Slashdot Mirror
Getting Broadband To The Bayou
Caseylite points out an article in USA Today "about the struggle between the city of Lafayette, Louisiana and BellSouth. The big telecom objects to the city installing its own fiber-optic network, claiming unfair competition. The city says its goal is bringing high-speed data access to low income areas to break the poverty cycle, stating a link between broadband access and education and employment."
On the one side is the innocent corporation which would never think to hold back service until the people are willing to pay through their teeth for it.
On the other side is the innocent government which would never think to render everyone's communications legally monitorable.
In the middle are all the people who don't know what the heck is going on but just want to amuse themselves on the network.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Not that it's bad to bring broadband to poor areas, but I don't think it will do much good. These areas already have school. They may not be great schools, but if you're not taking advantage of them, that's your fault. The link exists between broadband and education/income, but education causes income which causes broadband, not the other way around. Correlation never implies causation.
The only thing that is unfair about this is how companies like BellSouth are allowed to actually slow down processes that are helping people just so they can try to get a piece of the pie. I am sick and tired of companies trying to put their own profits before the greater good of society.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I'm not a vegan because I love animals, I'm a vegan because I hate plants!
It's proactive stuff like this from local government that is going to enable everyone to have high speed data/comms/AV content to their homes. Fuck the telco's.
about unfair competition. it will be a problem with a monopoly!
namely, theirs.
Fight the man...er...uh...TELCOM!
I hope a gator bites the leg of an SBC employee for their actions in trying to stop us coon asses from getting out free high speed internet access
Unfair competition they say? Yeah, how about their continual attempts throughout history to insure a monopoly position on what communications get to our homes. Fiber optics laid by cities looks like the solution to these problems. Oregon lead the way. It is time we all petition our local governments so we can have cable/internet/phone/utility monitors/etc to our homes for less than $50 month (all together).
"I am sick and tired of companies trying to put their own profits before the greater good of society."
Ummm, the profits of corporations inure to the shareholders. In the case of large-cap stocks like BellSouth, the shares are mostly owned by public service retirement funds, employees 401(k) holdings, and mutual funds held by individuals.
Therefore, the profits of companies like BellSouth do directly and positively affect society, and are an important source of income for many millions of people.
Why should the city care?
Bellsouth (or southern bell a long time ago) had a monopoly on phone service in the south for years, and now is trying the same with broadband.
42
Since when do corporations have any say what a city can do with its land?
Why do I get the feeling this is similar to the urgency of a democracy in Iraq? The Bayou is being underutilized! Conquer!
Plaese porff raed.
A telecommunications giant is fighting the city, because it is providing services. Well, that's what this is. A service, and it will benefit society. Besides, its not like Bellsouth doesn't have their own little little nest. From TFA:
BellSouth says it can't compete effectively with cities where taxpayers pay for laying down expensive fiber-optic networks. . . Perhaps, but Lafayette is building because BellSouth and the city's cable TV company aren't rushing to meet the city's needs.
There you go: evidence that capitalism isn't meeting the needs of people, and the state is stepping in. Adam Smith and economic libertarians would have those people simply sitting around, waiting for the invisible hand to bring them their broadband. Nope, the city is intervening, the corporation is retaliating.. and the city should win.
Of course, Bellsouth could probably just win everything by stepping into the area and providing service (probably with an initial loss, but they'd recoup their costs) - heck, get a juicy government subsidy and some nice photo-ops. I'm sure this USA Today article will turn some heads, especially if it gets reported in a more reputable newspaper.
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
I am TIRED of being behind Asian countries. Are we not *supposed* to be the most advanced country on earth. I don't think so. We are a rusty country, full of aging infrastructure, telecommunications monopolies (they are still monopolies even if it's not on paper), and a bureaucratic system that has been bought by Big Tele. We have lost our edge. The early American inventors are turning in their graves. We used to be the envy of earth with our mightly technology, now we are all but a joke to the Japanesse technocratic elite.
So the Telco wants to call in regulators to allow them to rollout their highspeed network, meanwhile Cox, an existing provider there, has raised the price for high-speed access 4 times already. They need regulations on the price, not the service providers.
And as for the comments on whether internet access will help the poor areas of America, in this case the University of Lousiana is in their backyard. So broadband access is a must if they hope to draw businesses that will do research associated with the University.
Our city installed it's own fiber network... guess who our local teloc is? BellSouth.
We now have nice, cheap, cable modem (and TV)service ($35/mo = 512k/1.5M); and ip phone service is coming soon.
© 2004 The SCO Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
^^ see subject
Government intervention in capitalism should have one focus only: to address and correct 'Market Failure.'
This is obviously what's happening here; there's a market, it's not being serviced, and the City is stepping in.
