Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Utah Bill Would Prevent Regional Fiber Networks From Growing

Posted by Soulskill on from the stop-obstructing-my-internet dept.

symbolset writes "On the heels of the smackdown received by cable lobbyists in Kansas, Ars reports out of Utah that the cable companies aren't giving up hopes of preventing competition through legislation. The bill, called Interlocal Entity Service Prohibition, would prevent a regional fiber consortium from building infrastructure outside the boundaries of its member cities and towns — a direct attack on Google's work in Provo and the UTOPIA network. Utah is the third state to be involved in the Google Fiber rollout of gigabit fiber to the home."

111 comments

  1. Protect Our Monopolies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please, please Mr. Politician, can't you help our poor, poor monopolies protect our billions and prevent our customers from choosing a better service for a better price? It's just not fair!!

    1. Re:Protect Our Monopolies! by tysonedwards · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The concern in this case is that the public sector is using tax dollars and grants from federal entities to overbuild an existing private network, in turn generating income in the areas that have higher densities at the expense of the less dense areas. This effectively leaves those "unserved" still without service, despite all residents paying for the network via their property taxes.

      Should the same thing be done by a new-comer into private industry, done without tax dollars, or would connect all those who wanted it there would not be a problem. Protecting monopolistic behavior is simply the knee-jerk reaction to the story.

      Further, as Google's Provo offering is no longer a "public entity" offering, it isn't even subject to the bill.
      However, at the same point Google would not have been able to enter the marketplace in Provo should the town not have done the initial heavy lifting.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    2. Re:Protect Our Monopolies! by Traze · · Score: 2

      Except that UTOPIA is basically publicly owned. They only build out when they get a contract with a city, and so far the cities more or less own the networks when they are finished.

      Citation: I am a UTOPIA user, and have been an avid follower of their plans for over 10 years.

    3. Re:Protect Our Monopolies! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The concern in this case is that the public sector is using tax dollars and grants from federal entities to overbuild an existing private network

      And that's bad because...?

      Let's not BS about this "private network" you refer to. It's only "private" in as much as the profits are held privately. It exists in large part thanks to public subsidies, set-asides and tax abatement. It's built on public land and right-of-ways. It got "private" because government gave telecoms and cable television special protections and specifically limited competition on their behalf.

      Tell you what: As long as the entities that own these "private" networks actually start to obey the spirit of anti-trust laws and stop trying to become content providers and as long as they get on board with 100% net neutrality and as long as they stop asking for special tax dispensations, and as long as the market actually becomes competitive, then maybe we can talk about protecting their "private" network.

      Until then, they need to take their scummy lobbyists and stop ripping people off or as far as I'm concerned, the whole network should be nationalized and turned into a public utility.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Protect Our Monopolies! by Obfuscant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And that's bad because...?

      The fact you ask that means you probably won't accept the answer, but here goes ...

      Because there is no true competition when a government decides to compete with a private company. The government "company" has the benefit of mandatory "customers" (taxpayers), which means people who don't want to be customers are forced to help pay for those who do, and those who are customers of the private company are actually paying twice.

      If you want competition, don't create an artificial market run at sub-market pricing supported by taxpayers. Let the competitors fight it out on even ground.

      Tell you what: As long as the entities that own these "private" networks ...

      Yes, I understand. Free markets only for those who do things the way you want them done. Otherwise the government must solve the problem by competing with them.

      and as long as they stop asking for special tax dispensations,

      In my market, Comcast pays the city a franchise fee for every subscriber they have, which results in net income for the city over and above the payroll and property taxes they pay. This money gets dumped into the general fund to pay for ... anything the city council wants to use it for.

      Nothing is stopping another cable company from entering the market but none has. If someone could come undercut Comcast honestly, and not sell services for less because the deficit is made up from the general tax fund, they would. Why not? Because they look at the market and see that it won't support two companies. The government, with essentially bottomless pockets, pays no attention to markets and doesn't care about operating at a loss. If they lose money from that service, they'll just plead for more money at the next election and hold other services hostage. Our city does it on a regular basis, threatening to close the library and the public pool and the senior center unless they get more money, but never do they threaten to eliminate the unnecessary things they do.

      That's why it is bad.

    5. Re:Protect Our Monopolies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But you can make it true competition even if the provider is part of the government by legislating a separate budget for the entity. What, the "efficient" private companies cannot compete on price with a bureaucratic non-profit even after all the special tax breaks, public subsidies and other carrots? Then they are charging too much.

    6. Re:Protect Our Monopolies! by symbolset · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is not a case of governments competing with a private company. Fast Internet is a valuable social good that private companies flat refuse to provide. Since they refuse to provide it, citizens are providing it for themselves through their governments. That this obsoletes the slow Internet cable companies want to provide does not mean they compete. They are substantially different things.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    7. Re:Protect Our Monopolies! by Enigma2175 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because there is no true competition when a government decides to compete with a private company. The government "company" has the benefit of mandatory "customers" (taxpayers), which means people who don't want to be customers are forced to help pay for those who do, and those who are customers of the private company are actually paying twice.

      If you want competition, don't create an artificial market run at sub-market pricing supported by taxpayers. Let the competitors fight it out on even ground.

      In my market, Comcast pays the city a franchise fee for every subscriber they have, which results in net income for the city over and above the payroll and property taxes they pay. This money gets dumped into the general fund to pay for ... anything the city council wants to use it for.

