Slashdot Mirror
US ISPs Using Push Polling To Stop Cheap Internet
An anonymous reader writes "What happens when a new ISP is started somewhere in the United States that completely blows out of the water all the other ISPs in the area, in terms of price and performance? Apparently, that question is being answered in North Carolina, where Greenlight Inc., a company started by a city government, is trying to offer faster, more reliable, and cheaper Internet service to the local residents. Time Warner and Embarq can't compete. So they are not only lobbying the state government to destroy the upstart competition, but are now using push polling methods to gain support, across the two cities that could benefit from the new ISP, for the 'Level the playing field' legislation they got introduced in the legislature." A local news outlet provides coverage more friendly to the incumbents' point of view.
Surprise someone finally realized that the last mile is a natural monopoly and should be a utility.
This totally ruins their business model of selling something that costs almost nothing for a lot more than nothing.
Of course they're going to pull out every stop to well stop this from happening.
Because I had never heard of the (incredibly vague) term, I RTFS and found in the comments a description:
The story submission is lame, and the story it's about is too. Anyone have a link to a good story on the same subject?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Any company started and run by any Government is not a "level playing field" IMO. It may be a way for Government price manipulation, but then that's not letting the market determine price.
Secondly, since it is started and run by the Government, wouldn't this be considered a public service instead?
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
It sounds to me like internet is becoming more and more of a "needed commodity" than it used to be. Consider, if you will, roads. The taxpayer dollars go towards those and in turn, the government hires private contractors to do the work - this article doesn't sound much different.
However, this would make the internet a public service more than a paid for service, so, unfortunately, there is a large gray area there - and the companies making the pretty penny are going to fight in that gray area.
And I fucking RAGED.
*You* didn't want the customers, fuckers, *YOU*. They came to you begging for service. You denied. Now they did it themselves and you blame unfair competition? Go jerk off in some cold closet, incompetent bastards...
At least in the Triangle area in NC, TW pays the local municipalities a bribe, I mean an "Access Fee" that can approach something like 15% of the revenue. While their methods are all unsavory, they are rightfully angry that their bribe is underwriting a competitor.
The government here is in the wrong for poking its nose where it doesn't belong. Either the entire ISP business should be under government control or none of it should be. By cherry picking certain parts, the government has made a very bad decision with long term ramifications for all business in the state.
Then let's privatize the Fire Department and all other services exclusively run by government.
Or even better, let's put the entire issue to a public vote. This would be the ultimate form of democracy. How about that?
You are one of the folks that thinks that anything run by government is bad as if, when you find yourself on the death bed...being bamboozled by insurance companies...as if who provides the service you need at the material time matters. What would matter to you is how you can get the help you need. I do not care who provides a service as long as I am satisfied.
People with your thoughts are partly responsible with the current financial crisis. It's insane. I would like you to call for a referendum on this issue instead of ranting around here.
Remember, a drowning man will cling to a reed with the hope that it will offer a lifeline of some sort.
What really stinks, especially in rural areas, is that you have to buy your back-end bandwidth from a person you are competing against.
They get their money either way, charging a fortune for a 1.5 Mb T1 line, again, especially in rural areas.
So they make a killing off of a bunch of bonded T1 lines or a partial DS3, and then you have to compete with them against their own offerings (i.e. 19.99 and 29.99 a month DSL).
So you get the headache of customer support and make a little money, and the phone company does good either way. Your niche market in a rural area is areas not serviced by the phone company, which means when the phone company does go into a new area, you lose your customers in that area because you can hardly compete with the people who own the infrastructure.
Again, I know there are more options in larger cities, but there is a reason a business likes to be a monopoly.
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
You ring lots of people on the pretence that you want their opinion. Then you ask leading questions like Would you vote for candidate X even though he has voted for higher taxes in your city, or some such. The idea is to promote an idea about candidate X, not to find out where the votes are going.
It is a very popular political tool.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
It's a "political poll" delivered under false pretense with prejudiced questions.
A poll designed not to collect your answers but to feed you misinformation (FUD) and influence your opinion.
Generally, they are very effective. People investing time in taking a poll believe the pollster is an authority on the subject, so there is a strong tendency tend to believe all the misinformation, and many people's opinions can be influenced dramatically.
