Slashdot Mirror

No, the city only provides the pipe, an ISP provides the actual internet service.

The city IS the ISP. Lmgtfy: here: "SandyNet is the Internet Service Provider owned by the people of Sandy and operated as a public service by the City of Sandy." Now tell me again how the city only owns the pipes. Tell my how ANY municipal ISP service "only provides the pipes". If they only provide the pipes, they aren't an ISP -- BY DEFINITION.

I wasn't talking about Sandy, OR, I was talking about my local municipal fiber network, Utopia, that link is a list of the 9 different ISPs that provide service on the network. Comcast and Century Link have also been invited to provide ISP service on the network, but they prefer to lobby the state government to shut down Utopia, just like in Virginia. As the article notes, this isn't the people telling their government to ban municipal networks, this is the Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association, a cable industry group, pushing the legislation.

An open municipal network provides way more competition that currently exists because it lowers the barriers to entry for ISPs,

You have got to be joking. It increases the barriers to entry. If you know that you're going to have to charge a price for services that competes with a non-profit taxpayer backed service that can operate at a loss, you're not going to try. Your barrier is now the fight you'll have to make to get any subscribers, and a need to make a profit.

I am talking about ISPs that run over the municipal network. Any company that meets the basic requirements are free to offer internet, phone or video services on the network. The barriers of entry are much lower than a service provider that has to string cable across the city (if they are even allowed to).

If you are in favor of healthy competition you should be in favor of municipal networks.

The world of 1984 and Ministry of Truth has arrived.

No, ignorance is not truth and freedom is not slavery. This isn't 1984, and my city government is not Big Brother. How many ISPs can you get gigabit internet from? I have at least 10 that I know of, if that's not competition then what is?

At its core, government is the people banding together to provide those same people with services. It's no different than a farm co-op. Yes, government (particularly at the national level) is growing much larger than I would like to see it but at the local level there is still a great deal of control by the people and a method for firing elected officials that don't use the people's money wisely. You are just so convinced that government == bad (and probably taxation == theft) that you just can't even conceive the notion of the government providing a useful service for the people. Society doesn't exist for businesses to make a profit, it exists to better the lives of the people in the society. I think that basic services that everyone or most everyone in the city use should be provided by the government to keep costs down - because the people banding together to provide the service is more efficient (read: cheaper) than having a company do it with the associated profit margin. These services include roads, police, firefighters, water, sewer, power, and in my view, communications. If it's something that everyone needs to use then why should the people pay a middleman (a for profit company) to build such services when they can provide it themselves, via government.

Incidentally, here is a White House report on how municipal networks spur competition, but I'm sure you'll immediately discount it because Obama is the debbil.

I can see yo

I was in Utah about a decade ago when UTOPIA was rolling out; 15x15 (super-fast 10-12 years ago, looks like $5 less for 100x100 now) for $40/mo ... couldn't drop Comcast fast enough, though they did send a retention guy to my house to try to get me to stay. Offered me an 8x3 (fastest they could do in my area) like for $30-something. Pretty sure I laughed.

Salt Lake CIty has some other things going for it, like being right next to Utopia cities and being close to Google Fiber's existing network in Provo. Google already interconnects with Utopia so it would probably not require as much infrastructure for Google to deploy in Salt Lake as it would in other cities.

What city would that be?

I don't want to give out TOO much personal information but I live in one of the 15 cities participating in the Utopia network.

they will act like any other local utility and tell you to wait 5 years until they gather enough data that there is a demand for it, then take another few years to study the problem, then spend another 5 years begging for money in the budget and finally upgrading the network

Actually, go check out Wilson, North Carolina. They embarrassed Time Warner so badly, Time Warner strongarmed the state into making municipal broadband illegal. It creates a lot of cognitive dissonance with the "government can't do anything right" crowd.

Which is hilarious considering the current system is just government-granted monopoly anyway, yet they defend it voraciously because, uh...privatization!

That's what is happening in my state, only it is Comcast that is buying off the state legislature to try to kill Utopia. I'm so glad that these 2 companies are going to merge so that they can more efficiently purchase our elected officials.

Um after the healthcare.gov disaster you want a government organization to provide your local internet. I will pass on the bright idea.

Just because the government owns the network doesn't mean that it runs it. My city has a municipal fiber network and I couldn't be happier. Fast speeds, low price and good service from my (local) ISP. Any ISP/Phone/TV provider is welcome to provide service on it.

Right now, the network is run by the Utah Infrastructure Agency which is a quasi-government company, but the cities are currently considering a proposal by a private company to manage the network and complete the buildout to every home in the member cities. The proposal sounds like a pretty good one -- everyone in the city gets a 3 MB symmetrical connection for free (included in taxes, anyway), a little extra will get you whatever speed you want. My current connection is 30 Mb symmetrical but you can get 1 Gb if you want. So the government (which technically is the people) own the network but a private company will operate and market it. Open access, any company can provide services and they seem to be able to pull it off for less money than Comcast charges so what's the problem?

