Slashdot Mirror

They did get tax perks and didn't pay about 300 billion that would have been collected otherwise. So yeah it was government giving money to a special interest. A special interest with very strong lobbying.

Maybe he should try to get the telcos to give him some info? It's the least they can do with the 300 billion they've stolen from the public. I know it'd be doomed to failure but worth a shot.

Really only the company knows, and even then it's vague. When you get lines located for any reason they will show up, have vague information, and spend a little time wandering around locating the actual line and sticking flags/painting. Not unusual for them to miss something but if they missed it you're not liable to fix it.

The FCC has found that monopoly telcos are fine. The 1996 telco reform act tried to force them to play well with others - and we had thousands of ISPs open up getting everyone connected - but the FCC under Bush Jr and Powel's kid at the helm rolled all of that back. We're back to monopolies. Now try to be a startup and put something in a public right of way.. ha!

How do we know this? Because they've already done it successfully.

What's really needed, and would truly scare the pants off the current crop of robber barons, is a non-profit infrastructure company to come along and build municipal networks, and only manage and maintain the network piece with services being bought however the users want. I believe this could be done rather easily with today's tech, and be profitable for both the non-profit (meaning they could expand) and the service providers.

I gather you don't know anything about the Google Fiber project. They pulled last mile fiber. That was the whole point of the project: that the existing last mile was ancient, unupgraded, substandard crap, raped and abused and ignored by cable companies and telcos for the last half century, in the certain knowledge that when people decided it needed to be better, they could go crying to the government, get a HUGE handout, and pay every last dime of it out to shareholders as dividends, leaving their cable plant in exactly the same miserable state. Wash, rinse, repeat.

How do we know this? Because they've already done it successfully.

So Google did get to the front doors of all the people in Kansas City, and Charter and AT&T couldn't stop them, because the city agreed to it. Charter and AT&T's wires are still there, but they're going to lose 90% of their customers in a day. And they deserve to. Read that link. It will make you truly angry.

Actually the real reason why the people in the USA don't have the high speed networks is because they got cheated.

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html
http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm

Your argument might work if the telecos didn't sue the shit out of any city that tries to go DIY which we've seen time and time again. And don't forget that We, the People ALREADY PAID 200 billion for nationwide broadband and all we got in return was a low res Goatse from the telecos while they passed out the money to their CEOs for more hookers and blow.

I hate the FCC. They'll now have an extra 4.5 billion to give back to the major telcos, that already owe 300 billion in undelivered broadband. I harped on my local rep about this when he was head of the house subcommittee on telecommunications, but he was in the pocket of Telcos then. Since the telcos lobbied so hard to roll back the telco reform of '96, that ended up killing CLECs and ISPs, we know who will obviously win with a few billion more - the monopolies.

The libertarian answer would be to stop government mandated monopolies like we have. There used to be a few thousand ISPs and the local ones would bend over backwards to help people get online. Plenty of companies would be happy to hook you up, IF there was a fair playing ground. When the Telco reform was rolled back under Bush almost all those ISPs had to close because they couldn't compete against the monopolies again. So what should you do? Vote the bastards out of office who accept lobbying. Yeah that'd be most everyone but sooner or later we'd manage to get some good people in.

From a technical point of view, set up your own last mile. Meraki - now owned by Google - makes easy and good gear. A mile isn't that big of a deal for wireless and is rather cheap. Or your own cable.

I know it won't happen, but it seems like the best way to spend this subsidy money would be for the government to defray the cost from the best and cheapest rural Internet providers (or give out vouchers that people can use to pick their own supplier). That way there will be incentive to provide good service, and there will likely be service provided by more than just the companies that end up coming out on top and getting government money. I'm sure what they'll do instead is just throw money at anyone who provides even crummy service, and as a result they'll get the lowest denominator return on that investment. Maybe this plan won't work as well in monopoly industries like cable, but it seems like the majority of the markets would work better this way.

The government has already thrown money at corporations, and didn't get anything in return. I'd rather let businesses compeat in a free, that is freer, market. Get rid of radio frequency licensing and let people compete to provide wireless broadband.

Falcon

The FCC was basically established to maintain and regulate the phone companies in 1934.

Better read that again, the FCC and before it the FRC were created to regulate radio as well as telephone. Of course by requiring radio broadcasters to be licensed it ensured the dominance of large corporations, what has become known as "Mass Media".

I think unless they are going to start dropping rates when they start getting more and more money they shouldn't get shit.

Until they deliver what they were already paid for they shouldn't get shit. In what has become the $300 Billion Broadband Scandal so called providers have been given a lot of taxpayer money to build a broadband infrastructure. Did they? No, they pocketed the money as profits.