(Especially if they were neutral on or unaware of the subject beforehand)
The practice is actually illegal in some states.
Read the senate bill: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S1004v1.pdf I hate the telcos as much as anyone, but this bill says that when the city enters into the communications business, it should have to pay all the same taxes and fees as private business would, and be burdened with the same oversight. They also say that other fees the citizens pay (trash, water etc) cannot be used to fund the communications business. I don't see how this bill is unfair at all. The telcos are essentially saying "If we didn't have to pay any fees to the city to provide service, we could be competetive." If government wants to set up a business, they should have go compete with other businesses on a level playing field. If municipalities want to open up their own ISP, I am all for that, but then they should stop collecting fees and taxing the other ISPs they are competing with. Municipal government should not be using taxes and fees to provide a commercial advantage for themselves. I think the "level playing field" is actually a good title for this bill, and not an unreasonable request. We're all hopped up on this because it's something that's near and dear to us, but imagine if the city set up a taxi service, but then did not have to pay gasoline tax or hackney licenses. Obviously it benefits the public who uses taxis, but is it fair to the taxi drivers and cab companies that they now have to charge more than the city taxis.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
So this is what they are offering, at a profit right? (No govt. subsidies putting TWC out of business in the area, right?)
http://www.greenlightnc.com/home/internet/internetonly/
$59.95 for 20 mbps UP AND DOWN? 2UP? And they do this profitably right? Then is it possible everyone else is getting screwed over by their ISP Monopolies/Duopolies?
"The 20Mbps speed includes both uploads and downloads and is the fastest residential speed available anywhere in North Carolina."
Go Greenlight go! I wonder what the real estate is like in the area served.
You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
The funny thing is that almost all of these ISP's (cable providers, telco's) already HAVE government-granted monopolies themselves. Time-Warner has certainly never objected when a city has granted them an exclusive monopoly to provide cable service to a city (such agreements cover close to 100% of their market), nor has AT&T ever been shy about their monopoly. If these companies were so serious about "leveling the playing field" how about they agree to lease those cable and phone lines to competitors and forgo those exclusive agreements with cities and counties?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The city of Ashland in southern Oregon operates a fiber-optic network that's open to multiple ISPs. The city does not operate its own ISP at all, and they don't sell Internet access directly to residents; you have to sign up with an ISP, and the ISP pays the city for access to the fiber network. The city sets the speed and charges the ISP more for faster speeds, but the ISP provides the Internet connection, tech support, etc.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Most of us are outraged about this, but few of us can do anything about it. If you live in North Carolina, I urge you to contact your state congresspeople and let them know just how you, as a voter, feel about this.
The bills in question are NC Senate bill 1004 and NC House bill 1242. You can find contact information for your state congresspeople here:
http://www.votesmart.org/index.htm
And remember, even if you're a NC resident who doesn't live in Wilson, this is a *state-level* issue, and your opinion counts. Not only that, but if these bills pass, it means no cheap internet for you, either. Be heard now, while it matters.
Except that in this case it's not funded by tax payer dollars. Greenlight's infrastructure layout was funded by special bonds. It operates at a profit completely independant of tax payer dollars. TWC is in a hissy precisely because of that, they've been shown that what the community asked for was and is completely possible.
Has anyone actually bothered to read the bill in question? All it's doing is making sure the city-owned ISP isn't---or doesn't in the future---engage in the kind of abuses I just posted about. It's specifically to make sure they can't lower their rates by subsidizing themselves with tax dollars, exempt themselves from paying telco taxes, and similar. Here are the relevant pieces:---
Anyone opposing this is basically saying, "I want cheap Internets by making you pay for it."
Liberty in your lifetime
Isn't that exactly what the city offered?
They built the infrastructure nescesary and then went to the incumbants saying "we built this nice fat infrastructure, and we'd like to let you use it if you give us a better service than we're getting right now".
The companies declined this offer and then gut pissed that the city decided to use the infrastructure anyway.
The problem with pure-er capitalism is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Not true, and never has been true.
As was proved during the Reagan era, the rich AND poor BOTH get richer when Government gets out of the way (i.e., fetters to productivity are removed).
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll