Slashdot Mirror
Kansas To Nix Expansion of Google Fiber and Municipal Broadband
symbolset writes: "Consumerist, among others, is reporting on a Kansas bill to restrict municipal support of broadband expansion. Purportedly to ensure a 'level playing field' to encourage commercial expansion in this area, these bills are usually referred to as oligopoly protection acts. Everywhere they have been implemented expansion of new broadband technology stops. In this specific case no municipal entity in Kansas will be able to enter the same sort of agreements that enabled Google Fiber. From the bill:
Except with regard to unserved areas, a municipality may not, directly or indirectly:
(1) Offer to provide to one or more subscribers, video, telecommunications or broadband service; or
(2) purchase, lease, construct, maintain or operate any facility for the purpose of enabling a private business or entity to offer, provide, carry, or deliver video, telecommunications or broadband service to one or more subscribers."
Except with regard to unserved areas, a municipality may not, directly or indirectly:
(1) Offer to provide to one or more subscribers, video, telecommunications or broadband service; or
(2) purchase, lease, construct, maintain or operate any facility for the purpose of enabling a private business or entity to offer, provide, carry, or deliver video, telecommunications or broadband service to one or more subscribers."
Darn, I'm sure Google was excited by the prospect of providing broadband access to the tens of people who live in municipalities in Kansas.
Freedom for Oligarchs. Higher prices for you.
Google needs to spend more time buying^h^h^h^h^h^h talking to legislators. It sucks that this is how it works nor, but government is for the people withe the most power and money, and with corporate personhood, this is how it rolls.
Silence is a state of mime.
I love subsection b of Section 2. Quote:
encourage the development and widespread use of technological advances in providing video, telecommunications and broadband services at competitive rates; and
That will never happen. Under no circumstances will people be able to get any of those services at competitive rates. What they will get are high prices for slow speeds.
Looks like Verizon/Comcast/whomever was successful in bribing Kansas State House members into bringing this bill up for consideration.
Gotta love fascism. Nothing like getting shafted by the government AND private industry.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
What's so hard to understand?
Municipalities should own infrastructure.
We have a situation where the roads of the future are privately owned, gated, and tolled. The rest of the world is preparing to steamroller over you.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
..don't panic
Imagine every transport company building their own road system, and what that would do to competition, and prices.
In other words, companies should not be able to have direct control over basic infrastructure. That's what we (should) have a government for.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Can someone explain me how this is possible and what the reasoning is behind this law? I mean, lawmakers are chosen by the people, for the people, land of the free, etc, how can that lead to a law forbidding the people to self-organise? It seems a bit paradoxal, one would expect that these lawmakers will be removed after the next election.
Communism and Capitalism both have some things in common. Not only do they both begin with the letter C, but they are both "great ideas" and neither ever actually happen.
Every time I see a story about a municipality taking their lack of development and progress into their own hands, some previously uninterested party steps in and says, "This is my territory and you can't build where we don't want to build." On its face it's ridiculous. They want to cherry pick -- to invest in the markets which offer the best returns. We all get that. But to deny anyone else the opportunity to operate in less favored zones is 100% anti-competitive and 100% anti-capitalist. Trying to keep other parties from participating in the marketplace takes the free out of free markets.
I think it's about time there were some public hearings on the situation so that we can get them to say things they don't mean and can later be held to account on.
I think the bill is a bad idea, but I don't think it would stop Google from deploying fiber elsewhere in Kansas. It doesn't do anything to prevent deployments, it just prevents municipalities from offering the special treatment that helped get KC selected as the first city out of 1100 candidates.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Because AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, etc didn't get any government assistance to build their networks....http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/07/att_verizon_get_most_federal_a.html
Perhaps if they pray really hard, God will create a super fast broadband network for them.
They'll need to pray harder than the lobbyists who wrote this bill.
The law of unintended consequences... While Section 3b, in regards to "video services", makes clear reference to "through wireline facilities located at least in part in the public rights-of-way", and clearly is about cable tv (no thread to netflicks for example), 3d is a very different animal:
(d) "Telecommunications service" means the two-way transmission of
signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, messages, data or other
information of any nature by wire, radio, light waves or other
electromagnetic means, offered to the public generally.