Your imagination tells you a government-owned network would be a bad thing but I am actually experiencing it and it is good. I don't want the feds to own my network but I am just fine with my city government owning it, at least there is a LITTLE accountability there. (BTW if anyone is in a Utopia city watch for public meetings for the proposed Macquarie Capital deal, Orem, Murray and Centerville are having them tomorrow. Let your voice be heard!)

The core issue is whether a government should be providing a service. But that should not be an issue.

The government should provide the pipes (fibre or copper or whatever) to the houses that it covers. Paid for by taxes.

The pipes terminate at a government facility that the government leases space at to ANY AND ALL companies that want to provide ISP services over those pipes. As cheap as possible but without allowing one company to lease ALL the space.

Then switching between ISP's should be as simple as moving a patch cord.

Your taxes pay for the pipes and their maintenance and the facility and its maintenance (minus the lease revenue).

This is how my fiber network is operated. The 15 member cities contributed to the network and their residents are seeing the benefits. I can choose what ISP I want (but I would probably never change because I LOVE my ISP) and any ISP, telephone or TV provider can provide service over the network. If my ISP starts any Comcast-style extortion shenanigans with service providers then I can simply switch, there aren't constraints on who owns the wire like private cable/telco networks.

If course Comcast and US West/Qwest/Century Link fought tooth and nail against the network and they are fighting it still. I think the last tactic was getting a bill introduced in the state legislature to prohibit the Utopia network from selling any network service in cities that border Utopia cities. This is just a long line in bills written by the cable lobbyists but so far the cities have resisted [crosses fingers].

So if 15 cities can get something like this done in Republican dominated, pro-business Utah then what's your city's excuse? It's not that hard to get something done on a city level if you can get a few voters on board. The Internet has quickly become an almost indispensible part of life and a majority of a person's day-to-day business (paying bills, communicating with friends, scheduling appointments, etc.) is conducted over the network. It has become important enough that cities should treat it like the utility that it is. Put pressure on your local elected officials to get your own network and bypass the attempted takeover of the Internet by Comcast.

That is why the community should own the wires or they should be regulated as a utility. Then access can be leased to competing ISPs.

The UTOPIA project pioneered the model (though they also showed a lot of early mismanagement), but it is now being proven by other communities across the country.

http://www.utopianet.org/
http://www.freeutopia.org/

Lobby your local city and county officials to support the installation of fiber infrastructure. Along the Wasatch Front we have the excellent UTOPIA project, which brings fiber to the home. Local cities used bonds to support setting up the infrastructure, and home owners pay for the connection from the street to their house. The fiber infrastructure is treated like a utility and any ISP can compete for your business. I have a symmetric 100 MB connection for about about 1/3 less than Comcast was charging me for a 15 MB connection, and I get MUCH better service.

Along the Wasatch Front we have the excellent UTOPIA project, which brings fiber to the home. The fiber infrastructure is treated like a utility and any ISP can compete for your business - Keeping costs down. It was a great day when I had my symmetric 100 MB connection installed and was able to say goodbye to Comcast.

I'd love to pay just $300 and get free service. UTOPIA fiber in my area cost 10x that amount as an install cost and you still have to pay a month charge. http://utopianet.org/blogs/news/utopia-remains-a-mystery-to-many-murray-residents

First, hit up people involved in the creation of a successful project: Click Network, Chelan Fiber, or UTOPIA.

Figure out the goals of the community leaders in the area in question. Gather the pros and cons, and write them up in a way that satisfies as many points of view as possible. Try to approach it in a manner which incorporates the typical talking points of local groups who might oppose it.

Lastly, get out and talk to people. Local politicians are usually very sensitive to pressure from within their electoral districts, much more so than state or national politicians.

I've long proposed that Municipalities build their own networks, and then lease the management and fiberplant with specific parameters about things that are important to them

Like Utah's UTOPIA? It's on the Utah's republicans hit list, btw.

Not getting why a community can't build their own broadband, and at the same time allow private companies to compete on the same fiber (or add their own fiber).

'course, this isn't the first time that the cablecos/ISPs have banded together to push politicians to enforce mono/duopoly. See also UTOPIA. Comcast and Qwest raped quite a few cities (and bought more than a few politicians) to keep that network restricted, lest they have to compete on a level playing field...

There is actually UTOPIA in Utah.

They have the municipality owned fiber in Utah; it's called Utopia. Here is a link to it: http://www.utopianet.org/

Are there any home use providers in the US that would give you anything approaching speeds where even G couldn't keep up?

The two major residential broadband providers in my area:

Comcast and Qwest

Qwest apparently "only" pushes 20mbps downstream with less than 1mbps upstream (that upstream cap is on on all tiers, how odd), whereas Comcast offers 50mbps down and 10mbps up, which could exceed the 54mbps limit of Wireless G. Note that all figures are labelled with asterisks, including 802.11g, that link to a disclaimer saying that all speeds are "theoretical maximums". In a typical usage scenario, you can flood out a Wireless G router's *actual and available* bandwidth with less than 30mbps.