      Nothing is stopping another cable company from entering the market but none has. If someone could come undercut Comcast honestly, and not sell services for less because the deficit is made up from the general tax fund, they would. Why not? Because they look at the market and see that it won't support two companies. The government, with essentially bottomless pockets, pays no attention to markets and doesn't care about operating at a loss. If they lose money from that service, they'll just plead for more money at the next election and hold other services hostage. Our city does it on a regular basis, threatening to close the library and the public pool and the senior center unless they get more money, but never do they threaten to eliminate the unnecessary things they do.

      That's why it is bad.

      But the problem with the current situation is since there is a natural barrier to competition because not every provider can be allowed to use easements to run their lines. The way cities handled this in the past was granting a single company a monopoly on providing a certain service. This doesn't work well in practice, particularly in industries that are not heavily regulated by the franchise authority like cable TV.

      The solution to this problem is for the city to own a fiber network and any company that wants to provide IP services (TV, phone, internet) over this network is free to do so. This gives a level playing field for all competitors who want to provide this kind of service. The existing monopoly system does not work for anyone but the monopoly holder, it certainly does not work for the consumer.

      Full disclosure, I am a subscriber of one of the fiber networks mentioned in the summary and so I might be biased.

      --

      Enigma

    8. Re:Protect Our Monopolies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The concern in this case is that the public sector is using tax dollars and grants from federal entities to overbuild an existing private network,

      Seriously? Like some communities build their own water and sewage treatment systems (except for the overbuilding part)? Or their own electrical or telephone networks? Why is a fiber optic network so vastly different? Because they'd compete with Verizon and Comcast?

      in turn generating income in the areas that have higher densities at the expense of the less dense areas.

      So you're implying that private network would service less dense (less profitable) areas while a public network wouldn't? Why?

      Should the same thing be done by a new-comer into private industry, done without tax dollars, or would connect all those who wanted it there would not be a problem.

      Why? I'm having a lot of trouble picturing a new-comer to the fiber-optic internet industry going up against Verizon or Comcast without deep, deep pockets like Google.

    9. Re: Protect Our Monopolies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and the money paid come right from the subscriber. You know like a tax.
      Cable vision in NY has a better deal exclusive contracts. Aka a monopoly.
      There is no other cable company possible. $50 a month for Internet.
      You can get verizon in some places.
      Government internet would worth a shot

    10. Re:Protect Our Monopolies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until then, they need to take their scummy lobbyists and stop ripping people off or as far as I'm concerned, the whole network should be nationalized and turned into a public utility.

      Communist!

    11. Re:Protect Our Monopolies! by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly when Cox cable has minimum packages in San Diego that run $135 a month for basic and the only sports package. It's just ridiculous that these "public" granted monopolies continue to bend the consumer over.

    12. Re:Protect Our Monopolies! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      In my market, Comcast pays the city a franchise fee for every subscriber they have, which results in net income for the city over and above the payroll and property taxes they pay. This money gets dumped into the general fund to pay for ... anything the city council wants to use it for.

      Wow, you really have a middle-school social studies level of understanding how stuff works.

      Nothing is stopping another cable company from entering the market but none has.

      You better tell Comcast that they're wasting tons of money on those lobbyists because everything is fair and above-board and there's no need for them to dedicate so much money and effort to making it a non-free market.

      Nothing is stopping another cable company from entering the market but none has

      Here's a little story. Once there were two satellite radio companies. And there would be no more licenses for satellite radio companies, because their lobbyists said, "there should be no more licenses because the fact that there are two companies means there will be competition." Then, one company bought the other. Now, the lobbyists say, "If there are any more licenses, then our business won't be viable!"

      Now, cable television is a more mature sector, so the effect is not as blatant. But it is absolutely the same mechanism. And remember, the point of this story is the lobbyists are writing the laws.

      Did you get that last? The lobbyists are the ones who are fucking writing the laws.

      Free markets because impossible the day after free markets were invented. And rest assured, they were invented. Free markets do not exist in nature.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:Protect Our Monopolies! by thaylin · · Score: 1

      The fact you ask that means you probably won't accept the answer, but here goes ...

      Because there is no true competition when a government decides to compete with a private company. The government "company" has the benefit of mandatory "customers" (taxpayers), which means people who don't want to be customers are forced to help pay for those who do, and those who are customers of the private company are actually paying twice.

      You dont have an understanding of the history of the cable companies do you? They used the same method that google and utopia used to get their network off the ground, tax payer funded subsidies and deals, now it is somehow bad if someone else does it?

      If you want competition, don't create an artificial market run at sub-market pricing supported by taxpayers. Let the competitors fight it out on even ground.

      No we are apparently supposed to allow an artificial market to run at above market pricing, still supported by taxpayer subsidies.

      Yes, I understand. Free markets only for those who do things the way you want them done. Otherwise the government must solve the problem by competing with them.

      The government allowed them to get the monopoly, to the detriment of the tax payers. In these cases the government is allowing another player to enter the market to compete, not competing itself.

      In my market, Comcast pays the city a franchise fee for every subscriber they have, which results in net income for the city over and above the payroll and property taxes they pay. This money gets dumped into the general fund to pay for ... anything the city council wants to use it for.

      Incorrect, they pay a 5% free on gross revenue. It is not a fee per user, but should I mention they still get billions in subsidies from the government every year as well?

      Nothing is stopping another cable company from entering the market but none has.

      You mean besides that pesky access to public right of ways which is required to lay the cables, which the incumbents were granted typically free, but now want to prevent the competitors from having access to it in the same way?