For an incumbent telecoms monopoly who had no interest in servicing this area a priori (otherwise the City would not have had to DIY) to cry 'unfair competition' is idiotic. Since when has the Government had a natural advantage in the telecommunications space? It's hardly their core business.
From another standpoint, a Government performing a task is no different than the citizens who elected said government performing the same task themselves. The Government is merely acting on behalf of those who elected it.
The ILEC in question here should back the fuck off gracefully before something really horrible happens. Messing with Governments isn't smart, especially when said Governments are trying to score poltical points by doing this 'for the poor'.
You're doing it wrong.
Also, city water systems are unfair competition for bottled water companies!
How The Bells Stole America's Digital Future: Part I
And I'm just going to give a token mention to the miles and miles of unlit (dark) fiber lying around unused because it's "owned" by the phone company. And by owned I mean the state practically gave it to them through tax breaks.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
"...stating a link between broadband access and education and employment."
There may be a link; but once again, correlation != causation.
Some politician probably hatched the idea to give himself some kind of boost, whether power or money or whatever. It's one in a series of technological red herrings, back-room deals, and stupidities that politicians here have started. Don't believe me ?
When I was at UL, the Lafayette Consolidated Government came and spoke to us a lot in my telecom classes... they want to use the fiber loop they have to provide data, voice, and video (i.e. cable)... but what they're gonna end up doing is running up the city's debt while a lot of the city already gets many or all three of those services from Cox cable without being locked into contracts. As their budget continues to increase it's looking like they'd have to provide the services at a loss to attract customers.
As a side note, what the city should do is spend some money on drainage, as we get a lot of rain, more than our flooded streets can handle in many areas.
--- If we knew half the things we shouldn't we'd stop wishing we knew it all
They've obviously never even been on Slashdot if they think broadband access is linked to education and employment.
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
I do believe that the city is justified. I'm just saying...
I've found that poor areas are also lacking in Rolls Royce automobiles. I think that this correlation must be the cause. If we were to increase the number of luxury automobiles in the poorer parts of town, it would stimulate jobs and education.
People act suprised. Monopoly corporation fires lawsuits to stop competition (aka attempts to protect it's income stream). People again act suprised. Why? The only legal reason that corporations exist is to make as much money as possible. Since they forgot to append "within moral reason" to that, you end up with entities that meet the definition of a psychopath.
Add to that the fact that the fact that we give them the standing of a person in the eyes of the law (ie the right to sue) and the fact that Congress has no term limits (ie let's game the system), and you'll get an idea what's wrong.
If you want a bitingly cynical look at the problems America is currently facing, go buy "America, the book" by Jon Stewart. Believe me, it is SO worth $20 for the hardback version.
Well, off to watch Battlestar Galactica...
...if the citizens themselves (through their elected officials) decide to spend their own money to build it. Neither is it unfair competition if the freaking phone company doesn't have a service to compete with.
The only time it would be unfair competition was if the community favored one privite company over another, or if BellSouth had a service in place there already and the local community decided to either drive them out of business or provide the service below their actual cost. Otherwise, the phone company is just whining because their monopoly is disappearing.
This isn't a socialist country, at least not as stated. Bellsouth should not expect a monopoly, but nor should they be expected to compete against tax dollars.
"The city says its goal is bringing high-speed data access to low income areas to break the poverty cycle, stating a link between broadband access and education and employment."
They've got it backwards. People get an education, then a job, and then they get broadband net access. Not the other way around.
Government has a monopoly -- on taking your money under threat of gunpoint and giving it to someone else -- without fear of legal retribution.
If the government had granted the ability to have compulsory fees for everyone, even those who don't use the broadband provided, in order to pay for the others... would you be OK with this? Do you hold government in that much higher of an esteem than you hold corporations?
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
The fiber loop is _already_ a debt, and a long standing one. It was initially laid over 5 year ago, and has sat unlit since then because the city has been patiently waiting for BellSouth, Cox, or anyone else for that matter to step up and utilize it.
LUS never intended to actually run the thing themselves, the plan was always to have the telcos lease bandwidth from the city. That would still be the plan except the telcos decided that it was more cost effective for them to simply keep using their existing ancient infrastructure and give the city the proverbial finger.
Maybe it isnt optimal for the city to operate as a telco, but it is better than letting the whole thing just sit there and rot and that is pretty much the only alternative now.
- sigs are stupid
I take it this "unfair competition" business is unique to the phone companies and their status as a regulated monopoly. As others have noted, I don't see the bottled water companies complaining about unfair competition from the municipal water systems.
http://lusftth.blogspot.com/ and http://www.lafayetteprofiber.com/
- sigs are stupid
"It is because of this kind of crap we don't have 15 megabit pipes for 30 bucks a month like South Korea does."
