Slashdot Mirror
Broadband War & an Interactive Municipal Map
Ant writes "Broadband Reports mentions a CNET News.com story on the U.S.'s growing debate over municipal broadband. Across the country, acrimonious conflicts have erupted as local governments attempt to create publicly funded broadband services with faster connections and cheaper rates for all citizens, narrowing the so-called digital divide. The Bells and cable companies, for their part, argue that government intervention in their business is not justified and say they are far better equipped to operate complex and far-flung data networks.
There is also an interactive municipal broadband legislative map that details the major battlegrounds on the issue. At stake is the fate of high-speed Internet access for millions of Americans, hinging on a fundamental question of civics and economics--whether the government or private industries should take the leading role in building out what's considered this generation's critical infrastructure challenge. Its map shows a breakdown of muni-projects in each state, which have or are developing fiber or Wi-Fi projects, and are facing (existing or pending) legal barriers to doing business."
Can anyone explain how in the hell the Baby Bells etc. are actually managing to push bills preserving their effective monopolies through state governments?
(Hint: saying 'bribery' might be true, but it ain't the kind of answer I'm after!)
We Build Beautiful Websites
They appear to be suggesting that the municipal will compete unfairly; in truth, they simply fear a large buyer with the clout to get a better deal from them for the end consumer.
Wikileaks, no DNS
The real shock in any of this is that the telecom companies haven't done this already. 802.11b (at least) as been everywhere, at the same price that normal NICs used to cost, for at least 3 years or so. The number of laptops being lugged around by people was huge even then.
This will eventually (hopefully) be tested at the Supreme Court level. Cities that want to provide this service, as they do any other utility, ought to be allowed to do so.
http://www.busyweather.com/
I mean, look what that's gotten us so far.
We could do it ourselves if we really wanted to.
This is just yet another case of corporations trying to get in the way of civic progress to protect their bottom line, where they usually believe they have some kind divine right to big profits, despite any harm to society. More proof that some corporations are the organizational equivalent of a sociopath.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
co-op
/. I'll crank up a forum.
Yep, rather than the municipalities doing the WiFi stuff and fighting with the, gramdma in her rocking chair bring me my bedpan dammit old-fat-cats, they might fund a cooperative research foundation or some other animal, that's a political hot potato and legally difficult for the big companies to deal with, that will eventually become self supporting and do for net-comms what open source has doem for SW.
If you want to talk models reply and if it gets out of hand for
Wouldnt the philosophical analogous argument be that libraries are publicly funded, and provide free information and entertainment to anyone and everyone?
Bookstores still thrive, book publishers still thrive even though probably almost everyone in the United States could get through life never having to buy a book personally.
its about time something like this gets brought up.. maybe we should start giving a fuck about the PEOPLE for a change.. this country has revolved around businesses for too fucking long.. matter a fact, almost any major issue that people experience politically, usually winds down to businesses being more important than people themselves..
if we worked together from all directions and aspects of how a society should function, then we might have something there..
- Hi I'm Linus Torvalds and I pronounce Linux, Lih-nix..
The idea of public broadband has always been an attractive one for slashdotters, the incursion into this arena by Grant County PUD in central Washington State stands as an example of why we don't want bureaucrats meddling in business.
In this state the PUDs are treated as municipalities under the law and are given a set of rules under which they can operate. Broadband and electrical power are different services so it took an act of the Legislature to allow them to enter the market. The legislature, under some pressure from the big telecoms who were afraid that the PUDs would "cherry pick" the larger communities and leave the rural people to fend for themselves, allowed the PUDs to be "wholesale" only. The first thing Grant County PUD did was ignore that law.
Grant County PUD had first partnered up with two local ISPs which charged $20 to $25 per month for the broadband servoces back at the inception of the project in 1999. But at the same time the Manager of that PUD was trying to attract an outside competitor, also a utility provider, to enter the market in this county at a subsidized rate of $8 per month.
The PUD did attract that utility but only by entering into secret (and illegal) agreements to subsidize the program at cost plus 10%. So the new provider would risk nothing and could make 10% on the rate-payer's money even if they gave away their services for free. Then the PUD employees threw as many of the new customers to this new competitor as possible while their managers used their position as investors to pressure prices to a point where the commercial ISPs could no longer compete profitably.
It was only after the PUD had spent several million dollars propping up this outside provider that the story became known. Meanwhile, the PUD had raised the electrical rates to cover the $100 Million cost of fibering only 1/3 of the County but lied when asked about it. The Commissioners and Managers claimed that the rate increases were due to other factors. However their own emails, obtained under the State's public disclosure act, showed this to be untrue.
