Slashdot Mirror


Why Municipal Broadband is Good

batageek writes "An excellent interview with Jim Baller (muni-telco-lawyer) concerning the growth and efforts of municipal broadband providers and the fights they go through with the incumbent providers and state legislatures." If you're wondering why you don't have fiber-to-the-home yet, read this.

221 comments

  1. I have a dream, brothers and sisters by caluml · · Score: 5, Funny

    That one day, all houses will be made with fibre straight to the door, and bandwidth will be just another amenity, much like electricity, or gas, or telephones are now. And then all the local bandwith companies can fight over our business, and offer us lower and lower rates.

    1. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That one day, all houses will be made with fibre straight to the door,

      why?

      a single fiber serving 4 square blocks is plenty, then split off to a technology that is easier to terminate and cheaper to work with.

      Have you ever put a connector on a Fiber? using the cheap route it's a major pain in the ass and takes quite a bit of skill. the easy way is to cut a jumper and fusion splice it on to the incoming fiber.. the fusion splicer is a cheap $35,000.00US and can be destroyed easily.

      fiber into the home? dont want it.

      Municipal Infrastructure? ok, I'll take that. if your local city owns the fiber on the poles, the nodes and the drop to your home. THEN your dream might be possible. but even then it is very unprobable. you will simply see that infrastructure multiplied on the pole 3-5 times... one for each company.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Dutchmaan · · Score: 5, Funny

      a single fiber serving 4 square blocks is plenty

      ..so is 640k...or so I hear.

    3. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by albanac · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      a single fiber serving 4 square blocks is plenty, then split off to a technology that is easier to terminate and cheaper to work with.

      What's a city block? I live in England.

      Your answer is staggeringly Americo- and big-city-centric. Fibre to the door has been implemented in large parts of (say) Scandanavia, where it works out very well. Also, think about cable television. Certainly over here, that already *is* delivered on fibre to the door.

      ~cHris
    4. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      .so is 640k...or so I hear.

      dont know much about fiber do you...

      a single fiber's bandwidth is limited by the electronics on the end of it. Fiber it's self has no bandwidth limit. so I can send 90,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bits per second through it both directions at the same time.

      Lumpy is right. If you actually learn about fiberoptics before you pan someone's idea you might be able to make smart posts.

    5. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you have a fiber to RF converter in your home or on your equipment?

      I highly doubt that you have actual fiber directly into your house as it woule be extremely silly to do that.

      BTW, a city block is approximately 1000 feet by 1000 feet with 16 to 20 feet for street inbetween.

    6. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Funny
      the fusion splicer is a cheap $35,000.00US and can be destroyed easily.

      But most of that cost is for the flux capacitor, which is usually salvageable. Anyway, if you use reasonable care selecting fusion fuel, you probably won't ruin your splicer.

    7. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also have a dream. A dream that one day posers everywhere that try to come on to discussion boards and pretend to have success with women will find something better to do, or actually get a girlfriend. I'm telling you, man, once you actually talk to a girl, or (God forbid) have sex with one, you're not going to care about making such stupid flames/trolls in such a pointless manner.

    8. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Avakado · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lumpy is right. If you actually learn about fiberoptics before you pan someone's idea you might be able to make smart posts.

      I think you misunderstood your parent. How do you know that you will never want more bandwidth to every single home than "a technology that is easier to terminate and cheaper to work with" can provide? It doesn't matter if neighbouring blocks collectively can have a 1Tbps connection if the last 50 meters is twisted pair. As you implied, if you run fiber up to your home, you will never have to upgrade your cabling, but any copper- or airborne technology will become outdated.

      --
      The world will end in 5 minutes. Please log out.
    9. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      dont know much about fiber do you..

      Don't know much about humor do you.

    10. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      but even then it is very unprobable.

      I didn't know George W. had a slashdot account!

      (I would say Homer Simpson, but that's unpossible.)

    11. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Your trolling.......


      Have you ever used a fusion splicer? They don't break easily. They are actually quit rugged. They work quite well in a windstorm at near freezing temperatures.


      Hand held fusion splicer $5K, this is what you would use if you were connecting homes. Not the $37K ribbon splicer.
      http://www.fiberinstrumentsales.com/fisc atalog/dep t.asp?dept%5Fid=917


      Or how about we check out the 3M CRIMPLOK or the Corning Cable Systems Unicam. This is what you would use to bring fiber to the home. Cheap ($10), and any idiot can do it.
      http://www.fiberinstrumentsales.com/fiscatalo g/dep t.asp?dept%5Fid=221

    12. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your trolling.......

      Have you ever used a fusion splicer? They don't break easily. They are actually quit rugged. They work quite well in a windstorm at near freezing temperatures.


      nice try.

      Yes I have one here. and it has been broken 3 times by loaning it out to baffoons that think they are durable. The cleaver is easily screwed up, and one small drop IN it's case misaligns everything to the point that every splice can't get any lower than 2db loss. Now it needs to be realigned and serviced. and yes I've tried 3m crimplok's they suck badly. you CANT get less than 1db loss (oh sure turn up the lasers to get more signal.... NOT!)

      Fiber into the home is STILL stupid. without looking at the fact that instead you put the node in the house instead of on the pole (more expensive now) what the hell is the advantage? do you have a DSL moden that has a fiber port? how about a calbe modem that does. Oh how about a nice fiber splitter.. those are cheap.

      dealing with light is expensive. dealing with it right is even more expensive. drop back to technology that isnt as picky (a speck of dust can easily down your fiber communications) when you get in the house and leave the upgrades to increase bandwidth to replacing guts in a pol mounted enclosure... Voila I just upgraded 20 homes with one piece of equipment. instead of replacing 20 devices on the outside of 20 homes.

      besides, what's the matter? can't back up your claims so you post AC?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    13. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by rifter · · Score: 3, Funny

      Good god, man. The whole article is about the state of Fibre to the Home in the US. Besides, do you really want Americans to know where your country is on a map? That's the first step to liberating the hell out of it! Otherwise we could care less about other countries.

      But yes, the system of lot and block numbers to designate chunks of real estate is a US invention, IIRC created by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which was created to regulate the implementation of westward expansion/Manifest Destiny. Now if you will excuse us, we have to get back to carving up Iraq. ;)

    14. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aside from being humor-impaired, you don't know much about fiber either...there is a theoretical maximum to the fiber itself.

    15. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ,i>Good god, man. The whole article is about the state of Fibre to the Home in the US. Besides, do you really want Americans to know where your country is on a map?

      SHUT UP! how the hell are we supposed to bomb the living hell out of .... I mean save the opressed people there....

      Dammit George.. we lost another one.

    16. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by derch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What is so Americo-centric about an idea that goes back to ancient times?

      "Ancient civilizations occasionally planned new cities or major additions to existing settlements. The most widespread plan was a rectangular or grid street pattern that allowed considerable flexibility in the size of blocks while maintaining a clear visual order. Noteworthy examples of this type of city plan include Kahun (Egypt, c.1890 BC), whose workers' quarter is separated by an internal wall from the wealthier districts;" - From Google's cache of the University of Melbourne's History of Urban Planning

      Or Roman planned cities?

      Or the Hampden Gurney School in London?

      "Block" is not an Americo-centric term. Granted, many of our cities are layed out in a grid pattern, but a block is not a standard size from city to city - try defining a block in the heavily Spanish and French influenced layout of New Orleans or the sometimes quirky layout of Washington, DC.

      As far as city-centric. So fucking what? I live in the country. There's nothing offense about someone expressing an idea in term of a relation to a block. It's a commonly understood *idea*. And if 'block' isn't a familiar word, then look it up. Several definitions I found used a quote from the London Quarterly Review as example usage.

    17. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Jellybob · · Score: 1

      Airborne technology getting outdated?

      Because of course everynow and then we have to pump all the air out of Earth's atmosphere to upgrade to a newer version.

    18. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Avakado · · Score: 1

      Airborne technology getting outdated?

      Because of course everynow and then we have to pump all the air out of Earth's atmosphere to upgrade to a newer version.

      What did you smoke? I didn't say air would be outdated, as this is normally not classified as technology nor airborne.

      --
      The world will end in 5 minutes. Please log out.
    19. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the problem is, fiber is limited to the equipment you have hooked to it. Would you want to be able to upgrade your equipment, or have someone else do it for you at a slower pace therefore slower bandwidth?

    20. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the fusion splicer is a cheap $35,000.00US

      that's why you use cheap $5 quick connect fiber ends.

    21. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by virtualkuz · · Score: 1
      is fibre to the curb, not fibre to the door.

      I thought in the queen's english, what we call the "curb" in the US is actually a "kerb" in the UK.

    22. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes the cleaver is expensive to service. And I suppose if you drop it it would screw it up. The erickson models are made of hard plastic and you could probably drop one without problems. Myself and my 10 co-workers have never had a problem over 5 years. This is a stupid arguement. If you drop a laptop they are expensive to service too!!


      I backed up my claims with links to real world prices. It's irrlevant that I am an AC, the information was valid. You made an arguement that 3M crimplock sucks bad. If I have a spec that says 3M crimplock is 0.1dB from my link and you SAY it is 10x higher, who would a reasonable person believe? 3M or you?. If your indeed right, sue 3M.


      Fiber to the home might indeed be stupid, but those claims have to be backed up with HARD info or your trolling.DSL to the home can easily be argued to be stupid because almost everyone who wasn't an incumbent carrier went out of the DSL business (SPRINT, look it up).

    23. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      Fiber it's self has no bandwidth limit.

      Not true. The bandwidth is limited by h-bar.

    24. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Jellybob · · Score: 1

      I was smoking my own special air.

      Sorry - I was half asleep at the time.

    25. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 2, Informative

      This already happens (to an extent) with DSL in the UK - you have copper to your house, and then you pick which ISP you want to supply you with connectivity.

      What then happens is that the big incumbents keep prices high and grab all the dumb (l)users who want the 'saftey and reliability' of a big name like BT (ha! - their network goes down more often than a young lady of questionable morals) whilst the geeks can pick a much better service from Zen or Nildram for less money :o)

      Everytyhing transits over the BT ATM network* (for which you pay through the nose) but where it goes after that is up to you.

      *Except those on unbundled local loops, who get things like 2mb/sec connections off peak (512k on) for the same price as I pay for 512k all the time, and also get to pick from ADSL and SDSL as well as much higher speeds - BT blow goats, they are shockingly incompetent by comparison.

      --
      Beep beep.
    26. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh, kids that don't think things through. OK, bandwidth is just another amenity. OK, where does that bandwidth go? Who does it interconnect with? How do you get it to the places where it interconnects with other providers (exchange points). Those are all very expensive things. Having a large amount of bandwidth between your house and a central metro location is nice, but it still costs tons of money to get the data to/from other Internet providers. Even with the large economies of scale we have at work, we're still spending about $1,000 per Mbps on bandwidth. There's no way around those costs when long distance lines are expensive (due to telco monopolies and huge taxes), floor space at exchanges is expensive, and exchanging bandwidth with other providers is expensive.

    27. Re:I have a dream, brothers and sisters by TigerTime · · Score: 1

      Does this mean i have to get my house up to 88 MPH to use fiber?

  2. I'm not getting enough fiber!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    to my home that is.. who do I call about this?

  3. Wow, well he could learn SOMETHING from gov't by somethingwicked · · Score: 0, Interesting

    He could talk in something APPROACHING soundbites, like most politicians do.

    Not to say that everything needs to be a "soundbite" but, DAMN, look at those full page paragraphs...one after another

    There are DEFINITELY thing that need to be explained in infinite detail, but come on, not EVERYTHING

    --

    ---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---

    1. Re:Wow, well he could learn SOMETHING from gov't by malIgna · · Score: 1

      Aren't full paragraphs a good thing? I understand that soundbites are what the media needs, but still.

      --
      Nothing to see here, move along.
  4. New Basic Utility by gurnb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Broadband access is becoming the new extended basic utility.

    Just like Gas, Electricity, Water, cable, etc. Instead of Cable coompanies having a monopoly on access, and being about to set there rates as they see fit, I'd welcome a utility regulatory group be put in place.

    --
    "This must be a Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays."
    1. Re:New Basic Utility by munter · · Score: 1
      I totally agree.

      One could argue successfully that this "attitude" was at the core of the Arpa/NSF/Inter/Net when it was being developed. A buncha geeks wanting to share information freely and easily. It's as simple as that...(well, especially http)

      Internetworking is all about reducing the stranglehold a "path" provider has. It's about making the transmission technology irrelevant and the transfer of information everything.

      Think back to Vint at the hotel and the paper napkin sketching out TCP. Fundamentally it was about making stuff move over diverse transmission topologies..That's what it's all about. If the topologies are diverse and therefore competing, then naturally the price to the consumer of the transmission reduces. What stays the same (in terms of value) is the information transferred over the heterogenous networks (go on - look it up).

      Therefore, after .com madness, and in the harsh light of day, it should be unsurprising that the electronic transfer of information should be a god-given right - just like the right to breathe or speak. Utilitarian is a natural end-game for the broadband. After all, it's no different to the previous xxxxband - just bigger. IT IS JUST A GIVEN. It's the content that makes the difference. Not the bps.

      What does it mean for us geeks who are religously compelled to make this utility an essential service? Average wages and a job for life. hmmm. cool? perhaps? does this mean cheap networking is a fundamentally a left wing ideology? (yeah yeah - hold the "in soviet russia /. cliches")

      hmm. t o o m u c h r e d w i n e....

      anyway. later

  5. Summary of the article in one paragraph by floppy+ears · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article is kind of long and boring, but here's the key paragraph:

    FTTH [fiber to the home] networks are a good case in point. At present, cable can make more money selling relatively modest cable modem services over their Hybrid Fiber Coaxial (HFC) networks, and telephone companies can make more money selling DSL over their copper-based networks, than they can make by investing huge sums in FTTH networks that would allow them to offer substantially more robust broadband services. To wring every last dollar out of their existing systems, the cable and telephone companies are also working hard to persuade Congress, state legislatures and the FCC to allow them to close their systems to Internet Service Providers, CLECs and other potential competitors. Until these conditions change, the cable and telephone companies will simply not invest in FTTH networks. Instead, they will continue to try to convince us that we really don't need more bandwidth than they're offering. At the same time, they will try to block municipalities from building FTTH systems that could disprove these claims.