Yeah! I hate living in such a big country. Downsize America so we can have everything South Korea has.*
*Oh and let's live next door to a hostile country while we're envying what others have.
Why can't the city just lay a dozen lines instead of one, and then auction off access to companies? Then the companies are free to market their service packages to the homeowners.
This gets around the bullshit of unfair competition and actually creates real competition.
Ensure each fiber line is capable of 100 mb or more up and down, build into the bidding process requirements of no blocked ports for internet service, no prohibitions on running servers, and businesses as well as individuals of all types are on equal footing as to access.
A dozen lines would cover the local telephone monopoly, the local cable monopoly, the local power company monopoly, the local water company monopoly, any other traditional (long distance/AT&T) monopoly, and will have lines left over for competitive bidding by independent internet service providers, the small guys.
The power company gets to read their meters remotely if lines are left over and cheap enough verses sending out a meter reader, the water company can bid for their own line for water meter reading or piggyback on the power company line, the cable company no longer has to maintain their own copper and can sell phone, video, and whatever else they want, the local phone company loses their monopoly and tax breaks on investment and all the other sweets they normally bribe legislators for, and either they compete, or they risk other areas looking at the city as a learning lesson and the idea spreads.
Laying a dozen lines of fiber is hardly more expensive than laying one line due to the majority of the cost being in the labor in digging up the ground or installing poles and all the related charges.
The city running their own fiber? My city can't even get water bills right, can't answer the phone, can't fix a manhole that makes noise for the last ten years, can't fix catch basins that overflow when it lightly rains for closer to 20 years, can't follow their own zoning laws (unless the builder bribes them and then everything is ok), can't plow snow on some streets a week after a snowfall, can't, can't, can't...
Am I really going to trust my city to not snoop on my internet and voip packets after I complain to the city or sue them in court?
Am I going to trust my city to not snoop on my internet and voip packets when my city is represented by about 90% of one party, and they call me up on election day to make sure I go vote for them? Am I going to trust them to not snoop on my internet and voip packets if I was registered in a different political party for the previous ten or twenty years prior to them installing voip?
Am I going to trust them to not snoop on my internet and voip packets when I call up to report a problem, and the phone rings twenty times and then I hear the phone receiver picked up, fumbled, then hung up again, to hear the line go dead? And when I call again, I hear the same thing, only laughter in the background as it is happening? And when I report what happened to a complaint line?
The city should lay the fiber lines, multiple lines, then auction access to them. Use the auction money to pay off the laying of the lines. And if that doesn't cover the total cost, consider it an investment in the future of the city, and an increase in the competitive attraction to businesses and individuals due to far superior internet access as compared to other cities, nearly every other city in the US.
Thomasville, GA
© 2004 The SCO Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
I currently live in Lafayette and it's a great town and the poverty is not nearly what SEEMS to be implied here. /128k down internet connections. :) :P
The local Library has plenty of computers available to anyone who wants free internet access rendering the argument above null. The people the article and the city talks about would be better served using the Library's facilities to find a job first, then purchasing a PC followed by Cox or Bellsouth's 128k up
What the article misses completely is the fact that Cox is by far and away the 1 ton gorilla here.
Before the city's proposal I'd rarely see Cox advertising on Cable television, but now our market is bombarded daily with adverts telling us how Cox IS our neighbors, friends, and family. They are trying desperately to give us that oooey gooey feeling towards them.
Also since the proposal broadband upload and download speeds for their 50 dollar a month service has doubled! The irony is they made their own case against themselves.
I don't agree with the article and I'm still not entirely sure I support the city's decision, but ultimately it competition is a good thing for consumers.
As long as Lafayette's fiber venture doesn't start loosing OUR money and is self sustaining I'll back it for years to come.
Oh and last but not least, there isn't even a bayou in Lafayette.
city and state police are unfair competition for private security companies!
Look around at what is happening in other western countries. Most other countries are ahead of us in many ways, mainly because America is and always has been in many ways operated for the benefit of the investor, as opposed to being operated for the benefit of the citizen.
You see it everywhere: telco, telecommunications, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, mass transportation, television, radio. Anytime there is a decision to be made, it always seem to be made so as to force Americans to spend more, and that means work more.
Swing low, sweet chariot....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
"The city says its goal is bringing high-speed data access to low income areas to break the poverty cycle, stating a link between broadband access and education and employment."
I would think it's the education and employment that's the cause, and the effect is having the money to pay for broadband. Giving people cheap broadband isn't going to magically educate and employ people.
The existing fiber loop in Lafayette was built to connect the city utility and wastewater treatment plants. They didn't need a lot of bandwith, but while they were digging the trench it didn't cost a whole lot more to throw a whole shitload of fiber in the hole. Nothing is "rotting", they have always utilized some of the fiber for their own use, and the rest was dark because there was no point in buying the equipment to light it up until someone needed it.
