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.'"
"The Market" was rejected by the monopoly players in this case. If you had been following the story, the local government requested better service and lower prices and they simply refused. There are times when "the market" (aka, "the people") need to push ahead instead of "waiting for the leaders."
This story is quite similar to others where these players in the ISP game quite frequently refuse the requests of municipalities resulting in the municipalities building their own infrastructures which then results in the communications companies filing legal actions against it. I find it most profound when it happens that a given company doesn't want to offer ANY service to an area and yet will fight tooth and nail when a local government wants to build its own.
Hmmmm...here's some food for thought: city governments already run trash collection services, schools, snow removal services, real estate brokerages, electrical services, cable TV services, electric utilities, water utilities, etc. There are private equivalents for all these services (and more) that city governments provide. (Yes, including water utilities and trash removal. If you don't believe me, I will show you my water bill and trash removal bill) and in some instances these even compete in the same community.
I don't see anybody fighting over that. How is running an Internet service provider any different?
My blog
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...
My (admittedly thin) understanding is that the people of the town were fed up with TWC, got together, and made something happen. That's what government is for: By the people and for the people. Of course it has its limitations, but when corporations have a stranglehold it is actually refreshing to me to see that the government is still a way for people to take a stand, even at a tiny local level.
I think the precedent is a great one. If it shoes people that they really can do something, rather than being squashed by a big corp, then great.
Also, the all-or-nothing argument seems a bit much. Do you just propose that people continue to live under the current oppression?
-
You should understand two things here.
1) The government is NOT using taxpayer money to fund this.
2) They are PROFITABLE
It's not like their selling low, and then subsidizing the costs with taxpayer money. They're selling the service at the price they sell it, and STILL MAKING MONEY.
I think that's the bottom line here.
I see Broadband as no different an essential service to live these days. I certainly couldn't live without it, my job depends on it.
If public companies refuse to provide this, then it should be the governments responsibility to step in and provide this service.
It is only a non level playing field if the government *loses* money in their own ISP but keeps it afloat anyway. If the government ISP company *makes* money using the same business processes that the industry would (or could or should), how can you talk about a non level playing field?
If the governemnt ISP makes a fair and honest profit, then the ISPs have no right to complain. But of course it makes business sense for them to complain anyway.
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.
You know, socialism isn't outlawed by the U.S. Constitution. I'm in favor of the government doing whatever it can do better then big business, e.g. replace the joke of a medical insurance system with a single payer government run system.
Admittedly socialism doesn't work well in many cases because the process is corrupted by the rich and powerful and special interests. But on the local level, a socialized industry might work better then on the national level, because the people will have more influence to avoid corruption then they do on the national level.
If cities can provide broadband service cheaper then private companies, I want them to. As long as its self supporting and not subsidized.
I'm tired of CEOs making millions of dollars for doing nothing unique or that a lot of other people making far less couldn't do.
And the telecoms are among the worst of the bunch in undeserved profits.
This ad space for rent.
Those notions had occurred to me. But "authorities" have always had access to my traffic... some of it quite secretly.
"Not sufficient demand" arguments are great reasons for these telecoms to NOT CARE and yet they do. The reality is that these ISPs are trying to protect their over-sized profit model as municipalities are going to learn how expensive it is to operate and install these services versus how much they pay for them and begin to realize that the consumer is NOT getting a good deal at all. Exposing that kind of truth is a big deal and threatens their million-dollar annual bonuses.
And given that this service is paying for itself and ultimately will be quite profitable negates the argument that it wouldn't have been profitable... it wouldn't be profitable ENOUGH.
The fact of the matter is that internet service is quickly becoming a necessary utility just as telephone and electric power services are today. (They were once fancy options as well!) It is a utility that has yet to fall under regulation and as we can see throughout history, unregulated necessary utilities tend to drive prices higher and burden consumers painfully to the detriment of local economies. (more money being drained from local economies by high utility prices and less money available for local spending which ALSO means less taxed income for local government) Texas and California deregulated electric power and we experience rolling blackouts, the highest prices for power in the nation and even more complaints about their profitability. Meanwhile, in states where power utilities are regulated, no such problems exist for power, no one is going out of business and the citizenry is less burdened.
Government regulation over various aspects of commercial activity are not bad by definition. A guest on the Daily Show put is ever so simply when she explained that since the beginning of the U.S., we have had financial crisis cycles until we emerged from the great depression with strict regulations and government backing. Following that was more than 50 years of relative stability and prosperity and a defeat of the financial crisis cycle. But when regulation was pulled back on S&Ls, an S&L crisis soon followed. Some said the answer was "less regulation" and so more regulations were removed and even more crises occurred.