There is a third provider in my area, called Utopia, but they were just in the local paper because it looks like they're about to fold. Apparently, if they sold off all their assets, they would still be over one hundred million dollars in the hole... and they still owe service to nearly a dozen (bond-holding) cities. I walked in the front door about a year ago, and inquired as to how I could get their inexpensive fiber-to-the-premises service, and they brushed me off as if they didn't have time to deal with such a small-potatoes project (interesting point, here: I am the "computer guy" for about a half-dozen households and businesses who treat my word as law when it comes to anything with flashing lights on the front or wires coming out the back; so by blowing me off, they ditched at least 6 new customers, never mind any word-of-mouth advertising they may have gotten from those new clients - several of whom work with or in local and state government - good job, folks!). It's really too bad their in-person customer service is so bad, or they might be able to hit those magical subscriber-base numbers they need so desperately. Until I read that article, I assumed they were doing fine... since they obviously couldn't be bothered lifting a finger to get *my* business...

Side note: the 7gbps wireless connection described in the article is pretty much short-range, line-of-sight only - it would be more likely to be a bluetooth replacement, usable only for local connections, probably limited to devices in the same room with the access point. As others have pointed out, 60Ghz is too short a wavelength to have much penetration at all, and would be blocked by anything more substantial than ambient air at a range of about 10 feet or so. Local devices would probably be the target market here; printers, input devices, storage devices, that sort of thing.

You mean like UTOPIA? Municipal fiber / Ethernet infrastructure. Multiple ISPs, telephone, and video providers run on different VLANs. World class bandwidth at affordable prices. The sticking point is the deployment cost. $3K per connected home / business must be funded one way or another, and it takes a long time to recover an investment like that.

Xmission has standard residential UTOPIA bandwidths of 15 Mbit/s and 50 Mbit/s - up and down. The end user links are all 100 Mbit/s Ethernet (over fiber), and you can get a 100 Mbit/s "business" connection if you want.

But not in sandy.

Taken from: http://utopianet.org/service-area

UTOPIA's member cities are: Brigham City, Cedar City, Cedar Hills, Centerville, Layton, Lindon, Midvale, Murray, Orem, Payson, Perry, Riverton, Tremonton, Vineyard, Washington, and West Valley City.

These are the only areas which have access to UTOPIA. Xmission provides DSL connections to other locations (and free wireless to libraries and coffee shops), but UTOPIA access can only happen where UTOPIA is available.

...sadly.

--Jimmy

http://www.utopianet.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Telecommunication_Open_Infrastructure_Agency

What? Last I heard, Sandy soundly rejected Utopia.

Check the list of member cities - Sandy is not listed.

You are indeed lucky to be in a country where you can get a text and/or phone plan for only "£15 a month". Here in America, only recently did another cellular company start offering plans (voice, not text) for $50 per month unlimited. Metro PCS has had real unlimited plans for between $40 to $50 per month for years. That is definitely the direction I would go, if I had to purchase cellular today as other cellular company plans that state they are unlimited have small contract in the contract that state otherwise.

With every other cellular company, in America, you are guaranteed, check RipOffReports.com (by consumers, for consumers; Don't let them get away with it...let the truth be known!) if you do not believe me, that you are guaranteed to eventually get hit with random over-charges. Which demonstrates to anyone who looks, by their very actions, that they (cellular providers in America) believe, honestly believe, with all their little tiny hearts, that Americans HAVE NO CHOICE! Thus they can get away with it. Can they? Really, Really, REALLY. (more directed at Americans than you)

Most people these days are used to "always on" connections, and I think this is how things should and will eventually be - the ability to use on line services anytime, anyplace.

I agree with you that this is how things should be and eventually will be, even here in America. Just not today, not yet. The American corporations have no incentive to provide it. In fact they do just the opposite, when a town or city attempts to put in city wide WiFi for the benefit of their customers, the telcos fight it, and they fight it hard. Usually they successfully prevent city-wide WiFi, but not always. It like people forget that the city infrastructure, water, sewer, eclectic belong to them and them alone!

The mentality of fighting innovation and service for customers is, well, pathetic. They have been fighting against fiber over the last mile in America for years, literally decades now. In Utah and Wilson, North Carolina they have fiber to their home. Will your community be next? Its up to you!

• User owned Fiber initiatives, where a community and a family in that community, can literally own the Fiber cable from the telco switching location of the town to their home. Smart families will spend the $3,000.00 (what one community charges) to own that critical fiber link for, especially if they plan to keep the home and property in the family and have children as it will bear fruit for generations. Of course the next bottleneck is having a non American Telco control fiber across the continent + undersea fiber optic cables to other continents. Utopia serves a good portion of Utah to date; Bringham City, Tremonton, Perry City, Layton, Centerville, Murray, Midvale, West Valley City, Riverton, Cedar Hills, Lindon, Orem, Payson, Cedar City
• Greenlight, North Carolina: the city council started running their own Fiber when Time Warner refused, that's when Time Warner got busy lobbying the legislature! They are still lobbying the state legislature, even though a Bill to limit broadband was defeated!