Agricultural interests were incensed because they use a lot of that electrical power. A large farm might have a $500k yearly power bill for their irrigation pumps. While 4% isn't much for my house, it's a chunk of money on a half-million dollars.
It took almost a year after the discovery of the secret contracts and a State Auditor's report which also found illegal and improper actions, to rid ourselves of the management team that led us into this debacle. The largest ISPs in the area, including the first two to partner up with the PUD, went out of business and were gobbled up by another outside competitor; costing jobs and an economic drain on the communities' resources. The Commissioners who were supposed to keep a rein on the PUD managers are now up for re-election and facing some tough questions.
The problem with bureaucrats going into business is that, essentially, they don't understand profit and loss. It's all other people's money and if they make a mistake they just raise the rates to cover it. We could have fibered this County up for the money they spent, had they spent that money wisely. Instead they created a NOC they thought they could make profitable (not at $3 million a year to operate they couldn't), they installed fiber to the areas where their managers lived regardless of population density (it turns out the telecoms fears of "cherry picking" were well-founded, but the managers weren't smart enough to do it that way), and they drove jobs and money out of the area.
Had they simply created the infrastructure for the product instead of getting involved in creating subsidies for favored businesses we would have been ok. But that's the problem. Bureaucrats don't make good business people.
So if you don't want to see jobs go away, money disappear and your power rates rise, treat the entrance of government into business with caution. These things are run by politicians, not business people. And it's not their money.
Well if the The Bells and cable companies are better equipped to roll-out cheap broadband for everybody, when the hell are they going to do so.
The map claims that there are no laws against municipal projects in Pennsylvania, and this after the huge fight over Philly's muni project, which eventually included legal concessions that, while Philly get's to build their project, anyone else has to ask Verizon first.
Sounds an awful lots like laws against municipal projects to me.
Besides, Wi-Fi is old technology (in terms of providing wireless-anywhere service, as opposed to providing wireless-in-your-own-building service), to be replaced by EVDO.
I'll side with the needs of the citizenry over the needs of business any day. Besides, this is like any other government service--if you don't like it, then pay to get different or better service.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
What you say is simply not possible.
Wikileaks, no DNS
We in Lafayette, Louisiana have been fighting this for some time now. We have given both BellSouth and Cox commmunications several years to start working on a plan for fiber. Neither company has even started on it yet. The second that LUS (Lafayette Utility Systems) starts to run fiber, both monopolies cry foul and bring in the courts. I say let LUS do its job that the monopolies didnt want to. For more info check out http://lafayetteprofiber.com/
What's wrong with the local governments by the people, for the people, deciding how to spend their dollars in a democratic and free way?
For me, this (and any other subject of public services) is not a problem of government vs businesses. It's a matter of small, economically efficient distributed units providing goods required by their clients, versus bloated and highly centralized institutions.
If the efficient providers are managed by a transparent and public process instead of the power of the dollars in a few hands, so better for them.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Why not allow private companies and governments both to setup wireless networks? Whichever one can do it more efficiently and effectively will win the business. I do not agree that everyone will automatically flock to the "free" wireless networks provided by municipalities, which are just paid for with taxes or even by charging fees. Most people are very willing to pay for superior services, and this kind of competition would only drive the offering of such services.
To me, it sounds like the private companies want to repeat the cable scenario. Namely, they want to be granted an effective monopoly in a municipality to avoid any competition whatsoever. The difference now being that the capital investment of implementing a wireless network is getting cheaper and cheaper, thereby eliminating the high cost of entry (and capital investment) that has been such a barrier in other network access methods. Competition, therefore, has less obstacles on the technical and business side. It seems that the only obstacle left to build up is a governmental restriction.
whether the government or private industries should take the leading role in building out what's considered this generation's critical infrastructure challenge
Critical infrastructure challenge is lobbing Wi-Fi in cities? Exactly how for the vast majority of people is this a more important issue than roads, rail and airline infrastructure? Even for the techo-geek community there are options like 3G that are delivering this in most civilised countries already. How the hell does Wi-Fi bridge the digitial divide? If you don't have a computer it hardly helps, and if you do have a computer its liable to be in your house, not travelling around a city. And if its in a house in a city (these efforts are NOT aiming at remote communities for the most part) then you can get relatively cheap Cable or DSL. Wi-Fi, WiMax etc etc will do nothing to bridge the digitial divide, and in many cases would just help the digitially mobile increase their advantage.
