Slashdot Mirror

Expect Comcast to go to the state legislature to thwart this.

That might work in Alabama, but not in Massachusetts. Comcast is in bed with the Republican Party.

The 20 states with bans or roadblocks to municipal broadband are mostly Red.

"Ajit Pai Wants To Raise Rural Broadband Speeds From 10Mbps To 25Mbps

One way would be to stop impeding municipal districts implimenting their own broadband infrastructure.

Municipal Broadband Is Roadblocked or Outlawed in 20 States

Another would be to fix outdated broadband maps based on flawed survey methodology claiming there is coverage when there isn't: https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/24/17882842/us-internet-broadband-map-isp-fcc-wireless-competition

"the FCC’s methodology declares an entire ZIP code as “served” with broadband if just one home in an entire census block has it. As a result, the government routinely declares countless markets connected and competitive when reality tells a very different story."

"Ajit Pai Wants To Raise Rural Broadband Speeds From 10Mbps To 25Mbps

One way would be to stop impeding municipal districts implimenting their own broadband infrastructure.

Municipal Broadband Is Roadblocked or Outlawed in 20 States

It's funny to me that on a site like Slashdot, we can have a confluence of the raging "I hate Windows", the blind recommendations of "everyone should switch to Linux" and at the same time admit that we are subject to ISP's where a 100 MB download is something we need to be concerned about.

If technology is your true obsession in traditional Slashdot sense, then you could really care less about people running Windows because it's not you. You're already running Linux and think the rest of the world should just give up, and you're paying for gigabit fiber because #fiber.

If you're anyone else, Windows gets the job done, you don't notice or don't care that 6 stupid games appeared minutes after installing your computer and quickly figured out you could right-click and uninstall them and go about your business. You'll not even be aware that the ISP's covering the majority of the population have either eliminated data caps (Comcast) or have caps so reasonably high (>350 GB) that a few hundred MB on a wasted game download is inconsequential (CenturyLink, AT&T, Cox) or you'll be thankful that in Windows you can set a connection as Metered to limit background downloads.

https://broadbandnow.com/inter...

Last I checked (February 2018), the U.S. FCC defined "broadband" as 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up. This was true since 2015. In 2010, the definition was 4 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up. Are you using the FCC's pre-2010 definition of 0.2 Mbps symmetric? If not, whose definition of "broadband" are you using that includes 1.5 Mbps down?

For those who lack imagination:

Tennessee is one example.
Michigan Republicans are trying something similar.
It's part of a push by the Koch brothers.
And their effort has been quite successful.

Or nothing of course we support 1.5 Mbps DSL. Comcast has the government-granted monopoly over most of Seattle, but the the city council doesn't require them to offer service for their entire monopoly area.

Hmmm... BroadbandNow says that Comcast has 95.1% coverage in Seattle. Even more relevant to your claim, when I punch 6200 53rd Ave NE, the same address in your CenturyLink screenshot, into xfinity.com, it shows options of up to 400MBps. What's the problem?

Lots of companies offer faster services, fast lanes does not equate to throttled or blocked traffic.

Er what? That's like saying there's plenty of Google fiber in the country. Just not in my neighborhood or many other neighborhoods, but man, is Google Fiber fast.

With LTE 5 and ViaSat 2 that just went up, and Viasat 3 going up in 2019, Facebook & Google offering internet access, within 5 years, Intenet access will be even more accessible and global.

Again what? Mobile isn't a replacement for broadband. Fiber that isn't in my neighborhood isn't a suitable replacement. Like many Americans, all we have limited broadband options. It isn't also about money. For example, broadband availability for 90210 shows 1 viable cable and 1 DSL provider (Time Warner Spectrum and AT&T) for most of the zip code. There are 4 broadband providers but 2 of them only service 3% of the area. There are 2 satellite services. There is no fiber option. I would say that 90210 is a pretty affluent zip code. And yet they can't get more than 2 choices.

FCC is working on guidelines to communities to allow new community ISPs and new companies to run services to the pole.

Are we talking about the same national ISPs that sued local municipal ISPs from providing service to towns that they themselves didn't service?

The FCC deregulating ISP's so smaller ISP's dont have the same regulations as big carriers and can now evenly compete again.

Again the history of ISPs shows that the big carriers will not tolerate smaller ones. This has the opposite effect of what you are saying.

All I see is so much hyperbole and chicken little "sky is falling" without any facts to back them up. Its all "What if" scenarios, for a bill that's only been in place for 2 years and didn't fix the monopoly issue.

So your argument against net neutrality is that it was put into place for 2 whole years and it didn't break up monopolies that have been in place for decades besides the fact net neutrality was never meant to break up the monopolies. Ever. The regulations were in place to keep the monopolies from gaining an unfair advantage, not to break them up.

Direct link to list - for others who despise triple-meta reporting: https://broadbandnow.com/internet-providers-with-data-caps

Looks like plenty of players here with small shares to me http://broadbandnow.com/Fiber

Everyone on the 21 pages after page 4 in this list:
http://broadbandnow.com/All-Pr...

Most are rural providers that only cover a few thousand subscribers over a large area, and only have a few employees. Installation and cable work are contracted out, and lines are piggy-backed on existing telecommunication wires. Equipment is co-located at the telcos. Most of the "offices" I've seen are storefonts in strip malls.

There is no monopoly. There are already 28 ISPs in Brooklyn New York:

http://broadbandnow.com/New-Yo...

... the only reason Google Fiber can come to KC is that we don't have municipal enforced monopoly on Internet service.

Nobody has a municipal-enforced monopoly on Internet service. There is a municipal monopoly for wired telephone service, but not for Internet OR cable TV. At least there are no municipal-enforced cable monopolies anyone has been able to cite. Every one that someone has tried claiming is a government monopoly wasn't when you actually look at the franchise ordinances.

Even before Google, we could choose between AT&T, Time Warner, and Comcast.

This site says there are 25 providers, although it appears that they are listing different modes of delivery as different providers (U-Verse as both DSL and fiber, e.g.), so the number of different companies is less.

If I were a Mayor of a city that AT&T serves; I would respond by saying that this will mean the city will need to start rolling out it's own gigabit network now.

AT&T can't complain that the city is competing with them, if AT&T isn't providing the service in the first place.

Of course. Which is why they (among others) support blocking municipal broadband networks.