Hmm...does not seem to be based on actual broadband service providers or any specific limitations. The way it is written would seem to exclude any form of VoIP or chat "service" (jabber, skype, etc)!!!! WTF?! Way to go Kansas!
I don't have any doubt about the real motivations behind this, but I have to wonder...
How do the politicians pushing bills like this present them as anything but pure greed and cronyism with a straight face? I mean, I really can't come up with even a plausible cover story to make this more palatable. Even the old standby of "protecting jobs" doesn't fly, because someone still needs to run the networks, and seriously, how do you sell "We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company" as a private entity worth protecting?
Then again, maybe the politicians just don't even bother trying to have a cover story anymore, because they know we already consider them all nothing but self-serving asshats, yet the majority will still vote them back into office again and again and again.
And Google doing this is any different from any other company who demands and/or extracts concessions from the local municipality in exchange for opening a business there? Exemptions such as no taxes for the duration of its existence, exemptions to zoning laws, exemptions to local pollution standards, etc etc?
At least Google's concessions are largely unharmful to the local community, and the end result is actually fostering competition in an area that's normally a monopoly. Imagine that....local government fighting monopoly, by fostering competition.
After all...who does the government serve? The local monopolistic telco? Or the local citizens' public interest?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
they probably did, but that doesn't make it right and doesn't mean that mistake should be repeated
is there any wonder why US public debt is so high?
Let's give this an honest name shall we. Why don't we call these bills Protect Oligopoly Results Kineticly act - or PORK acts. The only thing these bills do is protect the business model of existing oligopolies and prevent competition. They are inherently anti-capitalist and have no place in the US (or anywhere else in my opinion).
Competition is a wonderful thing and those countries that have competition have much better service for much better prices and their companies still make quite a bit of money.
Kansans mustn't have broadband, they might gain forbidden knowledge.
Nope, no closed minded bigotry here....
The bill is by "The committee on commerce" which looks to be... http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/committees/ctte_s_cmrce_1/
You might want to contact them. We all know where / how this bill got it's start. You need to voice your opinion and remind them who they really serve.
I've been observing this sort of greedy corporatism for years. We seriously need to first set up a nationally recognized, "voluntary" standard that at least four competing broadband providers should be available in each jurisdiction and then start a national nonprofit organization that relentlessly pressures non-compliant local and state governments into abolishing laws and regulations that discourage or outright prevent this kind of minimum coverage. Constant lawsuits that dig up dirt about payoffs to politicians and expose semi-monopolies would be an excellent idea as well. It may be a little early to truly establish the idea that universal access to low-cost, high-speed Internet communications is a basic human right, but it's a good propaganda tool.
I'm a dreaming fanatic about free markets, but we don't have free markets for broadband Internet access. We have utterly corrupt corporatism. It's high time to savagely fight back against the greedy parasites at Time Warner and Cox and the rest who absolutely hate the idea of having to give up their bloated, government-protected profits.
A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
Oh, boo hoo. Someone doesn't like competition for a service that has no equivalency to roads or highways? The roads are owned and maintained by some form of government. When necessary they are "upgraded".
These lazy assed, we don't want to have to provide quality service for our customer hostages, 'communication' companies who already got their tax breaks - and monopolies - from the government decades ago don't want competition that would force them to provide better service for a more reasonable rate.
they probably did, but that doesn't make it right and doesn't mean that mistake should be repeated
is there any wonder why US public debt is so high?
See the last two Wars by Bush for that one chief. Followed by the ridiculous amount of money dumped into bolstering the military for no reason.
This I think does not apply to "publishing" as written (web sites). But certainly it could as written also cover file sharing, too....
It is quite humourous that normally when people hold wacky beliefs - beliefs that have no evidence and defy common sense - are labeled "kooks"; but as soon as they identify themselves as "Christian", we have to treat those beliefs with respect.
Hix Nix Quix Netflix.
Sorry man. You're acting the idiot. Maybe try re-reading what he actually wrote.
munis didn't fund wars... nice try though
Why is the US dept so high then? I could have sworn you implied that was their fault. Now it isn't?