This isn't a big challenge, its not even a big issue. In the question of what tends to deliver the most cost effective infrastructure its always the private sector. Goverments get involved when those companies go bust due to commoditisation and errosion of profit margins.
Biggest Challenge ? A sense of perspective for where Wi-Fi access sits in the list of important issues in America today.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
...if de-regulation actually worked and we ALL had broadband access at REASONABLE rates!
But we know the score here - we don't even have 19th century ANALOG telco service at reasonable rates!
De-regulation has been exactly what the fat-cats wanted, possibly even beyond their wildest expectations - the "l'aissez faire" opportunity to do as they please with impunity and no repurcussions.
"what's considered this generation's critical infrastructure challenge"
As opposed to the overworked and rapidly aging power grid? The over-congested, inadequate highway system? A vast lack of rapid public transportation (light rail, etc.)? Overcrowded and inadequate school facilities? An utter and complete disregard for border control?
Yeah, let's ignore a $1.6 trillion problem because internet access is "critical". Give me a break!
Accountability.
By claiming that community based solutions are not up to snuff in the accountability department and that by rolling out community solutions it opens local governments up to lawsuits. (which it does, this is the USA, you can sue for anything) they are able to prevent the implementation of such solutions not on a technical level but on a legal level.
Sad but true. Image the city of X getting sued by a number of people because they got jacked when using the city provided hot spot. If you don't believe it could happen, you need to look around at the world you live in.
Can't we all just get along? Obviously there are holes in the market which have not been filled by the Bells and the cable companies yet. I think that the local goverments should be allowed to do this.
A way to get around this might be to surrect a foundation. The foundation could get a subsidy from the municipal and do what the municipal is not allowed to do on its own. And it can also raise funds among the population. Getting a few municipal politicians and such in the board as advisors would be a good way to quickly get support for such a foundation.
then they should lower their rates. When the price of comcast highspeed is roughly $50/month - that is HIGH cost. Make it 25/month and the gov't will let it go - especially since that is what most municipalities are thinking of charging around. Now if the gov't can do it at 25 - and we know how bad gov't is at managing money - then the broadbad providers should have little to no problems doing this.
But they are greedy and they will lobby.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
They have had the opportunity; we'd still be waiting for the information revolution to occur if we waited for Corporate interests, paternalism, to decide it is a Good Thing for us to have. If it wasn't for self-motivated engineers all around the world, finding ways to make this stuff so cheap and functional, where would we be?
And before some would say the telecomms did the hard part, dark fiber and equipment as some kind of visionaries, they were just chasing the already lucrative telecomm dollar and the potential investment opportunity to squeeze you even more.
Government is profitable; they get careers, revenue streams and lease agreements where they spend the profits, in your name, that they will resist giving up. So they are worthy of suspicion as well, but possibly the lesser of evils.
I'll side with the needs of the citizenry over the needs of business any day. Besides, this is like any other government service--if you don't like it, then pay to get different or better service.
...
This is so mind bogglingly assinine
I do not suppose you'll give a refund on the money you stole from me, would you? (AKA taxes to you statists.)
The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
...and providing these services already, there would be no need for the cities to be doing it.
How can the government be 'intervening' if the company isn't even doing anything in that area?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Well, then, those same corporations will also be happy to relinquish their municipality-granted monopoly on the basic infrastructure (data cables, etc., that are there because the municipality granted exclusive right-of-way, and in many cases actually paid for them) they use to transport data, then, right?
No? Then said corporations should shut the fuck up.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
In some European countries, one may receive cheap services and products from the municipality if it proves the income is lower then a certain limit.
Why not apply the same for internet access? These days, having access to global knowledge is as much as important as food and shelter.
Don't be confused by the companies saying that this is government interference in their business. Local governments passing statutes regulating their activity would be government interference. This, on the other hand, is outright fair competition -- providing more and cheaper access to people who want it -- and the broadband companies just can't take it. They should stop whining and improve their services and prices before the end gets near.
In this day and age there is a fairly good argument that , tele-Communications are a nessecity to function properly in modern society. .
.
.Be it bussiness , emergncy or even keeping in touch with freinds or family.For many of us the internet is a nessicity , however as yet i wouldnt class it as a nessecity(YET).
.
.But its how i see it working.
many things rely on the functions of tele-communication networks in one form or another to function.