Falcon

A past FCC person and a telco guy followed the money trail and found agreements were made, taxes and subsidies were given to the tune of a 300 billion telco scandal. Just hold the past agreements accountable. But of course that won't happen. Hell my local congressman was head of the telecommunications subcommittee and always sided with his top donors - big telco, go figure.

Or put the 1996 telco reform back in effect, the one that demanded opening up the government mandated monopoly to competitors. This was stripped of power under Bush Jr when Powel's kis was put in charge of the FCC. Verizon sold their landline operations to Frontier. It's still a mandated monopoly, but Frontier did just put in the first DSLAM in this area. Some minor innovation a decade late. Those changes which initially allowed the local ISPs to open killed them when they were removed. Thousands of local ISPs dead because they couldn't compete against government mandated monopolies.

If that were true why was there parts of downtown Nashville with No cable or DSL when I was there a few years back? is the middle of music row in a cornfield?

No friend it is called 'cherry picking" and something the teleco duopoly has done for years. When my mom built her home more than 20 years ago the cable stopped exactly 2 blocks from her house. Now more than 30 households live on this small 2 mile stretch and how far is that cable now? Exactly 2 block from my mother's door, same as it was more than 20 years ago. They haven't moved a single inch in ANY direction in more than a decade here, despite ever more houses being built, because that would mean they would have to invest rather than put the money into their pockets and in the USA it is "damn everything but the quarterly report!" and has been for ages.

No we are gonna have to open up the last mile to competition and we are gonna build it ourselves if the companies won't, just as they refused to run electrical lines and water to most of the rural areas. And how much of that "cost" is private contractors and no bid contracts? If one would let the cities and the states build instead of having them buried in teleco lawsuits which is ironic since they are suing for customers they refuse to serve even if they win, well then I bet you'd see that price plummet.

The problem is the current system like the "stimulus" bullshit was done classic government style, which means it doesn't get done if Sen Porkus and Congressman Kickbackus don't get to throw some to their cronies who promptly raise their bids by 600% and act like they won the lotto. We should do it ourselves and demand that the 200 billion we gave the telecos back in 96 for nationwide broadband (who said "Gee thanks! and then gave us the finger, just like GE who took a bailout and used it to send another factory to India) be paid WITH interest in 90 days or we seize the last mile.

The ONLY way we are ever gonna catch up with the rest of the world is to stop tying the hands of the local and state governments and bust up the teleco monopoly on lines. They want a monopoly? Fine we'll give you 20 years for every currently underserved or unserved neighborhood you give FTTH. Make it 15 for every large city you change out, 20-25 for every small town. Otherwise all we are gonna get is ever nastier caps while the CxOs get extra hookers to snort blow off of while we get the short bus to the information superhighway.

I'd agree if we had universal broadband but we don't, not by a looooooong shot. Where my mom is is exactly 2 BLOCKS from where the cable and DSL ends. Gues how far they have advanced in 20 years since her house was built? Zero, nada, not an inch. The WISP out there is spotty at best, with several days a month with ZERO service and since they are in a valley half the time the cells won't pick up shit either.

So if they would use the fund to pay for at least a basic 200Kb DSL line to all those like my mom, or at least get our 200 billion we gave the ISPs in the 90s for nationwide broadband (where all we got was the finger) and use that to make sure all the old folks like my mom can get a reliable service? ALL for it. But until then the alternatives are just too spotty and unreliable compared to POTS.

How do we know they just won't pocket the money like last time?

http://www.newnetworks.com/BroadbandScandalIntro.htm/

Actually if you use Linux and Apple you WILL pay for patches, MSFT? Nope. At least that is what a friend at my local cableco has told me and I wouldn't be surprised if that is the same at other ISPs. Oh and you can't blame it on MSFT this time either, unless you want to blame them for the ease of use that is WSUS Server.

Because according to my friend that is what they are rolling out, your Windows Updates will be local thanks to WSUS and since Linux doesn't have a "one size fits all" repo and with Apple there are more iPads and iPhones than Macs so the cableco doesn't even think about them. According to my friend they'll be doing the same with Netflix, all the popular movies will be on a local CDN.

As for TFA? Yes the cloud is toast unless we take the last mile away from them. We have already paid them 200 billion yes with a B, for nationwide broadband and all we got in return was a nice view of the CEOs enjoying their new benefits and pay packages.

If you look up most ISP what you'll see is "cherry picking" where they pick out the best neighborhoods and then give the bird to the rest. When I was staying in Nashville just a couple of years back there were places in a city that size with NO broadband, as the ISPs had the places they wanted and fuck the rest. I know in my area the cableco hasn't moved a single inch in more than 20 years, not one inch. Still plenty of people in town that don't have squat, nobody cares as they have the most profitable neighborhoods.