    So it's the usual story. Corporations looking out for their bottom line. Using money and power to prevent competition from organizations that might act in the public interest (and thereby cut into corporate profits).

    --

    "If I could live to be several hundred
    I could take a walk and really wander, really wonder."
    1. Re:Summary of the article in one paragraph by Kombat · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      So it's the usual story. Corporations looking out for their bottom line.

      <SARCASM>Oh those evil bastards.</SARCASM> Come on, enough business-bashing. Who here doesn't work for a company? Who here doesn't depend on profits to keep their paychecks coming? Why is it all-of-a-sudden unpatriotic to try and make some money? Isn't that the "American Dream"(TM)? When did "profit" become a bad word?

      Of course it's about money. Right now, people are paying $40/month or so for ADSL and broadband connections. Sure, fibre would boost those speeds, but who'll be willing to pay increased fees for it? Would your Mom be willing to shell out $90/month for fibre when she's already getting megabit service for less than half that?

      The majority of the customer base will not be willing to pay more than they're paying now. We're at a nice, comfortable equilibrium at the moment. It would cost BILLIONS to roll out a fibre-to-the-home network nationwide, and the only way to recoup that cost would be to raise rates. And the telcos don't seem too confident that there will be enough people willing to pony up the extra green to make it more profitable than the existing network.

      It sure is easy to blame the "Big, Bad Corporations" though, isn't it. It's not quite that simple though. If you want to blame someone, blame the masses who are content with megabit service, and who aren't willing to pay more than $40/month for Internet (or phone, or cable, for that matter). People are used to the price they're already paying, and anything more than that will seem like a ripoff.

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    2. Re:Summary of the article in one paragraph by floppy+ears · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, I don't always blame the corporations. But in this case, they're apparently lobbying to prevent municipalities from doing FTTH. That's the downside of profit maximizing. Rather than creating "stuff" for the public good, they are spending money to control politics.

      There have been some interesting economic studies of this phenomenon. To summarize, when companies start spending profits to secure more profits, rather than create new goods, the economy starts to go downhill.

      --

      "If I could live to be several hundred
      I could take a walk and really wander, really wonder."
    3. Re:Summary of the article in one paragraph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Profit hasn't become a bad word. But profit at any cost isn't necessarily good.

      A lot of businesses care only about profit, no matter how much it pollutes the environment or makes other people suffer.

      If the Internet is to become a universal utility, then some control must be placed on corporations. Not matter what anyone says, when there is a conflict between corporate bottom line and the good of the community/world, there will be only one possible choice.

    4. Re:Summary of the article in one paragraph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      *raises hand*
      My family owns a few buildings... we don't pay rent, we GET rent. We're not a company, we're not swimming in cash and we're not worried about it either.
      Rent increases are legislated in our country, so even if we were greedy bastards there would be nothing we could do to squeeze more money out of our tenants.
      But heck, they're our neighbours, we get along fine with them and wouldn't want to screw them over anyway.

      The whole point of this lengthy story is that businesses were originally intended to be friendly neighborhood shops and offices, while anything demanding more money and larger enterprises was always meant to be state-sponsored and government-controlled.

      The modern rise of the megacorp is anathema. It corrupts the very fabric of capitalism and democracy through bribery of ellected officials and collusion into monopolist "Associations".
      No single person or corporation should be allowed to accumulate the money and power required to interfere with government affairs.

      The government should always be the ultimate arbiter, exempt from lobbyist and "political action" pressure groups. Just vote them into office and let them do their job undisturbed.

    5. Re:Summary of the article in one paragraph by Mark+Bainter · · Score: 1
      Actually, I don't always blame the corporations. But in this case, they're apparently lobbying to prevent municipalities from doing FTTH. That's the downside of profit maximizing. Rather than creating "stuff" for the public good, they are spending money to control politics.

      There have been some interesting economic studies of this phenomenon. To summarize, when companies start spending profits to secure more profits, rather than create new goods, the economy starts to go downhill.

      Yup. And if we didn't have a government that had granted itself powers to make it worth the investment we wouldn't have that problem.

      If government let the market handle everything, there'd be no point to bribing government officials, so that money would go somewhere else, namely, to trying to stay ahead of the competition.

      --
      "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
      --James Madison
    6. Re:Summary of the article in one paragraph by rifter · · Score: 1

      Of course it's about money. Right now, people are paying $40/month or so for ADSL and broadband connections. Sure, fibre would boost those speeds, but who'll be willing to pay increased fees for it? Would your Mom be willing to shell out $90/month for fibre when she's already getting megabit service for less than half that?

      Gee, maybe you work for a telco or the cable company? And you sure as hell did not read the article. Yet I respond anyway. =sigh=

      First off, in the article there are numerous examples of municipal utilities, even in small towns, where the customers are paying less to get more. So your cost argument does not at all hold water or match the facts.

      As for your "megabit service for $40" canard, don't make me laugh. My mom (and maybe yours) might believe the brochure from the cable company, since she is not terribly technical and overly naive in general, but I prefer to believe the real-world tests. The fact of the matter is no broadband I have ever seen measured gives that price/performance ratio, and though my cable provider says they are giving me 4mb/sec the real-world performance is not 0.25MB/sec. And that is pretty much what one can expect from the cable company (besides not usually getting more than 5-50kbps on any individual download, for various reasons).

      Fibre to the home is a threat to these companies because it will be cheaper and faster than what they provide, which is why they are fighting it. After all they are not stupid, and as you rightly point out, they are in business to make money (which needs to be done if we want jobs) and that is not in itself a bad thing.

    7. Re:Summary of the article in one paragraph by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If government let the market handle everything, there'd be no point to bribing government officials, so that money would go somewhere else, namely, to trying to stay ahead of the competition.

      If we let the market handle everything, there'd be no need for bribing the government. Corporations would do whatever they wanted to, and we'd be working 12 hours a day for starvation wages. That's the problem with the Randite pipedream - it has as little to do with reality as Communism.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    8. Re:Summary of the article in one paragraph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you don't seem to understand how business works. the process becomes refined and re-engineered, and then fiber deployment becomes cheaper. this happens several times over again. why do you think only a few towns have fiber to every house right now?

    9. Re:Summary of the article in one paragraph by CognitivelyDistorted · · Score: 1
      I can totally believe that the SBC is using dirty tricks to sabotage muni broadband. So I checked out the TriCityBroadBand site. Without cable, they will offer 2 Mb/s for $50/month, assuming their market share projections come true. They don't say if there are extra equipment or regulatory fees.

      Here in the Bay Area I'm getting the same deal from Comcast. (I think the service is officially rated at 1.5 Mb/s for $50/month, but I get 270kB/s downloads.) I don't think the arguments that private enterprise is inefficient or charges high prices because of the need for profits are valid. Apparently, the argument that government services are inefficient isn't true either, at least in this case.

      The TriCityBroadband site says that DSL is currently 192 kb/s for $40/month, so their proposal is definitely a great deal for them. I only wonder why some entrepreneur hasn't already installed fiber there if it's so much better than DSL. I notice that they are using a bond to finance the project. Muni bonds tend to be at lower rates because they are tax-free. Is that enough of an advantage to make the difference?

    10. Re:Summary of the article in one paragraph by wurp · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is easy to blame the "Big, Bad Corporations". When they're freezing the little guy out of the market, patenting things that are blatantly obvious, and abusing monopoly power to eliminate our freedom of choice, it's very easy.

      Capitalism is great when it means we have people competing to produce better products so they can make more money. When it means we have companies that can afford to give their product away until they've established a marketplace in which you have to have their product, or they have enough money to buy legislation that takes away our right to produce media with established cultural icons, then the big bad companies are fucking the society and should be killed.

      I'm completely offtopic here, but it really burns me up to see someone pretending that the huge corporations are generally a public good.

    11. Re:Summary of the article in one paragraph by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      The problem with the idea of endless worker slavery is that it ignores the fact that eventually labor is no longer plentiful and companies bid up the price on it as much as any other business input. Beyond that, labor does tend to differentiate its pricing based on worker treatment. If you have two equivalently paid jobs, the one that features working for a bad boss will simply not be your choice.

      Good treatment of workers lowers labor costs and more and more businesses are figuring that out.

    12. Re:Summary of the article in one paragraph by geekee · · Score: 1

      As the article points out, FTTH isn't free, which is why companies are going bankrupt laying fiber or avoiding it altogether. So how are municipalities going to pay for it? Raise prices for power and increase local taxes. YOU will pay for it ultimately, whether you want it or not. In America, one should have the choice, not be forced by a community or govt. to pay for something one may not want.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    13. Re:Summary of the article in one paragraph by Neolithic · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the "American Dream"(TM)? When did "profit" become a bad word?

      You are right. Profit, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. And that's the reason captialism has worked as well as it has for so long. You are basing your authority on an inanimate object rather than a corruptable human being. There are many upon many companies that use their profits to expand the company, improve the product, and/or return it to the community at large and these companies should be applauded and supported.

      However, when you quoted the previous poster you conspicuously ignored the rest of his statement.

      Using money and power to prevent competition from organizations that might act in the public interest

      The means by which they are seeking their profits are where the problem lies. To use an oft quoted phrase, "The ends do not justify the means." They are, in fact, harming the public in order to make money.

    14. Re:Summary of the article in one paragraph by Catbeller · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The problem with the idea of endless worker slavery is that it ignores the fact that eventually labor is no longer plentiful and companies bid up the price on it as much as any other business input. Beyond that, labor does tend to differentiate its pricing based on worker treatment. If you have two equivalently paid jobs, the one that features working for a bad boss will simply not be your choice.

      Good treatment of workers lowers labor costs and more and more businesses are figuring that out. "

      This would work, if it was a perfect world. You are assuming the Invisible Hand permits a worker to move wherever he needs to; you must assume he has a working vehicle that can move him long distances if necessary. You assume the worker can, after rent and car and medical, can save enough money to switch jobs, with the attendent delay between paychecks.

      And you must factor in having a family to support. They need not only food, but stability. Changing jobs and moving every six months is not an option when the kids are in school.

      And also, factor in being married. You can't willy-nilly move around the country when your wife or husband has a paying job.

      And factor in this: only about 1 in 4 people get a college education. A small percentage of those in turn will not be in careers, like IT, that permit job shopping for advancement.

      And factor in: if you have any medical conidtion, at all, you most likely will not be covered under the insurance at your new job. Preexisting condition.

      Worker slavery? Yep. Left to their own devices, corporations will shape all ends to their goals. And they are. They want us lower paid, with sinking benefits, locked to the job, and fireable at the least excuse. And no unions, please.

      Sorry to be negative, but it is true. Worker choice, for the vast majority, is shrinking to non-exisitence.

    15. Re:Summary of the article in one paragraph by nelziq · · Score: 1

      What he refers to is generally called "Rent Seeking" and is a pretty well researched field in political economy. Google search will take you far.

    16. Re:Summary of the article in one paragraph by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      Imperfect competition leads to the effect of bidding up labor to be slowed down and distorted, not to their elimination. No matter how much the business owners try to make labor negotiations an us v. them environment with the business owners having all the cards, the truth is that exceptional workers have always and will always continue to be poached from one another. This happens at all levels (I saw it once when a CompUSA did a mass poaching of an Office Max store).

      In a boom, the bosses run out of workers to hire cheaply and general wage rates rise even for unspectacular employees. And bosses find they can't hold onto their current low-wage employees because they quit and go someplace else as a new hot employee. Eventually, the boom ends as well as the job hopping but everybody knows that as soon as the economy picks up, the same process will pick right up with it.

    17. Re:Summary of the article in one paragraph by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      If we let the market handle everything, there'd be no need for bribing the government. Corporations would do whatever they wanted to, and we'd be working 12 hours a day for starvation wages.

      Only if that's what you want to do. If there is perfect competition for labour and employment, then labour practices will reflect what people are willing to do.

    18. Re:Summary of the article in one paragraph by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      a) the reason that two people in a marriage have to work now is that the government is eating up so much of our money trying to control the economy - and in doing so is also hurting the economy - so we're being bitten twice.

      b) Why does everyone leave out the fact that people are pretty smart, and when left without too many barriers tend to do pretty amazing things?

      c) pre-exisiting conditions only apply if you have a period without work. In addition, medical insurance is only needed because medical costs are raised too much by an over-regulated medical industry.

      Over-regulation hurts the consumer in many ways. For example, in the medical industry, it can take 8 years for a business to be allowed to sell their products on the market, thanks to the FDA. If you can imagine a company that has the stamina to weather 8 years of no profits, filling a minimum of 10 full-time jobs, you see that there is little chance of new competition. Therefore, those players that have made it came from high-money ventures themselves (otherwise they would not have been able to be there) and thus they would only take such a risk in order to take home hefty profits. Since noone else can compete, they succeed in this.

      The problem is not too much market freedom, it's too little. With real competition, you would have affordable health care.

  6. Fiber Run Throughout the Town by Matrix272 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was an employee of a company that ran fiber throughout several blocks of the downtown city (if you could call it a city) area and connected quite a few locations directly. The problem turned out to be need. People could already get cable modem or DSL, and even though the prices were incredible (I think it was $40 for a 10mb 2-way connection), nobody saw the need for that kind of speed.

    Granted, Lock Haven, PA is hardly the technological Mecca that some other places in the country are, but you'd think that for $40 a month, with no download or upload cap, and no monitoring of any kind, someone would want it... but as it turns out, not so much. It's still successful enough to keep the company from going under, but it's hardly the money-maker they anticipated it would be.

