Slashdot Mirror
The Misleading Fliers Comcast Used To Kill Off a Local Internet Competitor
Jason Koebler (3528235) writes In the months and weeks leading up to a referendum vote that would have established a locally owned fiber network in three small Illinois cities, Comcast and SBC (now AT&T) bombarded residents and city council members with disinformation, exaggerations, and outright lies to ensure the measure failed. The series of two-sided postcards painted municipal broadband as a foolhardy endeavor unfit for adults, responsible people, and perhaps as not something a smart woman would do. Municipal fiber was a gamble, a high-wire act, a game, something as "SCARY" as a ghost. Why build a municipal fiber network, one asked, when "internet service [is] already offered by two respectable private businesses?" In the corner, in tiny print, each postcard said "paid for by SBC" or "paid for by Comcast."
The postcards are pretty absurd and worth a look.
These sort of things are legal now. Corporations are people, and people have free speech, and spending money is speech.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
A fine large enough to cover the costs of rolling out fibre in the 3 cities involved.
The money from the fine can then be used to roll out fibre to the 3 cities.
Everyone wins, except SBC and Comcast.
Why run for office when you can rent it for less?
What this means is that people have absolutely no idea what the internet is, how it works and how any of it affects them. Computers are still magic to most people. I used to hope that as more and more people grow up with computers, computer literacy would improve. Nothing of the sort happened. These people use computers more, but they accept them as quasi-intelligent/magic devices. They don't even understand the fundamental difference between Facebook/Twitter and the open web, even though that's hardly a technological thing. They perceive big businesses as relatively safe havens. Diversity and choice in a field where they can only make random decisions based on no understanding is plain scary. They don't want choice, they don't want freedom. They are not equipped to handle it.
Maybe these fliers were honest, and Comcast just believes the investing in an ISP is a money-losing venture. It would explain some things.
I guess the only sensible response is to sell your stock in Comcast. They view their own business as a money-pit and a disaster waiting to happen.
My hometown has municipal broadband, it's had it since 2000.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your postcards.
FUD works folks, that's why you have spin doctors constantly shaping news headlines with press releases and carefully worded speeches. Couple that with a litany of non-profit organizations to get the word out and you have your own fact machine. Really, facts don't matter because people's perceptions are more important than mere facts. This might have been a great idea, a municipally based service without all the baggage that a big carrier brings to the table but hey, why let facts get in the way of myth?
Dirty tricks in business have been around for centuries and nobody should be surprised that Comcast and SBC(AT&T) did this.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
All: Feel free to hit me up with any questions. Either here, via email, or phone. Pete Collins I.T. Manager City of Geneva, Illinois pcollins@geneva.il.us 630.232.1743
"I have no faith in government to be an ISP."
I have no faith in the federal government to run an ISP. They would be worse than Comcast, and would probably never get it running until they have spent a year's GDP.
I have slightly more faith in a state government to run one. Not as many people to pay-off around most state capitols as there are around DC.
I would have a lot of faith in a local or city government to get it done. They live right there amongst their customers, typically have to work within a budget, and have a vested interest in doing it right the first time.
If you take people who believe that government doesn't work and put them in charge of a government and it doesn't work, you haven't proven that government doesn't work.