So frankly if we don't take the last mile and open it up to real free market competition we're screwed. Already there are places like Romania kicking our asses, and things will only get worse. We are gonna end up on the short bus to the information superhighway while everyone else has Ferrari. This is a perfect time to put all those unemployed to work, start another WPA only for fiber to the home. They want a monopoly? every place they beat us with FTTH they'll get a 20 year monopoly. If it is a place that has NO coverage now? They'll get 30. Otherwise we should do them like they did us when we gave them that 200 billion, and just give them the finger.

I don't think that's good news at all. Apart from the data cap, $105/mo is a LOT of money. And, that is bundled with other services which means even more money. Where is our 45 Mbps bi-directional for $40/mo that we ALREADY PAID for? http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm I'd much rather have that than 105/10.

You didn't think the government strung all that fiber and installed all those routers did you?

No, but we the taxpayers sure as hell paid for it. And you can be damn sure that if the telcos had to build from the ground up (no pre-existing ARPANET), the Internet would have never happened.

Sincerely, from the bottom of my heart...bite me you corporate ass kisser. If you knew anything you'd know you ALREADY PAID to the tune of 200 billion and all you got for your money was a "LOL Goatse LOL!" pic from the ISPs who used the money to give themselves bonuses and trips to Vegas.

So instead of sucking down the corporate bullshit maybe you better ask yourself why even shitty countries like Romania are currently royally kicking our ass on speed, service AND pricing, while our ISPs can't think of anything better to do with the massive profits they are generating than to institute caps and find ways to get BOTH the websites AND you to pay while they give themselves another bonus, hmmm? Like everything else in our corporatist society the shit is falling down around our ears while the CEOs take their mistresses to the Bahamas and the poor can't even have email. WAKE UP!

Well then can we have our $200 billion back with interest that we paid the ISP for national broadband back in 96? No? Then STFU ISPs and get your asses to work! I propose we give them 90 days to pay back the money WITH INTEREST or we go eminent domain on their last mile infrastructure and open it up to competition!

You want a monopoly? We'll give you 10 years for fiber to the neighborhood, 15 for fiber to the home, and NO cherry picking! For each one we give you a monopoly on one unserved area must be added at the same speeds or you don't get ANY protection!

So lets cut the bullshit, we already paid for nationwide broadband and all we got for the money was a low res pic of Goatse and CEOs wiping their asses with OUR money. It is time to set them straight, give us what we paid for our we take back their public right of way and open competition up TO ALL like it was in the days of dial up.

Great writeup. When the country goes from thousands of ISPs back to only the ILECs (Baby bells) it's not market consolidation, it's the baby bells acting like the monopoly they are. It got really bad when Bush took office and put Powell's kid in charge of the FCC. All the good things of the '96 telco reform were removed and big telco won the internet access war. We have all suffered since.

Since I doubt we'll ever see a penny of the 300 billion we've already spent for nationwide broadband, or the ILECs ever getting punished, my only hope is new tech. Maybe aircraft that can loiter indefinitely, or blimps, can provide the last mile and Google's dark fiber is the savior. Maybe someone figures out quantum entangled routers. Any answer that leads to the baby bells going belly up would make my year.

I still have Portmaster 3s and a Portmaster 4 sitting in back, a DS3 trunk of modem cards in one box - ooh ahh! Those were the days.

Even after their telcos got USD200 billion worth in higher rates and perks, and screwed most of the US customers, the US people are saying "we get such crap speeds because the population isn't as dense".

http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm

Sure seems like they are pretty dense :).

http://www.newnetworks.com/FCCCITIbroadband.htm

In many cases, these are private companies that have invested literally billions of dollars in infrastructure

Frankly, this whole "net neutrality" debate is a total red herring being thrown up because the government has for years been trying to take over this industry unsuccessfully

Where are you basing these wild accusations? Sources, please!

Look at all of the posts on this. It all boils down to selfishness.

Since when has it been selfish for consumers to look out for themselves? Of course I want to pay less for more bandwidth and less latency. Thats called progress, dammit! And besides, telecom companies have been screwing the U.S. government and we the people for over a decade now.

In my opinion, the government should own and operate all of the telecom infrustructure and lease it out to the private sector to sell to the general public. This would bring down the barrier to entry in an industry dominated by a handful of players and lead to a much healthier market in general. On the other hand, <tinfoilhat>the government has complete control of the networks and that would certainly lead to the end of privacy on the internet as we know it </tinfoilhat>.

The best place for complete info is broadband scandal. Lots of footnotes, actual wording from contracts is included. It's a free ebook and worth a perusal at the least.