If this wasn't some punk from Time Warner or Cox or even Suddenlink, I can almost best this is from someone butt hurt in Overland Park who screwed themselves out of Google Fiber because they weren't smart enough to accept Google's Terms.
Basically negotiations went like this,
Google) Hey we are going to give you blazing fast internet if you agree to these terms.
OP) That's all nice and dandy, by how about you give us a few concessions?
Google) We are Google, and giving you fast internet at low prices if you give us some specials on using your utilities.
OP) But what about we get a Kickback?
Google) Negotiations over, see you
OP) Wait, wait, I love you! Come back!!
Google) So sorry, but you waited too long.
Place something witty here
munis didn't fund wars... nice try though
Maybe not... but spending by Munis is also not responsible for the vast majority of US public debt. As of 2012 (the latest year-end I can find data for without logging into Bloomberg and compiling the data):
US local government debt as a percentage of GDP was around 7-8%.
US state government debt as a percentage of GDP was around 19-20%.
US federal government debt as a percentage of GDP was a touch over 120%.
So, by far the biggest contributor to US public debt is the US Federal Government, and by far the biggest single-ticket item of its expenditure is military spending ($700 Billion per year in direct contract awards), with massive spending on the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The most thorough study that I can find public reference to is by Brown University, which puts the cost of troop deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan and logistical support in Pakistan, plus domestic spending on debt interest to service that cost, at something over $6 Trillion so far, and that is only since 2003.
The study itself does not seem to be publicly available on the interwebs - Crawford, Neta and Catherine Lutz. "Economic and Budgetary Costs of the Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan to the United States: A Summary". Costs of War. Brown University.
But you can check out the Wikipedia article to get the basics: Financial cost of the Iraq War
Seeing as the current US Federal Debt burden is somewhere between $17 and $17.5 Trillion, the "non-War" debt burden is still a not-inconsiderable $11 Trillion, but the annual Military Gravy Train in the US dwarfs the rest of the debt components.
He had time to deal with the cataracts of Sam's mom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZeWPScnolo
English is not this
I'd be fine with this bill if it were more general purpose and forbade other types of subsidies as well. For instance, no incentives to attract movie production companies. No property tax breaks to attract large corporations. And, the big one, no municipal bonds to cover the construction of sporting venues.
Why shouldn't the people of the municipality get to decide that for themselves. Why does the state government need to get involved? At the municipal level if you do not like a law being passed it is a minimal amount of effort to get it shut down before implementation. A few yard signs and talking to your neighbors.
No willful ignorance in order to maintain a vague sense of political correctness here. Please do try to convince the class why Kansas and other such places don't deserve the hard time they get for their high density of bible thumpers.
How about for the same reason that poor children in the inner cities don't deserve the "hard time" they get for their high density of gang bangers and drug dealers?
municipality
noun
1.
a city or town that has corporate status and local government.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Perhaps if they pray really hard, God will create a super fast broadband network for them.
best not. someone might download porn or read about evil-ution if they have broadband.
of the market at work, not God! Except when it is not.
All these companies bleat and cry every time they might get regulated even a little, yet will lobby for these sort of laws to increase their profitability.
WWJD? Pretty sure he would dickpunch the lot of them.
This drives me crazy. I live in a relatively populated but rural area of North Carolina. I'm in a subdivision that started in 2008 but didn't get built out much because of the financial crash. Because of this I can't get cable Internet (they won't run a line into the subdivision) and AT&T won't bother to expand their DSL. What I pay Verizon for a measly 10GB of wireless data a month is about the same as what Google is charging it's fiber people. Stupid legislators like this will keep me in the Internet desert for years.
Now, since Google can't do much more there, hopefully it will mean that they can come here.
My 20x1 internet is painful to say the least... Unfortunately, to get better speed I have to go back to Comcast... which I admit is worse than pouring salt into an open wound.
Broadband is very similar to the highway system, and while the highway system is owned by the government, a lot of companies manage them, hence toll roads
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Let's not all panic yet. The sky hasn't fallen and the bill hasn't even has its first hearing in committee, no less a vote in the full body. http://kslegislature.org/li/b2...