      If someone could come undercut Comcast honestly, and not sell services for less because the deficit is made up from the general tax fund, they would. Why not? Because they look at the market and see that it won't support two companies. The government, with essentially bottomless pockets, pays no attention to markets and doesn't care about operating at a loss. If they lose money from that service, they'll just plead for more money at the next election and hold other services hostage. Our city does it on a regular basis, threatening to close the library and the public pool and the senior center unless they get more money, but never do they threaten to eliminate the unnecessary things they do.

      That's why it is bad.

      The rest of this is just false propaganda from someone who seems to love the monopolistic nature of the "free market" system of cable, without an actual understanding of how it works.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    14. RE:Protect our Monopolies! by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      The government "company" has the benefit of mandatory "customers" (taxpayers), which means people who don't want to be customers are forced to help pay for those who do, and those who are customers of the private company are actually paying twice.

      Competition works great, until you get into the category of utilities. If the majority of the population decides that the free market isn't serving its needs, it can decide to create a utility. The reason why companies may not be entering a market is because the only way to give the product a reasonable cost (such has ones involving infrastructure) is to have everybody pay for it. Is there a free market where you get your water from or your electricity from? I highly doubt it. A company competes for a contract with the municipality, and then because the municipality is creating a monopoly for that company, it heavily regulates it to ensure that its citizens are receiving a reasonable deal. Why would municipalities do that? Perhaps because it's beneficial to that municipality to have all of the buildings in its borders to have that service. There are some cities still in first world countries that don't have power and water as utilities, but most do because it is a positive return on investment for them to do so.

    15. Re:Protect Our Monopolies! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      When will those Conservative Republicans realize, that Government shouldn't interfere with the natural progression of free enterprise?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    16. Re:Protect Our Monopolies! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      The way cities handled this in the past was granting a single company a monopoly on providing a certain service.

      Every cable TV franchise I've ever dealt with has been non-exclusive. That means no, it isn't a monopoly. And today, I can get the same (Internet) service from at least three companies in town, using three different delivery mechanisms. That pretty much proves that there is no monopoly on Internet service provided to anyone. Wait -- if I want satellite latency, four different delivery mechanisms from at least four different companies.

      At the point you realize that the monopoly isn't, the rest of the argument for government competition with private sector falls apart.

      The solution to this problem is for the city to own a fiber network and any company that wants to provide IP services (TV, phone, internet) over this network is free to do so.

      The solution to the problem is to accept that a market has limits and that you won't always get everything you want from other people, you might have to pay for it yourself. Like the fellow in an adjoining comment who seems to think that the government should be giving him his cable TV and sports packages instead of paying $135 a month for it himself. Here's a clue to that guy: the cost of sports packages is primarily in the licensing of content. NFL/NHL/NCAA/etc don't hand out their programming for free. It's not the greedy cable company, it's the greedy sports teams/management/monopoly that you want to support by watching that's costing you the most bit of that money. (Oh, basic is expensive too, right? ESPN ad nauseum are not free, either.)

    17. Re:Protect Our Monopolies! by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Wow, you really have a middle-school social studies level of understanding how stuff works.

      No, I have a direct understanding of how the local franchising authority has dealt with Comcast, what Comcast is paying, and where the money goes. I was on the cable advisory board for several years here, I met regularly with both the cable execs and city management. I was on the same kind of board in another city I lived in previously.

      You better tell Comcast that they're wasting tons of money on those lobbyists because everything is fair and above-board and there's no need for them to dedicate so much money and effort to making it a non-free market.

      Your statement is direct support for my claim that another company could enter the market. Why would Comcast bother spending money on lobbyists if nobody could compete with them anyway? The fact that you think they are trying to make the market less free means you also know that the market has some freedom to it. Completely free? Nobody said it was.

      Here's a little story. Once there were two satellite radio companies.

      Here's a little story. Comcast is not a satellite radio company. Comcast uses limited space on public rights of way to distribute their services, not a much more limited set of radio frequencies. That video signal that Comcast sends to the home on channel 2, e.g., doesn't mean that nobody else can use a similar distribution system to send their data into the home on channel 2. (And that is the problem with the idea of a government building the wires and letting companies use them. The signal Comcast sends to the home on Channel 2 on such a system DOES mean that another company cannot use the same channel. This is different than electric service/multiple providers because once the electrons are on the wire it doesn't matter where they came from.)

      And remember, the point of this story is the lobbyists are writing the laws.

      They have yet to write a law that prohibits any other company from getting a franchise agreement and trying to grab all the underserved potential customers that would apparently flock away from Comcast if only there were some competition. And yet, nobody has yet done that, at least not anywhere I've lived.

      Yeah, they'd have to negotiate a franchise, and pay the same fees Comcast does for access to the rights of way. Boo hoo. What a death grip on the local market that is. And it's not even Comcast that really pays the franchise fee, it appears as a line item on every customer's bill, added right on top of all the other stuff.

      The city would be happy for someone to come compete so that those who aren't paying franchise fees to the city could start doing that. (They even wanted to tack a franchise fee onto cell phone bills so they could grab more money out of our pockets, but saner heads prevailed.) Comcast would have nothing to say about it, they signed a non-exclusive agreement. All we need is a company that thinks they could make a profit from all the unserved people here, and those companies just don't exist.

  2. Only in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    (I hope)

  3. Think of the Free Market! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It must be preserved at all costs!

    1. Re:Think of the Free Market! by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apparently it must be AVOIDED at all costs.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Think of the Free Market! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      To save the free market, we must destroy the free market.

      It is the only way. I do this with a heavy heart, knowing it is the right wrong thing.