The 20 page NJ case study shows how bell was allowed a rate increase specifically for fiber to the home, took in a billion extra from this and only had an outlay of about 79 million. They also paid almost a billion extra in dividends.

What I blame the lawmakers for is making laws and rules and then never enforcing them, or even seeing if the rules are being carried out and/or turning a blind eye. I blame the telcos for stifling competition by acting like the monopolies they are.

You mean like the 200 billion we gave them last time, only to get the finger in return? Sadly probably all of it. But this idea does remind of me of something I've been wondering: Why don't we bring back the WPA? We got a hell of a lot of Americans out of work, and we got a hell of a lot of infrastructure that needs fixing and fiber that needs to be laid.

It seems to me the sensible thing would be instead of trying to extend unemployment benefits yet again, that we give folks a job. The work the original WPA did brought many of the rural states into the 20th century, a new WPA could bring the entire country into the 21st. With a new WPA We, The People could get nationwide broadband at affordable rates because We, The People will build it.

It seems a hell of a lot smarter to me than handing money to the same telecos that have fucked us before, but then again I was against the bailouts as well.

Agreements that were actually lived up to? Wow, that's a shock. Usually the telcos promise everything and deliver nothing. 300 billion worth of lies according to the last thing I saw

What about expecting them to give you what you paid for in the first place? we gave the cablecos/telecos tax breaks and incentives to the tune of 200 billion (yes with a B) under the promise that in return we would have nationwide high speed, what we got was the finger.

Personally I think we need to seize the last mile and open it up to true competition not this duopoly farce we have now. As it is the duopoly has cherry picked the places they want to compete, the rest? Go fuck yourselves as far as they are concerned. Add into that the "fuck everything but the quarterly report!" attitude that infects our publicly traded companies like a cancer, and you have many local thiefdoms that haven't spent a penny in years on upgrades, merely raising prices ever higher to pad their pockets. In my own area dialup runs around $70, DSL $100, and cable $156, which means the poor can't afford access at all, and everyone else gets squeezed harder every year.

I think we can all agree this shit has to change, as more and more interaction and commerce requires Internet those without will be much worse off, especially with regards to local and state governments which are increasingly switching everything online. Net neutrality is just a baby step, a way to keep the ISP from gouging at both ends or turning the net into a walled garden so they don't have to compete with regards to their services. But ultimately I don't believe the situation we have now is sustainable. The prices keep going up, the quality keeps going down, the only "healthy" thing about our networks now is the profits of the duopolies.

What's 300 billion between friends^H^H^Hpaid off congresspeople?

That plan cost us dearly, but never materialized. We shouldn't be paying for it again, but it sounds like we are about to, without a choice.

That plan cost us dearly, but never materialized. We shouldn't be paying for it again, but it sounds like we are about to, without a choice.

Hell there are good chunks of the country where you can't get diddly squat here in the USA! Where I live (Northern AR) the cableco and DSL haven't run so much as a single foot since the mid 90s. Not a single foot. My mom was 2 blocks away from cable when she built her house in 1982, guess how far away she is from the cable now? 2 blocks! Last time I lived there a few years back there were even parts of downtown Nashville where you couldn't get broadband!

The problem we have here in the USA is our "let the market handle it" has turned into a giant fail thanks to duopolies and cherry picking. The cable and DSL companies have taken all the choice neighborhoods and as far as they are concerned the rest can go fuck themselves. If anything I would say our service is getting worse since the duopolies are simply adding caps instead of running extra pipes in many places, as in my own case where I'm paying $150 a month for a whole 36Gb with $1.50 per Gb if I go over.

The only way things will get any better here in the USA is if we seize the last mile and open it up to true competition. There is even precedent for doing so, as We, The People paid the telecoms 200 billion for nationwide 15Mbps broadband, only to have them stuff it in their pockets and give us the finger. For those that wish to look up the relevant bill for themselves, it was the 1996 telecommunications act. If we leave it "to the market" thanks to the duopolies and cherry picking we will NEVER get nationwide broadband, and as more bandwidth intensive apps come to the cloud we will be left behind thanks to bandwidth caps.

Considering how important the Internet has become, and how it can change so many people's lives with everything from online classes to e-commerce, we simply can't afford to be left behind thanks to the short sighted "fuck everything but the quarterly earnings report" attitude of many of our telecoms today.

The ISPs are just pissed off that we paid them 200 billion for fat pipes, which they then stuck in their pockets (and if you want to read the bill which gave them the $$$, look up "telecommunications act of 1996" and see for yourself) and now we actually want what we PAID FOR they might not get to keep stuffing money in their pockets and might actually need to roll out some lines. The horror!