UL has been utilizing some strands for a while now, and in fact they are converting some existing copper connections to the fiber to support student dial-up lines this week. The city guys are working in the trailer on the corner of St. Mary and Johnston and somewhere in Stevens Hall.
I don't have any problem with cities putting in a public network, if the voters think it makes sense. But do we need to break out the golden shovel here? The correlation between net access and income/education is there because people with higher incomes don't have to choose between new shoes for the kids and internet service. I'll bet you can also find a correlation between internet use and expensive cars, clothes, and Tivo. As many have pointed out on /. before, correlation != causation. Let's face it, the internet today is used mostly to stream porn.
In fact, the research suggests a pretty strong negative correlation between internet use in the schools and basic (reading, writing, and math) skills. Your kids are better off cracking a book and leaving the computer off until they need to write term papers. Cliff Stoll wrote a pretty good book on this subject.
But I guess you don't have to make logical arguments for anything as long as you add "think of the children" to your proposals.
I know I read the article, but I thought I linked through slashdot. I think it was in politics, but I could be wrong.
"Most other countries are ahead of us in many ways, mainly because America is and always has been in many ways operated for the benefit of the investor, as opposed to being operated for the benefit of the citizen."
Failed history again? Maybe they're ahead because their citizens are getting a good education instead of wittling away the years in front of their Playstation
"Swing low, sweet chariot...."
Don't be an ass. You don't like it. Don't be a consumer.
I remember those days. I would not learn in public elementry school. Because I was always the kid picked on, it was a bad learning environment for me. It didn't help that I was already smart, learning simple grammar in kindergarten (no, not reading yet. Grammar came first).
The same thing was tried in SLC. Qwest reacted the same way. Since they own their own allotment of the local politicos, they won. No surprise there.
I just got back from Kyoto Japan where 100Mbit fibre
to the home is deployed and availble to Joe consumer.
Sure probably only in certain areas but they have it now and I would imagine you improve coverage from there.
How many in the US here are stuck with 1-3mps? (considered very good here for home).
100mbit to the home and you need never rent or buy any entertainment media again. All could be streamed for a modest fee and copyright holders would be happy.
Hedley
when they cant decide what to do in their own country without getting approval from private companys. on the other hand in certain canadan provences, we have goverment telcos that wouldnt let any other telcos in.
Chances are any disscution on Slashdot will degrade into a flamewar about ID/Christianity within 14 posts.
I remember in Tacoma TCI / AT&T took out full page adverts in the newspaper and lots of airtime from a group that claimed to be "Citizens for Fair Cable". This was back 1997 or so. The CFFC claimed that a monopoly was good because if there was competition they would have to lower prices resulting in a negative impact on quality of service. Quality of service was piss poor anyway in the TCI territory due to their low grade cable and major leakage to the point that you could pirate the service somewhat with rabbit ears.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Where in federal laws does it say that life has to be perfectly fair? To individuals or corporations? On what LEGAL grounds is crap like this brought to court?
The federal and state and city goverments do LOTS of things that "aren't fair" because it's good for the people (as a whole), and the judgement of what's best for all is up to the governmental body that was elected by the people.
Town/City Fire Departments
Police Departments/Organizations
The Military
Roads
electrical grids
electrical power generation
telephones
port authorities
car insurance
health care
airlines
etc etc
Yes, some of these do make sense to allow corporations or individuals to operate - in countries that are big enough to have competitive airlines. And some just make sense for specific circumstances, such as private fire departments at oil refineries. And some others are still under fierce debate and country-by-country experimentation as to "what's best" - aka healthcare.
And now we've decided that broadband connectivity is one that needs to be done in certain cases by society collectively through the governmental mechanisms. Much like how rural areas were brought telephones and power. I'm sure someday we'll privatize it 100% again, once the hard lifting is done and it's become a commodity in *all* areas.
Only in the USA would corporations complain about shit like this. In any other country, we'd tell them to go fuck themselves, they're lucky we allow them to exist.
.
Because poor people need quality porn too, as our Founding Fathers had envisioned.
Who is more efficient at implementing and running a network? A telcom or the Layfayette Government?
The government isn't providing this service for free. Will it be fair to pay more, in a hidden way, for an inefficient service when the time comes? Fair because it comes from the benevolent government?
If this goes through, pay close attention to the books. $100 hammers aren't for the military only.
That wasnt _why_ it was laid, that was only one of the reasons... I worked for a company that took part in the original proposals for the laying of the ring, and there was alot more being discussed than just connecting the treatment plants.
And by "rot" I dont mean physically wasting away, I mean wasted potential. There are literally Gigabits of bandwidth available on the ring and the majority of it is sitting there unused and has been for ages.