    3. Re:Think of the Free Market! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it must be AVOIDED at all costs.

      ... like Slashdot BETA

    4. Re:Think of the Free Market! by dkman · · Score: 1

      Please make a law that prevents competition for our business.
      Well why doesn't every business get that luxury - because it's bad for the citizens, the one's the government is supposed to protect.

      I also find it interesting that the "competition" in question here is the municipality - the region, the town, the people that the business serves. If the region thinks your service sucks and that they can do better "in house"
      A) the government shouldn't create a law saying they aren't allowed
      B) you should react by saying "we can improve our service" and enter a dialog with the region - heaven forbid
      C) you should increase the rollout of improved speed to prevent other regions from having to say that your service sucks
      D) stop slashdot beta from becoming slashdot period

      --
      I refuse to sign
  4. Campaign Contributions by Delarth799 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With another election year here it's time to roll out the bribe.... I mean campaign contributions to those who are willing to support the legislation being presented before them. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if most of those opposed to this had the big telcos or any PAC they setup start rolling out attack ads against them shortly.

    1. Re:Campaign Contributions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey cats! See that nice banner about Beta on the front page today?

      Bam! I totally called it!

      -- Ethanol-fueled

    2. Re:Campaign Contributions by buswolley · · Score: 0

      Just submitted a story to the Firehose: Once Slashdot beta has been foisted on me, what site should I use? Why don't you take a drink and plus it. http://slashdot.org/recent [slashdot.org]

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    3. Re:Campaign Contributions by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yep

      Bought out for just $250. I guess that is what integrity costs nowdays.

      Instead of ranting like we do on tech forums like slashdot I am wondering something instead? Is it possible to run with no campaign contributions at all? How stupid are American voters who buy things based on TV ads?

      I am dead serious too. Perhaps if less people really vote based on flashy ads on TV we can get some R's and D's on pledge to not take any corporate donations? Ya ya both parties are the same I am about to get, but here is the truth. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Only same in being corrupt.

      A true R is a libertarian and a true D is a green party person. With no influence they can push their ideologies.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    4. Re:Campaign Contributions by Zynder · · Score: 0

      I threw ya a bone. Thanks for taking point.

  5. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The corruption is strong in the US, how about fixing that already?

  6. Like the old saying goes : by jxander · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you can't beat them, legislate them.

    --
    This signature is false.
    1. Re:Like the old saying goes : by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      If you can't beat them, legislate them.

      No private company can compete with a government operated one. People who don't want to be customers of the private company because they charge too much, or don't provide good enough service, or for whatever reason, don't have to pay anything. People who don't want to be customers of the government-run company wind up with the Sheriff tacking a note on their door telling them when the tax sale of that door, and the building it is attached to, will take place.

    2. Re:Like the old saying goes : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You stupid libertarian fuck. You really think that the government is going to seize your house if you don't sign up for Google Fiber. The only choice you have with cable monopolies is to take it or leave it. God forbid a municipality eases up on the red tape and allows another company to serve the area and bring in some competition. Stupid little shits like yourself throw a panic attack thinking the jack booted thugs from the government are going to come to your door and make you sign up for it.

      Funny thing happens in areas where fiber optic broadband pops up. The incumbent monopoly suddenly starts dropping prices and increasing speeds. You'd really think that AT&T would have announced their own gigabit fiber in Austin if Google Fiber had not shown up? So the monopolies really can compete if they wanted to, they just don't feel like it if there is no competition. You know... The textbook definition of a monopoly.

    3. Re:Like the old saying goes : by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      And people who don't want to be customers of a private monopoly have to do without service at all. And for something which involves laying cable in the ground a monopoly is how it will always end up simply due to the cost and stupidity of having lots of competing cables down every street (or none at all in unprofitable areas).

      The only real solution would be a non profit to operate the physical infrastructure, on the basis of providing the same service everywhere to anyone at the same cost... Any company can rent the physical lines from the non profit at the same cost and provide service to end users, and the non profit uses all revenue from doing so to maintain and upgrade the network.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    4. Re:Like the old saying goes : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who don't want to be customers of the government-run company wind up with the Sheriff tacking a note on their door telling them when the tax sale of that door, and the building it is attached to, will take place.

      You just made up what imaginary scenario now?

      A government run company does not need to be a monopoly. It is typically more efficient than the alternative of course, private roads are not particularly popular.

    5. Re:Like the old saying goes : by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Again with the false propaganda. First this is not about a government owned monopoly, it is about the government helping other companies the same way they helped the incumbents in most cases. Second if I dont want water service from my local government I can dig a well and not have to pay a dime, no sheriff will come to my door. Same with most government untilities. The only time that will happen is if I use the service and not pay, or fail to pay my taxes.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    6. Re:Like the old saying goes : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No private company can compete with one having a government granted monopoly.

    7. Re:Like the old saying goes : by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Any company can rent the physical lines from the non profit at the same cost and provide service to end users, and the non profit uses all revenue from doing so to maintain and upgrade the network.

      Or, better yet, just let end users deal with the non-profit directly. What value would a for-profit middleman add in this situation?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    8. Re:Like the old saying goes : by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      choice...
      with a single provider you're likely not to get advanced features like multiple ips, ipv6, reverse dns etc

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    9. Re:Like the old saying goes : by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      And people who don't want to be customers of a private monopoly have to do without service at all.

      Your choice. Why should your choice not to buy something mean I'm forced to give it to you using my money?

