Slashdot Mirror

I am less concerned about a mobile phone monopoly than I am about collusion amongst cable delivery companies. The fact that the large cable companies won't even try and compete with each other and openly acknowledge such a strategy is a far greater threat to my mind than a possible mobile carrier monopoly. I feel like 3 companies with a healthy churning market is better than a locked in cable market that exists today in a large portion of the North American market.

http://fortune.com/2015/05/19/...

https://muninetworks.org/conte...

For the record, I am more concerned with unregulated illegal immigration than I am with this proposed merger.

Should I then ignore this because there are more important issues?

I am less concerned about a mobile phone monopoly than I am about collusion amongst cable delivery companies. The fact that the large cable companies won't even try and compete with each other and openly acknowledge such a strategy is a far greater threat to my mind than a possible mobile carrier monopoly. I feel like 3 companies with a healthy churning market is better than a locked in cable market that exists today in a large portion of the North American market.

http://fortune.com/2015/05/19/...

https://muninetworks.org/conte...

the fight continues at the local level in Colorado for energy and data local autonomy from terrible corporations: https://muninetworks.org/conte....

The institute for local self reliance has been at this a long time: https://ilsr.org/ and the specific site for local internet, https://muninetworks.org/ .

Comcast succeeded in throwing its weight around in Seattle: https://ilsr.org/comcast-money... .

The battle of Pinetops North Carolina is critical here, there is a documentary about it even . https://muninetworks.org/conte... Trailer https://vimeo.com/222595040 .

Imagine having twenty service providers https://muninetworks.org/conte...

It's a hassle to figure out but it is possible to achieve victories in this area.

the fight continues at the local level in Colorado for energy and data local autonomy from terrible corporations: https://muninetworks.org/conte....

The institute for local self reliance has been at this a long time: https://ilsr.org/ and the specific site for local internet, https://muninetworks.org/ .

Comcast succeeded in throwing its weight around in Seattle: https://ilsr.org/comcast-money... .

The battle of Pinetops North Carolina is critical here, there is a documentary about it even . https://muninetworks.org/conte... Trailer https://vimeo.com/222595040 .

Imagine having twenty service providers https://muninetworks.org/conte...

It's a hassle to figure out but it is possible to achieve victories in this area.

the fight continues at the local level in Colorado for energy and data local autonomy from terrible corporations: https://muninetworks.org/conte....

The institute for local self reliance has been at this a long time: https://ilsr.org/ and the specific site for local internet, https://muninetworks.org/ .

Comcast succeeded in throwing its weight around in Seattle: https://ilsr.org/comcast-money... .

The battle of Pinetops North Carolina is critical here, there is a documentary about it even . https://muninetworks.org/conte... Trailer https://vimeo.com/222595040 .

Imagine having twenty service providers https://muninetworks.org/conte...

It's a hassle to figure out but it is possible to achieve victories in this area.

the fight continues at the local level in Colorado for energy and data local autonomy from terrible corporations: https://muninetworks.org/conte....

The institute for local self reliance has been at this a long time: https://ilsr.org/ and the specific site for local internet, https://muninetworks.org/ .

Comcast succeeded in throwing its weight around in Seattle: https://ilsr.org/comcast-money... .

The battle of Pinetops North Carolina is critical here, there is a documentary about it even . https://muninetworks.org/conte... Trailer https://vimeo.com/222595040 .

Imagine having twenty service providers https://muninetworks.org/conte...

It's a hassle to figure out but it is possible to achieve victories in this area.

Not sure what the OP is peddling, but the fact is that SFO's budget is sheer fantasy already without adding the ridiculous cost of shoving fiber-internet everywhere.

Even in California you can't build infrastructure out of candy, unicorns, and rainbows.

Maybe they heard that municipal broadband is frequently profitable after a few years. Given their track record, San Francisco will probably manage to be one of the few that isn't...

You start a small internet provider for your neighborhood, convincing all of your neighbors to invest. You go get an expensive resellable gigabit (or 10 gig) internet feed, and then run fiber from the feed to everyone's homes.

Oh no, small startup ISPs that disappeared in the 1990's won't be able to be restarted up! Seriously, that hasn't happened in decades, even without regulations.