- sigs are stupid
What I find interesting about this story is that the current storyline in the online Kevin & Kell comic strip is talking about almost the same subject.
"The city says its goal is bringing high-speed data access to low income areas to break the poverty cycle, stating a link between broadband access and education and employment."
Won't someone think of the children!
Hey, it always works for everyone else.
Most streets with Ferraris parked on them have a good correlation with higher education too. Maybe the city should buy everyone a Ferrari.
And they are absolutely right that this is unfair competition.
It would be unfair competition if there was competition to begin with.
The last thing the cable, telcos, and service providers want is fair competition. A quick look at their political donations will tell it better than I.
Check out http://fiber411.com/ before y'all
go on freakin out... lots of good info there
about who is doing what in Laf, LA, and what
is really happening "on the ground"...
-- Disclaimer, I am not affiliated with any
of this crap, just thought that that site
was informative... more than bellsouth or
cox or the laf gov sites, at least.
Now Intel is joining the fray. Quoted verbatim:
Intel has a keen interest in the proliferation of wireless broadband technology and industries using it; by early next year it plans to produce WiMax chips for networking equipment that carriers can use to sell high-speed Internet access to consumers. WiMax is a promising wireless broadband technology allowing data to be wirelessly transmitted across several miles at transfer rates of several megabits per second.
"Sole responsibility, either from government or a single carrier, of a city's wireless network is not the best solution for growing the market," said a source familiar with the chipmaker's position in wireless broadband policy. "A sharing of responsibilities is what will encourage broadband adoption, and that will be a key point in Intel's policy proposal."
Maloney will outline the company's high-level policy position and will speak out against efforts to ban municipally owned networks. In recent years, phone companies and cable providers have actively lobbied local and state governments to ban public agencies and municipalities from building their own communications networks. The commercial providers have been successful in some regions of the country.
In some instances, commercial providers will be able to build networks and offer the best network choice to customers at affordable prices. But in other instances, such as low-income areas or rural locations, it might make more sense for a city or some other municipality to build the infrastructure.
"We welcome Intel's position and strongly support collaboration between the public and private sectors," said Jim Baller, a principal attorney for the Baller Herbst Law Group and a leading expert on municipally owned networks.
Intel's position is partly in response to strong lobbying by Verizon Communications that helped lead to the passage of a law in Pennsylvania that prohibits cities from offering Internet access to their residents for a fee. Verizon and other incumbent phone companies had urged legislators to ban municipally owned networks to prevent other cities from following the lead of Kutztown, a small college town near Allentown that set up its own telephone, Internet and TV system in 2002.
Phone companies and cable providers argue that municipalities that build and own their communications networks have an unfair advantage because they are backed by public funds. They claim that the municipalities will drive them out of business by offering services at greatly reduced prices.
On the other side, communities that want to build their own networks argue that they want broadband services now, and they are not willing to wait until it becomes economically feasible for commercial providers to build the infrastructure.
Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
Ouch! What ever happened to balanced reporting? That story is awash with editorializing.
I happen to generally agree with the editorializing in this case, but it severely erodes my trust in the paper's ethics.
Oh, wait, it is USA Today - the newspaper for those who lack the time for the greater in-depth news coverage of television. I guess I don't have any trust left to erode.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
The city has power here, if they use it. Tell SBC in no uncertain terms that either high speed fiber is roller out to every home for and affordable price, or they loose rights to have their wire in the ground. The city can easily form a co-op to do phone service, and is likely to get better service if they do so.
Note that this is assuming the city is really running the numbers right. I've seen many cases where a city has installed something at great expense because it would pay for itself in the long run, and then nearly bankrupt when it didn't work out.
The sales point was that they needed to replace an aging microwave system. When they opted to run Fiber they got bids on what it would take to add additional strands. The increase was minimal and opened new opportunities.
The community has said that we want fiber to the home. BellSouth and Cox say that we don't need it. http://www.lafchamber.org/site136.php
Last I checked Bell South used to be just another company and as such it is fully dependant on the good will of it's customers. If they are not willing to invest and satisfy the people why should you be forced to stay with them? This no communism so if this crap flies we are in serious trouble.
Btw, I used to live in that city for an year 3 years ago and the broadband situation is really horrible. Most people do not use broadband and there are a lot of people who don't use even dial up at home. Back then we used to have Cox cable and internet as well however as everyone knows the price of cable internet is not cheap. It was fine for me since this was the 1st and only year I was going to be there so I could use the reduced price but once the price goes to the regular $40-something it is no easy price to swallow. Paying close to $50 for merely 1.5mbps is deffinitelly not my idea of broadband.
So should the people build their own network with their own money on their own land? Sure! If the city can afford to pay for all this more power to them. After all it is time to put the corporations in their place and let them now that sometime enough is enough.
