Slashdot Mirror
Time Warner Cable Won't Compete, Seeks Legislation
narramissic writes "The good people of Wilson, NC pay $99/month for 10/10 Mbps internet service, 81 TV channels and telephone service. How'd they manage that, you ask? Well, the city-owned and operated cable service called Greenlight came into being when the City of Wilson approached TWC and local DSL provider Embarq and requested faster service for the area. 'TWC refused the request. And so Greenlight was born,' says blogger Peter Smith. 'Now Time Warner Cable and Embarq are upset that they've got competition, and rather than try to go head to head with Greenlight on price and service, they've instead been lobbying the state government of NC to pass laws to put Greenlight out of business. Apparently they're having some success, as the NC State Senate has proposed bills that would do TWC's bidding.'"
Would it just be easier to convert Greenlight to a citizen run corporation or make it a utility?
I am not a legal eagle on NC law, but I would think it wouldn't be that difficult to convert to a citizen run profit/nonprofit corporation and then TWC is effectively screwed.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
The US needs competition for all these Cable/ISPs. I just read an article about how most countries with high-speed internet offers about 50Mbps for the price I pay for 10 Mbps.
It's mostly because of the competition among the providers.
What's the matter TWC, afraid that your archaic bloated business model couldn't compete?
Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
That's what it's all about, baby. Public Power! Conservatives can jabber all they want, but nobody can screw you as well as a private utility can!
Support the Grange!
So is this proof that the Gov't is run by Corporations? Like we really didn't already know but come on...
If all lobbying was eliminated, we might have a semi-fair and equal system but that won't be happening while the politicos keep getting free vacations and money to line their bentleys.
Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
This is why TWC needs to be investigated for their practices. It seems to me that the NC government just wants to roll over to TWC wishes. I for one applaude that community that actually went out and did something to improve their service. Also I believe 10/10Mbps for $99 is a fair price as long as the quality is there.
It's sickening to watch massive corporations give up on the ideals of commercialism (competing for the consumer's dollars on the basis of quality, service, and price) and instead simply doing business through legislation (make it illegal for your competition to exist...). I feel like I'm watching someone's Cyberpunk or Shadowrun campaign come together as megacorps take control of governments... It's all sickening...
They have Greenlight and Time-Warner cables running in parallel to one another? Good!!! I wish more communities would do stuff like that. If every city had TW, Comcast, Cox running 3-4 cables in parallel, then the power would be in the hands of the People to choose which one they like best.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
But only when it is convenient. When it isn't convenient, they expect the government to prop up their business model in order to ensure that their profits are maximized and that their competition is none.
This is an extremely ugly an hypocritical face of modern business today. People want lower prices and more affordable services and if they have to build it themselves to get it, they should be allowed to do it.
This is not an entirely new story as other communications/media companies have sued municipalities to prevent them from making competitive progress in areas where they otherwise did not want to compete or operate. And these companies won. I am a little lost on what legal justification was used in winning their cases though... anyone have any insight?
Wait a minute...
If your only tool is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail.
So... instead of looking to compete, seek legislation to put a competitor out of business?
What school of economics did TWC go to?
I suppose if they offered that low of price in one locale, they'd have a customer uprising to get the price everywhere. Comcast already stated that it's cheaper to run the higher speed equipment, which could allow them to compete at that level and still run a profit. Guess the CEO's wallet just isn't fat enough.
This has happened before, for a municipal-sponsored project.
From the project manager's blog, some of what they are doing is actually fair: not allowing cities to price below costs. This makes a lot of sense and is actually good for competition. Not allowing subscription fees to pay for other city projects - this on the other hand is not necessarily fair. Ideally TWC should be pricing their service competitively to Greenlight such that no extra profit is left over to fund other city projects. But they don't want to do that. They just want to minimize the threat from Greenlight given that they can't get rid of them. In my opinion, though, a public service using public resources should not overcharge to begin with - it should charge all subscribers a fair rate so that it's a self-contained project which provides exactly the service it was created to do.
ISPs and cable companies have a history of trying to avoid competition like this. A similar municipal wi-fi initiative was stifled in Pennsylvania a few years ago.
Amen to that.
Bubububbut I thought the market decided these things! I guess I didn't realize that the legislature was on the market as well.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Litigate. There is an overwhelming propensity for Americans to try and get around obstacles. When they try to do this mega corp see one thing only. They are trying to bypass their monopoly in that area. The sad part is some judge will probably shut down the project .
The Navy Motto "IF it ain't broke Fix It" "A day is wasted if you don't learn something new"
It's not about competition. It's about who's the last one still standing on top of the rubble. It's a demolition derby, not a yard sale
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
Better than what TWC offers here: http://www.timewarnercable.com/cincinnati/learn/bundles/bundles.html
I don't watch much TV, so I'll stick with Cincinnati Bell https://services1.cincinnatibell.com/BundleOrder/BundleAdvisor/bundle.aspx
Competition is great, but I think they are slacking off here.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Corporations have always used the power of government to stifle their competition. It has been this way especially since the advent of mercantilism 400+ years ago.
It was this way when the East India company was importing tea to England. It was this way with the railroads in the 1800's. It was this way under FDRs New Deal (which had the gove help big corps and put policies in place to screw over smaller ones). Its that way now.
The product may change over time but the methods used to bury your competition are ancient.
Do you really think that $99 is a good deal?
How much does TWC charge for similar service?
It does seems like it from the few working experiences that we have around the world [1,2]. I hope this is realized that we do need to guarentee a public network, maybe along the private one but nonetheless a good public network!
We need ISP agnostic fiber to the homes, now!
For those in Canada (note the "eh" in the title :P), give your voice below, the CRTC is asking for advise (for what it's worth...):
http://isppractices.econsultation.ca/ (english)
http://pratiquesfsi.econsultation.ca/ (franÃais)
[1]. http://cis471.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-is-connectivty-in-stockholm-so-much.html
[2]. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/shocker-aussies-to-build-own-open-access-fiber-backbone.ars
For all those complaining about TW and Embarq's business practices, how many of you are currently using TW or Embarq - regardless of where in the country you are located? How many of you are planning to cancel your service along with a clear and concise letter stating that you are leaving them in disgust due to their conduct in North Carolina?
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Privatization is the only way to get good cheap services, and nothing the government provides or does is any good.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
So... instead of looking to compete, seek legislation to put a competitor out of business? What school of economics did TWC go to?
They went to business school and law school, and avoided effete topics such as economics.
Are you ready to bend over and be a good bitch for TW's legion of MBAs and lawyers now?
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
i get 10/10 for 23$ a month, no traffic limit no p2p throttling or anything. fiber networks pwn coax ones big time
Corruption, corruption, corruption.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
These are the same companies that scream "socialism" every time the government even HINTS at nationalizing anything, but the second they face any REAL competition they run screaming to the government to give them special protected status (with campaign donations and other bribes in hand). Their "free market" means "free for us to rape anyone we want market" and alternatives be damned.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
$99 for that? Come one, that's insanely expensive. For instance in France (thanks to a heated competition between ISP which _all_ have access to _all_ french phone lines, unlike the very communist-like local monopolies as in the US) for 30 euros (taxes included) they have: land line phone with free phone calls to a bit under a hundred countries, TV with hundreds of channels (some HD) and ADSL v2+ up to 20Mbps (and soon fios 100/50 for the same price). When you travel abroad you quickly realize that the US are the third world of Internet connectivity among developed countries. Of course anything Europe does more efficiently will be deemed "socialist"... Let's be pragmatic here and not ideological. What counts is how to have the best internet connection at the lowest global cost.