Also, the trade group of small and/or municipal ISPs wrote to the FCC saying that they were fine under Title II

If the government did it, they would be putting the finishing touches on their plan to roll ISDN

Like they did in Chattanooga, TN, Longmont, CO, and tens of other cities across the US? Oh wait, you said ISDN, not Gigabit fibre.

I'm not a big government fan, but when it comes to services that have reached utility level (aka everyone needs them to function in society, like water, electricity, and now internet access) the profit driven "free market" approach only seems to create monopolies that drive up prices and lower the quality of service.

Sigh. Again, this isn't a free market. Remember "billions in subsidies"?

The other issue is that this isn't like water and electricity. The same standards of delivery for those services was the same 100 years ago. Broadband has changed dramatically in the last 5 years. There is simply no comparison.

I have no problem at all with municipal broadband competing in a market on a level playing field (meaning they also have to provide service to places that might not be lucrative), which is mostly what you see in Chattanooga. But it can't be an either/or.

If the government did it, they would be putting the finishing touches on their plan to roll ISDN

Like they did in Chattanooga, TN, Longmont, CO, and tens of other cities across the US? Oh wait, you said ISDN, not Gigabit fibre.

I'm not a big government fan, but when it comes to services that have reached utility level (aka everyone needs them to function in society, like water, electricity, and now internet access) the profit driven "free market" approach only seems to create monopolies that drive up prices and lower the quality of service.

I'm gonna quit Frontier ASAP for backing this kind of nonsense...
http://www.telecompetitor.com/...
https://muninetworks.org/conte...
https://www.benton.org/headlin...
https://psmag.com/the-fight-ov...
" AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, CenturyLink, Verizon, Frontier. To stay in power, they’ve fought against cities and municipalities in state legislatures across the country.
“It’s been kind of a war,” says Christopher Mitchell, the director of the Community Broadband Networks Initiative. “It’s rare for states to do much [Internet] building. Cities want to invest in more competition. But states, acting on behalf of cable and telephone companies, prevent that from happening.” "

Fellow readers, beware of astroturf comments.

We know that the big companies hire agencies to send fake letters of support to government agencies, letters purported to come from everyday people in support of whatever the big company wants to do at the time.

We also know that the big companies hire agencies to send fake letters of support from politicians that support whatever the big company wants to do at the time. We know that political campaigns do the same thing.

I've been interested in ghostwriting/astroturfing for awhile now. It seems reasonable that if a company has enough money to mount a fake grassroots campaign, then some of that money would be put towards shaping public opinion on public boards.

Especially a highly popular board frequented by all the smart people in the country.

Looking at one previous article about network access I can't help but get the impression that people are reaching around backwards to make their point. The plight of all those poor, twisted arguments brings a tear to my eye.

Really - watch the commentary on these articles and see if any of the arguments seem weak or contrived.

We may be infested with astroturfers.

Much of the data is over 10 years old, but here's how we answered the bulk of questions in 2004: http://www.geneva.il.us/index.... 1. No local ISP was created as the referenda did not pass at the polls. 2. See this write up: http://www.dslreports.com/show... 3. Yes. See here for current info - http://www.muninetworks.org/ 4. The first time around in 2003, the build was to be backed using General Obligation bonds (tax-payer backed) and was put on the ballot by the elected officials. When the issue went to the polls the second time in 2004, it was put on the ballot by CITIZENS COLLECTING SIGNATURES and the referenda question specifically blocked any taxpayer exposure (fund it any way you like but there can be no taxpayer risk). It was still spun by the incumbents as being a tax risk.

For a moment, let go of the myth that inefficient government is some kind of natural law and not propaganda, and read this:
http://www.muninetworks.org/co...

I agree that anyone with a house paid off and a job in their area is not going to move. However, that same person, with a house paid off, but no job, better move or have investments paying a livable wage or the property taxes will eventually cost their heirs the home.

Those looking for a job, should seriously consider making the jump to a Symmetrical FTTH community sooner rather than later.

Of course you can always get DSL, dd-WRT on a supported firewall/router, has shown me that unthrottled DSL is faster than over 80% of throttled cable service. Remember, 100% of cable internet service is throttled, its only a matter of how much, not if. In a few areas where symmetrical FTTH competition exists and the oligopoly has not been able to pass legislation (see red states especially) at the state level to prevent competition, they actually throttle less than normal, thus only there is Cable internet faster than DSL.