I just so happen to be a student at the University of Louisiana. There is an $18 million Technology Immersion Center (http://www.lafayette.org/site127.php) being constructed by the university. This center will pull in high tech companies, but having high-speed net access would help out a lot too.
Last semester, before the proposal by LUS, I had cox cable with 1024 down and 128 up for $30. Now that the government is lighting a fire under their butts, I have 4mbit cable for $40.
Needless to say, i support what LUS is trying to do.
Neither, actually- the largest chunks of stock, in most public companies are owned by investment companies, funds, etc. NOT private investors.
Even a modest investment fund makes a person with a couple million look like a pauper. When companies do things for "shareholders", they're doing it for "the investment companies which want to see dividends and stock price increases or they vote to fire executive management, or sell their shares".
Investment banking isn't magic because you make the right buy/sell decisions; it's in large part due to you being big enough to be a Big Fish and influence company direction. HOW you influence company direction is what makes your investment successful. Do it right, stock goes up, you make money. Screw the company over, you loose your investment.
This is also why sinking share prices make executives and companies as a whole very vulnerable. Not only can they be fired, but a hostile company can go around talking to corporate investors and offer to buy their shares in the other company. Let's say Fund A is not happy with the way WidgetTech is performing; EvilWidget comes along sniffing blood after seeing the stock drop, and offers to buy their shares. EvilWidget does so to Funds B, C, D, E and F. A, C, E, and F all do. B, D, and private investors suddenly find themselves meeting EvilWidget at the next shareholder's meeting, introduced to them as the new majority stockholder. EvilWidget happens to have proposed a merger just prior (where WidgetTech execs told them to go fuck themselves because they were offering pennies on the dollar), and the shareholders (majority- EvilWidget) vote to mandate the officers accept (officers in a corporation "serve at the pleasure of the board"). That, in a nutshell and oversimplified, is a hostile takeover.
Please help metamoderate.
It seems more obvious that people with more money have broadband because they can afford broadband rather than people that have broadband have money because they have broadband.
I remember reading a posting somewhere back (no link, sorry) that parts of Louisiana were just getting phone service for the very first time. The phone company? BellSouth.
So the company that is complaining about a city providing telecomms services is the same company that can't provide basic service to everyone who wants it in the state of Louisiana???
My solution would be to get BellSouth to put the infrastructure in to these low income areas the city says don't have broadband... and to those who are truly low of income to be able to apply to the city or the broadband internet provider for a rebate coupon against the cost of the internet service.
Mark.
Bread and circuses. Remember, the primary danger of any democracy is that one day the proles will wake up and decide to "vote" themselves the thing that others have, all for "the greater good", of course. Just think: how many times have you heard some bullshit argument about "the greater good" recently? How many times *just over this one article*?
The proles are waking up and smelling blood. The only thing that stops them is the Constitution, and as our politicians seem intent on using it as toilet paper to wipe their ass with that may not be a factor for much longer.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Broadband isn't going to break the cycle of poverty. Education is. Sounds like a waste of taxpayer money to me.
Bellsouth is pretty much the Third Reich of phone/broadband service - at this point, any competition would have to be more fair than they are. When a company that refuses to remove extraneous services from your account despite repeated requests cries foul, let them cry. ...I'm not bitter.
sig not ready: (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail.
I 100% agree with cg0def (845906) I live in a county of 37,238, the biggest town has a pop of 10,866 There is 1 telephone company, 1 cable company , 2 WISP company. And these companys are raking these people over the coals. It costs 29.95 for 256k and 49.95 for 1.5. for DSL from phone company.And 49.95 for 256k and 1024K for $239.95 for wireless. And the reason that they charge these prices is because "THEY CAN". I think the government should treat the internet like the highway system and install fiber to EVERYONES home and have ANYONE that wants to provide internet access to people to have access to that fiber. EVERYONE needs to think about the future. I remeber when I was connecting to the WWW @ 900 baud and 14.4 modems were $250. Now there are some cities that have 3 to 4 megs D/Ls. Asia is much faster of course. But there will be NO end to the speeds that will be required in the future and I dont believe that the companies will be able to keep up or they wont because it aint PROFITABLE.
BellSouth is a "Ma Bell", if I'm not mistaken. Does this not mean that they are a big-time telecommunications provider? Does it not also mean that they have gridlocked small communities, as have other major t-comm providers?
Why are they so worried about "unfair competition" when they have the rest of the US locked down, tighter than Fort Knox? If they're not going to provide their "rural" customers with broadband, priced at the level of the average local income, then they had best not be complaining about the cities doing something about it.