    The project itself was called Lock Haven Electronic Village, and was started by KCnet (Keystone Community Network). They're an educationally oriented ISP that was started by the school district and gets grants from the government for education-based projects. If memory serves, they did the first phase for around $250,000.

    --
    "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    1. Re:Fiber Run Throughout the Town by rdewalt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dear $diety... Lock Haven?

      I went to the college there from 1991-1993. Other -than- the college, the town was about as "High Tech" as any other small town nestled in the backwater woods of the north east USA 'mountain' towns. Go a mile off any decently paved road, toss a stone, and you'll hit Amish.

      Now mind you, this was 1993 when I left. The college had -just- gotten hooked up to that (to us) Super High Tech Internet Highway!

      Lock Haven creeped me out. I kept expecting to hear dueling banjos when I walked into town. The cops and "Townies" all but despised the college kids to the point of almost lynching any college kid who wandered off campus unaware...

      It was a town that exhuded the feeling that 'Literacy' was not one of the top twenty sought after skills of the populace.

      I'm not surprised nobody signed up, if the town was anything like I remember it being a decade ago. General concensus would have been "Fiber for $40? Lurleene can go down to the fabric store and get fiber for $2 a bag, I ain't paying no $40 for fiber."

      Me? I'd've blown a nut the moment you would have said "$40/month for 10mb each way"

    2. Re:Fiber Run Throughout the Town by Matrix272 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, your description is still pretty accurate. It is nothing but a hick town, always has been, always will be. The largest employer is the University, and the second is Walmart. On the other hand, from what I've heard, the University has a good computer science program, although I've never felt any desire to try it.

      I worked there from Mar. 1999 - Aug. 2000, so I'm not sure if they've changed the pricing scheme or not. I'm also not 100% positive that it was $40 a month. When I was involved, we were planning, and I left either during, or shortly after the fiber was strung. We knew we had to be comparable to cable modem in terms of price, but had to be faster (obviously). Phase 2 was going to connect the hospital to the university, which would then connect to the rest of the town. (For those who haven't been to Lock Haven, the hospital is on top of a hill, and the town is about a mile west down in a valley with the Susquehanna river. The University is right in the middle, if you draw a line between the Hospital and City Hall.) I'm not sure if they ever got that far or not.

      As of June of 2000, there were only 2 other such projects in the country, and the only one I can think of is Blacksburg Electronic Village in Blacksburg, Virginia. I guess it was just too expensive to try it in a larger city, but if I had a cool million or so (I'd do it for free, as long as a VC gave me enough money to spend), I'd go for it. I'm sure there are lots of companies in the country that would sell their souls for a 10mb connection for $40 a month.

      I should also point out that the 10mb connection was shared 50-50 with the school district, which worked out well because the school district would use most of the bandwidth between 8am and 3pm, and the rest of the time was peak for the ISP. When I left, we had around 4500+ subscribers at $12 a month (give or take... special prices and all), so that was enough to pay for the relatively large pipe.

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    3. Re:Fiber Run Throughout the Town by rdewalt · · Score: 1

      Wow. There's a Walmart there now? They're definitely moving forward. Unless my memory is wrong (Which I'm probably betting it is, I tried to block most of that time out.) they had a K-mart, but no Walmart.

      IIRC, there was also a Hammermil paper processing plant. Ah the delightful smells. [/sarcasm] I can't imagine why the town -hated- the college kids so much. Could be that they saw anyone who "got their learn on" as Chris Rock said, was an uppity SOB who needed shunned. Most of the town's commercial centers probably all but collapsed or went into hibernation when school was out.

      in 1993, the Comp Sci program was okay. The dorms weren't wired at all, if you needed onto the class computer, you had to go to the lone lab and try and get on a machine. The modem pool was about five 9600 modems.

      None of the classes that were even "Senior" level were very advanced. Now, this was 1993, so things have changed in the industry as we all know.

      The hospital? Dear god I'd rather have gone to a mideval blood letting barber than that hospital ever again.

      I broke my ankle. (Yes, I know you can't -break- an ankle, I severely fucked it up.) When I went to the hospital to get it taken care of, I had to wait an hour in triage just to get the paperwork filled out, then about an hour (The blissfull haze of memory might have the #'s wrong) just to get told "You need to go to $other_side_of_the_hospital." ... No wheelchair, no orderlies to help. Just a pair of crutches, and a handful of paperwork. Please tell me that if you still live there, you go to another hospital if you're ever in need. That place was practically a nightmare.

      Damn, I need alot of beer. I'm remembering a time I don't want to.

    4. Re:Fiber Run Throughout the Town by Matrix272 · · Score: 1

      Yes, they got a Walmart Super-Center in 1998. It was about 2 years later that Hammermill was closed, and all the employees were laid off. Then about 6 months later, Ames closed. Somewhere around the same time, K-Mart moved to Mill Hall, and BiLo moved into the same plaza K-Mart used to be. K-Mart is now about 500 yards from Walmart, so they don't get too much business (nothing new for K-Mart, if the news I've read is accurate).

      I've heard from a few people that the Comp Sci program is good, but they never give any specifics, so technically, it's just hearsay. My father went there from 1980 - 1983 and said it was a good program. It must have been, because he's highly successful now (relative to other people in central Pennsylvania).

      When you live in Lock Haven, it's generally understood that the hospital is good only for emergencies (when you can't drive anywhere else) or extremely minor things (like your stomach makes noises, and you want a prescription equivalent of Tylenol). I once had a firecracker put down the back of my shirt, and I had 2nd and 3rd degree burns all down my back, and the hospital handled it pretty well... I was 12 at the time (early summer 1993), so I didn't have much of a frame of reference, but I didn't die (I don't think), so I guess they performed adequately.

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    5. Re:Fiber Run Throughout the Town by rifter · · Score: 1

      IIRC, there was also a Hammermil paper processing plant. Ah the delightful smells. [/sarcasm] I can't imagine why the town -hated- the college kids so much. Could be that they saw anyone who "got their learn on" as Chris Rock said, was an uppity SOB who needed shunned. Most of the town's commercial centers probably all but collapsed or went into hibernation when school was out.

      The conflict between "town and gown" exists to some extent in every college town, really. It is more pronounced in small towns / rural areas, perhaps because the populace is more insular / less educated. It is also much more recognizable for the more eclectic/urban scholar who goes to a rural college town and gets culture shock thereby.

      I remember reading in _Cathedral_de_Notre_Dame_ about similar conflicts arising with the very first colleges in Europe, and even before colleges there is the matter of various philosophical schools suffering harrassment and running afoul of authorities. This is not only a western phenomenon, either, as far as I can tell.

      Some academic has probably done a study or a thousand on the subject, but I have not gotten round to reading one. I have to wonder, too, if the conflict is in any way related to the friction caused by one-horse town economies (for instance, the ire at tourists in places where tourism is the only source of revenue, period...) as you pointed out in many of these places the college is the only source of revenue and economy. I have noticed that there are any number of people who prefer their town small and unchanged, and will fight tooth and nail to prevent any sort of progress or economic growth. This kind of fear may be a factor as well...

    6. Re:Fiber Run Throughout the Town by kfs27 · · Score: 1

      i went to both those sites and can't find information about it. i'm extremely interested if they still provide that service.

      write me kenny@sabarese.net

      --
      Kenny Sabarese
      www.kennysabarese.com
  7. England by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Here in England, we actually have a choice of broadband providers. You can get either Cable or DSL (that is, via your phone service or cable service), and this healthy competition tends to keep the prices down a bit.

    1. Re:England by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh see now you'll just force all the poor souls who live in Fuckarse, Devon to crawl out of the woodwork and cry that they don't get cable or ADSL, because even though there are all of seven people on their exchange who have even heard of a computer and two of them might actually purchase an ADSL connection, those bastards at BT won't spend tens of thousands of pounds to upgrade the exchange.

      Just thought I'd warn you all, and I'll say it now: To all of you who think you should get an ADSL connection in your pissy little village in the middle of nowhere, you're wrong. Move to an even semi-urban area and stop complaining.

  8. That's great but... by swasson · · Score: 3, Funny

    until I get electricity and running water out here in NEW Mexico, broadband is the least of my worries.
    /sarcasm

    --
    "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" -- Homer Simpson
    1. Re:That's great but... by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 1

      until I get electricity and running water out here in NEW Mexico

      What, do you have hamsters running on tread mills under your desk powering your computer?

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
    2. Re:That's great but... by swasson · · Score: 1, Funny

      Actually, I've got an army of scorpions running on treadmills...

      --
      "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" -- Homer Simpson
    3. Re:That's great but... by JonnyRo88 · · Score: 1

      I feel (or felt) your pain. I lived for YEARS with crappy 28.8kbps dialup to AOL of all things, and then finally enjoyed about a year of NMOL before it went offline.

      I live in florida now, and have cable broadband, but I agree with the others, it's slow as crap for 40$ a month.

      -Jonathan

      --
      The Ro Factor - Jeep/Linux Weblog
  9. No thanks. by brocktune · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Electricity is required for a minimum standard of living. If municipal water & sewer is not available, they can be handled with wells and septic tanks. Arguably, telephone service (wire or wireless) is necessary for emergency 911 service. Broadband internet, like cable television, is a luxury. The government is plenty big already without getting into the entertainment business. How much easier is it for big brother to monitor you if they are providiing the access?

    I have the choice of cable, DSL from several vendors, satellite, and dialup. The private sector is handling my business just fine.

    1. Re:No thanks. by Horny+Smurf · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Electricity was once a luxury too, as was phone service (my electricity and phone line come from a public company, but are gov't sanctioned monopolies). People within the local city limits have municipal electricity. And were thinking about municipal broadband (for gov't offices first, private residences later).

      Mark my words, there will be a day when broadband access is no longer a 'luxury'.

    2. Re:No thanks. by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Electricity is required for a minimum standard of living.

      really? so all those people in africa are dead then?

      you can live with much MUCH less. it's how many luxuries you want that requires your electricity..

      in fact , many of the omish in northern michigan have very nice homes and lives and have NO ELECTRICITY...

      I would say, clean water, food and shelter are required for a standard of living. everything else is simply fluff.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:No thanks. by garcia · · Score: 4, Interesting

      then you don't live in an area controlled by broadband monopoly.

      I moved from NW Ohio to Burnsville, MN in November (I am now 15-20 mins out of downtown Minneapolis). I moved from an area that offered a steady 300kB/s cable pipe (TimeWarner RR) to an area that offered a 1.5mbs pipe (about 220kB/s steady with ATTBI)...

      Comcast recently took over the entire region and raised my Internet rates (without CATV) to 60.95 from 46.95... Not only that but now I have download speeds in the 180kB/s range.

      More money, slower speeds, and the same crap customer service...

    4. Re:No thanks. by op00to · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Entertainment? Funny, I primarily use my broadband access for work. I guess that changes broadband access to a "Multiple-use" classifcation. Anyhow, your local/municipal government is already in the "entertainment" business -- they probably have a senior citizen's club, a little league team, some sort of recreation fields, maybe a new year's eve celebration...The list goes on. Just because you may only use your network access to play some poker game doesn't mean that other people may use it for other purposes.

      As for the private sector handling your business, what do you think will happen in the next few years? DSL from several vendors will switch into Verizon DSL, and that's about it. All the other smaller providers will be muscled out, but that's another topic. You really only have the choice of two cable (most likely only one) providers, satellite is slow and is being phased out, and dialup is for webtv, or something.

      The variety of choice for broadband is going to lessen over the next few years, so as i see it, it would benefit both myself and my community to have a network connection utility that would have to answer to the people (publicly run or regulated) rather than a private company whose main interest is profit.

      As for big brother -- if someone wants to monitor you, they'll monitor you, whether you've got earthlink or anything else. Worrying about that is like pissing into the wind.

    5. Re:No thanks. by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      How is the creation of a single broadband option through the government creating any MORE choice for the consumer?

      So instead of Verizon DSL, Cable, DTV Satellite (whether or not you think it's still around), Dial-Up, plus whatever new technologies will be here in 5 years... .... we'll have Government-Provided Broadband Service X.

      Yep, looks like lots more choices to me.

      You think this is some kind of zero-sum game, where the choices now are the maximum choices there ever will be, and they'll only lessen with time. I don't think so: I'm curious to see what kinds of Good Stuff (tm) will be available soon... Community driven wireless stuff seems pretty cool right now.

    6. Re:No thanks. by aldousd666 · · Score: 1

      I don't think that the government has to provide the service, let's just have them set up the infrastructure -- Roads aren't the service, the cars are. I can purchase my 'service' from Ford, Toyota, or even LeCar if I want. Not big government.

      --
      Speak for yourself.
    7. Re:No thanks. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 3, Informative

      Re:No thanks. (Score:3) by Lumpy (12016) on Thursday May 22, @10:33AM (#6014949) (http://www.your-website-sucks.com/) Electricity is required for a minimum standard of living. really? so all those people in africa are dead then? you can live with much MUCH less. it's how many luxuries you want that requires your electricity..

      How did this get modded insightful? It's fairly obvious that the original poster was referring to legal requirements, not absolute needs. Besides, it doesn't matter if you can live without electricity and running water - try it in the US and you risk having your building condemned.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    8. Re:No thanks. by RealAlaskan · · Score: 3, Funny
      ... many of the omish in northern michigan have very nice homes and lives and have NO ELECTRICITY...

      You misspelled that: it's Ohmish, not ``omish''. Note that it's capitalized, as befits a proper noun.

      The Ohmish do without electricity because of their high resistance to the modern world. Their opposite, so to speak, are the Mhoish, or Siemenites, whose beliefs are quite conductive to amenities like electricity.

    9. Re:No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try it in the US and you risk having your building condemned.

      Ok mister smarty pants... explain yourself.

      many states have a large Ohmish popylation that has no power or RUNNING WATER. how about many others?

      bla bla bla... try again... this attempt by you failed.