Like everything in life, people only like something when it benefits them. When the government gets in the way, they cry to the public. When the public get in the way, they cry to the government.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
This is another example of how a socialist system run by the peoples representatives can do better than some private dictatorship run for the benefit of wealthy elite interests. This is because the city government is controlled by the people and is operated with consent of the people to provide services in the common interest and in the common good, at the highest quality and lowest cost. The purpose of corporations instead is to provide the worst service at the highest cost to enrich wealthy plutocrats that run them. Thats why the corporations adn wealthy elites through their Republican conservative ayn rand and rush limbaugh elitist pro-corporate totalitarian plantation slave labour admirer puppets will fight tooth and nail against anything that will benefit and improve the conditoons of the common people and give them control over their lives and make systems that benefit everyone, rather than exploit us for the mansions and yachts of a wealthy elite. This totalitarainists are clearly in control of North Carolina, being the neofascist Republican totalitarian state it is, and want to assure that the people are rupe to be raped by massive corporations and to destroy anything that gets in the way of exploitation of the people for benefit of elite yachts.
Their goal is to impoverish common people, starve people to death with slave wages and deny health care to the people so they can continue to expand their own wealth. since the 1980s this is whats been happening, with waes of common people falling, unemployment growing, and quality life falling, the only people who have gotten wealthier are the elite fat cats who control our economic system. When are we going to stop putting up with slave wages, high prices and lousy service so some arrogant CEO can sit on a yacht all day, and who considers that his birth right. A major cause of our present economic recession and as well the fact americans are dying because of lack of healthcare when every other country has universal health care coverage for less per capita cost, is that we have greed and an economic system rigged up by the wealthy and greedy elite to make themselves richer at the expense of everyone else. They own so much opf the economy that they control everything, people are under their control at their wal mart job, how much money adn what life they have is controlled, their health care is controlled, how much things cost is controlled. There is a hidden tax in everything we buy that goes not to help the poor but to pay for some greedy corporate elites yacht, this is the corporate overhead adn profit margins corporations put ine verything we buy which is made for cents in china and sold for hun dreds here, both impoverishing chinese and destroying american jobs, the only winners are corporate elitist fascists. ALL of this is done WITH NO CONTROL over it by the people. Unlike our government, the people have no voice in this corporations which have more power over peoples lives than government, and who actually buy the government through campaign contributions, dismantle all pro-consumer and pro-working class government regulations so corporations become defacto governments above the law. THus law becomes something ratheer than to protect peoples freedom, something to protect masive corporations like we see with RIAA and MPAA, at the same time government ignores the basic needs of people to food shelter, medical care and housing. The corporate system is one who only see people has having a value to expand and enrich corporations, they see people as things to be exploited, used and thrown away again and left to die when no longer useful to them. It needs to be replaced with an economic system for and by the common people, a democratic socialist system where we elect who runs the corporations who control the economy.
Why does the city have to provide it? I hate hate hate the cable and telco companies, but the long-run result of allowing the feds/state/local govt to "compete" is usually the destruction of the private sector, resulting in the worst kind of monopoly, a government monopoly.
If there are laws that make it difficult for private sector companies to effectively compete with the cable and telcos, then those laws need to change. I completely understand the enthusiasm for these muni networks, because right now, they are providing a better deal than the entrenched oligarchs, but I really worry about the long-run effects of allowing the government to compete with private sector companies.
It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
lobby the gov't for socialism!
These are also the companies that scream for a bailout when their failed business model leaves them in the red...
Do you want private companies having to compete with the government? Generally, past history suggests that is a bad idea. The government is a special entity with special powers so you have to be very very careful when you allow government to go into "profit based business" - which is what this is. Tax spending on services/infrastructure is one thing. Profit based business is an entirely different animal.
I have no problem with the idea of busting up the monopolies but you don't do that by making your government compete with private industry. No, instead you encourage OTHER private players to come in and compete with the monopoly (or you pass legislation, tax cuts, or whatever that does the same). If you insist on putting your government "in business", then you will eventually drive out all the other competitors aside from the government. Remember, the government can do LOTS of things that private industry can't so, by default, it's an unfair playing field. Look no further than the banking system right now for an example of how that plays out. Government was never designed to "be in business".
For a bunch of tin-foil hat guys, the slashdot crowd really puts a lot of faith in government solutions of all kinds.....
I hate Comcast as much as the rest of you. But I cringe at the idea of my city government being in the ISP business.
We need a constitutional amendment to kill this kind of crap once and for all.
Our legislative history is filled with special laws written to serve the interest of single parties and interests; especially business interests. One such law that really sticks in my mind was actually a U.S. Federal Constitutional Amendment called the "Wright Amendment." It wasn't enough to pass a law because the law, as intended, would have been ruled as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So to prevent that from happening, they made it a part of the constitution. What was the "Wright Amendment?" Well you could google it to get better information than I can provide, but it was essentially a law designed to prevent Southwest Airlines and Dallas's Love Field airport from competing with American Airlines and D/FW airport. Think on this. A general law document designed and intended to LIMIT what the U.S. Federal Government can do, was used to impose limits on the level and quality of service that one air carrier can do in favor of another air carrier. In the end, it never worked. It did push airfares higher and for those who flew Southwest airlines (the only US air carrier that makes a profit while offering lower fares than competitors who are losing money while charging higher fares) required that they make stops before they reached their final destinations limiting the distance a single SWA flight could make when flying out of Love Field. This was written into an amendment to the U.S. constitution!! Think on it. It just doesn't get any dirtier than that.
A constitutional amendment should be written that government shall not write any law that favors one business, public, private or government, over the interests of another business public, private or government. It is far and away NOT the government's role to interfere with business except in cases where businesses harm the public. It is the government's job to protect the public.
After all, Greenlight, being government-run, is by very definition grossly inefficient. Time Warner ought to be able to beat them on both performance and price and still have a wide profit margin.
Either that or maybe sometimes the government can actually provide decent, efficient services...
Damn, I am lucky to get 400 kbps.. Some ass keeps stole my link to the outside world with a simple loaf of bread..
Perhaps I should have fed my passenger pigeons.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The fact that shareholders are even a consideration is a detriment to customer service. Shareholder and customer priorities are mutually exclusive. There is no way to adequately provide satisfactory results for both. Shareholders don't care about quality of service, availability, etc... In fact, they would prefer the least amount of service for the highest cost to the customer.
Profits need to be rolled back into the company to produce better service rather than lining the pockets of shareholders.
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
here is the link to the actual bill: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S1004v0.pdf
In essence, what the bill is saying is that a govt provided internet service should be self-sufficient, unsubsidized and be applicable to all costs and taxes that a private organization is. It is not trying to establish a monoply but instead trying to take the unfair advantage away from a govt sponsored organization.