      And for something which involves laying cable in the ground a monopoly is how it will always end up

      No. Only stupid cities granted cable TV exclusive franchises, and so the problem you have is with YOUR ELECTED GOVERNMENT who were morons. I don't know of any, by the way. All the ones I've dealt with are non-exclusive. The limit to how many cable TV services can use one pole is not "1" as you seem to think. It isn't infinity, however, so there needs to be some limit, and there needs to be a limit so that everyone plays well together.

      In fact, another company can come in, but they don't because the market isn't there. And the proof of that is the very government systems we're talking about here.

      Were another company to agree to the franchise and build out, then you'd claim they were a monopoly and refuse to deal with them. How you would explain refusing to deal with two different companies who are both monopolies in the same business, I don't know.

      The only real solution would be a non profit to operate the physical infrastructure,

      That doesn't solve the problem. It only creates a fake market run at sub-market pricing. It creates another layer of management and finger pointing.

      Yes, we've already seen it, and I expect it is still happening to this day. You may not be old enough to remember when "Ma Bell" was the telephone company and it did it all. Local, long distance, hardware, wires, the whole enchilada. When there was a problem with a service you called the Ma Bell repair line and they had to deal with it. Then came divestiture and MCI, Sprint, local Bell operating companies, AT&T, etc. You had a problem with your phone? Well, if it was local, you called one company. Long distance service not working right? Call someone else. Dollars to doughnuts you call the long distance company and they'll tell you it is a local service problem; call local service and they won't look at it because it is an LD problem. Life was simply wonderful. Not.

      And you want that to happen for what you want to claim are essential services like phone. "My phone isn't working." "It's a wire problem, call the city." "It's a problem with the provider, call them." "It's a problem with your CPE, call yourself."

    10. Re:Like the old saying goes : by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      with a single provider you're likely not to get advanced features like multiple ips, ipv6, reverse dns etc

      You may not get all that for free, but if there is a market for it they'll sell it. My last cable install, Charter would have happily sold me multiple static IP addresses, as would CenturyLink on DSL before that. They do "reverse DNS", it just doesn't necessarily resolve to what you want it to. These are cash cow services. Free money for them, pretty much. They'll move to IPv6 when necessary, and since you can get there from here there isn't a strong reason to do that.

  7. Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot by buswolley · · Score: 4, Informative

    bye

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    1. Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Those of us who read and post as AC have experienced this for a while.

      Given that you are logged in, are you saying that logged in users are now getting hit with Slashdot Beta ?

      Is there any other good places online where we can have the same detailed and informative discussions about the range of topics present on Slashdot ?

    2. Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer it if there were places that did not delete comments. That's one of the things I like about Slashdot (other than that time they deleted one due to a DMCA request or something).

    3. Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, they're forcing logged in users over to Beta. Not all of us at once, but in waves.

      If you find an alternative site, I'm all ears.

      Or if you set up an alternative site, since older versions of SlashCode are open source.

    4. Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot by Thanosius · · Score: 1

      Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/) is considered a rather good source of tech news and discussion. It has a slight Apple bias since most of its contributors use Macs, and the level of discussion over Linux topics is relatively minor compared to Slashdot, but on the other hand there's far more balance in terms of user comments.

      --
      Account abandoned. I can't fucking spell for shit and Slashdot doesn't even allow time-limited edits of posts. Plus you'
    5. Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot by Tailhook · · Score: 0

      It was the Scientologists.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    6. Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 3

      I've tried it a few times and really do not like it... there is a lot of whitespace... comments don't stretch across horizontally from side to side so there's a big white empty column on the right side. Increasing the font size doesn't really do much except squeeze comments closer together in a weird way. It's not for me.

    7. Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm the same AC above. Thanks for the confirmation that logged in users are not getting hit as well.

      I've read Slashdot daily for over a decade, but there's no way I'm going to suffer trying to read Slashdot using that horrible design when the Beta goes live.

      There wasn't even a way in Beta to directly link to a specific comment within a thread the last time I checked.

      I also don't know of any other viable sites unfortunately. Other sites I read like the Register don't have a suitable comments system and their news articles don't match the range of topics seen here on Slashdot.

      I assume Javascript will also become mandatory on the new Slashdot as well. :-(

    8. Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn. I even proof read it before posting. :-(

      Make that "Thanks for the confirmation that logged in users _are_ getting hit as well."

      Sorry.

    9. Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot by sconeu · · Score: 0

      That was when Cmdr Taco was running things. Dice probably will pull comments just at the threat of a lawsuit.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    10. Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you are on the beta, how are you posting? I call BS.

    11. Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The new layout is fugly.

      It pisses me off when websites redesign their entire layout just to cater for the mobile users - fuck them, I still use desktop/laptop sized screens to view those sites and they look utter shite after the redesign.

    12. Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 2

      The beta doesn't add any useful new features. All it does is remove them and severely fucks up the best part of this site: the commenting and moderation system. If the commenting system goes out the window, why would I come here? The stories are always several days or a week old, the editors are terrible at their job, and all of the actual articles are on other sites I could browse instead.

      What the hell, Dice?

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    13. Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I recall the first time I saw the Beta, a few weeks ago. My immediate response was to think that my DNS had been hijacked. I just closed the window. I still do, when I see the Beta. It's fucking awful. It's like they want to be purty, like OSX, but with the functionality of GNOME.

    14. Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      I'm using the old-old layout. the no ajax replies one. it's still on non-beta.

      the beta is everything whats wrong with modern web design. might just as well use a fucking rss reader.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    15. Re:Slashdot Beta Kills Slashdot by SiChemist · · Score: 1

      Maybe someone can create a subreddit for slashdot refugees.