Failure to follow this advice may result in non-deterministic behavior.
the government shouldn't be giving any money to any corporate interests
*IF* this bill actually did what you say here, I doubt many would be outraged. Yes, it would interfere with some Internet services, but it would also mean that the incumbents must start paying the city back for all right of way they are using at market rates.
It would also mean no more city or state money for the NFL stadiums, tax abatements for any business, etc.
I'm pretty sure most here could get on board with that.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
You do understand google is paying for it.. The only thing they asked for was access to public right of ways, which would be required for any line based provider to get access to, and in exchange they provided free internet to public buildings, including schools.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
No, there must be gays working for Google. There is nothing God can do...
(Damn Fred Phelps)
The law is horrible in many ways. The three that stand out to me:
1) Municipalities are allowed to engage in broadband efforts ONLY if 9 out of 10 homes in a census block have no broadband. This means that the big ISPs can wire up 11% of homes and call it a day. The other 89%? Too bad, but you guys aren't profitable enough to care about.
2) Satellite and mobile is counted as broadband. Never mind that satellite would be hideously expensive or that mobile can have tiny caps compared to wired broadband. In fact, it doesn't matter if the ISP is going to charge you $200 a month for 1GB of access. That's considered available access and you can't launch a municipal broadband effort.
3) This bill was literally written by the big ISPs who don't want competition from Google Fiber and municipal broadband. So the cries of "this will increase competition" are out-and-out lies. This is all about protecting the profits of the big ISPs by preventing municipalities from serving the non-served. The ISPs are afraid that, if municipalities are able to do this by themselves, they won't give lots of cash to Verizon, etc to build and run out networks. (Which those ISPs can then pocket, not build the networks, and lobby to keep them from having to uphold their end of the deal.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
... in exchange they provided free internet to public buildings, including schools.
Not that I have a problem with adding more competition in to broadband service (much the opposite, I lobbied hard to get my city the Google Fiber project that ended up going to KC), but I wanted to point something out - that's basically how crack dealers work. The first hit is free, but once you're hooked...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Your concluding statement isn't accurate at all.
The "mandatory" spending on entitlement programs dwarfs military spending: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
We have a spending problem, but it's not limited just to the military budget, and it is simply not true to say that the military spending "dwarfs" the rest of the debt components. In fact, the truth is quite the opposite.
This has a nice visual breakdown of federal income and outlay: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Also, refer to the GAO's citizen's report for FY 2012: http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/12... chart 3 is a nice pie chart representation of spending, please note that for FY 2012 HHS and SSA together ("entitlement spending") were 45% of the total federal budget, military spending was 21%, 30% if you include the VA.
Yes, we need to cut military spending and reduce our involvement in foreign conflicts, but that's just one part of the work that needs to be done. We need to reduce spending in all of these areas.
Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
Dear Google -
Fuck Kansas. I have a better proposition for you: Finish wiring up Missouri.
Our government is very friendly to large corporations such as yours, our residents would welcome the additional competition and higher quality service you're offering, and we have 2 major and 1 minor city in a nice, triangular geography that is quite conducive to building a state wide fiber loop.
We'd be happy to have your business.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
It costs nothing for the mani to allow google in, all they asked for was access to public right of ways to lay their line, the same that would be needed by any wired provider, and even wireless providers. In exchange not only did they give you fast speeds at low prices, but they also gave free internet to public buildings.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
It is beyond ironic that in a thread about poor broadband governance you recommend running Colin Powell for President.
His son Michael ran the FCC during G.W. Bush's term and had the chance to make the internet common carrier and guarantee us net neutrality. He did not do that. He sold out to the corporate interests.
What makes you think his father would be any different?
We had the same thing happen here a couple of years ago. Oconee county got fed up with the broadband players' reluctance to hook up rural parts of the county, so they decided to go in with the Feds to roll out universal fiber to all, because of the economic implications of such..
In response, AT&T objected, said they had planned on universal coverage, and lobbied the State for a "level playing field" law that would prohibit hooking residences up to any publicly funded infrastructure where the same subsidies were not given to AT&T and other private carriers.
The day the bill was signed into Law, the AT&T CEO declared wireline infrastructure dead, and that not one more penny would be sunk into wireline expansion in South Carolina.