Here is the text from actual bill:
Requirements. â" A city that operates a public enterprise under G.S. 160A-311 that provides communications services to the public for a fee over a communications network that is directly or indirectly owned or operated by or provides a financial benefit to the city or another city shall meet the following conditions with respect to the provision of communications service:
(1) Comply with all local, State, and federal laws, regulations, or other requirements that would apply to the communications services if provided by a private communications service provider.
(2) Establish a separate enterprise fund for communications service and shall use this fund to separately account for revenues, expenses, property, and source of investment dollars associated with the provision of communications service.
(3) Shall not subsidize the cost of providing communications service with funds from any other noncommunications service, operation, or other revenue source, including any funds or revenue generated from electric, gas, water, sewer, or garbage services. In complying with this requirement, a city owned communications service provider shall not price any communications service below the cost of providing the service.
(4) Shall, in calculating the cost incurred and in the rates to be charged for the provision of communications services, impute: (i) the cost of the capital component that is equivalent to the cost of capital available to private communications service providers in the same locality; and (ii) an amount equal to all taxes, including property taxes, licenses, fees, and other assessments that would apply to a private communications service provider including federal, state, and local taxes; rights-of-way, franchise, consent, or administrative fees; and pole attachment fees.
(5) Shall annually remit to the general fund of the city an amount equivalent to all taxes or fees a private communications service provider would be required to pay the city or county in which the city is located, including any applicable tax refunds received by the city owned communications service provider because of its government status and a sum equal to the amount of property tax that would have been due if the city owned communications service provider were a private communications service provider.
(6) Shall prepare and publish an independent annual audit in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles that reflect the fully allocated cost of providing the communications service, including all direct and indirect costs. The indirect costs shall include amounts for rights-of-way, franchise, consent, or administrative fees, regulatory fees, occupation taxes, pole attachment fees, and ad valorem taxes. The annual accounting shall reflect any direct or indirect subsidies received by the city owned communications service provider, and any buildings, equipment, vehicles, and personnel that
32 are jointly used with other city departments shall be fully allocated to the city owned communications service. The North Carolina Utilities Commission may adopt rules and regulations to ensure compliance with the provisions of this subdivision, and all records demonstrating compliance shall be filed with the North Carolina Utilities Commission and made available for public inspection and copying.
what a price.. I get 20/20Mbps for just about 12$ in Ukraine(!)
Furthermore the bill requires that the communications service pay all the regular taxes a private company would pay, which goes into the house fund and can be used for public expenditure. Even if the profits may not transfer directly to other city services, the taxes gained from the service do.
Sure, the bill requires the city to charge no less than its cost, but how is this a bad thing?
Now this does bother me. From the bill:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like price fixing to me. The city has to charge at least what the other guys' cost is. If the state's cost is less, why can't they charge less?
they no like a makey no money
Help fight spam
..is acting as a business in competition with TimeWarner (and others), then TimeWarner cannot put them out of business. The same way TimeWarner could not put Embarq out of business for competing. Am I missing something here?
The problem is with the practicality of building infrastructure, it simply isn't possible to have more than a few cable or ISP companies if they have to run their own lines. You can't have serious competition because its not possible to have enough companies for a marketplace to exist.
The only real way to pull off competition in internet service (or any other utility) is to have government owned infrastructure, and allow companies to compete for who delivers to you over those lines.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
The fact that a CITY GOVERNMENT was able to enter the market FROM THE GROUND UP, cover all entry costs associated with starting the business, and then still offer a monthly fee that beats the pants off of the best private company in the area? That REALLY tells you how lazy the cable companies have gotten.
I'm not really big on having bigger government, but really this article (or discussion) shouldn't center on that idea. What happened here is in essence great, and it really is still an extension of the free market. The reason why this worked for the city of Wilson is that TWC got big, fat and lazy (as all bigger companies do from time to time). In fact, a lot of businesses and individuals (see: Detroit) have gotten the same way recently, and the economic downturn/recession/whatever has forced them to re-think their business model. TWC needs to go thru and re-do their entire business model rather than running and crying to Uncle Sam for help.
Like I said before, the fact that the GOVERNMENT (even if it's just city-level), an entity that is widely known to be the most wasteful, most bureaucratic and least efficient, was able to start a telecommunications business from nothing, purchase install and then sell TV, internet and phone services at a price that beats the pants off of a private company? Wilson called TWC's hand, and now they're embarrased.
FTS:
In other words, this is a government owned company. It may not be "nationalized", but it is "city-ized". They are going to the state government because they will have to compete with a "nationalized" service that is subsidized by the city government.
Greenlight is not a "free market" service because it is owned and operated by the city.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Um, I live in NC and worshipping corporations is bred into people, they still think big government is mean to the poor tobacco companies!
N.C. Fifth District Virginia Foxx Foxx stood in front of a room full of teenagers and essentially said tobacco is no different than Mountain Dew. That tobacco, as a legal product, should not be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and should not be subject to higher taxes than other products, dubiously labeling this as an assault on personal freedom.
Later in her address Foxx told those gathered that college degrees do not make a person skillful. Foxx is proof, college degrees certainly have not given her a clear view of reality.
All a corporation in NC has to do is put money into the pockets of the legislators and tell the citizens that they should be grateful for the jobs they provide.....
on the positive note, NC hospitals have very good cancer centers, biotech heaven -you don't need animal testing in NC -you have too many two legged subjects handy....
So, yeah, I am sure Time Warner has promised to build some roads, provide some jobs and kiss some @ss...
Could someone explain why preventing pricing below cost and preventing profits being used for other city projects is supposed to cripple Greenlight? If TWC is behind it, I'm sure there is something there to cause problems, but I don't see what it is. (Aside from the annoyance factor of having more regulations/restrictions.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_cooperative
We need more of these everywhere.
Um, no. If Greenlight uses city funds to subsidize it's operations and keep customer costs down, then TW would have trouble competing.
And, no, assuming that all government run operations are inefficient is to make false assumptions.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Do other utilities also operate under such restrictions? A city run ISP should operate under the same laws that any other city run utility does. So I ask, is this proposed law just imposing the same restrictions that other utilities have or is it adding extra restrictions that other utilities don't have?
Here in Massachusetts municipal electric companies have been a fixture for years. At least two towns, Braintree, http://www.beld.com/ and Taunton, http://www.tmlp.com/internet_services_res.html have expanded their operations to include cable TV and broadband. Others are planning the same. Comcast, National Grid, and the other utilities have not gone bankrupt, and consumers have benefited. Gummint monopoly, utility monopoly, ya pays yer money and ya takes yer choice.
Presumably, the AC who posted this has sex with chickens. He just hides that fact, it's worked for centuries. Now the question is, if we replace the chickens with ducks, as his neighbor, do I still pay taxes to subsidize his bird rodgering?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
However, due to government provided monopolies given because businesses are allowed to lobby the government, this doesn't happen.
The best solution is probably to strip the cable and phone providers of its guaranteed monopoly and let other businesses compete.
What if I don't want to pay somebody else's profit? What if we, as a community, decide we want to start a service cooperative, where no one takes any profit, rather than shoveling our money into some fat cat's pockets? We as a community decide what to do, and we do it. And nobody profits, which is how it should be. We put up the money to do it, we reap the reward, and the capitalist vultures can go steal someone else's money.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Lobbyists are the main source of "information" for our elected officials. They create high end presentations that show their side of any issue and deliver them at expensive restaurants, clubs, and during private jet trips to "understand the issue better."
The non-lobbyist side of the story may come from private citizens via fax, phone calls, emails, and occasionally showing up at offices with a petition signed by 5,000 people. This isn't nearly as much fun for the representative, so the argument has to be 150% more convincing than whatever the lobby wants to be considered.
Then if the rep doesn't vote the way the lobby wants, they will probably no offer any perks next time around to that rep.
Sadly, I don't have the answer to this problem.
Except that, FTA, Greenlight is not using tax dollars to subsidize the service. The service is paying for itself. It is not as profitable as TWC, but it is still profitable. Simply put, TWC does not want to actually compete with anyone -- they want to maintain the monopoly they have on high speed Internet services.
Palm trees and 8
Even if you are not in Wilson, or NC write your US representative to bring light to the issue. If your in Wilson or NC write all your government agencies. Just copy paste a letter. Send it to your mayor, councilman, state and us senator... hell write your local news agency. The more noise you make the more likely you will get listened to.
http://www.ncleg.net/
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
"The good people of Wilson, NC pay $99/month for 10/10 Mbps internet service, 81 TV channels and telephone service. How'd they manage that, you ask?"
They got the Charter Bundle? Except it's 100+ channels, the internet is closer to 10/1 Mbps and the support sucks.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
It's precisely that attitude that explains why Americans have the worst and most expensive medical care in the first world.
Exactly what are the downsides of a government run, break-even business that provides better services for less money than corporations? I prefer this "lack of competition" to corporations doing absolutely everything they can to increase profits
Does $99/mo cover all operating costs or were sales/property/etc. taxes raised to subsidize the services?
Yeah! And we should make sure they get out of the Water business, since both Coke _AND_ Pepsi have bottled water now, right?! I mean, I can't wait until I can use the new Coke Shower or the Pepsi toilet!
And man, how cool would it be if I could drive on GM Roads! I'm sure they'd be making a profit if they had their own roads. If only it wasn't for that nasty government making all of their roads public. I mean, look at what the auto industry did for the wonderful Public Transit system was have in the U.S. now! Wow! I mean, who wouldn't want to wait for the once and hour bus, pay over two dollars a trip, and have a 14 minute trip take almost an hour! /Sarcasm
We need an IP infrastructure to be in public hands, and we need it ten years ago.
"charging break-even prices is not fair competition for any business."
There is an inconsistency of the pro business rhetoric here. On one hand, it is taken as practically an article of faith that business can always do things more efficiently than the government. (This hypothesis is the foundation of privatization.) Now we are told that business can't compete with government run entities because their costs are less.
Well, what is the case? There is a lot of double talk going on here!
Most of their business is government-granted monopolies on cable service. Speaking as a hard-line Libertarian, I say fuck 'em.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
150 channels, 5Mb up/15Mb down and telephone for 99 bucks from Verizon.
I am in the Portland Or. Metro area.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I think people have forgotten the difference between government at the township level and government at the state/federal level. The local government is mostly residents who are ignored by lobbyists and do their best to make the town thrive. Yes, I am saying that if it is the people wish that the government should make their lives better, they should be able to use government to make their lives better. (Provided, of course, that they are educated and not being hoodwinked into giving up rights). Also, however, the township should not enforce the monopoly and if a small ISP wants to use the lines to compete with the township, they should have access to the lines. (Perhaps they want to offer 2mbit for $20 a month?)
This situation is similar to the people forming a co-op to provide themselves with network connectivity, only corporations are crying foul because instead of forming a co-op to get things done, the citizens (not subjects in this case) went through existing channels (local government).
This is precisely the kind of grassroots involvement that I LIKE to see because if people believe they can change the local government, they might believe that they don't have to lie down when corporations make their state and federal government steamroll them.
A government should, ideally, stand back and let private citizens do their own thing, but thats not happening, not at the state level, not at the federal level. TWC has lobbyists, the township citizens did not. Until the township has the same pull as TWC, the local government needs to step up and fight fire with fire.
We are well beyond a free market economy, and while its nice to think about what government would look like without the past 233 years of corporate influence, that's not the world we live in. The only way to get a free market economy would be to abolish corporations, abolish the current government, demolish the infrastructure, and start from scratch. Why? Because for every email, vote, and action taken by a citizen, a corporation will pay X dollars to a lobbyist to drip honey in senator's ears. To get a free market economy, you'd have to get rid of lobbying, all of the laws influenced by lobbying, the lobbyists, and all of the senators who were put in place by campaign contributions from corporations.
Besides, as long as there is a system to game, people will game it, why shouldn't the local government game it for the direct benefit of its citizens?
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
The people of Wilson, NC have a right to do what needed to get done. That is get their own internet service. TWC likes to play with fire..... that's why they always get burned!!!
I'm not defending TWC in any way, but municipal Internet systems are generally a bad idea. They don't keep pace with technology improvements and the cross-subsidy from the grants and what not tends to drive all the commercial systems out of the community.
Altoona PA was a good example. They created a municipal dialup system in the mid-90's because they thought that $20 was too much to pay for dialup. They were still stuck with it in the middle of this decade because they'd driven out the ISPs who would have brought in DSL and Cable modems.
Municipal physical infrastructure (like Utopia out in Utah) is a somewhat better idea. There you reframe the competitive process without ending it.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
...wouldn't that be "socialism", to regulate them away?
Or is it really just, that you only like the free market or regulation, when it fits your purposes?
This, in a nutshell, should be shown to anyone talking about a completely free market, or a completely regulated market. ^^
Because it shows, that not only is there no such thing, but that also, that grade of freedom is not the question to ask.
(Please feel free to correct me in the wrong details. ;)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
The need for Internet access is honestly becoming a needed utility, at least in the technology prone countries. At some point, I imagine basic Internet companies will fall and the government will take over the responsibility to provide Internet services at that level. Anything higher, beyond cable speeds, like FIOS and other fiber alternatives will most likely continue operating. Face it - The internet is becoming more necessary than TV or Radio - even though TV isn't being offered as a utility (atleast I don't think it is) internet access is a much bigger necessity, it powers the economy, the media and the entire information sector. It is becoming the ultimate entertainment sector as well. Why watch TV when you can go on hulu and watch your favorite shows? why listen to the radio when you can browse Last.fm? I haven't watched CNN in ages, I'd rather go to cnn or bbc.com and view the news on my schedule. It just seems to make sense to make this a government owned operation or utility - I praise Wilson's effort and hope Greenlight comes to the Raleigh area!
www.squizzi-designs.com | graphic & web design
It's sad that YOU can not see the forest from the trees on this single instance. Or, maybe you're just playing devils advocate.
Yes, it is generally safe to state that the Government can't run crap when it comes to services. But, I believe this is ONE instance where you are most likely dead wrong.
I do enjoy the continued soapboxing of the party line though. Please, continue.