It's funny, because I know that there are FCC regulations that govern/mandate of sharing access to your high-speed lines to other companies (a.k.a. competitors)...for a fee of course. And just who is the general beneficiary of being the "renter" in most cases? So, even with clauses like that protecting their rights to a potential customer base, without even having to worry about the overhead of laying their own network, this is still an "unfair advantage." Kinda makes you wonder how much competition they're really allowing in the telecommunications industry. I mean, if one of the biggest comapnies in the world can't cut it because of the fees involved, how the hell is a local company that's just trying to start out? I'm not one to try to put down honest effort and hard earned achievement. Kudos to those people and good for them for taking the initiative and working for what they wanted. It's an accomplishment not many anymore can claim. I must say it worries me a small bit though. Having worked customer service for people in the southern states, I know that there are some (not all) that just aren't ready for that connection and really really need to be kept away from it for a while longer. "What in cottonhell? That box there is askin me if I want to install Gator. *Spit-ting* WellshityesIwantsta install Gator. I dun never met a gator that I didn't like. Ornry lil goobers but they taste aight... You get the idea. Sometimes they just worry me.
Please be kind, I am new to this.
And take them electronics witch ya...
Why on earth (well in the US at least) is a congress-critters 'rep' in large bassed on how many laws and bills thier responsible for?
If it was an inverse relationship of some sort (good greif he got 18 laws passed and tried another 12, let's get rid of him!) it would make sense.
But as it is the more laws/bills a senator or representative has on his/her resume, the higher thier lauded.
I suggest we look more towards electing those that get laws repealed. And no matter which way we look at it look at WHAT was in the law (and not just it's name, which is usually bogus). There is a big difference between someone who manages to push through a dmca style law, and one who pushes through something like Equal Oportunity, or repeals the bad parts of the 'patriot' act.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Taxing whites to give blacks free broadband is idiotic because it will NOT increase their IQs, nor provoke them into becoming software engineers, biologists, chemists, physicists, engineers, etc.
They will just use it to sell crack via instant messaging.
As the blacks do in parts near detroit
Has anyone ever heard of that word, or has it been removed from the english language. I guess while the governments giving stuff away, I am to poor to afford a Hummer, but I think the government should give me one, because driving my old clunker to work is too embarrising. So I refuse to work. Its a dern shame when you work to get ahead in this country, and get taxed to the hilt so they can give poor folks broadband, when half the poor folks that they are trying to give broadband dont have a PC, and the other half smoke so much crack they dont know what a PC is. This is and always has been a free country, if you WANT to get ahead in this country all you have to do is work hard. I am not saying that everyone who is poor deserves to be there, but I promise you over half are there and only want a hand out. I live in mississippi, so dont tell me I dont know what I am talking about. I think this is still listed as the poorest state, and I see it everyday.
you cant force kids to go to school, but giving them broadband would magically break the poverty cycle?
more likely there would be stories of kids with $5000 debt playing online games/etc like the SMS stories...
Part of the city also has access to Cox Communications' cable high-speed Internet connections. Those are faster, but city officials say they're wary of the cost after six price increases in four years. They're seeking to build a "triple play" video, phone and data system.
What's so funny about that statement is that the Lafayette city council voted to make Cox the only cable company in Lafayette, thus making them a monopoly.
Now, city leaders say they need high-speed data pipelines to encourage a research park around the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Without them, the small businesses they hope to attract would turn away for lack of the tools they need.
Lafayette is in serious trouble. Most of the major oil companies are moving out because of the taxes imposed in Louisiana on oil companies. Lafayette was never able to diversify their economy and now it's starting hurt.
Also as an interesting side note: Lafayette also owns the local utility system.
10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
20: GOTO 10
Are they poor because they don't have broadband? Or is it more likely that rich people can afford broadband?
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
"Pure private enterprise at least has built in efficiency in that if the venture doesn't make money, neither do the owners. Getting stuff done on time and on budget become priorities."
Name one business that does not count on the taxpayer to pay for significant parts of its expenses (roads to get employees to work, police to catch thieves, EPA administrators so that they and other businesses don't choke everyone with their waste, ad infinitum etc).
The notion of private contractors doing government contracting coming in on time and on budget is laughable. Oh yes, it may happen, but its hardly the rule.
If there was even such a thing as "pure private enterprise" or "totally free capitalism", there wouldn't need to be lobbyists, would there? Just think about it.
Human greed is relative. In my neighborhood the even the clergy drive Cadillacs and Rolls Royces.
So much for all the BS about the rich not getting into heaven.
I'll be more than happy to blow you into a broad band.
Yes, but a very low correlation with intelligence.
I have a Ph.D. at one of the most prestigious
universities in the world, yet I find myself
agreeing with a much smarter friend, who noted that more education tends to lower one's IQ rather than raise it.
Years of education is fine but if you never reach a stage where you are intelligent enough to use it, in the long run it doesn't matter much how much education you have.
Please, someone, explain to me why they are going to have broadband in the bayou when they don't have it in alot of rural areas?