Note: About needing a non American owned company; the facts are that the current American telcos, even after receiving over 200 Billions in American Tax dollars over decades, have refused to innovate and provide fiber over the last mile to Americans. They received American tax dollars + additional taxes + additional legislative approved fees to bring Fiber to American ho

I don't know what you mean by "most" but IME, "most" people are lucky to get anywhere close to 10 (ten) at home. 100 Mbps is not even on the horizon for "most" people.

This is changing, there are currently 8 or 9 cities in the US (soon to be around 15, albeit most in Utah) where you can get a Fiber over the last mile to your home and symmetrical service from 10Mbps to 10Gpbs. One of the First was Wilson, N.C. thanks to Greenlight (100Mbps / 100Mbps for $100 per month) and the local politicians that invited Greenlight into their community after the American Telco and Cable Companies refused to put fiber to peoples homes. Of course after the fact, the telcos/Cable Cos are using any and every legal / lobbyist means via the North Carolina state legislature to prevent others from getting decent bandwidth via Fiber from their homes.

Here is the other places, thanks to Utopia, Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency: (ten years in the making by some elected officials that thought more of those they represent than lobbyists): Bringham City, Tremonton, Perry City, Layton, Centerville, Murray, Midvale, West Valley City, Riverton, Cedar Hills, Lindon, Orem, Payson, Cedar City

Note: Verizon's restricted FIOS only allowing 50Mbps / 5 Mbps for $119 while better than Cable is still restricted and is NOT symmetrical!

I don't know what you mean by "most" but IME, "most" people are lucky to get anywhere close to 10 (ten) at home. 100 Mbps is not even on the horizon for "most" people.

This is changing, there are currently 8 or 9 cities in the US (soon to be around 15, albeit most in Utah) where you can get a Fiber over the last mile to your home and symmetrical service from 10Mbps to 10Gpbs. One of the First was Wilson, N.C. thanks to Greenlight (100Mbps / 100Mbps for $100 per month) and the local politicians that invited Greenlight into their community after the American Telco and Cable Companies refused to put fiber to peoples homes. Of course after the fact, the telcos/Cable Cos are using any and every legal / lobbyist means via the North Carolina state legislature to prevent others from getting decent bandwidth via Fiber from their homes.

Here is the other places, thanks to Utopia, Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency: (ten years in the making by some elected officials that thought more of those they represent than lobbyists): Bringham City, Tremonton, Perry City, Layton, Centerville, Murray, Midvale, West Valley City, Riverton, Cedar Hills, Lindon, Orem, Payson, Cedar City

Note: Verizon's restricted FIOS only allowing 50Mbps / 5 Mbps for $119 while better than Cable is still restricted and is NOT symmetrical!

I want to believe you. But it's just not true.

For example, the UTOPIA network offers much faster speeds than are available from any other providers. They've been around for 5 years, and yet they still haven't really caught on.

It's unfortunate, but as long as most people are getting the pages and applications they want, when they want them, they'll be happy with not-the-fastest-speed. And most of the time, that's what happens.

Complacency FTW!

I would possibly like to see such a public network run as a wholesale service whereby the service providers buy capacity and resell it with their own packages. This would completely level out the playing field and make true market competition possible. This is evident in the way that the incumbent telcos are trying to get bills passed to prevent this from happening; they are scared shitless by the possibility that the power they have to completely rape their customers for as much money as possible for as shoddy service as they can get away with, would be neutralised.

Networks like this already exist, I am on the Utopia network and I couldn't be happier. Any provider can provide data, TV or voice over the network. I currently have a 15 Mb symmetrical connection for $36/mo. with a local ISP. And it's nothing like cable or DSL, if I am doing something that requires the bandwidth it is all there, I always see full speed to anyone that provides it. Since I can choose my own ISP, I chose one that has Linux mirrors so I don't even have to hit the net to download an ISO or do an update.

The incumbent telcos (Qwest and Comcast) DID fight against it when it was being built but now that it is in place they have to up their service offerings in order to be able to compete in the areas where Utopia provides service. It has been beneficial to the consumer, even the ones that don't actually use the network.

What needs to happen is the one that provides the connection to the house should not provide the service. The government then regulates the infrastructure provider/maintainers. The service providers then sit on that infrastructure.

For example, here in Utah we have UTOPIA (Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency, http://www.utopianet.org/). UTOPIA themselves provide the fiber to the premise. Then you sign up with the providers on the network. There are a handful of different ISPs that provide service over it (including Qwest!). You can choose based on whatever meets your fancy. ISP too oversubscribed? Choose another one.