    10. Re:No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck are you going to try to sound intelligent while misspelling the word "Amish"? Oh, and I can see that you've given up on capitalization and puctuation altogether.

    11. Re:No thanks. by rifter · · Score: 1

      How did this get modded insightful? It's fairly obvious that the original poster was referring to legal requirements, not absolute needs. Besides, it doesn't matter if you can live without electricity and running water - try it in the US and you risk having your building condemned.

      Actually, as the poster from New Mexico was pointing out, there are still plenty of parts of the US where no running water or electricity are available (for instance I knew lots of Alaskans with no runnning water in their homes). There are laws requiring that it be made available, however, which is what you were talking about.

      There are plenty of US citizens who feel internet should be given the same treatment as was once given to electricity, eg treated as a necessity for life and guaranteed for everyone. I am inclined to agree with these people, and to extend this to say *broadband* should be guaranteed everyone. As the article points out (if anyone read it) the very same arguments against this were levelled against the laws that made our current electrical systems possible. (Incidentally, one of the historical reasons the internal combustion engine was used in cars was the complaint that having electric cars would require every town to have electricity! This is also one of the reasons electric cars in 1990 were not much more advanced than electric cars in 1909.)

      You may dismiss my claim internet is a vital service as a slashdot-inspired pipe dream. But I assert it is an absolute fact. We will never make it to the next technological level without the internet, and even now if you are not on the internet you are at a serious technological and economic disadvatage with respect to, say, Africa. I don't know about you, but I would like to see a crop of US leaders who would like to quit being technologically behind South Korea in broadband and Eastern Europe in encryption technology, and are willing to do what it takes to get there.

    12. Re:No thanks. by op00to · · Score: 1

      Some big stuff is going on inside the FCC concerning the DE-regulation of the broadband industry. There is going to be very few rules preventing Verizon et all to use their unfair advantage (owning all the CO's, deep pockets) to put Speakeasy and all the smaller ISP's out of business. Current broadband options as we know it will find it difficult to compete against the company that no longer has to accomodate them.

      I mentioned in my earlier post that Cable really isn't a choice, since you will only really have one (MAYBE 2) cable provider -- an illusion of choice at best, a monopoly at worst. Next up is dialup -- do you really think that Dialup is a choice? Don't fool yourself. Since it's impossible to predict what technologies will come along in the next five years, we can't "rely" on them.

      Now, on to community driven wireless -- this was exactly what I was talking about. If you want to roll this out to give a standard sized community access (say 3,000 households), you're going to need some major backing to get all the equipment, since I doubt it would be competitive ($300 for a decent point to point tranciever on both ends, or major bucks for an access point on every other telephone pole).

      Notice I never said that the publicly funded/publicly run broadband solution would be ubiquitous. It would merely be another option. If you saw fit to use it, go ahead. If you would rather go with Verizon, that's cool too. That is choice. To put it anotherway, if X is the current number of broadband solutions, then x+1 > x. Another choice yields more choice.

      I know from previous posts that you're a libertarian, so you can ignore this, but some things truly are better run by the government -- railways (almost-private Amtrak vs. DB (germany's national rail system), public safety, or hospitals (go to a hospital in a city in Germany and see how long you wait as compared to a hospital in a city in the US). Certain things just can't make money and serve the consumer best at the same time.

    13. Re:No thanks. by Kibo · · Score: 1

      Wait till they start secretly adding free religious programing in place of channels you might actually want to watch. It's like Jesus and Folder's got together with some venture capitalists with one goal: to piss me off.

      --
      --Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
    14. Re:No thanks. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      many states have a large Ohmish popylation that has no power or RUNNING WATER.

      Well, I assume you mean Amish (Ohmish is kind of hard to reconcile with no Ohms). The Amish are probably grandfathered in - they've been around for awhile. You'd still have trouble starting your own luddite house.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    15. Re:No thanks. by yorgasor · · Score: 1

      Municipal broadband isn't geared towards towns that have such options available to them. In a couple weeks, I'm moving to Vernonia, OR, a small town of about 3000 people. In the early 1900's, the big electric providers weren't interested in giving them power. Too few people, too far away from the Portland metro area. So they created their own power utility and it still serves the town and outlying areas very well.

      Today, they have the same problem with broadband. We've got a CO right in the middle of town, but Verizon has zero interest in upgrading it to provide DSL, likewise Comcast doesn't care to upgrade either. They want to service areas that give short term profits, whereas a non-profit public utility has more long term goals.

      As soon as I move in, I plan on working with the local government to see if there is interest in such an undertaking. These are the type of communities that a public broadband service could really help, the ones ignored by the commercial companies. Not the metro areas with a dozen options available.

      --
      Looking for a computer support specialist for your small business? Check out
    16. Re:No thanks. by thynk · · Score: 1

      (Ohmish is kind of hard to reconcile with no Ohms).

      Are not the Ohmish the ones that make Multi-Meters? Eh, maybe I'm wrong.

      It's the queers. They're in it with the aliens. They're building landing strips for gay Martians, I swear to God

      I like you Stuart, you're not like the other people here in the trailer park.

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    17. Re:No thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only entities that could provide municipal access and stand to benefit from it for some time are the local governments. The cost of roll out is so great for fiber that the ILEC just are not willing to bear the cost. Since the initial adaption rate will be so low, the service is unlikely to pay for itself for 10 years. A NSP (network service provider) will likely be willing to provide services to an aggregate of users. All the need to do is bring an DS3/OC3 and a router into the city and they can provision services on it.

      Just like municipalities have to work hard to convince taxpayers that this is a good idea, the ILECs have to convince shareholders. Why in their right mind would the ILECs lay fiber that some competitor will buy at wholsale.

    18. Re:No thanks. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I wonder what happened when they showed up at people's homes in the '30's and said, "we're here to wire your house for electricity, you can't live without it.". I bet they got lots of blank stares.

      People who had lived all their lives without it would have considered it a luxury at best, probably more of an eyesore than anything. Still, today few people would argue that it hasn't significantly improved the quality of life for all Americans.

      Broadband Internet will follow a similar pattern.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  10. RIAA to dispatch field investigators to Grant Co.? by djeaux · · Score: 5, Interesting
    In fact, in ultra-rural Grant County, WA, where users of the County's FTTH system have affordable access to speeds of 100 Mbps in both directions, bandwidth usage has jumped more than 600 percent and upstream usage actually exceeds downstream usage. Why? The County believes that small businesses are sending substantially more information to the Internet than they are downloading, and gamers are vastly increasing their real-time usage. That's good news for rural communities that are looking for ways to keep their kids from leaving.
    No doubt, the RIAA will be moving field investigators into Grant County within the week. Must be a hotbed of P2P ;-)

    But see-riously, wasn't one goal of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to increase access in rural areas? Needless to say, that's not what happened. Baller's comparison of broadband access to the situation when the Rural Electrification Act was passed is valid. But telcos & electric companies are going where they get the biggest return for the least investment. Even "rural" EPAs tend to concentrate on small towns & suburbs these days -- services in the really rural areas are not much better than they were 40 years ago.

    The high-tech redneck,

    --
    "Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
  11. interesting quote from Comcast... by garcia · · Score: 3, Interesting

    JakCrow asks: Why aren't the phone and cable companies addressing the reasons for the municipal push? Municipal broadband is developing because people are tired of the bad service, high prices, and lousy coverage, yet the phone and cablecos would rather spend money using propaganda to fight municipal projects than fix their own problems.

    Jim Baller: I believe that there are many good people working for cable and telephone companies who would like to deliver good products at reasonable prices and also offer good service. Consider, for example, an article in the Tacoma News Tribune on May 19, 2003, in which Comcast spokesman Steve Kipp said that competition with Tacoma's Click! Network was a good thing for all concerned, including Comcast. Specifically, Mr. Kipp was quoted as saying that: "It's that competition that has really spurred the additional investment in cable and customer service." (link). Think of where we would be if Comcast, as a whole company, acted as though it really believes this. Unfortunately, as a company, it does not.


    Explain to me how Comcast has competition? DSL is NOT competition for Comcast Internet services (this is not an arguable point BTW). Comcast is THE only option for broadband where I live (no DSL and wireless access is cost prohibitive). They took over ATTBI and immediately raised the rates (which have yet to take effect but I am sure that (based on previous practices) will be "noticed at a later date" and corrected by charging for the back months in a single bill...)

    Competition for Comcast IS good but it doesn't exist. I seriously believe that Muni's that run their own broadband service would actually be helping the community and THEMSELVES.

    Force the "natural monopolies" (their words, not mine) to compete instead of taking over and doing what they want.

    1. Re:interesting quote from Comcast... by Obiwan+Kenobi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ding, ding, ding ding....

      You hear that? That's the clue train. ya just missed it.

      Where to start.

      Explain to me how Comcast has competition? DSL is NOT competition for Comcast Internet services (this is not an arguable point BTW).

      Of course its competition! Competition is defined as two companies who have the same product with differing circumstances (its not Webster's, but its good enough). That means if people have another option at high speed internet, they might *gasp* just take it! This means that Comcast might have to lower their prices OR up their customer service (which is crap) in order to keep the customers they have.

      If the phone companies or local municipalities up their interest in high speed internet (adding CO's in rural areas, et al), then this is what we call "competition."

      Force the "natural monopolies" (their words, not mine) to compete instead of taking over and doing what they want.

      There is still a choice involved. And hell, if everyone is running off the muni's bandwidth, and cable is shared bandwidth, then you're cable access is going to be mighty fine (assuming that comcast ups the bandwidth limit for "basic" customers).

      Again, this is competition. You are still left with a choice, even if its not the one you like.

      Why do you think Comcast immediately starts the propoganda machine as soon as muni's get this idea in their head? Think about it, and the answer might come eventually.

    2. Re:interesting quote from Comcast... by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      So wait, since where you live you can't get DSL currently, noone else can argue that DSL is competition? Interesting.

      Also, did you ever think that perhaps the reason Comcast raised the original ATTBI rates was in response to why ATTBI was available to be bought? They're not just going to raise prices for the fun of it, they're going to raise prices so they can MAKE MONEY. ATTBI sucked (in a business sense), they got bought, the prices had to go up to cover the costs...

      Tell me, if Comcast offered you everything you wanted for $15 a month, would you love em? Then what about when they go out of business because they didn't make any profit at all? Who gets to decide what's a fair price for their services?

      Where I do agree with you is to eliminate monopolies where they exist. One provider with no options is no good at all...

    3. Re:interesting quote from Comcast... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhhh no it's not. DSL is 1/3 the speed in this area (640k) for the same price. That's not competition.

      It's not available here, again, no competition in this area.

      Wireless is irrelevant, a $500+ setup fee is not even CLOSE.

    4. Re:interesting quote from Comcast... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would I like them if their service was 180kB/s for $15.00/mo? No. If they advertise 1.5mbs I expect 1.5 (for whatever it costs).

      Don't raise the costs then lower the speeds while claiming 1.5 (excuse me UP-TO 50x faster than dialup)

    5. Re:interesting quote from Comcast... by Obiwan+Kenobi · · Score: 1
      DSL is 1/3 the speed in this area (640k) for the same price. That's not competition.


      Is that the same upstream/downstream quotient? I'd take a 10k/sec hit from my cable if I could get 35k/sec up and down, instead of 45k/sec down and 12k/sec up. You have your tradeoffs.

      And yeah, wireless solutions are pretty much crap. Whenever a storm rolls in, there goes your internet...

      ...hey, just like now... ;)

    6. Re:interesting quote from Comcast... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm, 1.5mbs cable is 200kB/s+ while 640k DSL is about 75kB/s.

    7. Re:interesting quote from Comcast... by RocketRay · · Score: 1

      Comcast is THE only option for broadband where I live (no DSL and wireless access is cost prohibitive). They took over ATTBI and immediately raised the rates (which have yet to take effect but I am sure that (based on previous practices) will be "noticed at a later date" and corrected by charging for the back months in a single bill...)

      I'm lucky... where I live (southern Cal) the same thing happened to my cable modem (ComCast), but fortunately I have SBC DSL available to me. I got DSL ordered & working, then called ComCast to turn them off. I save $21/month, at a cost of 1/3 the speed. I can live with it (for now).

  12. Makes me wonder... by botzi · · Score: 2, Insightful
    providing their communities significantly better service at substantially lower prices than investor-owned utilities provide.

    1. Is this a fact???
    3. Do this guy cares if that's truth????

    Answer:
    Niyyaa....

    --
    1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
    1. Re:Makes me wonder... by Carbonite · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      1. Is this a fact???
      3. Do this guy cares if that's truth????


      Your English and math teachers must be so proud of you...

      --
      ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
    2. Re:Makes me wonder... by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 1

      1. Is this a fact???
      3. Do this guy cares if that's truth????


      2. PROFIT!!

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
    3. Re:Makes me wonder... by botzi · · Score: 1

      Well.....
      They were.....
      Now they're both dead;oP coz the lady was making fun of my spelling and the asshole used to say I can't count to five.....

      --
      1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
    4. Re:Makes me wonder... by rifter · · Score: 1

      1. Is this a fact???

      3. Do this guy cares if that's truth????

      Congratulations. You read a sentence out of the article. However, you neglected to read any of the sources pointed to in the article, or the examples of exactly what kind of services were being provided in what towns for what price (and I almost wanted to pack up my bags and head for Glasgow, KY. I mean check out the prices!

      Anyway, the whole thing is clearly a no-brainer. This is how we should have handled broadband in the first place.

    5. Re:Makes me wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out the American Public Power Association (www.appanet.org). Check out the Florida Public Power Network (www.publicpower.com).

      Follow some links and learn. Visit the websites of several of the cities, most of whom will post a copy of their budget and utility rates. Compare those utility rates with those of the Investor Owned Utilities. Next, check the published outage numbers from the IOUs and compare them to the service provided by the municipal systems.