Uhhh...dude? I hate to break the news to you, but We, The People actually paid for those networks to the tune of 200 Billion (with a B) + in tax breaks and other incentives, and all we got in return was a fart in our general direction. Look up the telecommunications act of 1996 if you want to read the whole bill, but we gave over 200 billion in breaks and payouts for 45Mb nationwide broadband. What we got was the finger.

The telcos have already been subsidized via tarrifs and tax breaks to the tune of 300 billion. The FCC has some control over what the telcos charge, even if they are a legislated monopoly. In exchange the telcos were supposed to rewire most of the country. This wasn't just large cities, this was rural, suburban and city. This used to be called the 200 billion broadband scandal. It's now up to 300 billion.

This is a good read, a free ebook. The authors even sat on the FCC board. This is well worth sending an email to your congress critter. Sure most don't care or are in the pockets of lobbyists, but it can't hurt. (For example my rep Upton was the chair of the subcomittee on telecommunications. Biggest political donors were all telephone companies which he backed on everything - go figure)

The telcos* consider it a loss because they are fixated on next quarter's profits. they have never suffered a loss, going all the way back to when they got mandated to provide a step up from having to go to the local telegraph office. Never. They have bitched about it, but never a loss. Hundreds of billions in profits is more like it. Major global big league bucks. They still bitch though.

Investing in your base infrastructure yields profit a little farther down the road, and also helps the "general" economy as well, increasing the disposable income all your potential customers might be wanting to spend on your products.

Short range low brow thinking verus long range with a bit more skull sweat applied, choose *one*.

Look what our highway system did for commerce and the economy in general terms, everyone came out a winner. It was the main economic driver of the twentieth century in the US once all is said and done. Being able to move people and goods from any point A to any point B easily and cheaply *worked*. Granted, it brought more problems, that we are addressing now, but just like the clipper ships then the railroads increased trade, so did the good quality and widespread highway and automobile/truck system. It unlocked our geographical and human potential better than anything else.

We need a much better digital highway system. They don't want to do it, because it won't show immediate short term megaprofits. Wicked short sighted. Their idea of innovation is locking phones down and selling you *ringtones*.

These are not economic mastermind moves. This is short bus, wearing a helmet all the time action.

For example, they and the cable companies nailed the low hanging fruit, but refused to expand coverage past that point of the heaviest and densest population areas. As such, totally new competition came in and they missed all of that market for twenty years now, from wireless satellite TV service, and now somewhat more satellite internet. You look around, that's 50-100$ a month, that you can see most anyplace in the nation represented by dishes on millions of suburban and rural roofs, going to companies that *ain't them* because they refused to run some dang wires on poles that are already there, back when it was much cheaper to do so!

They are trying to make up for it now with cellphone coverage, but are still shooting themselves in the foot with restricted phones, etc, and not building their core business-supply a big fat pipe, and keep making it better-and bitching about stupid things like google taking money from them. Which is really a wtf? stance when you realize both google and the regular end users of google pay their bandwith as it is.

Lastly..they already DID get paid, 200 BILLION dollars in fees taken from everyone on their phone bill in the 90s, plus other goodies to roll out true high speed infrastructure all over, and failed to do so. Criminally in my view, as in RICO, fraud, theft by conversion, etc. As in some telco CEx whatevers should be doing hard time over this right now. This link has been provided many times over the years now on slashdot, but here it is again, for folks like you who continually spout the telco party line falsehood:

http://www.newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm

This has *never* been debunked. It HAS been ignored by the main stream controlled propaganda press, and also by "government".

As for selling ag at a loss, we did for over a full year during the big fuel and feed price run ups of '08, the vast bulk of which was perpetrated and profited by the big gambling investment casinos and speculator market, the non productive legalized urban NYC/DC axis of maximum profits skimming and theft crew, the ones who have their own employees running the Fed and the Treasury and who bribe off all the pols all the time. Drinking buddies with the telco execs no doubt..

If there was ever a big rural strike, to get straight wh

Dude, how fucking lazy are you? You can't even fucking Google it? Well just to show I'm a nice guy is PBS good enough for you? This ain't some big secret, or even something debatable like whether or not AGW is caused by CO2 or something else, this is pretty well written about. In Bill Clinton's first term he championed nationwide broadband, he got "the Telecommunications Act of 1996" which btw, feel free to look up, that gave the telecos/cablecos 200 BILLION for providing nationwide broadband.

What did we get? "Hey thanks for the free money. Now excuse us while we raise rates and don't run any lines. Oh yeah, go fuck yourself too!". is what we got. But hey, don't take my word for it. I just gave you the bill to look up and everything. Feel free to see how you paid for nationwide and got the finger. Of course if you can't Google it here is the FCC page, all 300 plus text files with all the little details. Oh and here is a free eBook that gives you plenty of facts, page numbers for the bills, etc. It is all there in B&W.