The fiber delivers internet, phone, and tv. Here at my office we have a symmetric 30Mbs connection for about $110. Makes me hate to go home to my Comcast connection...

The problem is the only motivation for the infrastructure provider is to keep the ISPs and governments to off their backs. The government should own the infrastructure and then private companies should compete for the maintenance contracts. Hopefully somebody in the city knows something about an SLA... /br

A question that is perhaps ignored by many communities is whether something like Utopia has a potential to be a marketing factor with the more mobile of our society when it comes to voting their $$$ via choice of residency. There are universities where campus residency was dropping heavily in favor of local apartments, commuting and local rental homes till the popularity of the internet took off and the dormitories were wired for high speed connections.

The university in this small town was one of those and has been expanding its housing department as well as making many of the new residence halls into apartments rather then dormitories. Now there are large numbers of empty apartments around town even though the local telco and cable company finally admitted there was sufficient demand for "broadband" to provide the options about a year ago, they pale in comparison to the university's. So obviously the pull of high speed connections is greater for many then the perceived lack of freedom that prompted the off-campus moves.

These people have been graduating and moving to the workforce for a while now, you can bet their choices for residency are tempored not only by job availability but for quality of life issues that, with them, will include bandwith. Factors that will also be measured by businesses when selecting locations to do business. Any real moves towards higher rates of telecommuting could revive many small towns, but only if they have sufficient infrastructure to support it.

http://www.utopianet.org/ In between SLC and Provo mostly but even provo now has a 50Mbit option through broadweave it's just more expensive.

That's bullshit too. I can get a badass hosted server with a dedicated, super-high quality 100mbps very, very close to guaranteed bandwidth for prices like that. For the price most people pay for cable subscription I can get a dedicated shitty server with 10mbps shared connection, still very high quality. Obviously residential areas have a built-in disadvantage, but shouldn't it be in the same ballpark? With the UTOPIA project here in Utah, I can get a 50/50mbps connection for $60/month that doesn't censor or throttle. Other than the will to organize and a significant tech-savvy population (hardly unique), what does suburban Utah have that most of the country doesn't?

It's not technically infeasible in America. Maybe in BFE but not in anything resembling a large city, let alone high-density cities. We're the kind of people with the knowledge to change this. Let's get off our collective asses and stop accepting this kind of service!

I am a board member for the Madison BTRB, and I very much look forward to seeing all of you at the meeting. I will forewarn you now, however, that the BTRB pretty much has its hands tied regarding anything with Charter's cable-modem operation (thanks FCC and Congress!). The BTRB, despite the name, really just manages the cable franchise between the city and Charter. Given that the WI legislature recently passed a law allowing for state-wide franchises for TV distribution, the BTRB may actually be defunct shortly in any case.

Additionally, there is some discussion about the possibility of creating a publicly-owned fiber infrastructure that could be leased to any ISP, which we theorize, could circumvent the standing law prohibiting municipal cable operations. Something similar to Project Utopia, in Utah - http://www.utopianet.org/

So, please do come and attend the meeting, but also understand that the BTRB has zero say or input on Charter's cable-modem business. Coming to the meeting may be a good idea, though, because a Charter representative may be there. Moreover, the BTRB members are concerned about this issue too, and may have some constructive advice on how to promote your complaint.

That's probably what we did here in Utah, with our UTOPIA network.

Utah has a municipal fiber network called Utopia.

local governments that will allow new companies to run FTTH and to not grant legal monopolies to anyone. You'd have to deal with the feds for wireless communications but not landline.

Yes, AT&T and Comcast have scary amounts of money, but AT&T in particular is run by morons. Could a new competitor with their own FTTH network prosper? I think so. With state and local governments fast-track the paperwork and not demand bribes ("free" access for this and that, "franchise fees", etc)? Well...

Utah has taken a workable approach with their UTopia network. Verizon is building out their FiOS network, fighting various local bureaucrats along the way. FTTH can be done in America. Let's not get distracted by the irrelevant feds.

In most places right of way is granted by the local governments. The phone companies are pretty well entrenched what the local governments give they can also take away. Cable TV providers got access because they where not competing with the phone companies. They where a new service. I see no reason why internet or data access can not be considered a new service. Yes it would be expensive but it may be worth it for Google or microsoft. I hope not microsoft since I would like my Linux box to still work :)
Take a look here to see what is possible http://www.utopianet.org/

Utah has a subsidised, all fiber network, UTOPIA! It definately has a speed advantage http://www.utopianet.org/why/meter.html at 50Mbps For $59.95/month!!1! http://www.mstar.net/offerings/fastestnet.php All you need is a sizeable municipal bond you too could have this geek boondogle. Fine print - Some providers resever the right to throtle trafic if a few gigs a month is exceeded. BUT for the low low price of 10$ A gig you can have more. You just cant win folks

Governments can build dark fiber networks to the home, but let competing service providers plug into those networks. The fiber itself should last for decades and you have to work with governments for right-of-way and other construction issues anyhow. Having one dark fiber network eliminates wasteful duplication. The electronics that plug into those networks evolve rapidly though, so leaving everything else to private industry makes sense. With the fiber in place even a local ISP can get up and running quickly. Here in Ann Arbor the city has all the traffic lights connected with fiber optics and they put in extra conduit while they were at it. That's a good chunk of the work right there.