Yeah, you've isolated what bigotry does wrong here: judging individuals from a group, while judging that group from different individuals.
And that's all well and good except gang-bangers don't run the local government, in a way that suggests a persistent cultural problem. There's something wrong with the state as a whole, even if you can say it's only because of a scant majority of those that happen to vote.
Keeping it stupid.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Perhaps if they pray really hard, God will create a super fast broadband network for them.
I suspect God has bigger things to deal with than internet connections. But it doesnt hurt to try....
Considering that if God exists, he does so outside of space and time. So he could theoretically have time for everything, because time has no meaning to him.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
do crack dealers give you a contract saying it will be free as well.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Haven't you seen Debbie Does Denisova?
The only folks who want this
" municipal communications network and private telecommunications investment safeguards act"
are the folks who want to continue offering meager wireline services for high prices.
This isn't a bill about competition, that's for the consumer.
When it works, the consumer gets good service at good prices.
It's not good for the existing, inefficient suppliers.
Think WalMart versus mom and pop's.
Only, the mom and pop's didn't do the right lobbying.
This might be about fairness.
The existing providers could pour a great amount capital into their local access network.
For this to happen they need an assurance that the money willl come back with interest and profit.
Having a city compete is sort of unfair because they don't need profits.
This argument holds water for the wireless carriers.
But the wireline carriers have not been pouring in capital.
Instead, they have been milking the existing network bought and paid for by 100 years of customer's money.
This bill will allow them to continue to do this without fear of competition from other funding models.
Historically, telecommunications has worked best with one network.
(So you could call anybody without needing 5 phones from different companies.)
This has led to comfortable, regulated monopolies.
Unfortunately, being comfortable makes it unnecessary to be bold and compete.
If the legislature was working for their voters, instead of making the service providers more comfortable,
they would be making them sweat.
Seems like the wireless carriers that are competing would like this because it would lower their backhaul costs.
I particularly like section 5b which disallows eminent domain for telecommunications or broadband services.
That permits a comfortable carrier from building out if he can find a single square foot of land can claim he needs but can't get.
Our system is a wonderous thing to watch.
What did Churchill say?
We'll do the right thing after exhausting every other possibility.
The folks in Kansas should be really proud today.
Have you seen the scale of rates being charged? They are charging $300 for the fiber install, which they are even willing to finance at 0% interest over a year ($25 a month!), and if you do nothing else, you get a FREE 5 Mbps connection. If you opt for the full connection, they waive the install fee, and then give you 1 GBps down AND up for $70. In addition, they are providing free gigabit service to schools, libraries and hospitals.
And what is the city giving in return? An expedited permit process, and only charging half as much per pole to connect. How is this a bad deal for the city or it's constituents?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Umm, broadband providers do have to continuously upgrade the hardware and lines to handle increasing requirements, the problem is there is no requirement to do so. It would be the same with roads if they were owned privately.
Your stawman that I want the government to takeover is off base and ignores what I said completely. I am for the government, state level, owning the lines, but the companies owning the end points and leasing access to the lines.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Both are government, though. Why should the state tell communities NOT to build up local infrastructure if they decide to?
Thanks ALEC(American Leglislative Exchange Council)
Thanks Google, for joining ALEC and legitamizing Americas' true Shadow Government.
Thanks to all the State legislatures bought and paid for by ALEC
American land of the "free"(TM), home of the cowering masses of consumers beholden to mega-corporations.
do crack dealers give you a contract saying it will be free as well.
Are contracts written for unlimited terms?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If this law gets passed, and Kansas manages to make Google fiber too difficult to support, I can see an exodus of techies from the Kansas sided Kansas City suburbs to the Missouri side as it's only a few miles over. That's got to be bad for taxes and property values in their state.
When people opposed to religion "single out" Christianity, they really do mean all of the above and more. It's not bias so much as just being easier to generalize by citing the dominate religion as a blanket for all of them rather than specify each and every one every time. This is with respect to situations where someone specifically cites a religion with intent of focusing on that religion. The worlds religions are very different and can only be discussed disassembled in depth one at a time.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
well, if they stop giving it for free they would stop having access to their right of ways, so there is that.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Don't forget about Pamela and her Permian Pals.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
(d) "Telecommunications service" means the two-way transmission of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, messages, data or other information of any nature by wire, radio, light waves or other electromagnetic means, offered to the public generally.