Like I said, it ain't no secret, they just screwed you, me, and everyone else in the USA raw and kept the money.

I think they are referring to what is now known as the $200 billion dollar broadband scandal. This is a link I had posted in my history and was thus easy to find, but type "200 billion scandal" and you'll find 100s of links with the same story. So it wasn't FUD, just a nice FU from the telecos.

We paid for nationwide broadband, we got the finger. This is why I support simply taking the last mile away from the duopoly and opening the lines up to REAL competition. In my own area neither the DSL or the cable has moved so much as a single foot in any direction in over 20 years. They seem content to simply raise rates, gouge their customers, and never spend a dime on upgrade or increased coverage. Sure they could make more money by increasing coverage, but thanks to day trading and the "damn everything but the quarterly report" attitude we have now with regards to stock price, they will get penalized with lower stock prices if they actually spend money.

That is why I think ultimately we have to nationalize the last mile, as otherwise most of those that don't have broadband now won't have it in 20 years either. Why do you think dialup is still alive? Don't buy that "folks don't want broadband" BS. I have plenty of relatives that would be happy to have broadband but where told dialup or fuck off. Not to mention the pretty constant rate hikes going on have slowly squeezed the poor right out of broadband service. In my neighborhood it is now up to $157 a month for basic cable, phone, and Internet that is 2Mb. They will NOT let you only buy Internet, it is all or fuck off, and the DSL lines here are so old that good luck getting above 100Kbs for that $50 a month, not counting all the phone charges they come up with. This crap seriously needs to change.

The taxpayer gave you Millions if not Billions back in the 90's for infrastructure upgrades

That's over 200 billion.

prove it

Not a problem...to get you started...

- $200 Billion of tax payer money given to telcos for promises never kept.

Where's the fiber?

Why have U.S. customers paid an estimated $200 billion in higher services rates and tax breaks for fiber-optic networks they never received?

I would suggest that when a corporation purchases another corporation, it purchases it assets and liabilities. I would be shocked if you did not agree with that simple premise.

Since those companies made promises to Americans via elected officials; any company that purchases them shall be held responsible for those promises. When a company purchases another company, their due diligence should expose these obligations. They are responsible for them regardless.

There is not a single area of the county where promises of fiber for tax dollars have NOT taken place. I suggest to you, prove that the company has NOT promised fiber.

How much fiber could they have already installed for $200 billion?

How much fiber could they install for the $1.8 million per week they spend lobbying our elected officials against net neutrality, competition and free/open markets?

Even pre-Clinton, as far back as 1991, the Bell companies made very promising statements about their commitment to fiber-optic networks.

prove it

Not a problem...to get you started...

- $200 Billion of tax payer money given to telcos for promises never kept.

Where's the fiber?

Why have U.S. customers paid an estimated $200 billion in higher services rates and tax breaks for fiber-optic networks they never received?

I would suggest that when a corporation purchases another corporation, it purchases it assets and liabilities. I would be shocked if you did not agree with that simple premise.

Since those companies made promises to Americans via elected officials; any company that purchases them shall be held responsible for those promises. When a company purchases another company, their due diligence should expose these obligations. They are responsible for them regardless.

There is not a single area of the county where promises of fiber for tax dollars have NOT taken place. I suggest to you, prove that the company has NOT promised fiber.

How much fiber could they have already installed for $200 billion?

How much fiber could they install for the $1.8 million per week they spend lobbying our elected officials against net neutrality, competition and free/open markets?

Even pre-Clinton, as far back as 1991, the Bell companies made very promising statements about their commitment to fiber-optic networks.

enjoy

Here, something worth reading if you haven't already.

Well I don't know about mobile but we did pay 200 billion for nationwide fiber and all we got was the finger in return. I wonder how much of that congestion would have been cleared up with so many folks being about to run wifi and set up ad hoc networks thanks to those big fat pipes?

Of course if they actually gave us what We, The People paid for, well there wouldn't be all these screams for caps and tiers, would there? And of course the *.A.As would have a living shitfit, as they would have to be drug kicking and screaming into the 21st century and might have to update their business model. Yep, we just can't anything like what we paid for, nope that would hurt profits! Think of the free market, the "invisible hand" and all that!

I think the teleco/cableco cartel duopoly is pretty much proof that the country is royally screwed unless we take the last mile and open everything up to REAL competition, instead of a couple of good old boy billionaire golfing buddies deciding to "cherry pick" the best spots and only compete there. Mark my words things are gonna get a hell of a lot worse before they get better.