There's no need for federal involvement though. States and even city governments can do this. Utah has UTOPIA. I'd just assume keep the feds out of the picture.

If you live in Verizon territory where FiOS is available or will be... lucky you. We poor souls in AT&T land need a little help.

I heard that when you switch to FIOS they remove your POTS lines.

Also, from what I'm guessing, it you don't like your ISP providing the FIOS connection, you cannot get another ISP that can use that FIOS connection.

IOW: you are just locking yourself into another monopoly.

which is why I've been advocating projects such as Utopia here in Utah. If you have a company treat you like garbage (like Concast) then you simply FIRE them and get another provider over the same lines.

It forces companies to behave or go bankrupt.

Would would want to do business with a company that treats you like slim?

Is there any way to extend the "Public Broadcast TV" metaphor into the internet space?

Well, there is a way to extend the "public infrastructure" metaphor into Internet service. UTOPIA is (what looks to be) an awesome project that's been rolled out in Utah. It's a fiber-to-the-premises network. The fiber is publicly owned, over which providers then sell services (Internet, phone, etc).

To me this looks like an absolutely genius plan. Service providers get free infrastructure (i.e. a bigger market to sell to), and the public gets real competition. Obviously it could get corrupted, but the concept is ace.

There are some towns up on the iron range (Minnesota) that are debating whether to build a similar network.

I pay $33/month and get unlimited bandwidth, no ports blocked and I can run any servers I want...and I get a static IP. My city said that Comcast wasn't delivering what they thought they should (not bandwidth, I'm talking getting service to homes) so they laid down their own lines and started their own ISP. AFAIK, anyone can start their own ISP using those lines. Someone around here mentions Utah and their UTOPIA project every once in a while. A bunch of cities there got together and paid for a massive project putting fiber to everyone's home, and then they lease out the lines to anybody who wants to be an ISP. That's how it should work, just like highways. The Internet is important enough to our economy and society just like the highway system. Nobody would want the car companies to lay down their own roads, so why do we let communications companies lay down their own lines (especially when they are using our money (taxes) to do it anyway)?

Just for reference, here is a link to a really cool comparison of fiber speeds. That is the UTOPIA website also, so you can find out more about it and maybe take it to your city, county, state or federal government leaders in your local area.

TWC doesn't want to run an entirely new infrastructure just to satisfy the people who are using the most bandwidth. And if they are going to go through the trouble to upgrade infrastructure, they need to have a financial benefit to doing such (i.e. more users paying more for more bandwidth.) They are already going to have to invest in new lines once all the major cable networks go HD

It sucks for the high-bandwidth user, but it makes perfect sense.

Agreed and why should they. It's like expecting Ford Motor Company to build our Freeways because they sell cars. It doesn't make sense.

that's why I've been working with a couple of grass roots groups here in Utah to have Utopia built out as Utopia ONLY provides infrastructure (like public roads).

Ever since Concast terminated our Internet last year because we used our "unlimited use for a flat monthly fee" account too much, I've learned a great deal about this subject. It's interesting that we've paid taxes (over 200 Billion) since 1994 for a fiber infrastructure. So.. where is it and why are we still paying???

anyway, it should be interesting to see how this all turns out.

I think that's about what T1 costs. If you want honest, unlimited, 1.5mbs, then isn't that what you should pay?

Higher speeds can be had for less:

Comcast Versus Broadband Utopia"
"Forced to offer $90 bundle in fiber-fed region"

"Utopia is one of the nation's largest wholesale muni-fiber deployments - via which users can get 8-15Mbps symmetrical fiber for $35-$45 dollars through AT&T or providers like MStar. The project has put Comcast in the unfamiliar position of having to truly compete, resulting in rare price reductions. According to this local ad[.zip], Comcast is now offering broadband, digital cable, and VoIP service for $90 a month in all of Utopia's footprint."

In any case, the correct response to poor behavior by a cable or DSL provider is simply to complain to the city or town. Tell them that the providers are abusing their monopoly, and get them to mandate network neutrality in the next contract. If the provider won't play along, replace them. If no replacement is willing to play, create a public internet utility.

Unfortunately this didn't work with my city council. They have so far ignored the problem so now with the election just weeks away, I'm working with the opposition to get them replaced. I'm calling their opponents and asking them for feedback on what they think should be done. I'm also urging people to contact them. One guy said "you're the third guy today to ask me that question". Asking about Utopia to be built in our city. The word is getting out because the Internet IS important to people. Other countries think so... and they aren't rolling out copper cables. They are rolling fiber!

