Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Muni Broadband Bills Country Wide
Ant writes "Broadband Reports says that 14 and possibly more states that have or will pass(ed) bills banning community-run broadband. Free Pass shows a map breakdown of the states while Tallahassee.com takes a look at a newly proposed bill in Florida, backed by Sprint, BellSouth, Verizon, and Comcast, designed to bog down the muni-development process."
Cable companies fought for and won laws that banned community run Cable TV type systems back in the early days of cable.
there used to be "community tv" or basically a neighborhood TV antenna setup. the would all get together and buy one large tower and good antennas as well as equipment to send the signal to the homes. these were made illegal in most places by cable tv companies in the area or coming into that area.
I know, my father used to set these up for smaller communities.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Why can't the communities register broadband companies and run them in a style similar to mutual societies or worker's co-operatives?
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
.. correct me if im wrong , but isnt bringing anti competitive legislation to stop competition (even if it is run by local gouverments) anti competitive in of itself. Yes reading that makes my head sping too. If the city wants to provide free or cheap broadband to its citizens then what is wrong with that , if the companys wish to compete they should have to offer something which the competition doth not. I would far rather have a state run monopoly on services , as atleast then i do have some say over the board of directors via a vote. Aslong as the gouvernment plays fair there is no reason why they should be disalowed to compete
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
These laws make about as much sense as a law that prohibits a government from maintaining a highway system. A government, with its existing rights of way and networks, is in a prime position to build out computer networks, particulary in places where corporations don't feel they can make a profit. I'm really really tired of libertarian arguments that don't take into account all the hidden and structural subsidies that alter the landscape of the supposedly Utopian Adam Smithian Capitalist Marketplace that they claim to want to protect. True capitalism of this sort means that only the strong survive - your next door neighbor with a gun. So it's not communism when a government decides to do something - we're a community, we live together, and if our governments want to build infrastructure that benefits everyone, let them!
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
It's sad that basically these companies are trying to preserve their virtual monopolies on broadband service instead of attempting to work with communities to develop large scale community wide broad band solutions.
A company such as SBC should really be playing both sides here as they could still charge for a fat pipe to be run a town. The difference being that a municipality has the money to subsidize the pipe and basically sell the bandwith to residents at a loss. SBC makes it's money albeit slightly less than if they were to provide service to each household but money none the less.
We'll see what happens, but I'm seriously considering asking some of my neighbors to get together to lease a line from SBC and then set up a community router. It will save all of us money and I'll finally be able to get a decent connection without interference from the 8 other routers my laptop can connect to.
I like how we restrict the choice of communities based upon supporting government funded monopolies. You know all of those companies used some public funds to build the infrastructure they rely upon.. Good to support corporations but bad to support community? Didn't these corporations think for one second they could make money off providing the back-end services to these community service providers? Offer consulting & management fees and whatever else they could do? Bad business
Byron Miller for Congress.
That would be socialism, and that would be double-plus ungood.
(Same thing happened 2 years ago in France, a wireless operator in the south got its ass sued into oblivion by France Telecom because it set up a simple wireless network for small villages)
I know I'm might be a little bit off topic here, but I can't help to think about the fall of communist Russia when I hear all these "corporate-protectionist" news. Extremes are BAD, wether they are to the right or to the left, up or down.
The USA is going too far in protecting their "corporate" society, and this will eventually mean its very own collapse.
Extreme capitalism will kill itself as Extreme communism killed itself.
Unfortunately the average american is very much distracted by the war against terrorism to even notice this.
..blah...blah.
Current initiatives for municipal broadband have a lot in common with previous attempts to set up municipal cable systems, not the least of which is that the same companies (Cox, Viacom, Adelphia, etc.) are involved.
A ID=/20050214/NEWS/502140334/1003/NEWS02) for permission to set up its own cable television service. The difference between this and the broadband proposals is that Adelphia is claiming that establishing a municipal cable network would be "overbuild," while with the broadband they're claiming that allowing a municipality to set up a broadband network would then prevent commercial companies from entering the market.
Municipal cable TV proposals aren't completely dead, they've just gone out of style. However, The city of Burlington, Vermont, is petitioning the state public service board (http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?
What do they want? If it's open markets, they should be willing to compete with municipal projects on a level playing field (i.e. one where the city can't subsidise their system through tax revenues).
If they champion "first-to-post" efficiency, then whoever builds the network first should be able to reap the benefits. Given government's alleged inefficiencies, that may mean that even if a city builds a cable or wireless network, they'd eventually have to sell it to a commercial provider if it becomes a liability to the city.