Be it , Standard telephone , VOIP(soon enough) , internet , Mobile/cellular or otherwise
I strongly belive that these should be gouvernmentaly controlled and classed as a municiple service
Why.. well , you try to function without a telephone
The lines and airwaves should always be owned by the gouvernment , I belive though that difrent providers could offer you services and such , but the core should be state maintained.
As i see it now , We have little choice as to who we pay for our telephone line anyway , the line provider has a monopoly and its a near unshakable one , it is far more free for cellular network but still very limited (reception of one company may be poor whereas another may have perfect in one area).
Giving this power to the gouvernments , will in my eyes not prevent competition but increase it
Unpopular view here perhaps
(the same hapens in the UK , germany and the states as far as i can tell)
You can choose who you pay your bill to but the line rental is a monopoly.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
The mistake that everyone seems to be making is conflating the telecom giants with the free market. This is absurd. The reason telecom giants exist is because the telecom industry is heavily regulated. As the industry deregulates, we will see more competition. For instance, isn't it great that Vonage and Skype are now competing with AT&T and Verizon? If we saw increased regulation of VOIP, these nimble, innovative companies might die out and AT&T and Verizon would become further entrenched.
It is apparent that many people here are disappointed with the quality of ISP services provided by market at this time. They think the government could provide better service. That may be true. But I am certain that government could not provide better service than a truly free, dynamic market in telecommunications, and that is what we geeks and nerds should push for.
The map said there was municipal wifi in San Diego County. Anybody know anything about this like a URL? When I Google for it, I don't see much and I've never heard of it.
Like water, or electricity that is provided by local utility company. Even if I get better water from tap than from bottle, it does not stop bottled-water companies from selling their products with good margin.
There are always a market for better service: that is something private companies can provide. But for bulk broadband access, it is most efficiently done in centralised manner - no need to dig cables for each provider for every house.
Let the community take care of raw, low-margin access, top it with your fine private premium $ervice$. Technology will develop even further, so one should not commit for old technology but use each time the one providing best price/performance ratio.
What an odd collection of states have municipal fiber-to-the-premises working! What's the pattern here?
AL (Sylacauga)
FL (Quincy)
GA (Dalton)
IN (Auburn)
OK (Sallisaw)
PA (Kutztown)
TN (Jackson)
UT (Provo)
VA (Bristol)
WA (Chelan Co., Clallam Co., Douglas Co., Grant Co., Mason Co.)
WI (Reedsburg)
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
I want my MTV, damnit, and I want the government to give it to me.
If aspiration is a virtue, achievement cannot be a vice.
I still cannot fathom who propagates the Municipal ISP fetish around here. If you've got such a hard-on for Municipal Broadband services like WiFi, FTTC, X.25, Morse code, or Semaphore then by all means involve yourself in the grandeur of your local city government. How many times must you be regaled with stories of the 'digital-divide' (note: If you use this phrase then there's a 99.9% chance that you are a municipal employee or have been one at some point) and the resulting vortex of spending that ensued? When will you learn that a municipal f-up means simply moving the decimal point to the right on your tax laibility and starting over again?
Can't we just go back to the good 'ol days where someone posts an article about his engorged *nix manhood and why it 0wns M$?
http://www.coe.montana.edu/ee/rwolff/ee543%20paper s/verizon.htm m l?articleID=23902991
http://www.networkingpipeline.com/showArticle.jht
You seem to think it is possible to lay several million miles of fibre in one year. Maybe if you have an infinite budget you could, but the telcos don't. It takes time to dig out the old copper and lay in the new fibre, along with all the rest of the infrastructure, and do it properly.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I believe in private sector competition. However, the government should be allowed to compete (fairly) when the private sector are slackers.
Why should citizens have to suffer because the phone companies are slackers with an un-serviceable amount of debt?
Some of the cities here in Utah have 100 megabit service to their residents for dirt cheap...
If the Bell's don't want to see municipal broadband then they should lower their rates. When the price of comcast highspeed is roughly $50/month
Uh, hold it right there. COMCAST IS NOT A BELL. I will repeate that. COMCAST IS NOT A BELL. They are a cable company. There IS a difference.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
I say let the people decide, why should the government be excluded from entering a market? Just so long as the municipality does not bar anyone else from competing.
Yes i know, i was lumping them all in as one. I am sure other people understood this. Is there another point to your message other then nitpicking?