Anyway, I'll be in the subcommittee meeting this Thursday talking about Utopia's future. There will be a public comment period where the audience can state anything related to the topic.

I've never been political.. voted yes but nothing like this before. Hopefully other's in other states will demand services and not this Comcast BS we're seeing.

YAY, I have a tiny chance of receiving $7.32 off my comcast bill in 6 years time!

I was just thinking how much I don't miss Comcast. Even though DSL isn't 6 or 60 Megs up/down like I would expect from a Utopia connection, at least I don't have to deal with Comcast's Frankenstein behaviour.

Personally I hope as a nation we consider the Internet "Important" to our economic future. If so then why are we not building a National Infrastructure as proposed by Clinton/Gore int he 90's? I'm talking about NII. From what I'm reading, we already paid for it in taxes over the last decade plus.

And don't get me started over Comcast terminating it's customers for "Using the Internet too much". That's just plain stupid. No limits but don't over use the service you are paying for. And how much is acceptable and what is not?

Yeah, I've read their AUP/TOS and you know what. Even the two lawyers I've spoken to couldn't make heads/tails of it. It's that screwed up.

Anyway, we need to contact our local city council, Mayors, State and Federal politicians about this problem. Either the internet is important or it isn't.

I'm taking a vacation day this Thursday to attend a subcommittee meeting discussing building the Utopia Infrastructure here in Utah. I sure hope comcast sends someone there. I'd love to hear and respond to his bull.

You don't like it leave. Its that simple. Maybe if Comcast customers started leaving in drones, Comcast would re-think their insane policy. Anything else is akin to whining like a child because you can't have the toy you wanted. If your phone company DID decide to pretend they were you and pick up and hang up your call what would you do. 1) Sue 2) Find new phone company. For those in a place where you're trapped in with solely one provider, I feel your pain. Maybe people need to start calling their local political representatives. Surely if anyone can take two to three minutes responding to this article or even my post, surely you can shoot off an email to a congressman or political dipshit to complain. Anything else, is whining.

In most of Corporate America, you can't leave. It's a monopoly or at best a duopoly. And the options are worse speeds than what Comcast provides.

Some parts of America you can select from more than a dozen and that's good. Competition has a way of straightening screwed up companies (or they go out of business). In my area we're fortunate to have Qwest DSL (yeah I know but it's the ONLY real option where I live).

I'm working to push for Utopia fiber to the home here in Utah. If the Internet is important then perhaps we should have an infrastructure in place (like public roads) that allow competition and the free market to take hold.

Oh, and suing the company is something people do when they can afford it. I've already exhausted options with my City Council and have moved to working at the State and Federal level. Some people there have been "shocked" to learn of what the company does. Comcast has a few problems and may be called on to the mat soon.

With all the crap we customers are putting up with (constant rate increases, lousy service, high prices, lack of privacy, ridiculous usage filtering), the only way Comcrap is going to lose customers is if there is some sort of competition.

Currently, they have, essentially, a monopoly in most areas. In my neighborhood, DSL only became available recently and really only through SBC (hiding behind the AT&T name). The "service" is an 1/8th of the speed for barely any less monthly rate.

Believe me, if there was any way to get decent internet without paying Comcrap for it, I'd be doing it. And I'm sure a LOT of other folks would, too.

Believe me, I feel your pain.

I'm one of those fortunate to finally be free of Comcast. DSL so far has been excellent. I haven't noticed much change in my service but you're right. We need competition. This is why in my area I'm pushing for Utopia fiber to the home. I've also been speaking with Politicians. Both local and Federal explaining my story with what happened with Comcast.

I believe it's important the Government create an infrastructure that anyone (yes, even the evil Comcast) can join and provide services through. It's no different than when the Government was running power lines when electricity became available. I'm learning that power companies wouldn't run power to everyone so the Government did it. I'm trying to learn more but If true sets a precedent here.

The only way this will work is if we stop expecting private industry to do it for us. Otherwise we'd still be waiting to get rid of our out houses :-)

Of course, the proper course of action is to alter their contracts (after the current ones expire) to charge more money for more use, perhaps in various rates. Yes, that will drive people to other companies who don't do this...who will also lose money.

Let the market figure it out.

Your kidding right? The market doesn't have a chance when it's only ONE company (thus a monopoly) available in your area. Sure there is DSL here and there competing against Comcast. The issue is without an infrastructure in place, you can't select another vendor. It's their way or the high way.

SB 66 in utah for instance is a good example of closing a free market. For several years we've been hearing of all the great things the company was going to do for us. They sorta kept their promise. And now they are terminating people for using the service paid for.

With a free market, Comcast would't have the number of customers they do here. I haven't met anyone who says they love Comcast compared to other services. They only have the one and no other's available. Like having only one Pizza shop. They are the best right? Nobody compares to Joe Blow's Pizza Shop? Right :D

I'm taking next thursday off to sit in the audience of the subcommittee. I'm very curious what decisions they are planning on making and hope for an opportunity to speak during the citizens comment period. Hopefully SB 66 stays dead and Utopia will be allowed to expand. 17 Cities are investigating whether they should join it. If SB 66 is revived, it will kill the free market in their area.