You ran your own power lines?
There is a war going on for your mind.
My city government is in the water supply business. And the electricity supply business. And the sewerage business, and the garbage hauling business, and the road-providing business. Maybe internet service should be a utility, too.
.. and if there was a viable alternative, I would switch out of TW so fast that their head would spin.
Knowing the area of Wilson slightly (I moved an irc gal over from there for a while ten years ago), this is farking hilarious to see people debate about. I have not been to Wilson or Elm City since I kicked her out, but I gotta say, more power to them if people are for it. There really is not much going on in Wilson, so having that deal is one consolation. I could care less what the state government or the competing companies in the area have to say. If the people there decide that's the best fit for them, TW and others can go die in a fire.
...greed. If TWC didn't charge ridonculous prices for crappy service after establishing their monopoly, there wouldn't be a market for greenlight. As it is greenlight is a better deal. If TWC wants to compete, they need to, (duh?) be competitive?
They are literally trying to screw people with their low value offerings. Sorry to say it but bandwidth is now a commodity and to be competitive you need to cut your margins and be competitive.
If you can't or won't do that, you deserve to go out of business. Lobbying legislators for what amounts to illegal price protection is bullshit.
They'll get what they want though, since republicrats run everything and they are getting their pockets lined by TWC. As usual the taxpayer will get screwed by greasy career politicians.
-Viz
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
Do you want private companies having to compete with the government?
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. In this case, yes. Municipal internet is a great idea just like municipal water, fire, police, trash collection, etc. I like my utilities to be provisioned at cost. Private enterprise won't do that.
Generally, past history suggests that is a bad idea.
Can you provide an example and explain how it applies to this case?
Edith Keeler Must Die
Ok I'm pissed... when did we voted for this kind of crap? I mean aren't our interest are supposed to be the state mission? How come a privately owned compagny of multi-million dollar can just lobby a state into passing law to cripple or destroy competition. I tough that was part of the "American dream" be able to do what you want and be succesful with it. I think it is time for the revolution. Who's with me? Lets make the revolution, kick those &^%$#^ out of OUR country! You dont want to play by the rules.. you want your rules to be ours.. then you can take your rules and see if anyone wants them somewhere else !! Common revolution comrades!
I think that in the absence of real market competitors that the people deserve fair competition, and if they need to petition their government to provide it, then so be it. Also, last time I had to ship a package I had several choices and all but one was private, and in general all provided an excellent value to the entire market. So I think that private companies can compete with government if they are willing to provide a product that the market wants at a price consumers are willing to pay.
Truly free markets work really well according to theory.
Adam Smith was +6 insightful, but it's one of those things that's easy to misinterpret, so try reading large sections of _Wealth of Nations_ directly.
(A lot of other major thinkers also get seriously misconstrued in a similar manner)
Yet, as with many brilliant-sounding theories, the imperfections are painful to watch and create new problems to solve.
It's really sad and ironic that the imperfections in this case often come from capitalist firms spouting the language of the free market but acting against its spirit, as TimeWarner clearly seems to be doing here.
Now, hypocritical self-interested capitalists aren't the *only* problem with practical application of market theory, but they certainly are a major category of problem
The imperfections in practice of applying a theory certainly should be considered, but they aren't cause for discarding the entire concept...
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Competition is good and all.. but $99 a month? Only 80 channels? That's what you're fighting to keep? You need higher standards. I got at double that for half that when I was with Comcast.
Meanwhile, I'm guessing this guy is piss-poor at explaining things, because he seems to be saying: "The cable company wants to add two conditions which don't prohibit what we're doing, and also something which exempts us from those conditions anyway. Clearly this would stop people from doing what we're doing."
Those two conditions, by the way, make perfect sense:
1) Cities can't use broadband service as a backdoor-tax for other things. That is, they can't charge more than they need to run the service, then use the excess for unrelated things.
2) Cities can only support broadband service with fees, that is, they can't raise taxes in general and then pretend to have "free broadband"
Nowhere does this guy complain about anything which would hurt Greenlight or anything like it, unless Greenlight /is/ just a big tax scam (which he explicitly claims it is not)
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I hate Comcast as much as the rest of you. But I cringe at the idea of my city government being in the ISP business.
Why? Do you cringe at the idea of city government being in the power/water/electricity business? No they don't generally run these directly (although sometimes they do) but they have control over pricing, infrastructure, etc...
Personally, I cringe at the idea of corporations being in charge of water/sewer/electricity. Just go to any third world country to see what that looks like.
I have to agree with you, however to create a large enough infrastructure improvement such as this requires an extreme amount of investment which a startup business would have a hard time creating. These the only thing that could do these is an already existing corp or a government.
But it should never remain in government hands for long.
Then treat the fiber infrastructure like the road infrastructure. Government builds the roads, and both public and private sector use them to deliver goods and services. Let the people of this town (or any town across the nation) decide if they want to invest in a high-speed fiber infrastructure and let private interests lease access to it.
If the people want the fiber network and TWC won't build it then why should the people do without? Who decided that TWC should make the rules?
No, instead you encourage OTHER private players to come in and compete with the monopoly (or you pass legislation, tax cuts, or whatever that does the same).
Which, of course, is why the same kind of state legislation is being proposed for water systems, roads, and police and fire protection... Oh, it's not? Hmmm. It sounds more like the issue is where to draw the line, rather than if a line should be drawn (Libertarian nutjobs, excluded, of course). Get on board the WAAAAHmbulance, free marketeers!
That is all.
instead you encourage OTHER private players to come in and compete with the monopoly
If there are significant barriers to entering a market, then a monopoly will naturally form. When was the last time a new company entered the car manufacturing industry in North America? When was the last time a new company entered the chip fabrication industry?
In some cases, competition does not make economic sense. It is not cost effective to have two sets of pipes supplying water to your house. It does not make sense to have two sewage lines from your house. The infrastructure is expensive to build and only one set of infrastructure is needed. In such cases, what makes most sense is to either heavily regulate the naturally formed monopoly or to have (local/state/national) government provide the infrastructure.
Which is best (regulated monopoly or government-run) depends upon the circumstances. Neither method is perfect; both suffer from inherent problems. To say that the government should not be involved and that a given industry should be deregulated ignores the fundamental economics that caused the government involvement in the first place.
Before deregulation of the airline industry in Canada, we had two national air carriers. Both were profitable. Mechanical deficiencies in aircraft were unknown. Communities which without regulation would not have air service had regular flights. After airline deregulation, we have only one remaining national airline. Hundreds of millions of dollars in multiple bailouts have been given to Air Canada to keep it afloat, yet it is still facing bankruptcy. Air Canada flights are frequently delayed for mechanical reasons. Many smaller communities have suffered drastic reductions in service. The government's encouragement of competition has resulted in less competition, poorer service, reduced service, and greater expense.
Sometimes, government involvement in an industry is for very sound economic reasons. And economic reasons are not the only reasons. Government is supposed to be for the general welfare of the public.
The problem is that we don't live in a democracy, but stupid people keep claiming we do. We have a republic to help protect the rights of the minority, even when the majority is against it.
No, stupid people go around crying "The U.S. isn't a democracy, it's a republic" and relying on a classical definition of democracy that is essentially non-standard English.