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
The government funds libraries, the government should fund high-speed internet. Make people get an internet card the way they get a library card, pay for high usage the way they pay for late fees, seems fairly straight-forward to me. Libraries are closing due to lack of interest- shut down five real libraries to open one lower-cost digital library.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I see municipal broadband as important. It will get the bells and large corporations to either do as promised and deliver broadband to rural areas, or watch revenue streams dwindle. (streams that meant nothing to them before this became an issue. They were happy to ignore people like me.) The simple fact that free municipal broadband is even happening is because the large corporations haven't delivered this service. I am still on dialup because nothing else is available. (Starband does not count) The lines here are so piss poor that I need to shotgun 2 modems just to reach the speed of one 56k modem. Thanks SBC. $80 a month for a standard dialup connection. If this was truly about providing a service, then broadband would have already made it to rural areas like mine.
I am sure the monopolies and civic utilities can coexist, offering different levels of service for different needs. Imagine this, no more having to pound hundreds of lines of code to ensure that someone on a POTS system can view the content on your site as well as have a segregated site to use all of your cool features available for people with a thicker pipe to the internet. When Broadband is available as a utility, there can be a much better consistency to the presentation layer of many applications, as well as much more rich content to the masses. For those that say companies have to make money as well, they can and will, because I am sure that municipal Broadband will not be able to compete with T3 Frame Relays and won't have uptime that is crucial for businesses. Innovation for the masses breeds more innovation, and can only cause the commodity that is the internet to thrive in a way we could have never imagined. It will also empower consumers and give them a choice they just don't have with monolithic monopolies that believe that 1 standard of service is enough for all consumers.
"The government will restrict your right to post information, and it will be proactive. They will block ports, they will limit bandwidth, they will filter content. It's going to happen."
Maybe municipal-run internet concerns will or won't be worse than private companies. But contrary to the certainties that many people on either side of the issues mutter....why not let a few towns try it? If a majority of local voters approve a municipal ISP, why should others attempt to block them from it? Let a few scattered towns try it, and see how it turns out.
One of the problems with control at the state government level is it prevents people from trying a potentially interesting idea on a small scale, without the dangers of any serious repercussions if it fails. The quickest way to stagnation is to not let people try a few new things.
In all these areas where Verizon, SBC, etc... haven't rolled out high-speed service, or are cost-prohibitive, etc... and the government wants to set up municipal WiFi:
Step 1: Have a vote in the municipality that wants to set up such a service, to determine that it is in line with the public interest.
Step 2: Let the companies in question have a crack at it. Find out how long it would take the government to roll it out, and how much it would cost, and give the companies that much time to get it rolled out at that price. If they won't or can't, tough noogies, let the local government do its job and perform the will of its people.
... are more interested in dragging their feet and ensuring that they have monopoly control over any markets they invest in, so that they can charge a far higher price for less service than competition would normally lead to, than in actually innovating and taking any lead. They are also only interested in 'dense' markets where there are lots of customers.
Since they seem to be playing the 'the government shouldnt compete with us' card, I suggest that communities instead form co-ops (which would be greenlighted thru rights-of-way and other resources) that would own and operate the services. Basically the same thing, but it takes away the BS objection that the incumbents have.
Efficiency is a result of process, not incentives, although incentives are sometimes required so that the process changes take hold. Whoever the municipal hire to supply access will want to keep their own costs down, so the incentives are still there. Competition is still active, as local authorities won't all go with the same provider. If the hardware is owned by the authority, they can hire anyone to operate it.
Wireless access can easily be an incremental process; the barriers to entry are few (add bandwidth as required). Municipal access therefore doesn't prevent there being private access, and as the bandwidth is likely to be limited per user, there'll still be plenty of demand for another service.
Wikileaks, no DNS
Both sides have some problems in this debate. The baby bells, and other service providers have a valid complaint against any government using its coercive power to take over their business. People shouldn't be forced to pay for broad-band service any more than they should be forced to pay for sparkling new sports stadiums. However, when the baby bells cooperate with the locals on making these laws regarding broad-band, they like to slip in a clause about making it illegal to provide free service. This is clearly a mercantilistic attempt to use government power to head-off any competition. There is a legitimate threat from ad-hoc wireless networks, and the established ISP's don't want to compete.
If they don't want to see municipal broadband..they should offer broadband in that area! To hell with the cost. $50 is cheap to me. For a decent dialup connection in this particular rural area it is costing $80! (Shotgun modem setup+2 phone lines) Thanks SBC for the horrible lines. There is NO other option here yet. So those of you who complain about "expensive" broadband have no clue how good you have it.
Great, DSL is acting up. Try this one too.