If you are shopping for internet access and can not get symmetrical FTTH, than go DSL for Internet. If you want cable for TV and movies, so be it, but never package anything else with it. No phone, no Internet with Cable TV & movies unless you want to be gouged forever. As that will cost you much, much more over time, then getting them separately. Better just to go straight to DSL for internet, if you can not get FTTH.

Yup, the government should step in when private industry is either unwilling or unable to provide essential services at a reasonable cost, the keywords being essential and reasonable.

The reverse sadly is true today. Local governments, likely under the influence of paid lobbyists working for existing corporate/telco interests, are actively writing laws to block the spread of broadband. Read for yourself the story of how the Kansas Legislature is trying to stop Google Fiber from expanding in Kansas.

Best part is: the Senate bill states that the goal is to

"encourage the development and widespread use of technological advances in providing video, telecommunications and broadband services at competitive rates; and ensure that video, telecommunications and broadband services are each provided within a consistent, comprehensive and nondiscriminatory federal, state and local government framework."

Switching providers or to the competition is a fallacy since most places don't have any competition anymore thanks for franchise agreements, or at best a duopoly especially in the US. To REALLY "switch" people have to be willing and able to move and to invest in places that do have good broadband infrastructure and to ignore and economically affect those that do not. Supporting municipal networks, Google Fiber, and Sonic type projects and stop giving money to providers who cap. Aside from that property values, business investment, even tax dollars. These are now our weapons. The US is lucky enough to still have a private sector and local govts who have the means to build alternative networks. This is a luxury that many other countries like Canada do not. Support it and nurture it. Do not let these bastards win.

Others in the fight.
http://stopthecap.com/
http://www.muninetworks.org/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/186439608067383/ - Stop AT&T from capping, a FB group though no action is really happening. It's just a place to meet other like-minded folks

We have authoritarianism, it just gets its power from corporate lobbing and campaign donations instead.

NC started a few public fiber in some towns, so Time Warner lobbied and made broadband operating as any other public utility illegal, ignoring the protests of many local tech businesses and even the FCC.

Allow any telecommunications company to put cables on the pole and we'll have a similar situation to what we have with cellphones. Cellphones are also very regulated but they're less regulated then cable and telephones.

They should be tarred and feathered if they do anything less than Fiber To The Home. Normally its the oligopoly paying millions to create legislation to prevent competition. I would rather see them spending $1.2 Million (and more) per week putting in Fiber than lobbying politicians to prevent competition.

Since they will not behave and provide decent bandwidth, the ONLY solution is government intervention as in Japan. Had this happened in America in 1996 rather than the telecommunication regulation the oligopoly got passed, there would be very few communities in America without Fiber To The Home today.

With the money they have wasted they could have laid Fiber To The Home, three, four or five times. What they have done, does not protect their shareholders, pierce their corporate veil and take away their monopolies....history shows us there is no other effective option.

What is their excuse for FRAUDULENTLY declaring their service to be BROADBAND when they restrict bandwidth both upstream / downstream to less than 768Kbps?

In EVERY case the less than 30 communities that have FTTH, the oligopoly has attempted (and failed) to use laws and the courts to prevent competition.

They get away with this because of REGULATION and legislation they helped create. Japan has shown that ONLY deregulation and forcing them to provide will work. It is ironic that after deregulation, these players will be in the dominant position simply because they have the license to control that fiber infrastruture.

Smart communities will control the infrastructure for their citizens and let the oligopoly offer services only from the community owned telco exchange out. This is what most of, if not all of the FTTH communities are doing and it is working very well for their citizens.

But the network isn't one, especially compared to their competitors.

Based on the networks in these 30 communities, I would disagree with you.

Not all of Verizon FIOS Internet plans offer the same bandwidth upstream as downstream. And such bandwidth ONLY exists in 30 communities in the USA as of July 2012. Pathetic.

And they have worked with others in their industry to pass laws in 18 states to prevent competition, how un American and anti-capitalistic of them.

Comparing them to any other non FTTH competition is not meaningful. It was not meaningful as of the year 2000, even more condemning as of 2012. Without government intervention, we will have the same problems 20 years from now. Why stifle innovation, prevent job growth, decrease economic activity by denying bandwidth when it simply is NOT necessary with a true FTTH network.

They do not have to do this, but they do anyway.

