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."

28 of 111 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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

  2. 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.

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

    If you can't beat them, legislate them.

    --
    This signature is false.
  4. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Politicians in the payrolls by misosoup7 · · Score: 2

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

  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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 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.

  15. Nobody wants gigabit internet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But, we better legislate against it just in case.

  16. 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."
  17. 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 ----