Smart people, on the other hand, use words properly. Let me quote definition one of "democracy" from the Oxford English Dictionary:
1. Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege.
The U.S. is a democracy. The U.S. is a republic. The two are not mutually exclusive. And if you're going to be a pedant, at least be correct.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
The benefits of competition are only of interest to companies as a mantra for getting government regulations eliminated. No company actually wants it.
I don't think in the history of Measurement has there ever been a more square hit on the nail head...Well said.
They had an opportunity, which they passed on. The locals struck out on their own. Now the corporation "changes its mind" after much money and investment. Is this fair?
What if a company comes along and says they want to offer water or sewer service? Is the town obliged to take it? What about snowplowing or filling potholes or any other city service? Where do you draw the line?
What a great idea. Let's get private companies to run the fire and police departments, too.
And while we are at it, why should the city government be run by the city? Let's just farm out the mayor's job to some corporation.
You really DON'T want to take this argument to its logical extreme.
apparently you missed the memo about our country being a representative republic, not a democracy.
Apparently you missed the memo about the word democracy not meaning "mob rule" in English anymore.
Let me quote definition one of "democracy" from the Oxford English Dictionary:
1. Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege.
The U.S. is a democracy. The U.S. is a republic. The two are not mutually exclusive. Offhand you can find a usage of "democracy" referring to elected representatives in the OED as early at 1842.
I don't know where all this nonsense about democracy only referring to mob rule or tyranny of the majority. I'd be tempted to say Aristotle's classification of political systems, but anyone who's stupid enough to think that the U.S. isn't a "democracy" but is a "republic" probably hasn't read much Aristotle, either.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
I know its not available everywhere but my AT&T Fiber Optic gives me 200 channels, 5M download and telephone (unlimited long distance) for 105$ a month plus some five dollars or so taxes.
Had it for three months and zero problems except for a channel going away for up to five minutes once a month or so...
It always has, and always will. It's essentially based on the hope that if a Really Bad Company(tm) comes along, that somebody will rise up and compete and destroy them. Well, that's not going to happen with natural monopolies without government intervention. We have what should be ample examples of the fact that these bastards of a company not only tend to continue on, but to thrive. The reality is that the bigger you get, the less likely you are to ever be brought down.
Whether it was intentional or not, we made a mistake with our Internet infrastructure. These companies should never have been allowed to own the lines. Like roads, water, sewage and so many other services, the infrastructure should be owned by the government, and the government should be responsible for ensuring its continued upkeep and growth. What we should have opened up to competition is service on those lines.
I don't know, legally speaking, if we could simply decide to "take it back." It's probably past that point. If local government entering as competition is the best step we can take in that direction, then I applaud it whole-heartedly.
There are a lot of reasons that the Internet is going to be critical infrastructure going forward, but I don't think anybody denies it will be (and is). We need some entity to recognize that and commit itself to improvement for the greater good, not just for the greater profits. Government is perfect by no means, but at least they have the right bosses and concern for the economic well-being of the nation as a whole. (Insert quips about banking industry here.)
What sort of competition is there in your city for sewage services? Is it expensive to change providers?
khasim (12/9/06): In a blind taste test, more people preferred Coke over the Pepsi that I had previously pissed in.
This isn't about companies competing with the government. It's about choices. Most areas you don't have a choice for Internet access. I am of the opinion that Internet access should be a utility not a business. There is too great of a risk for the "sanctioned" private businesses to control what you can do based on their own services. IE. throttling your bandwidth or instituting caps on your service. Network connections are more like the pipes you have for water and maybe they should be treated that way as well. Let's face it TWC and Comcast have their other business interests (Cable, phone) to keep them going but until we have the same access to the internet as we do water then we are doomed to have to put up with these types of shenanigans.
When its illegal for another private interest to compete, then the government has to step in. In this case the city did it and the service is BETTER than TWC is providing. Whats the problem here?
Regulation is the issue that keeps small competitors out of markets because they do not have the man power to go to each municipality to get the approval. I have talked about that here on http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1143321&cid=27012091&art_pos=3. There is where regulation will either hurt or harm you. Part of our current economic shortfall today has been because of bad regulation followed by poor deregulation. The key with regulation is to shore up loopholes with penalizing businesses. If they changed the regulation for telco to the county level, it might allow more competition.
I eat Karma for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That's why I don't have any.
The solution to "campaign finance" isn't to muffle speech; it's to reduce the power of government so that it really doesn't make all that much difference who's elected.
Why? Here are a few reasons:
In one housing development here in West Valley, Garbett Homes in Highbury, Utopia ran their own conduit but before they could finish the job Qwest came in and pulled their own cables. This filled the conduit and prevented Utopia from using their own conduit. With some coordination, they both could have pulled cable together. But Qwest is fighting competition, right?
Qwest has telephone poles that they lease out to other service providers, but not Utopia. At least not without a court fight. They wanted to review all 27,000 poles, one at a time in court. Qwest seems to have forgotten who gave them the easement.
I have Comcast currently and on several occasions, the service has gone down. Seems to be happening more frequently, lately. But the fact the cable companies are so willing to fight this is the biggest reason of all to use a muniband service. Someone else has already pointed out the subsidies given to them over the years.
I have also read that Comcast is telling their shareholders that it would only cost $6 to double our speeds. But when they talk to the public and governments, they cry and moan about the costs of infrastructure.
If we can't have muniband, then it's time to reclassify all ISPs as common carriers. This will help to separate the content providers from the carriers with the conflict of interest that goes with them. Until that happens, the telecoms had better watch out, stand aside and let the citizens build what they want.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
I can get Verizon FIOS 10/2, TV (~250 channels) and phone (local and LD) for $99 a month here the the DFW area. So this deal doesn't seem like too big a thing to me. I guess if it's cheaper than the going rate, that's a good thing.
Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
"Do you want private companies having to compete with the government?"
Yes. Generally better service and cheaper. And I have an actual chance of influence.
And let's face it, the cable and phone companies are given a monopoly BY THE GOVERNMENT when they use the public right of way. If the government is involved anyway, why not let it compete?
Rush Limbaugh? Don't you mean Flush Limbaugh?
If you want a taste of government at the township level, have a look at my local homeowner's association. Fucking asswads hassle me about leaving my trash can visible on non pickup days (even if it's out of sight next to the garage), having a car parked overnight on the public street in front of my house (and not because it interferes with trash pickup), having a doormat that's not the right color, or something sticking up over the top of the fence, or the external color of my blinds (white only), or having too many weeds in my front yard. For some bullshit reason, they think it brings down the property values. Here's a newsflash! The housing price collapse brought on by the subprime crisis has wiped out a hell of a lot more value than the week I left my trashcan next to the garage, you fucking micromanaging asshat!
Remind me again why I would want these fucktards managing my internet?
They did. They asked their two major telecom providers. They were declined. Option Number Three anyone?
Also, while they're doing it for themselves now, if, in the future, it becomes something they don't want to, or cannot handle, they can put out calls for competitive bids to run the network. The crucial factor is that the network is now in place.