They are easy to criticize as there is no excuse to limit the upstream bandwidth. Only 5Mb on a 50Mb/5Mb plan. Yes its better than Cable. However there is NO technical reason for it not being 50Mb/50Mb and offering lower priced (under $50 per month) plans of 5Mb/5Mb, 10Mb/10Mb, 15Mb/15Mb, 20Mb/20Mb....plans where the effective cap is the plan. No one is going to max out all their plans. In fact I seriously doubt if 1% of Americans could max out a 5Mb/5Mb plan, much less a 50Mb/50Mb plan.

If you use Verizon FIOS and either OpenWRT, DD-WRT or Tomato firmware on your firewall router, do they throttle/limit your service? My guess is they do....but I would like proof one way or the other. Just don't use the lying Speed Test to determine this, try downloading a couple of large files and do a quick screen capture of the bandwidth log and that will be telling. As well as make over 90% of Americans very jealous of your excellent service.

Seems to work in a number of municipalities where the courts allow it. See: http://www.muninetworks.org/

Some variations that may be better in some locations:
Municipally owed cables or conduits that independent organizations can lease access to provide internet service.
Mutual (cooperative) ownership of the cable and or internet service provider by customers and possibly employees.

For those with interest, the bill is here:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H129

There's good analysis and info here: http://www.muninetworks.org/taxonomy/term/564
http://www.muninetworks.org/content/natural-monopoly-north-carolina-need-community-networks-and-competition
http://www.newrules.org/information/news/bill-limit-community-broadband-north-carolina-will-kill-jobs
http://stopthecap.com/2011/03/08/broken-promises-rep-marilyn-avila-r-time-warner-says-one-thing-in-public-another-in-private/

Basically, it's a bill written by Time Warner with the goal of killing municipal broadband and the competition and increased service it brings.
They want to morgage our future competitiveness for a few thousand in campaign contributions, and I'm mad as hell about it.

I think this is the 3rd time a similar bill has come up, and it's more likely to pass with the greater Republican presence this go-around..

For those with interest, the bill is here:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=H129

There's good analysis and info here: http://www.muninetworks.org/taxonomy/term/564
http://www.muninetworks.org/content/natural-monopoly-north-carolina-need-community-networks-and-competition
http://www.newrules.org/information/news/bill-limit-community-broadband-north-carolina-will-kill-jobs
http://stopthecap.com/2011/03/08/broken-promises-rep-marilyn-avila-r-time-warner-says-one-thing-in-public-another-in-private/

Basically, it's a bill written by Time Warner with the goal of killing municipal broadband and the competition and increased service it brings.
They want to morgage our future competitiveness for a few thousand in campaign contributions, and I'm mad as hell about it.

I think this is the 3rd time a similar bill has come up, and it's more likely to pass with the greater Republican presence this go-around..

So local companies, with all sorts of incentives and tax breaks, built last mile infrastructure. Once the risk was reduced, and it became a rental income game, big telco bought out the local companies, and inherited all the perks. These networks have been taxpayer subsidized forever, and these companies have done little or nothing to contribute.

example: http://www.alts.net/ns1625/telephone.html

Bell, for example, doesn't actually do much of anything. All the line maintenance is contracted out anyways. The essentially act as general contractors. Risk, innovation, etc... are alien. It's all about milking clients for all they are worth, while maintaining the poorest infrastructure they can get away with.

Any new provider would ought to have access to the same advantages as Bell did, but the fundamental economic problem is that bandwidth is like roads. The most efficient number of roads between two points is 1. Competition by duplicating infrastructure is fundamentally inefficient, and is the fundamental barrier to competing with incumbents.

I would be a lot happier if bandwidth were a municipal service, like water, and it came to a local CO where various ISP's could install their PoPs and maybe local termination. Optionally, the city could even negotiate with wholesale ISP's for bandwidth, or just stay out of it and only work on the last mile. What is important is that the last mile stuff would be neutral, and guided by citizen interests (ie. ever more bandwidth) and not conflictual corporate ones (Bell as ISP and phone company, and Cable operator.)

http://www.muninetworks.org/content/lafayette-offers-100mbps-residential-tier-and-ruminations-bandwidth-caps

See these guys? talking over terabit limits? far cry from 20 G's.

At the very least, there should be laws against "convergence" which clearly puts Cable companies in a conflict of interest when dealing with NetFlix, and other network based streaming services. A pure play ISP would be thrilled, converged cable/content providers are deeply conflicted.