;)
Same machine, cable modem though. Lord help me that I don't have to dialup in and put up a third link...
The politicians, the think tanks, and the corporate lobbies (i.e., the economic elite, CorpGovMedia) have us pretty much where they want us right now. The white working class are split prettu evenly: most of the educated, white office culture is in the Democratic party camp as so-called liberals. And the rest of the white working class--the blue collars and what is left of the white office workers are in the GOP camp. Two major vectors are being used to seperate the white working class:
1. racial guilt and redneck demonization by the educated white working class (part of the Democratic party faction).
2. Religious-death fear on the part of the religious white working class (part of the GOP faction).
These two attacks have split the largest segment of America into two camps and they have been effectively set against each other with these tactics on the behalf of CorpGovMedia. They are now at each's others throat. Thus they are paralyzed politically into opposing red state-bue state camps.
So now CorpGovMedia can do pretty whatever it wants. The Republican politicians are leading the way with abandon, but the Democratic politicians are right on their tails. Campaign funding is crucial to staying in power, and as long as the politicians vote with the corporations, the corporations will not target them by funding an opponent, which means they are virtually invincible.
And almost ALL politicians care for little beside power.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I love this idea on the surface but one has to wonder..if all the unprofitable services are delegated to the government, then how is that servicing the taxpayer? It seems to let the big corporations out of any responsibility they have. As I recall there was a bill years ago that benefitted the telcom's very much. But one part of the law was a requirement to service rural areas. They haven't met up to their end of the bargain, choosing only to service the extremely profitable area's. Why isn't congress stopping this and asking the telco's and cable companies why they are complaining about an area that they have refused to service and why aren't they being punished for not meeting their obligations? Oh wait. I already know why...
Plus just imagine what kind of service you'll get from your new Government ISP Overlords. Public WiFi will have the same sterling quality as Public Housing, and technical problems will be resolved with the same lightning speed of the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Crow T. Trollbot
Thanks for your completely assinine/troll statement. Just because you live in some very rural area does not justify a response for other people in other areas. To you $50 may be cheap, but a family living paycheck to paycheck - this is not cheap and is a large barrier for these families to get highspeed.
And what is this cost of each phone line costing 40? Even when I did use dialup (and I did a couple of years ago because broadband was not installed in that area) it only costs 20/phone line for unlimited local calling. So two lines were 40
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
It's around $30 a phone line. $20 for the isp. I wasn't being an assinine troll but I will be now. Because you are oh so priviledged to have broadband, you have forgotten that the charge for the phone line is and always has been SEPARATE from the charge for an account with an ISP! My area is also not "Very" rural. I live 30 minutes out from Oklahoma city. I have relatives in another state that live over an hour from any large city and they have DSL. So try to think before you get angry. There are people out there that $50 a month isn't the important factor. It's that there is no broadband period.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Rates vary from area to area - but I seem to recall having $15 for unlim local calling in a rural area that I lived (comcast refused to install cable television lines because there was not enough people living in this area). And there are many providers who give $10/month service. Some providers allow you to have multiple accounts dialed in at the same time (i.e. for families that have kids at college). But assuming you do not have access to this - then 20 for inet access and 30 for phone is 50.
So try to think before you get angry. There are people out there that $50 a month isn't the important factor. It's that there is no broadband period.
See this statement, you fail to see what the gov't is insterested in. The gov't doesn't care about the person who thinks $50 isn't an important factor...the gov't cares about the person who thinks $25/month *IS* a factor. That is why I got angry.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
So the point I'm trying to make? Farmers, oil companies, auto makers, pharmecuticals and utilities, as well as many others are in bed with the government. Our tax dollars pay for cheap produce, ridiculously low gas prices and much of the infrastructure upon which the Internet is based. Why should a few make millions off our tax dollars...
Oh wait, that's the way government works, take the lifeblood out of millions and hand it to a few for backscratching priveledges. Look at how war money is handled.
I think the bells are bitching because they don't like competition.
And like everyone else, they want a free ride... of the public.
Bend over!
As far as what needs to be done? In the Information age & economy, easy access to the glut of information available is a basic human right, up there with power, water and housing. Oh wait. those arn't rights, we have to buy our power, water and housing, tying our very survival into the fluxuations of survival tickets and compensatory servitude...
the whims of your boss, funding, or the market could affect your LIFE. and here, in this supposedly free country of liberty & pursuit of happiness nonsense... WHAT RIGHT DO THEY HAVE THREATENING MY HOME, MY WATER, MY POWER, OR MY DSL!!!!