Also, socialism implies that everyone has to use this, or in some way subsidize it. That is NOT what happened in this case. The city merely added a vigorous third competitor into their underserved broadband market.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Then, this legislation will have exactly zero effect on Greenlight because it only requires that Greenlight and similar services be self-supporting and self-sufficient.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
They admit it right in Save NC Broadband.com blog:
So by forcing the city to play by the rules that TimeWarner has to play by, and to pay the taxes TimeWarner would pay, the city admits they can't support such a network.
Do you want private companies having to compete with the government? Generally, past history suggests that is a bad idea.
History also suggests very strongly that monopolies and ologopolies are bad ideas. The telco market is rapidly imploding, and very soon there will not be enough competitors left in the business to create an actual market.
If they can turn down business then obviously, the market isn't working too well, and government intervention just might bring it back to life. Apparently thanks to that they've now woken up enough to want the business, after all.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Wisconsin passed similar legislation about 3 years ago after a couple communities built successful networks. TWC's lobbying dollars were well spent...
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
The federal government trips over it's own feet & is inefficient almost by design - the checks & balances are supposed to prevent abuse, but that much oversight also ingrains inefficiency. On the other end, it's all about popularity and personalities.
In my town, there have been at least 2 instances where occupancy certificates for businesses have been denied by the zoning board after initial approval and after completing 2-3 rounds of new requirements. For adult entertainment sites you might reasonably ask, but no, a gym that would compete with one of the board members family members gym and a small business center in a building that a board members friend was outbid on.
I've kept my ears out for the last 14 years here & this type of behavior is relatively common in the small town around here. Annoy a board member or an influential town citizen & your life becomes a living hell. If you could measure all the pissing contests that go on in little towns, the EPA would shut them all down for untreated waste water.
Riddle me this: What incentive does your municipal internet have to improve services over time? or even offer the level of service you desire?
ISP's are very different from a "utility" like sewer, fire, and police. I can't buy the "super speedy package" from my police force. Or at least, I shouldn't be able to legally. I can't get the "extra water" package from my fire department. All of those services, and sewer, are the same for everyone. Government might be appropriate when the same offering is offered to all people but with bandwidth, I can buy at many different price and performance points. Your government is not prepared to handle all of those various offerings and when you throw profit into the mix, along with government power, you have a nasty mess. It just doesn't make sense for government to provide that service. Regulation? That's another story.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ok, so we need an IP based piece of infrastructure in public hands. ie: government hands. Owned by the people for the people. Answer me this: What technology should we use? Wireless? 3G? ISDN? FutureTech?
See, that's the problem. What you are advocating is that the government can best answer the question I raise above. I disagree. I think past history suggests free market capitalism can best answer that question by letting the providers duke it out over my dollar. That provides more choice, better quality, and a better price for me. It also means they constantly improve services, lest they lose me as a customer.
No such incentives are present if the government directly provides the service to me and tells me which technology I get to use. At that point, all I can do is cast a vote which really doesn't do shit to change things with my government provided ISP.
I am sorry about my language but are you kidding me?
You must not have ever done business with the government on ANY level. Private industry, of all kinds, is light years more efficient than even the best of governments. Just the fact that private industry has less rules ought to tip you off so I can't understand what in the world you are talking about. Methinks you need to think about what you said....
(hint: it doesn't even pass the smell test)
Chances are: Junk Bonds, not public funds laid the cables.
Yeah ok, I guess that isn't as rare as was thinking. My folks did pay to have electric service set up when they built their house & the electric co-op they belong to isn't a city utility either.
There is a war going on for your mind.
The local government isn't competing with anyone. They are offering a separate class of service not available through the incumbent carriers. The local duopoly members were requested to provide a level of service (equivalent to the service they took 9+billion in tax breaks to provide) and they refused. If TW were willing to provide an equivalent service, then your argument may have some relevance.
This should be a big clue to the pro privatization crowd who routinely claim that government provided services are inevitably many times more costly or much poorer quality than what a corporation would provide.
TW clearly doesn't believe it can compete with what is already offered. If they did, they'd just compete Greenlight into the ground and save the legal fees.
"Remind me again why I would want these fucktards managing my internet?"
The same reason you want them managing your house?!? I assume you weren't forced into buying that particular house with that particular HOA at gunpoint.
lol, i am surprised they didn't cut a deal for your internet service and lock you into it so they get a cut like many of them do...you DO get a choice or did you already willingly give that up too?
I live in North Carolina but am currently on a little R and R here in Okinawa after a tour in Iraq. It saddens me to always hear these stories because I have been to many countries with some absolutely abysmal internet service providers that basically have a stranglehold on all the bases I have been on by a private agreement with the US Govt somehow. I dont see why they would have a problem with having a community ran ISP since they could easily just make it a utility. We have citizen ran electricity providers where I ocme from and they turn out just fine. :/
Just my two cents.
Would love info on how to start the process to do this for Palm Springs CA. TWC here is a Mother _ucker. Any sugestions or help please forward to mslattery@dc.rr.com. Thanks
Someone needs to tell TWC how capitalism is supposed to work. The city came to them and told them they want and need a better ISP. TWC, rather than listen to customers and improve their systems, they left their network the way it was. so now that the city has other options, capitalism means that twc should improve their network, provide more service at a competive price. if you want to leave things the way they are then of course people are going to look elsewhere
I don't know about YOUR city government, but MINE is always strapped for cash. They don't want to do anything that's going to hurt their bottom line. Some above fear the government will operate at a loss where TWC can't compete. Local governments that can't print their own $ will not. If the Federal was to compete you'd have that problem. If my city was involved, they'ed stretch every dollar, using it to subsidize the pork they're really interested in, from museums to race tracks.
Keep in mind also, how inefficient governments tend to be. If the city can outperform you, and you're private enterprise, chances are you're doing something VERY wrong. City "competition" for net is a non-issue to any company making a serious effort to provide a reasonable service at a reasonable price.
> For a bunch of tin-foil hat guys, the slashdot crowd really puts a lot of faith in government solutions of all kinds.....
Not so much as you think. This is the same situation as the country leaning Democrat after a Republican and vice versa. Whatever last ticked you off, you want the other. It's not faith in government, it's "we can't get a 3rd party / competitor in, all we can do is swat the current incumbent and hope the other isn't quite so bad for the 1st few months".
The progression:
1.Company does something bad: we want regulations to stop them
2.Company buys regulatory agency, regulations do nothing: we want the government to take over
3.Government does something badly: we want it back in private hands, with the government as hands off as possible
In impatience we'll push for the shortest possible turnaround for each of these 3 phases, so they're always in the "setting up" phase and none of them EVER have a chance to find their stride and get themselves working.
What's the difference in governments?
Local government is sometimes more accountable. How many personal enemies who matter can a congressman make, vs a mayor?
The local election is a popularity contest, not so bought as a federal election. It's more decided by whims and gossip
then the latest pundit on TV. "His sister's son broke up with the homecoming queen when she told him "no". He's not
getting MY vote now!" You can conceivably be run out of town. And what does the company that buys you get? Not much.
Buying government isn't automatic, it's a thought out decision. A price must be reached. If what it takes to buy
the mayor is more than the profit you'll get when he looks the other way, it's not worth it to do so.