All it will take is one state allowing this before it becomes a national issue with a fight in Congress. The big cable companies are fighting this state to state at the moment, but Vermont is a very independent-minded state. IF they let Burlington proceed it wouldn't be the first time they've told an industry co-op to buzz off and set a precedent for any city that wants to do something similar either with cable or IP. I expect Adelphia to pull out every weapon they can find to stop them, but I'm hoping, as with the sign restriction laws, land development rules, and the non-returnable bottle ban, that Vermont holds its ground and lets Burlington take Adelphia on head to head.
They may ultimately fail, but I'd rather see them go down in a fair fight than see the project get bound, gagged, and tossed in Lake Champlain before it can get to the arena.
TLR
A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
Currently in Tallahassee you can get free wireless internet both downtown and at the airport. It's called Canopy, and it basically requires you to access a website first and then it connects you. It's quite convienent in the airport while you're waiting for a plane, I haven't had a chance to use it much downtown yet.
Also, just for reference: Comcast highspeed internet without cable, $55/month. Gotta love monopolies fighting tooth and nail to hang on to their huge profits.
ce n'est pas un Sig.
Case in point: in our town, Walmart wanted to build on a green field site. By the time they got around to it zoning rules had changed, but guess what? Our small municipality could not afford the legal fees to take on Walmart. Big corporate crushing small government.
And this is the same thing again. The fact is, if small municipalities can afford to provide broadband at reasonable rates, the private suppliers should easily be able to match them. Because private enterprise is so much more efficient than public enterprise, isn't it?
Well, pardon me while I beg to differ. Why should private enterprise, with its private airplanes, hugely overpaid execs, vast corporate dick-swinging-contest headquarters, and layers of management, be so much more efficient than small community efforts where the management overhead is minimal and the project manager isn't spending most of his or her time trying to do down the internal competition for the coveted corner office job?
Private enterprise is very good at delivering capital goods cheaply, but actually not always terribly good at delivering services cheaply.
It is hard to understand on what basis private companies have the right to prevent citizens banding together to co-operate on projects, whether it be putting up a community hall or a local broadband service. Perhaps a constitutional lawyer could explain it, but an expert on the cash flow of lobby companies might do better.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Its amazing how the USA's Facist unperpinnings show through the "smoke and mirrors" now and then. The BOYS have been working on this for years. At first they wanted to own the internet and when that failed - they then started to give the elected BOYS enough money and BJ's to stop others (meaning those dirty masses-us) from ensuring that the internet will always be a place for free expression of ideas. Yesterday the USA courts ruled that during elections candidates cannot attack corporations for pollution and other destructive behaviour!!
but then they couldn't fund it using tax-payer dollars. That is half of the appeal of municipal internet access - it is "cheap" or "free" because it is being subsidized by people who don't use it (those without computers), or who use it and are paying a disproportionate amount of the costs (the wealthy). The local telcos and cable companies are definately not providing the best bang-per-buck possible, mostly because there is not enough competition. But a small coop has it's own inefficiencies, and I would not expect them to be able to do much better than the existing broadband services on price - without sweetheart price-setting legislation forcing the hardline owners to offer their lines to the coop at whatever the politicians think is a "fair" price.
That said, even though I would not support government broadband in my community, I do not like these laws. I am a pragmatic liberterian but I also believe in democracy formost. If these comunities want thier towns to provide broadband, that is their decision to make. The federal government has no place telling the states what services they can and can't offer, and the states have no place telling the counties/towns what services they can and can't offer. Besides, the fact that there is such demand from the comunity for these services shows that the existing monopolies are not serving the people well, and creating legisation to enshrine them further is not the answer.
Yeah, and over here we don't ban personal expressions of religious identity. I agree that Europe does do some stuff better than the US, but this pro-Europe/anti-US sniping that comes up every time any US regulatory issue is on Slashdot is just another form of annoying zealotry. If we want to talk about unfair corporate/government interactions, lets discuss Airbus funding some time.
Why?
Yeah, let's discuss Airbus funding, because Boeing receives no government funds. Yeah, right.
Your hesitation about bureaucracy is understandable, but we already rely on publicly built and subsidized physical networks such as roads, highways, bridges, and subway and commuter trains. If only private enterprises were allowed to build these things, they would probably all be for-fee services that would cost considerably more. A public toll road is a form of regressive taxation, since the poor and working class have to use the same facilities as the middle and upper income classes.
I would argue that municipal internet as an optional service would be great; it would create a level playing field for all sorts of services ranging from banking to entertainment to traffic updates. It would be a lowest common denominator for communications. If service providers paid a fee for space on the network, it would probably help to pay for itself and without the need for a profit. I would take that over a monopoly any time.
Regarding reliability and efficiency, it's hard to imagine a government-run internet access service being much worse than Verizon DSL, which seems to have outages and interruptions several times a week, and whose level-1 technical support staff are totally script-driven and lacking in any real technical training. It's always annoying when there's an outage and their first question is, "What version of Windows are you running?" "Fedora who? We don't support that."