Please explain what interaction with "the public generally" is not mediated by "electromagnetic means". I look forward to all the lawsuits seeking to block municipal water and sewer service, since that involves bulk movement of matter in response to pressure, which is solely mediated by electromagnetic means.
Well... Detroit had Kwame Kilpatrick for a while...
Perhaps if they pray really hard, God will create a super fast broadband network for them.
They'll need to p(r)ay harder than the lobbyists who wrote this bill.
There, I fixed that for you.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
Comcast or nothing here, or so I thought on a search for broadband options. I had it installed, and their top tier SUCKS balls big time. they claim 20Mb/s... All else turned off in the house, only my PC on the router I get 2mb/s on speed tests down, 700k up. This is at multiple times during the day. At 3AM I get 3.5mb/s down and 1.2mb/s up. Why am I paying $95 a month for this?
It looks like it still is on the surface, but a little common-carrier designed fiber net is breaking that apart. One company owns the fiber net, and 12 small ISP's provide the service. I picked one that has three good backbones serving their customers. Mine is being installed next week. I talked to some people that had it (after a fellow slashdotter gave me a clue about it) and they say it delivers as promised.
look at how those monopolies that are buying this legislation got there. then you can crawl back and apologize for spouting your ignorance.
The only way to break those monopolies is the same way they formed- to fund the infrastructure that can do it- THEN make ALL the infrastructure that was funded this way (from all time) common carrier.
But every year, it's a toss-up as to what will be the more destructive force: tornadoes or the state government dominated by Koch whores.
It is fertile ground for them; a solid 75% of the populace (west of the KC area) are willfully ignorant and take great pride in voting against their own interests.
Comcast and AT&T had no interest in this area until Google announced possible competition. then they started pushing this bill.
Note: Comcast and AT&T receive a LOT of money from these municipalities in the form of subsidies to the poor and remote users. they just choose to take the money and ignore their duties as much as they possibly can.
Have you ever looked at the local government of eastern American inner cities. The gang bangers do indeed, run the local government.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The phones/data lines were owned by the government too, until someone convince d them that privatizing it would be better.
Now we have roads everywhere, and communications lines limited to only where the profit is highest EXCEPT where law was passed requiring them to expand against their will.
Is he anything like that J3zu5 dude?
Kathleen Sibelius (D) managed to become governor of Kansas because of (1) her father was a long-serving popular governor and (2) the GOP split their vote along their long-standing fault line of Crazy and Bug-Fuck Crazy, letting an actual Democrat win.
But since the Kochs took ownership of the party (and state), that probably won't happen again. Pity.
In the areas they have rolled out Google Fiber, the broadband providers have done a complete 180 on their practices.
Comcast: "Cable internet is saturated and we can't do anything about it! We need to charge more just to maintain what we are currently giving you!! the caps are there to help keep your speeds up!!!"
Google Fiber appears.
Overnight cable speeds double and the bills are cut in half. Caps are removed or pushed WAY out.
They were called on their bullshit, and hit in their wallet- the only place they will hear an impact.
Actually, as a non-believer I have to concede that 'god exists outside of [our] space and time' is one of the more reasonable and rational statements you could make. If God created the universe then he must necessarily have existed outside the spacetime he just created. Now, any statements as to how his "spacetime analogue" and our own may interact start treading on much more tenuous ground, but the basic assertion is necessarily valid.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
If your 30' antenna could get at least 1 channel, the figures on the screen were recognizable as human, and you could make out over 50% of what was being said- you had adequate TV coverage and no cable expansion was mandated to your area.
Because of his father's actual actions. My do you think his father would act the same way he does? Look at the difference between Bush Sr. and Bush Jr..
Loading...
Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes... "Hassen Sie leichter ein Kollektiv oder eine bestimmte Person und hassen Sie lieber allein oder in einem Kollektiv?"
"onward!" cried the copper man, little knowing brass corrupts...
"US federal government debt as a percentage of GDP was a touch over 120%."