With a city, maybe worth it. A town, no. A state, yes. The country, get out of the way, they'll run you down.
Found this while doing random searches about Time Warner. Makes for interesting fodder when they spout that pipe costs are skyrocketing when in fact their costs are tiny and dropping all the time.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/twc-without-data-caps-internet-upgrades-now-in-doubt.ars
Time Warner can go pound sand if they try to pull this crap! They couldn't match price/performance, and normal rules of business/competition are that if they are not up to scratch, then someone else/some other entity gets full kick at the cat. There is no corporate welfare. They don't get a monopoly status. The old adage, "If you can't innovate, litigate" sure fits here, as well as the further "If you can't litigate, legislate". Which is gross indecency. Stop the corporate welfare. If they have a failing business model, then their business should fail!
The telco market is rapidly imploding, and very soon there will not be enough competitors left in the business to create an actual market.
Well, in most places in the US, there weren't to begin with.
Competition isn't really meaningful when the cost of switching from one provider to another is moving to another state.
Even when there were lots of little regional cable companies, there wasn't a lot of meaningful competition. It wasn't quite so bad with telcos, but it's becoming so again.
At the moment, I'm lucky enough that Time-Warner is giving decent speeds and service in my area. If that changes, there won't really be much of anything I can do about it—the only other internet service I could switch to is Verizon DSL, and
So, yeah. There's already no competition. Why do you think Time-Warner thought they could get away with this kind of BS in the first place?
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
It also sounds like the legislation won't allow the town to profit from the service, so they would not be able to take any of the profits to offset costs in other area like shiny new police cars. This might not impact Greenlight, since they are already well started up I guess, but it would be a huge disincentive to any other municipality doing the same type of thing - why go through the hassle of setting up a system like this if the only benefits possible are going to be secondary ones like happier citizens?
Heck, I do not see any problem with a municipality deciding through duly elected representatives to provide ANY service to the pubic. If we all in Hole-in-the-wall USA decide that we want to create a subsidized car wash, paid for entirely out of tax dollars, then why the heck should we not be able to? Sure, "Chuck's Wash and Ride" might go out of business, but if the community agrees that car washing is to important to be left to the purely profit-driven world - why not? Chuck can compete with the other applicants for the "CitiWash" manager job. Sucks to be Chuck I guess, but why should Chuck be more important than all the voters with dirty cars?
I can see where we want to prevent the city from prohibiting Chuck from continuing to operate, if "CitiWash" sucks (or is inconvenient for some other reasons), maybe he can stay in business, but why should the citizens be stopped from entering any business they want?
[Let's try not to get into the whole "The Mayer hates Chuck because he ran off with his spouse and wants to drive him out of town." type of argument, we will assume that the voters are all making rational informed decisions, to the same extent that we will not need to assume undue greed or malice on the part of Chuck, the citizens just feel that their city would be better if they used some of their resources for car washes.]
[Pronouns are fun. Even if we assume "Chuck" is male, is the Mayor? Did Chuck do the running? Did the Mayor? I do not know if the "him" refers to Chuck, or the spouse - Hole-in-the-wall is obviously a very tolerant city.]
"I can throw anything away."
That might be convenient, but I am not sure it is necessarily such a good thing in general. I suppose the PCB, Lead, and Mercury plant next door might be good for the local economy, but many not the local life expectancy, eh?
That's simple. Don't provide tiered services for your network. Simply monitor the usage and bill accordingly. Maybe include a 10% over charge option that builds up a surplus so that if you have a couple months of very high usage it helps even out your bill. But that's really just fluff.
If it's a utility it should be billed as such and in this case it should most nearly resemble a water or electric bill.
You say government to go into "profit based business", but what is a profit based business? What isn't? Any social interaction can be the basis for commercial exploitation. Profit can be made from education, health care, local level police (private security), national security (private militias), utilities, etc. Who is to decide what should be a "profit based business"? If a private organization offered protection (read, retribution) from criminals, and made good profit out of that (and assume said organization obeyed the law), should government shut down the police to avoid competing?
The problem with free markets is that even when they work, they find a solution that is optimal in some ways, but that may be quite far from the best solution for society as a whole.
A privatized water company in south america will set its prices to optimize its profits. If the resulting prices mean 5% of the population cannot afford clean drinking water, so be it. The cost is not high because it must be, but because that is the free market solution. The social costs of high water prices are external.
Similarly, a private communication company in the US will set prices to optimize profits. Society may benefit from wide spread connectivity, but the company does not, so that will not affect prices.
In summary, competition of government with private sector is not the main issue. The issue is which services should be private and which public. In the interface, there may well be some areas where private and public coexist (education?) Publicly run services can be as corrupt as private corporations, and are generally less efficient, (but do not add a profit margin to the overall cost).
Of course, such decisions have far reaching long term effects that are frequently ignored. see e.g. the US jail industries massive lobbying for longer jail sentences, and the resulting incarceration rates.
Actually, I think both the suppliers of the venture capital and the banks would be much more interested in how you were going to convince people to buy 'S.H.I.T' (Slashlight Highspeed Internet for Towns). Even if there were no questions asked about that, I can see marketing having a field-day with this.
"Buy S.H.I.T!"
"Got S.H.I.T?"
"You too can have S.H.I.T for your house!"
"I use S.H.I.T, and so should you!"
"I'm proud to say my ISP is S.H.I.T."
Queue George Carlin jokes...
"Yeah, but by we know yo mama gives EVERYBODY root privilege..." -jpetts (208163)
So implement a real free market with small government and your complaint goes away.
> Sometimes yes and sometimes no. In this case, yes. Municipal internet is
> a great idea just like municipal water, fire, police, trash collection,
> etc. I like my utilities to be provisioned at cost. Private enterprise
> won't do that.
You either pay for a company's profit or a public entity's administrative overhead, ineptness, and corruption.
Riddle me this: What incentive does your municipal internet have to improve services over time? or even offer the level of service you desire?
What incentive is there for your local cable internet monopoly to do the same? Are they doing it? I see stores about fee increases and bandwidth caps. Is that meeting customer demand? Where are these customer that are demanding higher fees for less service?
Your question assumes private industry is doing those things. But the fact that there is a demand for municipal internet service says private industry isn't doing that everywhere it could. Instead, they are seeking laws that prevent municipalities from filling in the gaps in coverage of private for-profit service. Private internet is intervening in the workings of the market by trying to use the law to prevent municipal providers from filling in the gaps where they aren't meeting customer demand. If that isn't anti-competitive and anti-consumer, then I don't know what is.
Edith Keeler Must Die
If capitalism can't do at least as well as a socialist solution, then I'd say the capitalist solution needs to go - at least until a viable business model can be found. Otherwise we're just wasting money on being ideologically "correct"
Since capitalism seems to be generally better, then we should expect capitalistic solutions to most problems.
So... getting away from any sort of ideology... if TWC can't offer a better solution than meat-n-potatoes state run solution, then why subsidize the inefficient TWC solution?
To grok that, we've got to move beyond the socialism == dirty word.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
We had a similar situation last summer with TDS in Minnesota:
http://www.startribune.com/templates/Print_This_Story?sid=26082979