      --
      God is imaginary
  8. Smackdown?!? by tqk · · Score: 1

    "On the heels of the smackdown received by cable lobbyists in Kansas ...

    I don't think that word means what you think it means (if it's even a real word). From what I've read on the subject, it's more like, "Oopsie! We went a little too fast and didn't have all our ducks in a row. We'll iron out a few wrinkles first, then go live again soon. Sorry for any inconvenience this may've caused you."

    --
    "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Smackdown?!? by rossdee · · Score: 1

      "I don't think that word means what you think it means (if it's even a real word)"

      Its a real word - it means a wrestling match.

      I think its on the SyFy channel

      BTW just to keep on topic, (which is the Slashdot Beta) I haven't been to the beta site, but it sounds like crap to me.

    2. Re:Smackdown?!? by thaylin · · Score: 1
      Maybe it is you who does not know all the definitions of the word..

      smackdown

      smakdoun/

      nouninformal

      1. a bitter contest or confrontation.

      "the age-old man versus Nature smackdown"

      2. a decisive or humiliating defeat or setback.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
  9. Comcast tithes more than Google apparently ... by citab · · Score: 1

    The state is good example of money talks ... I hope Google fights this hard!

    Maybe the one democrat in the state senate can help .... doubt it. (I didn't fact check that, but in the past there have been times when there was only one)

  10. Pay per bill Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    For a small fee, you to can buy a Republican that will be willing to write up regulatory legislation that goes against their core values of free capitalism, free market and freedom.

    1. Re:Pay per bill Politics by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      No. For a small fee, you can get a Republican to do unspeakable things to you in a public washroom. It takes a bit more money to give up the rest of their "core values".

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Pay per bill Politics by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      and for a fraction of that fee, you can get TWO russians to do unspeakable things in the public restroom. our republicans look like amateurs compared to the sochi russians.

      (gotta laugh at the 'double toilet' concept russia has come up with.)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Pay per bill Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a small fee, you to can buy a Republican that will be willing to write up regulatory legislation that goes against their core values of free capitalism, free market and freedom.

      These are not Republican values anymore. Just listen to any tea partier...

  11. Politicians in the payrolls by misosoup7 · · Score: 2

    And this is why we can't have nice network infrastructures.

  12. Free market is dead by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're in a post-free market. One where buying and selling goods is a secondary market, ruled by the laws of buying and selling laws and regulations.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Free market is dead by lgw · · Score: 1

      Haha, awesome. "Post-free market", indeed.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  13. When will this end by litehacksaur111 · · Score: 2

    It seems that every state legislature or local municipality is now entertaining the idea of limiting ISP competition and enabling packet discrimination. Can we please label all ISP's as common carriers and eliminate all of these monopoly protections.

  14. Doesn't prevent fiber networks from growing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It just specifies that the networks cannot gay marry each other. The border gateways must swing the proper way.

  15. eh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not really, since local politicians gotta keep the voters happy bribes won't help this bill get passed. not til after the elections end at least.

  16. Oddly enough this is why I'm a socialist by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The rich & powerful are going to use gov't whether you like it or not. If there is no gov't they'll use their wealth to create institutions that might as well be. I've yet to hear a convincing argument otherwise.

    So if they're going to use the tool that is gov't, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't. The worst that'll happen is the jack boot in my neck is a public one instead of a private. And at least with a strong central gov't I can vote against Jack Boots...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Oddly enough this is why I'm a socialist by BoberFett · · Score: 2

      So you're going to ensure that the government the rich and powerful have to use against you is even bigger and more powerful? Interesting logic.

    2. Re:Oddly enough this is why I'm a socialist by hermitdev · · Score: 1

      How odd that the more socialist this government becomes, the more things like this occur. There's always a ruling class and a subjugated class, no matter the form of government. Some are just more transparent about it than others.

    3. Re:Oddly enough this is why I'm a socialist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only a fucking brainwashed moron would call your government socialist.

    4. Re:Oddly enough this is why I'm a socialist by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      a weak government is ran by outside forces.
      a strong government is ran by the elected people.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:Oddly enough this is why I'm a socialist by BoberFett · · Score: 0

      That's an adorable opinion. *pats gl4ss on the head*

    6. Re:Oddly enough this is why I'm a socialist by dryeo · · Score: 1

      We can always go back to when one private security company (Pinkertons) out of many was bigger then the US armed forces. The government at the time was just strong enough to legitimize the private security companies who amongst other functions, did a lot of the work keeping the common worker in their place.
      Actually we are going back there, as long as the government is capable of deputizing the private security the rich and powerful can fuck people over without a powerful government. Many other things are the same, big industry just needs the government to be powerful enough to legitimize them, which just takes a law, regulation or executive order. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      The private prison industry is another interesting expansion of private power.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  17. HB60 Pulled by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 4, Informative

    HB60 was pulled from the scheduled Feb 4 committee meeting. I wonder if someone got cold feet?

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    1. Re:HB60 Pulled by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's an election year. Begging for attack ads from one of the world's largest advertising companies is a losing proposition.

      "Never pick a fight with a man who buys his ink by the barrel."

      Google practically INVENTED 'ink' as it's used today. If they ever decide to really earnestly get down in the muck with the SuperPACs, it'll be a fun time in the old town.

  18. Slashdot Beta by McGruber · · Score: 0

    February 2014 will be forever known as Snuff February, when Dice Killed Slashdot.

    1. Re:Slashdot Beta by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      February 2014 will be forever known as Snuff February, when Dice Killed Slashdot.