      After you do that, you may not wonder. It takes time, but it's quite eye opening.

  13. Municipal utilities are a double-edged sword by Alioth · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you think private telco monopolies are bad, you haven't seen anything yet until you've seen government-owned monopolies.

    Our electricity monopoly here is government owned. I am overhauling my house right now, and a friend of ours, who works for the electricity company, mentioned it'd make his job a lot easier if the meter was in a box on the outside of the house, rather than inside (meaning the meter reader can read the meter at his convenience, rather than when I'm available to let him in). I agreed.

    The first hurdle was trying to acquire the plastic box to put the meter in. We went to the Manx Electricity Authority shop and asked for one. We were told to fill in a confetti-like shower of forms, and we'd have to wait a couple of weeks for it to show up. The guy behind the desk wouldn't budge. He had them in stock, and available, but no, he couldn't give us one. He terminated the argument by announcing, "Well, we ARE the government, you know".

    Finally, we get the box. I did all the work myself to install it (cut the hole in the wall, secured and set it in the wall, concreted the hole etc.) at my expense. All we needed was to have the MEA move the meter from its present position to the new box. We fill in yet another form to tell them what we want to do.

    A couple of weeks later their guy shows up and says, "Nah, I can't do that, you need a jointer to do that. And you need to fill out these forms".

    Yet more forms. We had already told them exactly what needed doing, and they sent the wrong type of person out.

    "Oh, you're on a six-week waiting list for a jointer" they then said, after filling out yet more forms. I escalated the matter, and had a long debate with a guy about it and told him all our woes. He tried to wriggle out of it.

    "What electrician's qualifications do you have to do the installation?" he asked, trying to pry open an "excuse hole" he could exploit.
    "It's a plastic box set in a wall. You are telling me you have to be a qualified electrician to cut a hole in a wall, put a plastic box in, screw in the supplied screws, and re-render around the hole?"
    "Well, what about all the cabling?"
    "There _IS_ no cabling! That's the point! This is why we've been filling out a confetti-like shower of forms to get your guy to come out, move the meter, and recable!"
    Finally, sensing he was on a loser (and about to receive a LARTing) he gave up on that tack.

    We first asked for the meter box in January. It is now late May, and the meter STILL hasn't been moved. We are only doing this to benefit the municipal electricity company, and at our expense. I keep explaining this to them but it doesn't seem to make any difference.
    Even Texas-New Mexico Power was never that bad.

    Government is almost NEVER the answer. A government monopoly is orders of magnitudes worse than a private one in my experience.

    Manx Telecom (the private telecom monopoly we have) despite their faults are a joy to work with by comparison. They have even acquired a clue when it comes to running an ADSL network. We did a similar job relocating the telephone line, to have it run underground. No forms to fill out - we just asked them to lay a new cable and they did it when they said they'd do it - no waiting lists and no bullshit.

    1. Re:Municipal utilities are a double-edged sword by gregrph · · Score: 0

      not to mention the fact that the municipalities that are in competition also regulate and profit from the whomever has the cable franchine in their city.

    2. Re:Municipal utilities are a double-edged sword by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The first hurdle was trying to acquire the plastic box to put the meter in. We went to the Manx Electricity Authority shop and asked for one. We were told to fill in a confetti-like shower of forms, and we'd have to wait a couple of weeks for it to show up. The guy behind the desk wouldn't budge. He had them in stock, and available, but no, he couldn't give us one. He terminated the argument by announcing, "Well, we ARE the government, you know".
      That's because you are in England. England, you know, is populated by english people, and english people have that collective neurosis about the State being bad (this comes directly from the Magna Carta). It's a vicious circle: people believe that the State is bad, so no one wants to be associated with the State, so smart people don't go work for the State, and the State does stupid things, which reinforces the perception.

      By contrast, look at France where people TRUST the State. Working for the State is not demeaned, and people see it as an honour, and there are those prestigious Grandes Écoles (great schools) who turn-out nothing but extremely competent bureaucrats (those schools skim the cream of the crop of each schools in France - they accept only the best of the best students). The result is extremely efficient and well-run public corporations and utilities, say like the SNCF which operates the largest network of the fastests trains in the known universe.

      Instead of whining against filling forms, why don't you do something positive like trying to fix those problems by, say, bringing more smartness to their process???

      As long as the anglo-saxons will have that shit-for-brains attitude against the State, you will get the shitty public service you rightfully deserve.

    3. Re:Municipal utilities are a double-edged sword by swb · · Score: 1

      How bizzare.

      Outdoor-rated meter sockets should be something you can get at the building store. They should be standardized so that the utility power meter just plugs into the meter socket. Cabling from pole to socket is the power company's issue, cabling from meter socket to your panel is your issue (and the electrical inspectors!).

      This much I've learned from us changing our electric service from overhead to underground. But even the private utility we have has a bunch of forms to fill out (with maps!) and then there's a bunch of waiting and other bureaucracy to deal with as well.

      Utilities generally are a pain, but the ones that are run by the government are even more annoying as they act as if they were a branch of government.

    4. Re:Municipal utilities are a double-edged sword by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greatest troll ever -- in praise of the French bureaucracy!

      I salute you.

    5. Re:Municipal utilities are a double-edged sword by Etyenne · · Score: 1

      You are over-generalizing your experience. My electrical utility here is a governement-owned monopoly. It is the least troublesome utility I have to deal with (privately owned cable and telco are real PITA). Not only that, but it also sell the cheapest electricity in North America and make a profit too.

      See, governement-owned != bad on the premise of some bad experience you had.

      --
      :wq
    6. Re:Municipal utilities are a double-edged sword by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the French stuck all the smart people in the *objectively less efficient sector*. The problem with govt. isn't only the quality of people in the system but the system itself. In the private sector when a dispute between a customer and the company goes bad, the ultimate resolution is the customer leaves, depriving the company of revenue. The company can't do anything more to the customer. In the public sector, the ultimate result of a customer situation gone as bad as it can is a govt. fine, imprisonment, or outright violence, even death. This is because they're the government and have the right to kill people by the nature of being a government.

      Now companies *can* buy governments to either commit violence for them or to look the other way while they commit their own violence but absent corruption it's not an inherent part of the system.

      The end result of this systemic difference is a point or two of systemic advantage when it comes to economic growth on the Anglosphere side and a France that has lost its greatness, pride, and place in the world.

    7. Re:Municipal utilities are a double-edged sword by ItalianScallion · · Score: 1

      yes!
      didn't the french invent good, helpful service?

    8. Re:Municipal utilities are a double-edged sword by rifter · · Score: 1

      Freedom bureaucracy, serving freedom fries.

    9. Re:Municipal utilities are a double-edged sword by Alioth · · Score: 1
      That's because you are in England.


      Now I know I shouldn't reply to trolls, but your message is so factually incorrect I'll just have to bite. If you'd actually taken time to read my article, you will have noticed that I don't live in England. I am separated from England by 60 miles of tempestuous salt water (the Irish Sea). I don't even live in the UK or European Union.


      Funny how you say the French trust the state when in my experience the French are the first to break the rules, and French state workers are the first to go on strike! Let's not mention the recent air traffic controller's strike that shut down air traffic over France, shall we? Damned cheese-eating, wine swilling surrender monkeys!

    10. Re:Municipal utilities are a double-edged sword by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      Funny how you say the French trust the state when in my experience the French are the first to break the rules, and French state workers are the first to go on strike! Let's not mention the recent air traffic controller's strike that shut down air traffic over France, shall we? Damned cheese-eating, wine swilling surrender monkeys!
      That's precisely why the french trust the State: if the State tries to screw them (such as now, with their pensions), the State workers arise in defense of the public service (such as in 1995 with the huge rail strikes). And if things go to far, they simply have a revolution.

      As for surrendering, just in case you didn't know, Roosevelt supported the collaborationist Vichy régime over Charles de Gaulle's Free French who kept on fighting along with Britain.

    11. Re:Municipal utilities are a double-edged sword by Alioth · · Score: 1

      That's precisely why the french trust the State: if the State tries to screw them (such as now, with their pensions), the State workers arise in defense of the public service (such as in 1995 with the huge rail strikes). And if things go to far, they simply have a revolution.

      Ah, I get it, it's like:

      "In order to save the village, we had to destroy it!"

  14. Top-of-the-line broadband just too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Around where I live, one can get a decent cable or DSL broadband connection for a fair price. However, to get optimal broadband, and I mean really optimal, you need to have a fiber-optic connection into every house. Think of how great that would be - streaming audio and video, ability to download whole CDROM ISOs in incredibly short amounts of time. (You really need that if you want to download RH8 and 9.)

    The problem with this is that it's so darn expensive. Those fiber-optic connections have to be perfect. It's just too expensive to put that in on a mass scale. It would be great if the government could fund that. But you have to wonder whether society will really benefit from everyone having a super-fast connection. Would these fast speeds be used as a tool or as entertainment?

    1. Re:Top-of-the-line broadband just too expensive by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      Eh? I don't think we would see anything of the sort unless the people serving that content took similar steps to increase their bandwidth.
      It doesn't matter how much bandwidth I have if the guy on the other end of my connection is just a t1.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    2. Re:Top-of-the-line broadband just too expensive by ag0ny · · Score: 1

      The problem with this is that it's so darn expensive. Those fiber-optic connections have to be perfect. It's just too expensive to put that in on a mass scale.

      Then move to Japan. They've been selling FTTH since a loooong time ago, and it isn't expensive. I have a 100Mbps dedicated line at home with two IP addresses for 17.000 yen/month (around $145/month). And it would be much cheaper if I just wanted a shared 100Mbps line (more information in NTT-East's site, but in Japanese).

      And this is a screenshot of my machine downloading two FreeBSD ISOs at around 25Mbps on this line.

    3. Re:Top-of-the-line broadband just too expensive by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      If this process is going to stay expensive then it makes sense to roll the cost into mortgages and lay fiber into entire subdivisions at construction. If the price is rapidly going to get cheaper, it makes sense to wait a few years and do it then. Either way, the current painful state will pass.

    4. Re:Top-of-the-line broadband just too expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many of your neighbours have the service? Do you live in a house or apartment ? The Japanese as a people are much more willing to adapt and pay for new technology. There are just too many people that are not willing to pay for the cost of deploying the fiber.

  15. That is a pipe dream by blcamp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    and bandwidth will be just another amenity, much like electricity, or gas, or telephones are now

    Yeah, right.

    Ever since so-called "deregulation" of gas and electric in Michigan (where I live), all of these have gone up. In the case of gas, wwaaaaayyyyy up. My broadband (cable) is $45/month and I only get one provider to choose from. When it becomes another "amenity", it may go up to $60.

    Please pardon my skepticism, but it seems to me we will always be paying inflated prices for the sins (one of which is greed) of the telcoms, utilites, and Lord knows what else.

    --
    The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
    1. Re:That is a pipe dream by aldousd666 · · Score: 1

      IF everyone has the service, and competition is more pure (ie quality of service versus service at all) then the prices will go down, not up. Gas is not a pure competition industry. They have OPEC killing it.

      --
      Speak for yourself.
    2. Re:That is a pipe dream by mvicuna · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hi,

      And in places where gas prices are regulated its gone up too, because demand has increased and resources are dwindling which leads to incrased prices.

      You can't effectively import it from outside of North America easily so cheap gas from other nations who have an excess doesn't help us at all.

      There is an empending energy crisis in the US, your increases in energy costs are the warning and not completely releated to deregulation.

      Later,
      MarkV.

    3. Re:That is a pipe dream by Eenlezer · · Score: 2, Informative

      OPEC doesnt much deal in gas. In North America almost all gas comes from Canada, Mexico and the US. And the fact is there is a gas shortage there. Importing the gas via ship is a costly business, so expect even higher gasprices in the future. Because demand is going up and production going down.

    4. Re:That is a pipe dream by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      NG prices went up because nearly every new power plant being built is gas fired. Insert obligatory rant about environmentalist wackos preventing nuclear power plant construction. (Yes, wind and solar when practical, but we'll still need nukes.)

      Like pumping highly explosive gas through residential neighborhoods is safe.

    5. Re:That is a pipe dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you made 100mbps internet upstream/downstream available to every tom/dick/harry, could you imagine the number of people who would become zombies to their machines? Oh wait, it's already that way with TV. LOL. What was I thinking.

    6. Re:That is a pipe dream by Arbogast_II · · Score: 1

      Insert obligatory rant about environmentalist wackos preventing nuclear power plant construction. - Brian Stretch HAHA Brian, you are correct. But didnt your momma teach you it's not nice to tell the truth, :).

      --


      HenryJamesFeltus.com
    7. Re:That is a pipe dream by sykora · · Score: 1

      Gee, Comcast already wants to charge me $60 because I refuse to use their crappy cable service. They're the one we get to choose from and if you don't use their cable services they charge you extra. I'm just curious how many customers in the Pittsburgh area they lost because of this.

    8. Re:That is a pipe dream by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      afaik, nukes aren't getting built because no one will insure them. All the environmentalist wackos have done is not allow the government to say, "It's ok, you don't need insurance, we'll pick up the peices if anything goes wrong." IMHO, that's a good thing no matter what your politics are.

      Once you roll insurance costs into the manufacture of a new nuclear power plant, apparently it doesn't make so much sense anymore. (I could be wrong. I hope I am. I like nukes.)

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    9. Re:That is a pipe dream by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      Hey look it's a Mark V! Good to see you Master Chief.

    10. Re:That is a pipe dream by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      Prices going up drives production up by new producers entering the market and it drives demand down by conservation and switching to alternatives. Not all uses of gas can only be fulfilled by gas and those that can save money by switching will do it.

      In the end, it looks like we're all going to switch to hydrogen and then everybody will have a large variety of potential suppliers from the bio-people who get bacteria to make it to agriculturalists who get it from animal and plant byproducts to oil and gas companies who get it from oil and natural gas. The multi-fuel aspect of it all will smooth out the pricing curves because fewer and fewer people will be stuck with limited sources of energy.

