospectus." SEC Filing, 2000.

Mayers, David, and Clifford W. Smith Jr. "Ownership Structure across Lines of Property-Casualty Insurance." Journal of Law and Economics 31, no. 2 (October 1988): 351–378.

Chaddad, Fabio R., and Michael L. Cook. "The Economics of Organization Structure Changes: A US Perspective on Demutualization." Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 75, no. 4 (December 2004): 575–594.

State preemption sources:

Institute for Local Self-Reliance. "Community Broadband: Map of Preemption and Other Barriers." May 1, 2024. https://muninetworks.org/communitymap.

Baller, James, Sean Stokes, and Casey Lide. "State Restrictions on Community Broadband Services or Other Public Communications Initiatives." Baller Stokes & Lide, 2024.

Tennessee v. FCC, 832 F.3d 597 (6th Cir. 2016).

Mitchell, Christopher, and Joanne Hovis. "Publicly Owned Broadband Networks: Averting the Looming Broadband Monopoly." Harvard Law School, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 2017.

Municipal broadband case studies:

Baller, Jim, et al. "Economic Impact of Chattanooga's Gig: An Assessment of EPB Fiber Optics' Impact on the Economy of Chattanooga and Hamilton County, Tennessee, 2010-2015." Baller Herbst Law Group, 2015.

Gilroy, Ashford A., and Anne K. Kowaiski. "Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs." Congressional Research Service Report RL30719, 2006.

Transition and network effects sources:

Drivers Cooperative. "Worker-Owned Rideshare in New York City: Annual Report 2023." 2024. https://drivers.coop.

Shapiro, Carl, and Hal R. Varian. Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1998.

Arthur, W. Brian. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events." The Economic Journal 99, no. 394 (March 1989): 116–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234208.

Odlyzko, Andrew, and Benjamin Tilly. "A refutation of Metcalfe's Law and a better estimate for the value of networks and network interconnections." Working Paper, March 2005.

AGPL-3 and open source licensing:

MongoDB, Inc. "Server Side Public License (SSPL)." 2018. https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license.

Free Software Foundation. "GNU Affero General Public License, Version 3." 2007. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html.

Federal broadband funding:

NTIA. "Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program: Kentucky Allocation." U.S. Department of Commerce, 2024. https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/funding-programs/broadband-equity-access-and-deployment-bead-program.

Network topology and power law distributions:

Barabási, Albert-László, and Réka Albert. "Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks." Science 286, no. 5439 (October 1999): 509–512. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5439.509.

Newman, M. E. J. "The Structure and Function of Complex Networks." SIAM Review 45, no. 2 (2003): 167–256. https://doi.org/10.1137/S003614450342480.

Non-compete and labor market studies:

Starr, Evan, J.J. Prescott, and Norman Bishara. "Noncompete Agreements in the U.S. Labor Force." Journal of Law and Economics 64, no. 1 (February 2021): 53-84. https://doi.org/10.1086/712329.

Benmelech, Efraim, Nittai Bergman, and Hyunseob Kim. "Strong Employers and Weak Employees: How Does Employer Concentration Affect Wages?" Journal of Human Resources 57, no. S (2022): S200-S250. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.monopsony.0119-10007R1.

Startup formation and barriers:

Hathaway, Ian, and Robert E. Litan. "Declining Business Dynamism in the United States: A Look at States and Metros." Brookings Institution, May 2014. https://www.brookings.edu/research/declining-business-dynamism-in-the-united-states/.

Ethical and political philosophy:

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn, 1863.

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.

Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Louisville-specific sources:

• Louisville Community Data Center Cooperative Feasibility Study (NTARI, 2025)

• Louisville Metro Government, Annual Budget and Capital Improvements Plan (2024)

• University of Louisville Research Computing Needs Assessment (2024)

• Louisville Gas & Electric Commercial and Residential Rate Schedules (2024)

• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area (2024)

• American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Louisville Metro (2019-2023)

Cooperative governance sources:

• Scholz, Trebor. "The Mondragon Cooperative Corporation: Workplace Democracy at Scale." Medium, 2016.

• International Cooperative Alliance. "Cooperative Identity, Values & Principles." ICA, 2024.

• Dow, Gregory K. Governing the Firm: Workers' Control in Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

• Hansmann, Henry. The Ownership of Enterprise. Harvard University Press, 1996.

State preemption sources:

• Institute for Local Self-Reliance. "19 States Restrict Local Broadband Solutions." May 1, 2024.

• Baller, James, et al. "State Restrictions on Community Broadband Services." Baller Stokes & Lide, 2024.

• Tennessee v. FCC, 832 F.3d 597 (6th Cir. 2016).

Transition and network effects sources:

• Drivers Cooperative. "Worker-Owned Rideshare in New York City." 2024.

• Shapiro, Carl and Hal R. Varian. Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Harvard Business School Press, 1998.

• Arthur, W. Brian. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events." The Economic Journal 99.394 (1989): 116-131.