I think crap like this is just more proof that we are gonna HAVE TO seize the last mile away from the duopoly and allow true competition. There is simply no other choice. We even have a legal reason to seize, as we paid them over $200 billion (yes that is billion with a b) to give us nationwide broadband, which instead they stuffed into their pockets and gave us the finger in return.

We should give them 90 days to pay up WITH interest, or seize the last mile. You want a monopoly, Mr Cableco/teleco? Then run a minimum 10Mbs line to those that have no high speed access now and we'll give you x number of years, double if you run fiber at better than 50Mbs to their door. But I think it should be pretty obvious by now what allowing a monopoly/duopoly has gotten us: a decaying infrastructure, ever higher prices for ever worsening services, with a few being "cherry picked" by the duopoly and the rest being left with ever shittier service, or like my mom with no service at all.

So while I usually am not a fan of government intervention the one place I have seen that government intervention is nearly always needed is the case of monopolies. Once the large monopoly gets set up it becomes too easy to burn the competition (or simply buy them out) and screw over the consumer thanks to the lack of any real choices on their part.Which is pretty much a textbook example of what we have here in the USA with the cableco/teleco situation. My local cableco hasn't moved a foot in any direction in a couple of decades, likewise with the teleco, because both have "cherry picked" the most populated areas and seem to have an agreement not to increase speeds or even to compete on price, so either one equals being gouged. This situation also hurts innovation in other areas, as for example if I were to run Linux every single update would count against my cap, but Windows updates do not.

So ultimately i truly believe the ONLY way the situation is ever gonna change is if we bust the duopoly and bring in real competition by seizing the last mile and making it open to competition. Sadly with treasonous bribery being SOP of our elected officials the more likely scenario is that we will fall further and further behind the rest of the world thanks to the backroom bribes....err I mean intense lobbying of the very same teleco/cableco duopoly. I have a feeling things are gonna get nothing but worse.

Which is why if we are ever gonna get nationwide broadband we are gonna HAVE to confiscate the last mile. There is simply no other choice. My mother has been 2 blocks short of cable since the house was built 29 years ago. Guess how far away she is now? Can you say "two blocks" because they and the DSL got together ages ago and decided to only "cherry pick" and refuse to serve anyone else? i think you can.

In the past dozen years I have seen no less than three different startups try to service the area, only to get run out on a rail by the combined might of the teleco/cableco duopoloy. The latest is a WISP, which I predict will be dead by spring. You see the backbone provider, which also happens to be the one that offers the substandard 19k dialup(yes that is no typo, you are lucky if you reach 33k on a good day) squeezes them on the price of backbone access until they simply can't offer their service at a price anyone can afford to pay.

I was told by a friend of mine who ran a startup in the area that they squeezed out that upon consulting a lawyer he was told expect the price of suing them to run close to 1 million dollars, and expect it to take a decade or more to wind through the courts, so he just shut up shop and moved away. The WISP, which started out at unlimited 1Mb for $50 and thanks to being squeezed is now only able to offer download limited 733k for $150, won't survive much longer.

So pretty much the ONLY way we are gonna get nationwide broadband is to kill the duopoly by seizing the last mile. We paid them billions in tax breaks to run lines they didn't bother to, so we have the reason to seize right there. We should give them 90 days to pay back every red cent with interest, or take the whole damned thing. if they want a monopoly? Run lines to those houses that have no broadband now and we'll give you x number of years as a monopoly with them. Double if you run fiber. If we don't do this then I have no doubt they will simply continue to "cherry pick" while everybody else gets to deal with oversold lines that continue to degrade as they aren't even spending money on maintaining the lines anymore. They are just too busy shoveling money into their pockets to give a shit.

This is 2009 after all, and the telecoms have already been paid for 45Mb/s symmetrical bandwidth to everyone.

No, they haven't. Where did this rumor start? If you actually check the facts, you'll discover that the government hasn't given the telecoms a single cent towards improving national broadband. Nothing at all.

The telecoms were given $200B in financial incentives in the 1990s to provide symmetrical 45Mb/s bandwidth and universal service. Read this, or at PBS. Or just Google it yourself.

The proper response to this news is not to push for regulation.

That would be true if cable and phone companies had not been given $200 Billion in subsidies. Conditions, like building out broadband and open access, should be applied.

It is lack of competitive choice for customers.

Agreed, but how many cable, fiber, phone, and power lines can the Easement carry? And how many businesses can muster the finances needed to lay them? The only solution I can see is separating the ownership of the infrastructure from ownership of the services it can deliver.

Falcon

their service will suck and customers will flee.

Not if that's the only choice for broadband. In most places people do not have a choice whom thy get broadband from. They either get it from a monopoly or they don't get broadband.