I like in Alabama, 1 mile from a highway, and the cable company refuses to bring cable to our area. It's really not fair to the people who want cable/dsl but cannot get it.
Are the broadband companies trying to get publicity by bring it to the bayou, or is it that they plan to also bring it to Alabama?
I have an idea. Let's eliminate the jobs for hundreds of lineman. That way they can move into low-income housing with faster internet they had before they lost their house. Its win-win. I had to leave the field for just this reason and hundreds more of these jobs are appearing everyday. Noone seems to realize, though, that such rapid improvement puts many of the people who have been working hard for years to bring you quality service our of work. Phases.
You look real good, boy. Gonna make you squeal like a pig!
Regardless of who profits, Caygen Fan will now have access to every known documented reciepe for Gumbo in the world.
Is this a great country, or what!
I live in Lafayette, LA. I'm pretty conservative, and usually agreee that government shouldn't compete with business. However, LUS (Lafayette Utiliy System) is very efficient in all its other roles: electricity, water, etc. Also - this is the only way I could get internet cheaply. I live in an apartment by myself while in college. I use my cell phone and don't have a landline. That means I can't get DSL. Also, I'm not going to pay $40 a month for the two channels I watch on TV, I just hang out at my girlfriends apt and watch TV there. Without ordering cable TV service, I can't get cable internet service. So, I'm stuck without internet access at home (and man it sucks). LUS's move is great fr the people. Internet service is becoming as important as other utitlies, so why not let the government create the infrastructure. If the state or federal govt tried this, I would be opposed, but it's local city/parish (consolidated) government.
My posts are definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
Actually I work for the local government in Lafayette. Our (soon to be replaced) website is here, not (funnily enough) at the Wikipedia. Our new City-Parish President (think mayor) is a very dedicated businessman and is trying to run the local government as such. What's being glossed over is the fact that it's not the local government, per se, doing the rollout of fiber but the local utility company which is technically part of the government but operates as an independent entity. Legally speaking the city government CAN'T roll out telecommunications services; we're not supposed to compete with businesses.
:P
The problem we have is the Parish council in its infinite wisdom gave essentially a monopoly to TCA cable (now Cox Communications) decades back and they (along with the phone company, BellSouth) have prevented any meaningful competition from entering the area. As such towns just an hour or two away (Baton Rouge, for instance) get much higher quality service from Cox and BellSouth while we get the shaft. The President is very tech-friendly (we were shocked when he produced a Blackberry on our first meeting and asked for it to be hooked into Exchange) and is encouraging quite a few technology projects in the city. In addition to LUS's fiber-to-home we're also moving ahead with the "Acadiana Technology Immersion Center", we'll also have our own link to the LambdaRail research backbone through LONI but I can't remember the name of our network segment at the moment and there's a plan in the works to provide parish-wide WiMax internet access from three towers in surrounding towns. So yeah, the local monopolies are upset because they don't want to compete but the argument that "the government can't do it efficiently is" is still valid, since it's not the government doing it.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
corporations, the media, and government.
Lately I've come to the conclusion that mixing any of these 4 institutions will taint and degrade them.
- government
- money
- religion
- media
The empirical evidence supporting my hypothesis seems overwhelming.Nominal separation of church and state was a good insight, but doesn't go far enough.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Just for perspective, a primary legal battle in Lafayette is desegregation of the public schools. Yes, I'm talking about that thing that most everyone else did back in the 60's.
Theres something wrong with politics here in Lafayette, and Louisiana in general. They say that people here are the friendliest you're going to find, and that's probably true enough. But if you're looking for compassion, tolerance, community, or any of these more sophisticated values of goodwill, you've come to the wrong place.
Its worth pointing out that Lafayette is generally very conservative. For example, the parks here are a joke, and despite having a beautiful river meandering through town, virtually all of its shoreline is in rich people's backyards. Most of the time, its not a question of if something should be privatized, but when and how.
And yes, there are a whole lot of poor people in Lafayette, on the other side of the tracks. One wonders if the other Lafayette posters who feel otherwise have even been to the north side of town.
1. both the local cable company (cox communications) and bellsouth also thought the city of lafayettes plan for a fiber optic loop around the city was bad until after a hurricane the citys was the only one left unharmed (cox and bellsouth also own loops)
2. both cox and bellsouth were asked to provide the fiber-optic network however both declined stating that it wasnt worth the investment in this market.
In the early 1900's both the water and power companyies also declined to expand to lafayette. Now both power and h20 are city run with few complaints of costs or quality.
Iron Maidens would be just fine, thanks. Just tell them to stop running around waving the British flag at their concerts. I doubt they understood the lyrics if they're that nationali^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H patriotic. Bruce would be po'd if he had to see that display with his songs.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.