    11. Re:That is a pipe dream by mkoenecke · · Score: 1

      Quite: a house two blocks from mine completely exploded two years ago, killing two people. Natural gas had built up under the pier and beam foundation, and exploded when someone lit a cigarette. Created quite the pile of rubble, and it still hasn't been rebuilt.

      Of course, this doesn't exactly happen every day, but natural gas isn't without its own problems.

      --
      TANSTAAFL
    12. Re:That is a pipe dream by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 1
      "exploded when someone lit a cigarette."

      It's the cigarette's fault!!!

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    13. Re:That is a pipe dream by dslpwr · · Score: 1

      I'm in ATL, not Pittsburg, but yeah, Comcast is groping me for $60/mo. because I refuse to get cable tv. There are DSL providers in my area, but I am far enough from the CO that speed would be iffy.

      --
      www.robot-invasion.com smart-assed political news, humor, and commentary
    14. Re:That is a pipe dream by Chicks_Hate_Me · · Score: 1

      In my ignorant opinion, nuke's disadvantages outweigh the benefits. I'm sorry but in the long term, a nuclear explosion is worse than a natural gas explosion. Think of all the radiation. In addition, what about the costs of transporting it and getting rid of the contents? The "experts" claim it's good enough to bury it underground surrounded by concrete. What if we find out in the future that this is a bad thing? And some the radiation gets into water, air, etc (yea I know it's below the water table but you never know.) I think we should wait instead of just testing it on civilians.

      I still believe that wind and solar will be practical and can sustain a lot of our power. We just need to learn how to conserve and invest more into research. Of course there's not really any incentive for this right now.

    15. Re:That is a pipe dream by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Enviromental Wacko's are Nuts... The harm done by Nuclear power plants is extreamly minimal when compared to the dammge done by Burning/Destorying Unrenewable resources... Lets use all the urainum to make power.. not weapons so that terrorists can get thier hands on em and nuke the world.

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    16. Re:That is a pipe dream by Eenlezer · · Score: 1
      A nice future you're imagening there. I hope you are right. Unfortunately not all people have such a rosy view. You should look at oilcrisis.com . It's mainly about oil but gas is discussed, and has usefull links to other sites. Its a serious site with a lot of information coming from the top experts in the oil-business. It makes for a very interesting read.

      The problem with your hydrogen view is at present most hydrogen is made from gas. You can make it from water but then you'd need a lot off electricity. Without gas- or oilgenerators this would allmost certainly mean nuclear, not a popular option at present.

      And the bio-option is also not very appealing. I dont remember the exact data but you need a surface larger then Texas to produce as much energy as is produced today. And the catch. You need energy to produce it. I have read that 80% off what you get out off it is needed to produce it. So even more surface is needed.

      I hope your view is correct because mine would be an economic disaster.

    17. Re:That is a pipe dream by Eenlezer · · Score: 1
      I forgot to mention furtilizer is made with gas and other ingredients. Interesting isn't it. If you want to find alternatives to oil and gas you should remember that it's used for many things, which means you need to find many alternatives.

      Just trying to make you think.

    18. Re:That is a pipe dream by Eenlezer · · Score: 1
      I read an interesting article one time. If you reduced the requirement from safe for humans to stand close to it, to less radioactive than the stuff you took out of the ground to begin with. How long would that take do you guess. The time would be reduced from many millenia to a few centuries. Just an interesting fact.

      Don't read comments that offend you, you might start thinking.

    19. Re:That is a pipe dream by bluGill · · Score: 1

      No, the environmental wackos allowed a plant or two to be built, it passed all inspections, and then convinced the goverment at the last minute to not allow it to start operation. The power companies are no longer willing to invest any money in a new plant when there is a good chance that they will not be able to open it. Return on investment of zero is not looked on as a good thing by anyone who has a stake in the plant.

      I live five miles from a nuclear plant, and consider it the best neighbor in the town - they pay taxes and I don't see them. Most people in town know it is there, and when asked where will point to the coal plant 20 miles away, unaware that it is hidden from view 5 miles away.

    20. Re:That is a pipe dream by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Nuclear power plants CANNOT explode, they don't contain the right mix of fuel. (Chernobol was not designed to western specifications, and even then they had to override a lot of safety devices to get where they did.

      There is no need to transport all the waste. The waste from a nuclear plant is recycleable, in a process that results in more power than the origional use of the fuel. (This isn't liked because someone who knows what they are doing could make a nuclear bomb from this, but that isn't exactly easy to do)

      Finially, radiation risk is a bit overrated. Three Mile island for instance only increased the levels of radiations 300 meters (feet or yards? either is smaller though), which is pretty much inside the fence. Not much a risk there. Mind you if we are stupid about building a plant there is a greater risk, but considering all the plants we have today and how few accidents I'd consider the risk well managed in all western countries.

    21. Re:That is a pipe dream by Madcelt · · Score: 1


      It may go up in price but so will the bandwidth. If you've got fibre to door you'll get more bandwidth. I think in Korea where they have fibre the connection speed is 10mbps.

      --

      I can only make one person a day happy. Today isn't your day.....tomorrow doesn't look good either!
    22. Re:That is a pipe dream by eam · · Score: 1

      Compare that to the number of people killed due to problems with electricity. Include fires caused by electrical problems. Electrocution. Leave out lightning.

    23. Re:That is a pipe dream by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      And what method did the government use to "not allow it to start operation"? Did the gov't simply fail to indemnify the insurance & power companies?

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    24. Re:That is a pipe dream by bluGill · · Score: 1

      I don't remember the exact details (and am too lazy too look them up...), but as I understand it they just denighed them an opperating permit.

      Personally I don't belive the goverment should have that power, but appearently they do. (Yes I understand the reasons they have it, but I think it is abused too much - but then power corrupts)

    25. Re:That is a pipe dream by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      The entire point of my post is that it is a multi-source fuel. If you own a pig farm, you've just turned a pain in the butt waste product into a nice secondary revenue stream. If you live close to that farm, your hydrogen might come from there. If you live further away, near hoover dam, your hydro-power plant might produce hydrogen instead of letting water flow through without generating electricity because there is no need. Bio-hydrogen will provide a part of the solution, certainly not all of it. The different options will shake themselves out in the market and we're likely to have several new sources of energy that aren't tapped today or are even viewed as nasty waste products.

      One final note, hydrogen fuel cells are twice as efficient as internal combustion engines. There's a lot to gain by switching and not just in variety of fuel source.

    26. Re:That is a pipe dream by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      We used to heat our homes with wood and make furniture with it. Now we just make furniture (and paper, and homes, etc). Removing one use for a resource means that other uses can either use more of that resource or can utilize it at a lower price.

      I don't think we're likely to ever stop completely where it comes to petrochemicals as some uses will end up commercially viable with artificially produced oil. The point is to remove uses, drag out the availability, and fund the scientists to cheapen the production costs of artificial petroleum until we aren't hanging under the sword of Damocles when it comes to petroleum.

  16. You better move to Ashland, Oregon, then. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want municipality (aka citizen) owned fibre to your door then you better move to a community which already has it and is making it available under this scenario. Unless you do that you will likely die before the community you live in now, such as Eugene, Oregon, already flush with 192 strands of fibre, spends your tax money to bring fibre to your door in the scenario you paint.

  17. And the answer to your query is --- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Move your home to the fibre.

    Next question, please? You, there under the chair with your crack showing... What's your question?

  18. Bubba Agrees by Arbogast_II · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Internet service should be viewed as a utility, and should have a private and a strong public component. In addition, as the article points out, most of us are getting screwed on uploads by the ISP industry. We need fatter upload pipes, and being able to run Apache type servers from your home ( with some limit on bandwidth) is desperately needed. Allowing fatter uploads where anyone can cheaply setup a modest, personal web server would dramatically improve the internet for the majority of the people. Anytime an essential public service is controlled by a tiny number of companies, the pure capitalist model breaks down and needs wise government regulation. What would we pay for water, electricity, telephone, etc if there were no regulation. We would work all day just to pay those bills. PS, to Slashdot, it was nice to see a LONG ARTICLE full of information instead of short attention span theater bites!!!!

    --


    HenryJamesFeltus.com
    1. Re:Bubba Agrees by thefogger · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how it would improve the internet if everybody could run his/her own server from home. After all, everbody can have a server already, only not from home. I think that if everybody had static IPs and servers running in their basements, the number of DDOS attacks would explode.

      --


      Um... I didn't do it!
  19. Take you case before the City Council... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work for a city govt in Texas, and if anyone in our public utilities customer service positions treated someone that way, they'd be fired in short order... but only if you actually bothered to prepare a formal complaint to the department. If the complaint is factual, well documented and is not a lunatic ranting, it is taken *very* seriously here. We've even had citizens bring their complaints (well prepared and "educated") before the city council as initial complaints, not going thru the normal departmental channels first, and let me tell you doing that usually gets investigative results FAST. It is a municipal employee's worst nightmare for a citizen to voice their complaint first to the council, so we make it well known at the service counters that if someone has a valid issue with a city utility, that they get priority attention from us, the staff.

  20. Re:RIAA to dispatch field investigators to Grant C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >Even "rural" EPAs tend to concentrate
    on small towns & suburbs these days -- services in the really rural areas are not much better than they were 40 years ago.

    They now have electricity and phones don't they?

  21. Well, of course! by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Informative
    A government-owned utility is of course more efficient. It is not burdened by the need for a short-term profit; hence it can invest revenues in a way that's conductive to long-term planning. Claims of inefficiency coming from the private sector is, of course, more FUD.

    The best example is the electric power generation and distribution in Québec (Canada). Since the early 1960's, electric power generation has been nationalized in Québec, and the result is the lowest electricity rates in the world, all the while paying-off the northern native communities on whose land the dams have been erected so well that, on the whole continent, they are the better-off natives (that's "indians" for you non-PC types).

    Even with all this, it manages to pour billions of dollars in the government's coffers (that's so much taxes we won't have to pay).

    Much of the revenue is made through exportation, and this is thanks to the hydroelectric nature of the generation system: unlike a thermic or nuclear power plant, a dam can be turned-off during off-peak times. So, during the night, we close the dams, and buy surplus power from the US at 2, while during the day, we open the whole shebang and sell our surplus at 4...

    By contrast, Hydro-Ontario (which had been owned by the province for a century) has been privatized and the market "opened-up", just like in California. The result is a complete fiasco, as small businesses face 500% electric power cost increases (for electoral reasons, consumers have been guaranteed - at government expense - a lower fixed rate).

    Come have a look up here, and whenever someone says that government-ownership is bad, you can safely answer back "bullshit", and then ask him why the roads and highways aren't owned by private entreprise to see him bumble...

    1. Re:Well, of course! by Obiwan+Kenobi · · Score: 1

      I certainly agree here.

      Here in East Tennessee we have the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority), which, IIRC, has the lowest power rates in the nation, thanks to our extensive work in dams and modified waterways.

    2. Re:Well, of course! by Matrix272 · · Score: 1

      So tell me... if this electricity company is so amazingly successful, why aren't private companies doing the same thing? Your argument begins with the assumption that the government can do something better than a private company, which is in error. There are plenty of companies that weren't profitable for several years (thus, the creation of Venture Capitalists, who provide money to run a company that they believe will one day pay them back).

      I think the roads and highways should be either localized or privatized, along with almost everything else the government does. There's a simple concept that you either don't understand, or refuse to acknowledge, and that is that the government takes your money in the form of taxes, and that money is used for whatever service the government supplies. The difference between government and private companies is that the government can forcibly take your money (and if you refuse, they will throw you in jail). If the private company tries to take your money (by way of raising their prices) the public backlash can be, and has been in many cases, so great that the company goes out of business.

      Every experiment in Socialism or Communism that has ever existed has failed. France, Canada, etc. won't be any different. The US is on a downward spiral, but only because certain political powers want the US to become a socialist country. Socialism and Communism looks great on paper (arguably), but just doesn't work in practice. Remember the USSR?

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    3. Re:Well, of course! by DrCode · · Score: 1

      Of course, capitalism works great when there's a free market. But that means there is a variety of suppliers. If, say, Kelloggs raises its cereal prices, I can buy similar products from several other companies. Or I can eat toast for breakfast.

      If the company that owns the road leading to my house decides to raise the price by 4X, what am I supposed to do?

    4. Re:Well, of course! by ChrisWong · · Score: 1

      Quebec power is hardly a comparable example to most US power utilities. Canada is a sparsely populated country with plenty of hydro-potential. The simple issue is that most towns do not have the dam-potential -- or have already exhausted them -- to generate sufficient fuel-free power. If you don't need to buy fuel, electricity can be quite a bit cheaper. What can a flat town do: dam a puddle? No potential energy, no free power. Sure, governments can do pretty well if they do not need to buy their fuel -- Brunei is doing pretty well thank you -- but that is no measure of their efficiency.

    5. Re:Well, of course! by Matrix272 · · Score: 1

      There's only 1 road that leads to your house? Ouch...

      But, to answer your question, park a couple of blocks down the road. What are you supposed to do when the government starts increasing your taxes to pay for the road leading to your house, then makes a law that requires you to drive on it at least twice a day?

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    6. Re:Well, of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (that's "indians" for you non-PC types)

      Or "injuns" for you southern, white, bigot types.

    7. Re:Well, of course! by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      So tell me... if this electricity company is so amazingly successful, why aren't private companies doing the same thing? Your argument begins with the assumption that the government can do something better than a private company, which is in error. There are plenty of companies that weren't profitable for several years (thus, the creation of Venture Capitalists, who provide money to run a company that they believe will one day pay them back).
      Private companies do not do it because the very short-term return on investment is not attractive enough.

      Your "argument" is nothing else than dogmatic bourgeois drivel that only aims to eliminate the State to insure a free hand to screw the helpless people.