If they go over 10%, though, they're throwing money down the drain.

You're missing a key word here, specifically an adjective. That adjective being "taxpayer", which modifies "money". Taxpayers gave cable and phone companies $200 Billion in subsidies to build out broadband. But all these businesses did was pad their bottom lines, line their pockets.

Either they deliver what they were paid for, or they return the money and get out of the way of those who will provide what they refuse to.

Falcon

Yeah, try $200K and they will STILL fuck your neighbors for the "cost". How do I know? Because they had been telling my folks that they would run the two block to the house since they built in in 1982. Guess how far away they are now? That's right-two blocks. They haven't run any line anywhere in my area in decades.

So, since I had some cash from a settlement in the mid 90s, and there were several SOHOs down that round, that was only a quarter mile from end to end. I had a friend that worked at the cableco figure our roughly the cost of the line, he figured at the time $12k. We got together and offered them 15K PLUS guaranteed 5 year full package sales from the entire route. We figured it as over $230K over the 5 year contract. Do you know what their answer was?

They wanted $75000! PLUS FIVE years PLUS a 'fee for the cost of the line! That's right, they wanted a good $70k in profit (since the line layers here were on salary at the time) before they ever layed a fucking inch! And THAT is why we will end up having to seize the last mile, because we have PAID once already, and all we got in return was the finger. We should give them 90 days to repay that money PLUS interest, or we take it. if they want a monopoly? Get off their asses and run to the millions that aren't getting dick from them now! And we'll be nice and give them double time if they run fiber to the neighborhood, and add another five to ten for fiber to the door. Because otherwise we will NEVER get nationwide broadband, and will fall farther and farther behind the rest of the world. Monopolies are NOT capitalism, and as we have seen all we get from the teleco/cableco duopoly is a rotting infrastructure.

Then you should join with others in demanding that Obama seize the last mile away from the teleco cartels. Since it is pretty damned obvious by now that after giving them billions we are NEVER gonna get what we paid for. So either we allow BPL to give us an actual free market so all of those screwed by the telecos refusal to run lines can actually get broadband, or we seize the thing and open it up to an actual free market.

If they want a monopoly? Get off your ass and run lines to all of those can can get nothing now. Double the time you get if your run fiber to the door. But if we don't do something like BPL then millions of your fellow Americans will NEVER get broadband, ever. And don't think it is little jerkwater either. A couple of year back when I was in Nashville there were sections in the middle of town that couldn't get squat either. The telecos are content to sit on the huge piles of money and never run another inch of line if they can help it. My own personal Cableco hasn't moved an inch since 1985! So either allow BPL or push to seize the last mile, because broadband is getting to be like phone and water. You can't really get much of anything done anymore without it.

why would they release information about this only to quickly revert their intentions?

Good catch, you are right, they will NOT. They will keep pushing for this in every and all markets.

They have made it clear that they want everyones monthly bill to reach $150 per month, in all circumstances, no matter what.

Remember they (telcos) knew that you would need a minimum of 224 GB per month back in the year 2006. What CAP is being proposed in your market, 5 GB, 10GB, 50 GB, 100 GB? If the companies had used the Billions in our tax money and government funding to build out their Fiber offerings since 1994 as they promised they would, there would be no need for CAPs and the companies would all be making more money, even at $55.00 per month. It is over a 1000 percent markup over their costs. And their costs are decreasing, not increasing.

Per BellSouth's Chief Architect Henry Kafka (note his figures are blatantly WRONG) The average IPTV user will likely consume about 224 gigabytes per month

They have received Billions from the government to build out Fiber offerings since before 1996, here it is 2009, almost a decade after the Japanese got 100 MB / 100 MB for less than $55.00 per month. Now they are rolling out 1 GB / 1 GB for less than $55.00 thanks to government deregulation of NTT (the dominant telco in Japan).

Even Japanese NTT officiers have stated that they are making plenty of money, even while only charging customers $55.00 or less per month. (I saw this first hand on CSPAN, heard it from the officials mouth myself)

Not surprising when even US telcom officials have known for years that it costs them less than .50 cents to offer 1 GB of service to the customer.

Their profits have gone up, their bandwidth usages have gone down and they still want to maintain a scarce resource in order to drive up your monthly costs to $150 per month. All the while never giving you better than 20 - 40 Mbps down, who knows how they will throttle you to slow you down further or what your upstream speeds will be.

Another area they should have explored further is industry lobbying. They said that cable and phone companies spend $1.5 million per week in Washington

People the telecoms have been lying to you since before 1996, and continue to do so because you are gullible enough to buy their FUD .

Its almost a decade later and no one in the US has 100 MB / 100 MB internet for less than