ALL OF WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL TO MY CONTINUED HAPPINESS.
ahem. end of rant.
"At stake is the fate of high-speed Internet access for millions of Americans, hinging on a fundamental question of civics and economics--whether the government or private industries should take the leading role in building out what's considered this generation's critical infrastructure challenge."
I thought this generation's critical infrastructure challange was repairing our power grid. remember... that blackout in the summer of 2003.
I stole this signature
Talking about failure to see... Shotgun modems. I have 2 modems and 2 phone lines. Because the best connection I can get on a single line is around 21-25k. SBC refuses to do anything about it and since they are the only game in town...for now anyways. Actually I saw municipal broadband as the government of those areas saying "well you aren't providing service, so we will provide it ourselves." Do I agree that $50 a month is too much? yes. I realize you are just a step ahead of me. you have broadband and are now trying to get it cheaper. I'm still at the "I want broadband" level.
I'm most likely insane, but I recall this whole old-fashioned internet thang was designed, built, and expanded by tax dollars. Now these multi-billion dollar megacorps want to control access to this beast that was built by *ahem* THE GOVERNMENT?
Let me get this straight. They think that they have a God-given right to profit from a publically-built system, and the public which funded it, must go through them for access.
Well, exCUSE the fuck out of me if my heart fails to bleed for them.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
In your situation there should be no argument for municipal broadband. If the highspeed providers are not willing to provide it, then the gov't should easily step in - whats the problem in your area? Yes I realize you are shutgunning modems (you said that in an earlier post).
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
No idea. I have heard (read rumor but a likely one) that dsl could be here and running in no time. That the cables are laid but there is some sort of argument with SBC. Thankfully there is a Co-op that has an excellent reputation but simply doesn't have this area for phone lines. (A friend 30 minutes away and even slightly further out has had dsl through them for years.) They are bringing Wi-fi into this area now and are hopefully going to be servicing my area within a month or two. I am itching to tell SBC to take a hike. I am also watching for "Stratellites" http://www.sanswire.com/stratellites.htm When these are put out you can expect broadband costs drop immensely through real competition. That's what this really is about. The large telco's trying to stop a form of competition.
Verizon and the other Baby Bells argue that Muni's should not operate their own networks because they could do it better. Yet, the Baby Bells turn around and say they cannot provide coverage everywhere. If you ask me, I think if a private firms are genuinely better than government at delivering a service, it should be more effective at doing so, and so competition from the government should not be a problem for them. Let the muni's field their networks. There's no difference between a city building a water treatment facility or a city building a network.
This is my sig.
Is high speed internet access really a public necessity? Does it really bridge the "Digital Gap"?
I disagree on both counts. Plenty of people who can afford high speed, and have computers choose not to use it. Is it fair to force them to pay for something that they don't use?
To take advantage of it you have to have a computer. Should the government pay for shiny new Macs so that anyone can afford the convenience of a nice, modern PC?
It's just a fact of life that when you don't have the money to pay for certain services that you simply don't use them. In the case of high speed internet, if you don't want to or can't pay the higher cost, you can still connect using dialup. Several companies offer it practically free. If the trend continues, perhaps in a few years it will be the same for broadband.
You can go on about how "evil" all these big corporations are for opposing this trend, but the reality is that in most cases the government isn't going to run the high speed network. They're going to choose the lowest bidder (most likely an "evil" corporation), and hand them a big chunk of pubilc funds. The effect is that all providers big and small can't compete. No wonder a lot of the big corporations don't like it. They have little control over whether or not they'll be the one that is chosen.
There is an underlying reson for this. In difference to the POTS the network structure makes it very difficult to pinpoint the geographical position of the IP exactly. In other words: You can't 100% prove who is who. Also: Phone lines are specifically dealt with in the laws. Police needs a warrent to tap your phone. At least in theory :-).
But the question remains what is protected from tapping on the internet.
Put this together: To prove that a conversation took place between two parties you need to prove that the endpoints were in fact where you allege they were. To do so you need elaborate finger printing of the machines involved. That is far easier to achieve when you own the network. Also since you use routers (which you don't own) to forward your message (VoIP) your package can be intercepted and recorded.
Since it may be encrypted the following questions arise - and I am not sure there is any court decisions on this: - Is a VoIP conversation protected the same way as a POTS? Do you have expectation of privacy?
- If the conversation is encrypted and the encryption not broken: If it is stored is it then recorded or merely timeshifted?