Here's a truth that EVERY parent knows:
Unregulated kids are going to do dumb, crazy and bad things. They WILL burn your house down if you are not careful.
I find that this truth is not just restricted to children includes adults and the adults who run businesses as well. And this is especially true when these adults who run businesses are as arrogant and narcissistic as they are demonstrating themselves to be... and they demonstrate that they don't feel at all responsible or accountable for the mess they created.
I agree 100%. And in this instance of Wilson, NC, this is the case. From the Mayor Brian Bowman's blog:
One last note, Wilson tax money does not fund Greenlight (ed note: Wilson's municipal ISP). Citizens who choose Greenlight buy the services just like they would from any other provider.
My blog
A similar thing happened to some "community internet" initiatives in the UK. In villages where there was no broadband, people costed out getting a T1 line to their village and splitting the cost. It usually came to slightly more than broadband from the big providers - but with the choice of that or dial-up people would sign up for the service.
The community projects would get the money together and order the T1 line. What British Telecom did, of course, was install a much bigger trunk than needed for a single T1 line, as the extra cost is pretty low and then offer broadband in the area. Many people would then say "I wouldn't have signed for the community project if I knew that broadband was coming here anyway" and try to get out of their commitment. Usually after a year which people had signed up to the project would fold because everyone would switch to BT rather than renew. So BT gets paid to install a line and then uses it to give cheaper competition.
They're a non-profit organization, with 100% of revenue funding the employees and expansion of service.
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.
I don't see how this bill is unfair at all.
I guess you missed this bit:
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.
Is a telco or cable company required to keep separate accounts for their internet service? Why are they not required to keep their internet and other services separate? Why is a cable company allowed to leverage it's existing monopoly by subsidizing it's internet service (like it might do to drive it's internet competition out of business), but a city isn't?
If it was *REALLY* about "leveling" the playing field, I would assume that the bill would say that *ALL* internet providers would be subject to these rules, not just cities.
And there's the rub.
When I was growing up, we used to have two choices for cable TV - Warner Cable (later became Time Warner) and Viacom Cable.
Warner was the "newcomer". They started running "specials", subsidized by their monopolies on OTHER cities. For a while, you got a basic cable package for $15/month and the pay channels like HBO for another $5 or so.
Then, Viacom folded. They couldn't compete any more, they were losing customers in droves to the "specials" because at that price, Warner was actually selling the service below cost (but claiming it was a "special" and a "sale", so getting around state laws against below-cost permanent pricing).
What did people find out once Viacom was dead? TW did what they do to everyone once they have a monopoly - they started running TV ads with the "happy king" declaring "I declare Warner Cable for my entire kingdom!" with a shit-eating grin on his face.
Meanwhile those "special" $15/month rates were expired out, and within 3 months the base price was $80/month.
Look at the prices you're offered for ISP service. If you are in a "competition" area, one of the lucky SOB's on a border (and the borders move as they put each other out of business), you can probably swing some ridiculously cheap pricing. Otherwise, what do you get? Comcrap pretty much has a monopoly on our area. DSL service is technically "available" if you want roughly the same data rate as a pair of 33.6 phone modems (no seriously: they haven't upgraded their equipment in 10 years or more).
Comcrap, 10 miles down the road, offers their "high tier" speed at $40/month. For us, "low tier" is $50/month. That's because 10 miles down the road, Verizon owns the lines and is offering FiOS to compete with Comcrap. Meanwhile, Comcrap's own internal memos show that they could double the speed to EVERY USER IN THEIR NETWORK, both up and down, for a mere $6/customer one-time cost, and they refuse to do it.
That's the kind of shit you deal with. They all want a monopoly so they can gouge the crap out of you.
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.
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).
8 years is a dreadfully short time to 'prove' an economic method. For all you know what is happening right now is a direct result of Reagan era policies, so I am going to call bullshit on that, but if you can actually provide some reasonable backup for your opinion then maybe you can change my mind!
I am not going to pretend that there isn't bad regulation (goddamn there is tons of it), and it should be gotten rid of, but people who say that all regulation is bad regulation are just crazies. Should we take out anti-trust legislation? Was it smart of us to remove the investment bank regulation? What about safety regulation? What about anti-discrimination legislation?
There are 'fetters to productivity' and there is 'good legislation' but to say that all legislation that fetters productivity cannot be good is wrong.
As was proved during the Reagan era, the rich AND poor BOTH get richer when Government gets out of the way
Wrong. 80% of the population experienced a decrease in income from 1977 to 1988 (Kevin Phillips, The Politics of Rich and Poor, p. 17).