      I haven't heard such negative response to a new product since the first Windows 8 previews without the start menu!

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
  19. Re:i thought ya'll niggas was capitalist by quonsar · · Score: 3, Funny

    oh, but it is! the fiber consortium's are free to buy more/better politicians as the cable companies and pass their own laws, yes? the competition in the graft market is healthy and vigorous!

    --

    Sacred cows make the best burgers.

  20. how can Obama be blamed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    somehow?

    1. Re:how can Obama be blamed? by hermitdev · · Score: 1

      Easy: with his executive hard on^H^H^H^H^H^H^Horder that he is ever so fond of.

  21. In the spirit of anti-trust laws... by mi · · Score: 2

    a direct attack on Google's work in Provo and the UTOPIA network

    Do we really feel, Google should own networks? With taxpayers' help?

    Sure, it is fun and games, while they are still growing — the lucky users can't shut up about it. What happens, when Google becomes a regional (or nationwide) monopoly, however? What if they decide to "boycott" a site — either because it is run by "haters" of one kind or another, or is spreading malware?

    At least, I can switch from FiOS to a coax-cable provider today...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:In the spirit of anti-trust laws... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      What happens, when Google becomes a regional (or nationwide) monopoly, however?

      How could they? Is all that cable in the ground going to dry up and blow away? Is the cost of electricity going to overwhelm these poor benighted cable companies? Is the American public going to stop paying for all the media these incestuous content+transport companies produce? Are you not going to be able to choose AT&T or Comcast?

      Maybe not. Throughout history, when a monopolist's power is broken and a real market happens, the monopolist takes their toys and goes home, after discovering they're a terribly inefficient dinosaur completely incapable of competing against a real contender.

      On the other hand, three providers is still not a market. It takes a minimum of four competitors before a sector begins to behave like an actual market, instead of an oligopoly. Widespread deployment of Google fiber would bring the number of providers all the way up to two, in some areas, and one, in plenty of others.

      AT&T may have some leaner years ahead, but Ma Bell isn't going away any time this century.

    2. Re:In the spirit of anti-trust laws... by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      Do we really feel, Google should own networks? With taxpayers' help?

      Sure, it is fun and games, while they are still growing — the lucky users can't shut up about it. What happens, when Google becomes a regional (or nationwide) monopoly, however? What if they decide to "boycott" a site — either because it is run by "haters" of one kind or another, or is spreading malware?

      The UTOPIA network is owned by the member cities. If Google would like to provide ISP services to people on that network they are free to do so, the same as any other ISP. Provider lock-in is why networks should stay the property of the people and not the corporations, hopefully UTOPIA won't go the way of iProvo and get gifted to Google.

      --

      Enigma

    3. Re:In the spirit of anti-trust laws... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens if Comcast decides to "boycott" a site? What happens if a municipal broadband provider decides to filter out adult websites? Censorship is a possibility with any service provider unless we have network neutrality.

    4. Re:In the spirit of anti-trust laws... by Sarius64 · · Score: 2

      We already have that with other providers. You cannot have a server service on home service for Cox or Time Warner in San Diego. You cannot use more than a phone account's worth of data without being hounded. If your family downloads more than 50GB a month Cox wants you to get a $100/month business account; which I did. Then when they introduced distributed service over other TCP products (tablets, phones, etc) I could not get that service without paying an additional $50 a month to have the home Internet service again, essentially requiring me to purchase home Internet and business Internet service for a household of six to simply use the Internet. Reality is that the moment something like Google gets here with that type of throughput the decisions the government monopoly is forcing on me to have nominal content will push me towards Google immediately.

    5. Re:In the spirit of anti-trust laws... by mi · · Score: 1

      The UTOPIA network is owned by the member cities.

      Oh, that's a recipe for disaster... Competing with such a network will be like fighting city hall. It may be great now, but wait until the towns start enacting laws mandating censorship over anything that passes the city-owned network, for example.

      I don't know about you, but I dread the thought of my Internet service being anything like what the electric utility provides around here.

      Provider lock-in is why networks should stay the property of the people and not the corporations

      Occupy Wall Street much? The choice is not between corporations and "people" (government). The choice is between monopoly (corporate or governmental) and competing corporations. And I'll take the latter over the former any day.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:In the spirit of anti-trust laws... by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      The UTOPIA network is owned by the member cities.

      Oh, that's a recipe for disaster... Competing with such a network will be like fighting city hall. It may be great now, but wait until the towns start enacting laws mandating censorship over anything that passes the city-owned network, for example.

      Why don't we stick to what happens in reality instead of imagining what might happen. There has never been such a thing proposed. It would be much harder legally for a government to implement such censorship since the government is bound by many laws that a private company is not. Since private companies and the existing government-owned networks are not doing this now, why do you fear it happening?

      I don't know about you, but I dread the thought of my Internet service being anything like what the electric utility provides around here.

      I don't have to imagine what the internet service on this network would be like because I have been using it for years. It has been much faster, much more reliable and much cheaper than what I was getting from Comcast. The levels of service have continually increased (there is nothing like being told "We kicked you up to 50MB/50MB! Nope, no increase it is still $36 - have a nice day!").

      Provider lock-in is why networks should stay the property of the people and not the corporations

      Occupy Wall Street much? The choice is not between corporations and "people" (government). The choice is between monopoly (corporate or governmental) and competing corporations. And I'll take the latter over the former any day.