      I think the roads and highways should be either localized or privatized, along with almost everything else the government does. There's a simple concept that you either don't understand, or refuse to acknowledge, and that is that the government takes your money in the form of taxes, and that money is used for whatever service the government supplies. The difference between government and private companies is that the government can forcibly take your money (and if you refuse, they will throw you in jail). If the private company tries to take your money (by way of raising their prices) the public backlash can be, and has been in many cases, so great that the company goes out of business.
      The Government is the source of your very bourgeois existence. It is the Government which provides for the legal environment where your private property can exist. You exist because the Government grants you the legal possibility to exist, and that existence is made possible by the taxes levied on people. Without taxes, there can be no Government, and without Government, only the most powerful thugs can exist.

      Your bourgeois rethoric is very self-destructive, because you won't last long without a State committed to protect your interests (and your interests are also the rest of the people).

      Every experiment in Socialism or Communism that has ever existed has failed. France, Canada, etc. won't be any different. The US is on a downward spiral, but only because certain political powers want the US to become a socialist country. Socialism and Communism looks great on paper (arguably), but just doesn't work in practice. Remember the USSR?
      Communism failed, but Socialism thrives. Canada is socialist, and has a very strong economy (stronger than the US, as a matter of fact - witness the plumetting US dollar and the rising US unemployment rate). Socialism means that the States watches closely what goes on (the opposite of laissez-faire) and takes IN TIME whatever measure is necessary to corrects problems as they happens.

      The idea of Socialism is to make sure that no one can deprive others of wealth and ressources. Your ranting is nothing than clueless bourgeois FUD; the only State bourgeois want is a state that look after THEIR narrow self-interests, but not the general public (so they can enrich themselves at the public's expense).

    8. Re:Well, of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Private companies are trying to do the same thing, and have failed (as pointed out by his Ontario example). I live in Ontario. By failed I mean that my cost of electricity has gone up.

      As mentioned:
      - Private companies dont have the luxury of long term revenue forecasts. Shareholders demand results now. An easy way to increase revenues is to increase the cost to your customer. You will be hard pressed to find a VC that will support you when you tell them that your plan is for a hydro electric utility.

      Basic infrastructure should be in the hands of the people. Commercial, non profit, and government agencies should all have equal, non-discriminatory access to the infrastructure.

      Most roads are in the hands of the people. And I am quite happy with the situation. All types of traffic for all sorts of purposes, use these facilities at a very reasonable charge. Access is equal and non discriminatory (basic requirements like drivers license not withstanding).

      Contrast with what media giants are trying to do with cable networks that have been laid on public right of ways. These giants would like to selectively exclude competing players from providing services on their network; there is nothing illegal in that, but it is certainly not fitting in with my ideals of equal and non discriminatory access. Perhaps I like shows that are carried by their competitors, or I could get cheaper service on the network if it were offered
      by a competitor.

      I like an architecture where the intelligence is not in the middle. Much like roads are agnostic to the type of traffic that goes over them, I would like networks to be agnostic to the data that is piped through them. (although exceptions have to be made for security, DOS attacks, etc).

      Multiple service providers should be able to provice their service over such a network, with no discrimination as to whether they are commercial, non profit, or local governments.

      Why shouldnt local governments be involved in providing a service to their constituents ?

    9. Re:Well, of course! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens when the company (state of MD) raises the toll on the Chesapeake bay bridge that I need to cross to get home? Nevermind that I'm already taxed for bridge maintainance fees by the county. I get to pay for it twice!

      They generate close to a billion in toll revenue annually, on top of what locals pay in their property tax (Yeah, because its only fair that we pay more, since we're the only ones who use it - not like the millions of tourists heading to Ocean City every year). Maintanance costs are a couple million. And they STILL wind up LOSING MONEY. Where does the money go? Straight up someones ass, who the fuck knows.

      Government beurocracies couldnt run a fucking yard sale. Projects like this are raw pork.

    10. Re:Well, of course! by Matrix272 · · Score: 1

      So how short is too "short-term"? Since the example you gave was in the 1960's, apparently 40 years is enough to make it "long-term", or at least long enough to become highly profitable... correct? So, is 5 years still "short-term"? How about 10? 15? Do you vote in Canada (or France, or wherever the hell you came from)? How long between elections? 5 years? 10? 15? Do you think about who will be in office 2 or 3 elections from now? If not, then you're obviously not concerned about the "management" of your "long-term" "investment".

      The only people that are helpless are those that are unmotivated. There are thousands of examples of the "helpless" people in history that rose up and made a change for the better. I believe France had one... or two... or was it three in the past 200 years? I can't keep track anymore.

      I think you just like spelling french words, like "bourgeois". I don't, however, think you understand the definition. "Bourgeois" refers to the middle class. I prefer to think of myself as better than "mediocre", so maybe "aristocrat" would be more appropriate. After all, if Socialism has its way, then all people would be equal, and since nobody would be rich or poor, would we all be bourgeoisie?

      I agree. We do need a State committed to protecting the people's interests. They can do that without an incredibly high tax rate and without Socialism. We lasted for quite a while without it. On the other hand, if I understand Socialism correctly, everyone is equal in all possible ways, including possessions and finances, correct? If so, my interests would be no more important than the interests of the person trying to screw me. What makes ME so much more important?

      As far as the Canadian economy being "very strong", maybe you should look to your Trusted Government for the facts. Specifically, the 7.7% unemployment rate, as of 2002. Funny how it's never been lower than 6.8%, eh Comrade? Oddly enough, the terrible economy of the US is only at 6.0% as of April.

      So Socialism is the complete lack of a free market... I didn't know that. Isn't the production of any goods or services that results in any amount of profit technically enriching themselves at the public's expense?

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    11. Re:Well, of course! by billtom · · Score: 1

      Even with all this, it manages to pour billions of dollars in the government's coffers (that's so much taxes we won't have to pay).

      Just to make a technical point, profits made by a government owned corporation that are funnelled back into the general government revenues (rather than re-invested in the corporation) are, in fact, taxes.

    12. Re:Well, of course! by Alex · · Score: 1

      So tell me... if this electricity company is so amazingly successful, why aren't private companies doing the same thing? Your argument begins with the assumption that the government can do something better than a private company, which is in error. There are plenty of companies that weren't profitable for several years (thus, the creation of Venture Capitalists, who provide money to run a company that they believe will one day pay them back).

      Private companies do not do it because the very short-term return on investment is not attractive enough.


      In addition the public sector can borrow money more cheaply as they will have a better credit rating.

      Alex

  22. Re:It's time for some TROLLBUSTING!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THEY know who they are. That is all that matters.

  23. Reminds me of IEEE Spectrum prediction by StandardCell · · Score: 3, Informative

    Back in 1995 or thereabouts, I read an article that said something to the effect of "T1 speeds in five years for $30? How does that bite you?"

    The prediction is both true and false. True in the sense that you can certainly achieve T1 speeds easily for that cost and even less, but false in the sense that greed has both driven prices through the roof and service through the floor.

    In Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, broadband cable costs US$30/month with effectively no caps (though egregious uploaders and downloaders do get flagged). In most of the US, the typical cable or DSL provider wants around $50/month for lesser service - even in lower-cost areas. I'll tell you one thing - when I was living in the US, it sure bit my ass.

  24. I think you guys are missing the boat here by aldousd666 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Listen, to all of you compaining about big government:

    The government doesn't have to be an ISP. I think they should be willing to help put in place infrastructure, like fiber lines, or whatever other kind of lines you want to use.

    These lines can be used by any schmoe company to sell service. I used an example, in my previous posting, of roads. The roads are the infrastructure, whereas the actual service comes from Ford, Chevy, Toyota, or wherever.

    The point of the whole story seemed to me to be that the telco companies aren't going to put up new infrastructure because at this point, (and forever at this rate) it's not profitable to do so.

    If we have the government grant money to municiplaities to put the infrastructure in place, then they can sell to their heart's content all of the service they wish. In the end they would end up with a bigger customer base. How's that not good for business?

    --
    Speak for yourself.
    1. Re:I think you guys are missing the boat here by cjackson0 · · Score: 1
      Yes, but the question to me is who are they selling all this content to? If JUMBOCORP can get the taxpayers to put the infrastructure in place and then come in as the only provider in the area they still have a monopoly, and got someone else to put down the money.

      That being said I'd love a system where Telecos were fighting to give me broadband access the cheapest. I'd really love more than just limited DSL availability or a cable modem IF you already get cable. FITH would be great but who wants to trust the governement to run it? It seems we are either faced with the choice between putting our faith (i shudder at such a statement) in a local municipality or waiting for it become relavent on someone's bottom line to give me a good deal.

      I'd love my local gov to intelligently put Fiber in place and not turn it into all of those road improvement projects that take years and go to the contractor who was chosen by the lowest bid and more likely who he knows.

    2. Re:I think you guys are missing the boat here by PCBman! · · Score: 1

      In that case, the government can do something like subsidize the competition, sure it's unfair, but such grants can come and go as needed. Which means the competition will have to float on it's own eventually, all the government would do is enable it to compete against jumbocorp.

      When you have a lot of money to throw around, you can create competition at will.

      Of course, this assumes no lobbiest or bought out politicians.

      --
      So, when's lunch?
    3. Re:I think you guys are missing the boat here by geekee · · Score: 1

      Who's going to pay for it. People shouldn't be forced to pay for something they don't necessarily want just because the govt thinks it's good for you. That was business is for, to gauge demand and act accordingly.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    4. Re:I think you guys are missing the boat here by aldousd666 · · Score: 1

      The businesses will not get past the hurdles that it takes to open the new customer base for themselves because in the forseeable future, they don't see it as profitable. They won't know what vast markets they are missing because right now, all rural customers are being hung up on before they get to the solution part. Besides, I don't think we should let Union Pacific take a vote to decide whether or not I get a road built to my house. That's the governments job just as much as is deciding which batallion gets which HUMVs. When it comes to infrastructure, thats where it should go, government. I wouldn't have electricity right now if this weren't the case, and you'd be paying a lot more money for that creamed corn you ate last thanksgiving.

      --
      Speak for yourself.
  25. There can be problems with municipal systems too.. by SwedishChef · · Score: 5, Informative

    This quote about "ultra-rural" Grant County PUD is somewhat misleading:

    "In fact, in ultra-rural Grant County, WA, where users of the County's FTTH system have affordable access to speeds of 100 Mbps in both directions, bandwidth usage has jumped more than 600 percent and upstream usage actually exceeds downstream usage. Why? The County believes that small businesses are sending substantially more information to the Internet than they are downloading, and gamers are vastly increasing their real-time usage."

    While it's true that the users are getting 100mbps access, they are *paying* for only 1mbps access. The PUD is simply too lazy (or incompetent) to limit the actual rates. Now that the PUD is running out of cash to continue rolling out the program they are still fighting any efforts on the part of service providers to actually rate-limit connections and use that to provide quality of service (and enough cash-flow to the PUD to pay for the program).

    The other problems with public power doing broadband is their bureaucratic nature. These are not business people but salaried workers who are accustomed to a business model that does not include competition or the risk of going bankrupt. They have been tutored in a regulated monopoly environment in which the "bottom line" can often be whatever they want it to be. Here in Grant County they have apparently (it's hard to get a straight answer) raised the electric power rates to help cover the fiber rollout costs. This has enraged the agricultural interests who feel, with some justification, that those who will benefit most from fiber should pay the most to roll it out.

    Additionally, the PUD here has entered into questionable contracts with favored service providers. There is at the present time an investigation into these dealings being undertaken by an "independent" Seattle-area lawyer. The word "independent" is in quotes because the attorney doing the investigation told me he is acting as the attorney for the PUD Commissioners with all the secrecy a client-attorney relationship can imply. Whether the results of this investigation, which could be politically damaging, will be released to the public is "entirely up to the PUD Commissioners", he said.

    The Grant County PUD is hardly a shining example of local-control broadband. The PUD controls two hydroelectric dams on the Columbia River and will spend something over $200 million in their fiber project (no one yet knows the real costs). This is big money no matter how you look at it and allegations of sweetheart deals to special interests abound.

    Broadband is expensive no matter who does it and no matter what a high-power lawyer in Washington, DC says. Trying to do it with a community effort might be successful or it might not be. There are many pitfalls and with so much money involved there is always the possibility of corruption and waste.

    --
    No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
  26. Unprobable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unprobable? Hello, George W--is that you?

    DJ

  27. Re:There can be problems with municipal systems to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like you live in Grant County, Swedishchef. I do, and quite frankly, I LOVE THE FIBER!!! It really isn't that expensive for what you get. 1mbps? I have a friend who gets up to 30mpbs on bandwidth meters, and I get up to 500 kilobyte/sec uploads and up to 800 kilobyte/sec downloads from my home computers. It's capped at 1mbps if traffic gets too heavy, which isn't that often. I've read about the dirty dealings with the PUD, and I hope whoever did it gets put behind bars. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the funds for the fiber come mostly from the PUD selling power to California during the power crunch and making obscene amounts of money from it? As a result of a lower budget, the PUD has slowed development of the fiber (i.e., they're not laying it as quickly as they were). A user of the fiber pays a flat rate to the PUD, then pays for a private service provider.

    You know, there's all this stuff going on, but believe me when I tell you, the users hardly notice it. They're happy as hell to have high speed internet. Do you know what the other options are besides fiber? T1, ISDN, or wireless satellite, all of which are !#$!@% expensive. Ther is NO dsl or cable internet in town. I had been praying for something like this for years, and it finally came!

    I doubt the RIAA is going to dispatch anyone to Grant County. What are they going to do? Go to everyone's home? Heck, I have a friend who started up a Hotline server (ftp client) out of his home! I'm hosting a website with digital video right out of my home without a noticeable hit! You know what? In the end, the fiber has been MORE than worth it. FAR more. I would recommend that other counties get on the ball!