This is mildly off subject, but is about Comcast. My brother and I have Comcast for our phone, though we'll be dropping it soon, which our sister set up. When she moved out, we tried contact Comcast to have the name on the account changed, but Comcast decided that changing the name would require a reinstall and demanded that we pay them $20 for the name change. Needless to say, we refused to pay and the account is still under our sister's name. What you've gone through with them is significantly different, yes, but both of these examples go to show that Comcast cares nothing for their customers.

Doesn't surprise me anymore.

When we returned our Cable modem the place was packed. I couldn't resist. I loudly asked if anyone was returning their Comcast equipment because they were unhappy with the service/product. Over half the hands went up. The comments made were not flattering. The company has some serious issues and it will take more than PR spin doctoring to fix.

Most didn't know what Utopia in Utah was (no, not the Mormon Church or anything) (Yes, that was a funny btw::grinz::). Utopia is fiber to the home. Looks like West Jordan City won't be looking into it anytime soon. From what I'm hearing we may be unable to count on our City Council to bring it and build the future. Third largest city in Utah too. Unreal.

Anyway, I'm done with Comcast and I will tell everyone what could happen if they use the "Unlimited use for a flat monthly fee" service too much.

Pathetic. Time to remove their common carrier status and government monopoly protection.

I'm not looking to abuse services. I'm not looking to rip anyone off. I'm not looking to piss anyone off. My usage needs are higher than the average persons, what with my VPN use and streaming services and such. Fine. But don't tell me "if you go over this limit again, we're cutting you off -- but uh.. we can't say what that limit is". I asked if I needed to cut it by just a few percent. Or by half. Or by 80%. Or what... no answer. They refused to say.

I agree 100% with you. I'm Frank from the article and have been very frustrated dealing with Comcast. They seem to be employing robots (or great script readers) who say the same things over and over again. You can't talk to a person capable of understanding the lunacy behind this.

I too spend a great deal of time online. It's my job. My kids learn from the age of 2 how to turn on the computer and run their favorite program and some get online. They also use the Internet heavily and so far from what I've seen, legally.

I've been accused of many weird things however it doesn't change the issue. If there is an expectation then it needs to be shared with customers. I have no problem following the rules. Just tell me what is acceptable consumption of bandwidth. Comcast claims I was using up to 300 Gigs a month. That's about 10% of my bandwidth capability I believe. Using the driving examples here on slash dot, that's like driving about .3 MPG down a residential street(think slowsky commercial). If I go faster than I'm breaking acceptable use policy. Does that make sense? Now Comcast is advertising faster speeds. So their customers can get into trouble faster? That's my interpretation :-)

Anyway, this is why I'm pushing hard for Network Neutrality and fiber to the home. Services such as Utopia would make a company abusing it's customers (such as Comcast) think twice. Piss off your customers and they go somewhere else. That's what the market does. Eventually the company comes around or goes bankrupt. But with a Government produced Monopoly (or duopoly)?? The free market fails to work. I have been trying to work with my City Council and Mayor to understand this and bring Utopia to our city. It is the 3rd largest in the State of Utah. We should be leading rather than following IMO.

I'm encouraging everyone to write Congress and their representatives. This problem is far larger than just affecting .001% as Comcast "claims". I've found many people with little effort. Over 4 weeks time I found about 100 people and a couple people down the block have been terminated this year. I think that's an indication of a bigger problem.

Ok, I'm off my soap box. Sorry but I'm very passionate about this problem.

You mention "competitive advantage" (well, technically you mention "competative advantage", but I quibble). Who are they competing against? It's a rare city where there is more than one cable company. Satellite TV? DVD rental?

The competitive advantage I was speaking of was in bandwidth. It behooves any company to utilize its resources to the best of its abilities. There's no point in waisting the bandwidth to carry a station that is only being watched by a few when it could use that bandwidth to provide to internet customers for a premium fee. You're right that this doesn't solve all bandwidth problems but replacing infrastructure isn't fast or cheap so they need to stay competitive in the mean time. If they don't use the mean time to increase their bandwidth as well, then they're shooting themselves in the foot. They may not be competing directly with other cable companies in most markets (though in some markets they are: see skyview cable), but they compete with the telecom companies providing telephone and internet and maybe TV (ie Verizon FiOS) and they compete with other WISPs type ISPs for internet (ie Utopia and Blue Zone) and they compete, as you said, with Satellite TV and DVD rentals. So if cable companies don't keep up, they'll be left behind.

I'm not saying I love cable companies. I actually don't. That's why I don't purchase services for cable companies. I think they provide crummy services for high prices. Nevertheless, there are real legitimate reasons behind their actions that don't necessarily involve, "Let's screw the consumer!"