I think we are looking at some very interesting groundbreaking stuff here.
"... a government of the people, by the people and for the people."
Can I vote out the 3rd party's president/ceo if they do a crappy job with my WiFi?
Can I vote out the mayor and the aldermen if they do a crappy job with my WiFi?
I pay my city for the water to my house. My brother-in-law pays his city for water, electric, and trash. Does anyone complain about this?
If I want my kids to go to another school, do I get to opt out of paying for the city schools? (didn't mean to take this tangent but will comment since it is here) You know this is the arguement that private schools should be making, since people accept the same arguement when it affect thier internet access at home.
Anywho, back from the tangent. I see benifits to cities to offer free services to attract people to live thier. While not free since they are paid in taxes, other "free" services include parks, road maintance, misc. advertising for tourism, fire services, police, schools, etc. I am sure between it all that if we look at the city like a big company that we should be able to act with the best interests of the company and get the services that the residents want?
http://main.nc.us/about/index.shtml
;-)
looks pretty interesting with 5000 subscribers.
For a municipality wide co-op perhaps it's best to start with the 'counter-culture' community and grow from there. Not only will you find people who are familiar with and in many cases prefer co-ops, it's the best place to find community activists with time on their hands
I live in Arizona. Tempe city government has implemented broadband wireless to the whole city. Will this lead to government control and regulation of the internet? This will be interesting. Jeremy Whittaker MCSE MCSA CCNA http://www.n2networksolutions.com/ Arizona Computer consulting
Public libraries, public schools, and public universities should all be shut down.
Separation of School & State
Charities should fund these services for those who cannot afford them themselves. The free market will weed out inefficient charities. There is no choice with a monolithic government. We can casr a vote for chief (assuming the vote is not lost in the black box of voting), but cannot vote with our wallets on a daily basis on individual products and services. Instead, the government removes the money from our wallets at the point of a gun.
If you don't like government providing services the people need, labeling those you disagree with as statists will not help your cause. Besides, the issue of "taxation as stolen money" is an old crappy canard, and you know it.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
I thought it kind of odd that cities would get into offering wireless broadband, but I know what's going to happen is providers want that wireless as a source of revenue and will make it illegal for cities to offer it. I hope I'm wrong.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
If they are THAT unprofitable, then why aren't the companies LAUDING the effort. Let the taxpayers sink their money rather than them having to, since they apparently want to.
They just aren't profitable ENOUGH, apparently.
yeah. the businesses could make the same argument for privatizing the MILITARY, or privatizing our schools.
it's bullshit.
gee let's see, let's think about the choice!!!
1) have government-- which is an extension of the people's will, by, of, and for THE PEOPLE--- take charge of a crucial modern piece of societal infrastructure
OR!!!
2) have rich businessmen stay in charge, operating strictly on a PROFIT MOTIVE.
gee............
by the way, i'm implying that (1) is the obvious choice. it's funny that depending on your assumptions, it might seem like my post strictly advocates the businessmen, and the beneficience (LAUGH!) of the Profit Motive....
to that, i'd have to say: no, you're an idiot.
One is wheither internet access is "necessary" to begin with? In other words does internet access actually have a socially uplifting benefit for the majority*? Porn access is NOT socially benefitting. Two does it really need to be broadband? Three since we're effectively talking about social-ism here. Were does the society draw the line on what constitutes "public good" and therefore the taxpayer should subsidize it? And what should the individual pay for?
*A few geeks being able to chat and download linux iso's doesn't count. Hard evidence (non-anecdotal) of a cross-section of America benefiting positively, and long-term will do nicely.
Easy choice: Elected government statism, or the unelected corporate statism.
I'm reminded of the development of roads. Initially they were made by individuals. Then companies (which could be individuals) built them and charged tolls. This also applied to ferries and bridges. Then local governments built local roads, state governments took over roads between towns, and finally the Interstate Highway system was built with federal money.
The cost of roads got shifted, but travel became overall cheaper because there weren't so many tolls to be paid. More importantly, industry and commerce expanded along with the road system; leading to a higher standard of living, etc. Not to mention the increased ease of indivual travel.
One reason government roads work better than private in the US is that the government has the right of "Emminent Domaine" so it can obtain the right-of-way needed to make the roads.
Being government roads, they can be used by all citizens. And although you can be pulled over for mis-use (traffic violations), you are not stopped from running your religious school's bus over them.
OK now, how does the internet differ from roads?
Flamebait? Interesting...
rewriting history since 2109