  28. Why it is good for the town. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if you could rarely use the 100 mbit speed on the internet just being able to us it in town could attract companies to a town. Cheap VPN to and from offices and employee homes could be very useful.
    Wish we had it here.

  29. No Muni Broadband for Me, Courtesy of Verizon by judmarc · · Score: 2, Informative

    I live near Kutztown, PA, a university community of about 4000 people which is running a muni fiber network to downtown homes and businesses and planning to bill users for it along with water, sewer, etc. I called and asked the local govt folks if they would consider putting Wi-Fi broadcast antennas on top of the local "mountain" (big hill, really - couple hundred feet high) to reach outlying areas. I already have a DirecTV dish - one more wouldn't be a problem The fellow I spoke to said they'd really love to do something like that, but Verizon and other private broadband providers were heavily lobbying state government and threatening lawsuits as it was; they needed to tread very lightly just now and couldn't risk expanding the planned service area, which would be seen as a provocation by the private providers.

    1. Re:No Muni Broadband for Me, Courtesy of Verizon by dbrutus · · Score: 2

      The question was put wrongly. Would the government permit a non-profit corporation to put a wi-fi tower on that same hill? If the outlying areas would pony up the money, they should be able to get a tower up and have broadband without having any sort of need to municipalize it. The problem comes from government ladling out hidden subsidies.

      Try again as a non-profit and see if you get a better answer.

  30. Bubba says but by Arbogast_II · · Score: 1

    It is not true that many people can afford to have a powerful server, even though everyone that has a decent computer and net card has the hardware to run one. By carefully controlling the upload bandwidth, big business keeps the cost ordinary people using the net to create content artificially high. As for DOS attacks and such, that is a problem because it is not treated as the serious crime it is. Human garbage destroying the internet should be treated the same as someone blowing up a dam, cutting the power or telephone lines, etc. There is little difference except method.

    --


    HenryJamesFeltus.com
  31. Corporations acting badly... by msimm · · Score: 1

    Sometimes corporations act in purposes cross to the public good. The robber barons of this century are going to be the technology ogopolies. When a company take the position of manipulating public policy to limit or stifle the availability of technology in order to increase its profitability there should be public outcry.

    --
    Quack, quack.
  32. I'd welcome choice by Craig+Maloney · · Score: 1

    I just moved into a community where the only option I have is 28.8kbps dialup (no copper, no cable, and satellite is just too damn expensive). I'd love to have a choice of ways to link up to the internet, but unfortunately I don't. Where I used to live had DSL, Cable, and even Ricochet (remember them?). Oh well. :)

  33. Bubba asks about S Korea by Arbogast_II · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bubba aint a world traveler. But I have read South Korea has some of the best and most affordable internet service. Bubba has also read that one major factor in its success is the wise intervention of the South Korean government. Anybody knowledgeable first hand about this???

    --


    HenryJamesFeltus.com
    1. Re:Bubba asks about S Korea by neoshmengi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Early on the only internet provider in Korea was the big Telecom company (in the dial-up modem days). The government offered financial incentives to anyone who want to offer a competing service. They would get tax breaks and big fat low interest loans. Soon everyone was using these alternate providers, so to fight back, the big telecom upgraded their own systems and servers and there has been fierce competition ever since.

      The economy in S Korea is also very different from North America. Here we have many franchises ang megamarts and major utility providers that price fix everything. In Korea there actually is competition and most commodities are very cheap, because as soon as someone can offer it cheaper, they will, and everyone will switch to that new cheaper provider.

  34. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  35. Re:RIAA to dispatch field investigators to Grant C by djeaux · · Score: 1
    They now have electricity and phones don't they? Ask folks in New Mexico. ;-)

    The answer is, "If they had electricity & phones in 1960, they do now. If they didn't then, the odds are they still don't."

    --
    "Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
  36. Re:RIAA to dispatch field investigators to Grant C by rifter · · Score: 1

    They now have electricity and phones don't they?

    Not necessarily. Believe it or not, plenty of people do not have electricity or phone lines going to their homes in the US.

  37. So where are these municipalities with broadband by sprocketbox · · Score: 1

    I, for one, would seriously consider moving to a town that I new had FTTH that was run locally. Is there a list of such towns/services?

  38. interesting quote from Comcast...Side step. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bit OT I know, but the above post is one of the one's I allude to whenever one of the "Techies out of work" stories are posted on Slashdot, and someone comes up with the brilliant "You should take any job you can" advice. We point out the ill wisdom of companies that have poor business plans, while not seeing the contradiction in advising Techies to adopt a poor business plan i.e."Work at McDonalds".

    Accepting a unfair price for what your offering i.e."You turned down a job that pays money!?"

    Going ever deeper toward bankruptcy because one couldn't cover cost.i.e."Work at MCDonalds and Burger King, now one can afford the interest on their student loans"

    Compounding the situation by trying to make up the shortfall with desperation tactics i.e." Work two or three jobs...one of them as a spammer"

    We now return you to the regularlly scheduled disagreements already in progress. Thank You.

  39. PIUS Reactors by macguiguru · · Score: 1

    Exactly! As soon as the government quits pork-barrelling Babcock & Wilcox pressurized water reactors and LETS private industry build Process Inherently Ultimately Safe reactors we'll GET cheap power and the tree-huggers will shut the ##&($# up. We DO need nukes - the fossil fuel is going to run out - and then we'll be totally screwed. (not US us...but.. you know what I mean.)

  40. I have it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and it rocks. It is part of my HOA (Home Owners Association). Sure other things might be better but so far is is cheap (because everyone in my development has it) and fairly reliable (if hasn't gone down much, some but not much).

  41. Gas Safety by bmajik · · Score: 1

    its safer then you think. House-supply gas out here is run at an extremely low pressure. THe local gas company trains the fire fighters to put out active gas line fires. It's pretty tame apparently - they take a 12" pipe running at way higher PSI than the residential lines run, then they cut a giant hole in it, light it on fire, and then have fire fighters go put it out.

    The gas supply in your neighborhood is nothing, comparatively. Additionally, the gas concentration in the atmosphere required to be combustible rather than flammable is such that you would be choking to death before it would have a chance of exploding.

    I'm not entirely disagreeing with you - i think environmentalists are generally alarmists fools, and im 100% in favor of nuke plants. I just wanted to point out that NG is a great residential energy application. I've personally done the additional piping work in my home to put in a gas dryer, tankless hot water heater, and gas stove. I can't tell you how nice infinitely long showers are. Yes, there are electric instant water heaters, but the flow -rate is usually substandard and more over the basic model typically takes 3 40amp 240v circuits - 60% the load capacity of a modern home electrical service.

    If the task is "make something hot", gas usually does a much better job than electricity.
    Also, your wife will seriously thank you if you get a gas clothes dryer :)

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    1. Re:Gas Safety by benedict · · Score: 1

      > I can't tell you how nice infinitely long showers are.

      No, you can't, 'cause you'd have to finish taking
      one first.

      ("rinse, repeat")

      --
      Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
  42. Personally by John+Penix · · Score: 1

    I'd do anything do ditch my ISDN service, but it's all I can get. They don't even have DSL yet out here, and forget about cable modems.

    --
    Someone named an OS for me.
  43. Hello? Anyone Home? by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hello! Cost of Infastructure is the reason why! Say you can get a good deal on Long range fiber transceivers at 100$ a pop (This still completely Leaves out the Equipment this will still be needed to be hooked up to.).. you need 1 on each end... So your amost at 1/4 of a million dollars just for lasers.. No equipment to hook up yet at all... Just to light up the fiber.. Cost of recovery... if your broadband provider can cut more than 15$ a month in profit they are doing VERY good... so lets just say they have a profit of 15$ a month on 45$ It will take just over 13 months to do cost recovery Just on the Lasers required... and lasers will end up being the cheapest item on the list... If you can get fiber dug in the city for less than 75$ a foot Your smilin... and overhead is 35$ a foot or more... Thats just for Installation.. not including the medium.. (which is Virtually free compared to the installation cost).. Then you have Termination equipment.. You would be lucky to be able to terminate for 300$ a end.. I really doubt you could end up with less than 1000$ a house to terminate both ends of the fiber... and at 7.5 years untill there is profit to be made... How many of todays Investors are willing to wait that long to see a return on thier investment.. Practically 0...

    --
    Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
  44. municipal broadband projects . a short list. by zymano · · Score: 1
  45. Re:Community broadband (damm links) by pigscanfly.ca · · Score: 1

    Sorry about that , ment to hit the preview but hit submit instead. In my city ,ottawa , we sort of have this . For $995CAD/month (http://www.telecomottawa.com/english/services/bis .htm the city owned power companies broadband division will deliver 1m through fiber to almost any where in the city. The bandwith is 100% UU net and they provide a full commit for the 1 mb. I can then burst 10mb if no one else is using it . The only problem from my pov is that I can get 3.5m (admitedly not burst 10 service) for $90/mo over dsl .If the city could bring there prices down a bit (by not using 100% UUnet that stuff is pricy!) and going for a mix of bell nexxia , uunet , and posible a connection to onet I would probably connect . As it stands I can rent good office space , get two 3.5m connections for cheaper than my city . Now If any one elses city provides broadband I would love to know what bandwith providers they use and how much they charge .

  46. South Korea got it right by neoshmengi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    South Korea doesn't have FTTH, but it does have a very extensive braodband infrastucture. The government spent a lot of time and money investing in it and building it. The result of that is that S Korea is the most online community per capita in the world, above the US and Japan even.

    You can usually choose between 6 different broadband providers there. Since there is so much competion, rates are cheap, and there are NO upload or download limits. When I try to explain the download caps we have here, my friends in Korea shake their heads and ask me why people stand for it.

    Governments need to take bold steps like this because nothing will change if they don't. South Korea did it, and now they are reaping the benefits of great internet infrastructure.

  47. Slashdot need moderation for posted articles too! by tungwaiyip · · Score: 1

    This posting deserves 5 points!

    A highly informative interview about the politics of municipal broadband. Solid opinion on issues that shapes the future of U.S. and aboard. An outline of an alternative to the pitiful service commercial companies are providing us today that called "broadband". This is a great read for anyone care about the future of our economy.

    Why do we only get to moderate user comments? We should moderate article postings too and put great article above the mediocre ones.

    Wai Yip Tung

  48. Bad Private experiances too by TianJiao · · Score: 1

    I can choose high speed access between the phone company (DSL) and the cable company (cable modem), both private. My best experiance was with DirectTV-DSL (over phone lines), unfortunately they had a good product and went under. :-(

    With the cable company I have twice (in two different houses, other the past 2 years) had them deny I had cable running to the house, when I could go outside and find it coming into the house.

    The phone company service is horrible. I have to reset the dsl modem box daily because its DNS service locks up. When I call to complain all the support rep. knows how to do is say unplug everything and plug it back in. Well yea, but for $50/month (thats $600 a year people, more than I spend on the computers attached to the network), I should not have to reboot an "appliance" once a day.

    I'll give a government compeditor a chance.....
    Its not un-American to want something that WORKS!

  49. Internet access is not a "right" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see some scary stuff on here.

    People, please realize that internet access is not a necessity to live. Food, water, shelter... those are necesseties.

    If a community or organization wants to figure out a way to provide internet access to everyone that's great, but it should never be government regulated or become a Utility.

  50. HAHAHA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonderful -- I think that's the wittiest thing I've ever read on Slashdot! Too bad I didn't get moderator points today!!

  51. Don't go over the deep end. by twitter · · Score: 1
    If we let the market handle everything, there'd be no need for bribing the government. Corporations would do whatever they wanted to, and we'd be working 12 hours a day for starvation wages. That's the problem with the Randite pipedream - it has as little to do with reality as Communism.

    Jump back, alley cat! Government controls of public easement is one of the big problems. If just anyone could put their wires into those easments, you bet me and all sorts of others would be stringing the ugliest community WAN you ever saw tomorrow. The technology exists so that those ugly WANS would work together and replace conventional telcoms in less than a year. Boom, end of story. As it is, no one can touch it. Wireless is going to take it's place instead.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  52. Re:So where are these municipalities with broadban by batageek · · Score: 1

    See listing at http://www.tricitybroadband.com/city_owned.htm

  53. Here's a list by batageek · · Score: 1

    http://www.tricitybroadband.com/city_owned.htm

  54. I actually have Municipal Broadband by $robertus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Greets all,
    I'm actually one of those lucky folks in Tacoma who gets their internet access from the City owned cable utility. That's right, here in Tacoma we can get high-speed internet from our municipal power company. Both the price and performance beat Comcast's product by a mile. I pay $29 a month (+$5 for an extra IP address) and get 1M down, usually clocks at around 1.5M, and 128K up. If I wanted to spend another $20 a month I could get 2M down and 256K up, static IP, and the right to run my own servers over the connection. A friend uses the higher capacity service for his computer gaming parlor. He's never complained of a lack of bandwidth.

    It was interesting, before our power utility proposed building a City owned cable system. The then franchisee TCI was projecting that Tacoma would be one of the last of their cities to get upgraded to digital cable. At that time at least five years away. It was funny to watch all the spin that TCI's flacks and lobbyists put out trying to convince the voters of Tacoma that a Municiple cable system would bankrupt our power utility in short order. Well, the system has cost us more than was originally projected, but everyone agrees that Click! is the only reason that TCI moved Tacoma to the top of the upgrade schedule. The article somepody else referred to that quoted the Comcast exec is the only time I've ever heard something from TCI/ATT/ComCast that was different than their standard CLick! will bankrupt Tacoma.

    --
    -- Bob Honan I stand by the truth, which is why I never stand by Republicans.
  55. FTTH _is_ available now, and profitable.. by cotcomsol · · Score: 1

    even for private companies. We're doing it now in Bozeman, Montana: http://www.vividnetworks.com

    High-speed Internet, Telephone, and Cable Television services all delivered via a fiber-optic PON network .

    --
    -- "Big Brother is Watching..."