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Single cable networks are present in the majority of areas, but not all. I personally live in a municipality that saw fit back in the 80's to demand a two provider network. So when Adelphia told me they wouldn't install without major electical upgrades (my house has knob and tube two-wire wiring with no grounds in the old part of the house) I simply went to the alternate provider who had me up and running in a couple days. Not only were they more responsive, but they were also about $7/month less expensive with a less congested IP network. I like competition, and you are correct that monopoly utilities is anti-capatalist.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I disagree with your opinion. :-)
But at least opinions can be changed with facts... it'd be worse if you blindly "believed" it, like many here do.
Thing is, there are areas where non-profit organizations (governments included) can and do provide cheaper (better, more efficient, more complete) service. These are mostly in areas of health care, education and infrastructure. For example, most other western countries are what many rightist politicans would consider "socialistic" health care: such systems provide for better coverage (everyone gets treated, no medical bankruptcy if you get cancer etc. etc.), at about half the price (per-capita health care spending ratio between US and other industrialized countries). Same applies to education (interestingly enough, even the cost ratio is about the same: 2-to-1 in favour of society-sponsored system). And in the infrastructure area (where municipal networks woudl be), even US has government run entities like US Post Office... so there has to be something good in there.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
It's not a monopoly. The community government provides the infrastructure, but then that's a whole different potential quagmire the likes of which we see with the current telcos' stagnation, who are apathetic when in profit. With the govenrment owning and maintaining the fiber right up to your back yard, you would be able to subscribe to any ISP available.
For the most part, it takes something the size of a municipality to put together something that size. Most of these companies already have government-mandated control of our communication -- that's really not too far from tax capability.
Adam Smith considered big business to be roughly the same as big government... Both result in centralized planning, local market inflexibility and sucking capital out of the local market.
A municipal communicatins corporation provides local control of communications capability.
I grew up in Edmonton, Alberta. Ever since the dawn of the Telephone era, they had a municipal telephon company -- once again started because the big players didn't consider a small town in the middle of the praries (early 1900's) worth investing in. The company ran at a profit, and helped to lower Edmonton's taxes.
Now it's owned by Telus -- a multi-provincial conglomerate partly owned by MCI. I really don't see much of an advantage in the new setup.
Some people seem to think that large corporations have some sort of constitutional right to profit -- they don't. The original purpose of corprations was to pool community resources to provide a service to the community. Whether those pooled resources come from Bill Gate's Windows Tax, or a municipal levy doesn't make much of a difference to my pocket book -- either way the money's gonna be coming out of my pocket. With a municipal company, at least most of the profit and control is going to stay local.
If a company feels that my community is worth investing in, then they should do it -- now. If they're not willing to do so, then they shouldn't be getting in the way of anybody else providing the service that they're not willing to -- governmental or otherwise.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I'm not going to disagree with your first example, because frankly, I think it's at least close to the truth. See my earlier posts about how US healthcare is NOT freemarket. Your Social Security vs. Private Pensions argument isn't comparing apples to apples however. Social security operates nothing like a pension plan. If it were a pension plan, it would have to carry diverse assets in reserve in proportion to the present value of estimated future benefits. Basically, everyone running it would be in jail if it were a private pension. It's cheep to run because it doesn't have assets to manage, it's nothing more than a transfer payment from one generation to the next. Medicare and Medicaid (which are VERY different programs with very different structures I might add) would have a massive increase in overhead if they suddenly covered everyone because they base their pricing off of what the private insurers pay. They also define their administive costs different than we define overhead for insurance companies (which isn't really insurance, if you go to that post I was talking about to start with). So again, apples to oranges comparison.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
That's what people said about coaxial cable, too...
Adding a new set of wires to the poles behind my house is a trivial expense compared to the cost of digging up my street and laying new water pipes. The pole behind my house has two cables for two companies and there are only limited barriers to adding new cables. Water distribution is a classic example of a natural monopoly. The monopoly exists because of the cost structure of providing the good, not because of government regulations. In fact, the opposite is true: government ownership and/or regulation are designed to prevent the natural monopolist from earning more than the normal profit they would otherwise earn if they had put their capital into a competetive industry instead of the monopoly.
but when government regulations restricted the ability to compete directly between cable companies for individual consumers, a few media companies went to the trouble and expense of launching satelites into geo-stationary orbit for a work-around.
Satellites were not a workaround to cable regulations. They are a technology that drastically reduced the cost of shipping television signals to consumers. One satellite can cover an area that would take (thousands?, millions?, a whole lot!) miles of cable to cover.
We have no way of knowing how much better (or worse) our water service would be if it were open to the free market. I'm making an educated guess that it would be quite a bit better.
That's not an educated guess. It only demonstrates that you never took microeconomics 101.
FreeSpeech.org