I note that a large proportion of that debt is debt the US government owes to itself.
...FU Time Warner, Comcast and AT&T, because I am sure that it is the corporate lobby that is trying to get this one passed. If you don't want to go out of business then lower your prices to compete with Google don't keep trying to hang onto your Oligopoly!
The Theory of Capitalism depends on Perfect Information about prices among all participants.
(I'll pause a while to give you time to stop laughing.)
I think that means that all political donations should be disclosed. After all, how would the market price for a legislator otherwise be properly determined.
Also, the Federal Gov't and most State Gov'ts have the power of Eminent Domain - where the State can take property for the common good. (Michigan abused this power by taking people's homes in order to hand the property over to GM - and lost the power, but other States still have it. And the power still exists for taking property for the Public Good, such as to build roads, bridges, dams, etc.)
It's time to apply Eminent Domain to the wired infrastructure.
I'm not sure which team the free market fairy plays for.
A basic monthly cost to cover the act of having a wire connected to the house, and a separate usage-based component to cover bandwidth costs and infrastructure upgrades.
> How is this a bad deal for the city or it's constituents?
Because it teaches them how much the telcos screw them over.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
You could let the municipality own the last mile and bill to cover maintenance, since that is pretty much a natural monopoly.
Then the ISPs could compete for the connection to the outside world and tie into neighbourhood switches. This would be far fairer to ISPs since it would limit the amount of infrastructure necessary to get started. And the municipality often already owns water/sewer/etc. so they're used to digging in people's yards.
To have the money to buy the laws and take out your competition at the legislative level before they even have a chance.
FCC, where are you??????
---- Booth was a patriot ----
All their goals that they want to achieve in that statement would come to fruition by actually allowing open municipal networks and thus creating competition. I dont understand why they think by hindering more networks to be created would somehow not create competition ....
Because she professes the same belief that neocons do, that the ends justify the means. Because anything ever asked of her instantly devolves into what the GOP did wrong. Because whenever you hear her speak about something that has happened she inevitably and without exception turns it into an us versus them between Democrats and Republicans.
Basically because she acts like virtually every GOP member elected since 1994.
Loading...
my fellow atheists, but this seems to be the case! I realize most of the comments aren't 100% serious, poking fun at the Bible belt. But Google Fiber can't even launch in many secular places like San Francisco, for the same reasons we see a move to stop Google Fiber from expanding there. This is all about the telecom/broadband providers trying to stifle a radically cheaper product than what the competition offers or wants to offer. And Google totally kills their bundle model with this offering.
I disagree. People do single out Christianity above other religions. They're afraid to criticize some other religions. Wouldn't want to offend them.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
no no no, god exists between the 5th and 6th dimensions.
(my explanation is about as sensible as yours. I can throw words together, too, and declare it a truth but that does not mean a single thing, really).
'god exists outside of space and time'. what a void sentence that is. maybe it impresses someone, but not any thinking person, that much I can assure you.
Oh, relax. I did not declare anything the truth, I was merely speculating. I like to do that about God because it's such a contentious mystery. People get all bent out of shape about it, know what I mean?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Actually, as a non-believer I have to concede that 'god exists outside of [our] space and time' is one of the more reasonable and rational statements you could make. If God created the universe then he must necessarily have existed outside the spacetime he just created. Now, any statements as to how his "spacetime analogue" and our own may interact start treading on much more tenuous ground, but the basic assertion is necessarily valid.
Yes, thank you. I personally do believe there is a greater consciousness at work in the Universe. However, I am open to the possibility that I am wrong about that. I don't believe in Heaven or Hell or sin, so it's all good either way. As I have said before, I think being an Atheist is perfectly reasonable. After all, there is no proof of God's existence.
It's hard to conceive of an existence without time. Time is so central to our experience. I'm not sure I can really conceive of it myself. But I do think that if God exists, he has a different relationship to time than we do. Take that Hawking! ;-)
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Considering that if God exists, he does so outside of space and time.
If that were the case, then she/he/it could interact with our reality as well as Mr. Sphere can interact with the denizens of Flatland: any contact = bloody, bodily shredding of the Flatlander.
Perhaps that's why we never see him! ;-)
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)