      I don't need competing networks in the same way that I don't need competing road systems. The network is like a road system, maintained for the good of all, and both FedEx and UPS are free to use it to compete. There is robust competition on the network because more companies are able to provide services they could never provide before because other companies had been granted the monopoly. Before the network was built we had two monopoly providers (Qwest for phone and Comcast for cable). Service on both were atrocious and prices were high. Since they had monopoly positions there was no incentive to provide quality service.

      Back when dial-up internet was the norm there were a lot of local and regional ISPs. If you didn't like your ISP you could switch to a different one. The advent of broadband killed off most of these ISPs since the existing monopoly providers of phone and cable had the only route to the customer. Municipal networks bring back the ability for the small guys to compete with the big guys. It increases competition and diversifies the marketplace. How can someone who sees the value of competition and can see the current state of phone and cable monopolies be against it?

      --

      Enigma

    7. Re:In the spirit of anti-trust laws... by mi · · Score: 1

      Why don't we stick to what happens in reality instead of imagining what might happen.

      So that we don't repeat the mistakes that lead to AT&T monopoly, for example. Or the TSA-like abuses — once government (what you keep affectionately calling "people") gets its monopoly, it becomes even more vicious (and less efficient) than a corporation would've. At least, the corporation might be challenged some day by a competitor — a government agency needs not fear such things.

      I don't need competing networks

      Yes, you do. AT&T's service, which became a monopoly after a governmental decision, became awful — expensive and low quality. The government ended up breaking it apart to allow competition (of sorts) in the telephone services.

      in the same way that I don't need competing road systems. ... road system, maintained for the good of all

      Yes, we should have competition among road-maintainers too. There are several different routes between most major cities today — but they all suck (about equally). They are incredibly expensive (to taxpayers), but the quality is downright awful. I don't understand, why, in your opinion, the roads can not be made to compete with each other. A traveler considering a ride from New York to Boston, for example, would have options to compare:

      • Take I-95 — we guarantee fast-lane speed of no less than 50mph for your entire trip! Weekend special rates — only 5 cents per mile!
      • RT-15 — a beautiful ride with prompt service. Free roadside assistance for anyone traveling 100 miles or more in a day.

      Various Consumer Reports-like entities would than report, which route is better and why, and the competitors would be forced to watch each other the way Apple and Android people do...

      Same goes for utilities and "public transport". If Tokyo has competing subway lines, why can't New York?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  22. Nobody wants gigabit internet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But, we better legislate against it just in case.

  23. brb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Writing my state rep....

  24. More cynical than most by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of this is just politicians putting out trail balloons to get money from both sides. The most attractive legislation legislation to politicians is one that pits deep pocket antagonists against each other. The government can write but not pass bills and study the issue to death all the while getting contributions from lobbyists on each side.

  25. I'd care if it wasn't Utah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'd just use the bandwidth ti meddle in the affairs of other states.

  26. Re:i thought ya'll niggas was capitalist by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

    Exactly. Why must the only acceptable answer be more corruption?

  27. How to protect a service from commoditization by saintory · · Score: 1

    It's my opinion that if it weren't for these regional monopolies, internet service pricing would be much much lower.

    If a good or service becomes a commodity, and the price of that commodity levels out at a sufficiently low cost, why wouldn't a municipality take out a bond and develop its own fiber service. How is it unlike a water and sewer department?

    1. Re:How to protect a service from commoditization by tysonedwards · · Score: 1

      Definition.

      Water and Sewer are utilities, and thereby regulated.
      Internet is an entertainment service, and thereby unregulated.

      Telephone service providers are pushing to move their equipment entirely to IP, gaining the "service" classification as it would no longer fit the present definition of a telecommunications network.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
  28. SCOTUS by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    Really needs to step in and stamp this nonsense out since the FCC is clearly inept ( or corrupt ).

    Its are very rare cases where a state protected monopoly is appropriate, where fractured markets and incompatibility will harm consumers, but physical internet access is NOT one of them.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  29. Seems badly worded, but a fair compromise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It appears to be purposfully hard to understand.
          (Perhaps both a lawyer's relief fund and a sneek it by the public act.)

    That aside, it appears to say if a group (Interlocal entity) of cities (members) wants to get together and do municipal broadband, that's ok.
    Ok includes creating a fiber, regional network to serve the folks in those municipalities.

    Ok would not include competing to provide services to others outside that group of cities.

    It's a big leap to go from the gobbldy gook wording to that interpretation, but if it's correct then:
    it seems like a fair compromise to allow municpal broadband but put that limit on it.
    (Assuming other areas in the region can goin the group in the future.)

    A city providing utility service has some advantages over a private entity doing the same thing.
        (Like already owning the rights of way.)

    The folks in the city certainly have a right to use those rights or way how i t best serves them,
          not how it best serves the phone company.

    I'm not sure why those rights should extend outside the city.
    So maybe it's ok to limit a community's broadband efforts to the area of the community.
    (The folks in a city would not be able to collect revenue from subscribers in the surrounding county,
    unless they were willing to give those folks ownership in the service.)

    Again, a big jump in understanding. Perhaps there is someone here who understands those words?

    (( It's interesting that it only applies to fiber. I guess that makes wireless ok. An easy work around for adjacent members of different groups would be to get to the adjoing edge with fiber, and then go wireless or wired over the gap?))

  30. Rep Curt Webb by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

    The representative for HB060 is Curt Webb from Logan UT. Seems odd as his area is not remotely close to UTOPIA or Google Fiber. Looks like someone someone found a disinterested politician who doesn't know any better to push this bill?

  31. stop them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop Comcast and century link