Slashdot Mirror


32 Cities Want To Challenge Big Telecom, Build Their Own Gigabit Networks

Jason Koebler writes: More than two dozen cities in 19 states announced today that they're sick of big telecom skipping them over for internet infrastructure upgrades and would like to build gigabit fiber networks themselves and help other cities follow their lead. The Next Century Cities coalition, which includes a couple cities that already have gigabit fiber internet for their residents, was devised to help communities who want to build their own broadband networks navigate logistical and legal challenges to doing so.

25 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. 'Bout time by MitchDev · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fuck Comcast, Time Warner, and AT&T

    1. Re:'Bout time by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These cities should build the infrastructure, focus on the infrastructure and then allow service providers to compete with each other for service. Essentially, government deals with infrastructure since they are generally good with that and private business on the sevice, since they are generally good with that when there is healthy competition.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    2. Re:'Bout time by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I love it, private business has fucked you guys so bad that a social enterprise has cropped up to fix the problem. And the first thing you think of is to give that social enterprise back to the same businesses that just completely fucked you.

      --
      The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    3. Re:'Bout time by klui · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Irrelevant since these big private companies already do that.

    4. Re:'Bout time by wickedsteve · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Republicans in the right pocket and Democrats in the left pocket. Third party candidates don't have a chance. Your vote doesn't count for shit. Until people start seriously voting for third parties the gov't is bought and paid for.

    5. Re:'Bout time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I love it, private business has fucked you guys so bad that a social enterprise has cropped up to fix the problem. And the first thing you think of is to give that social enterprise back to the same businesses that just completely fucked you.

      What country are you in? The system he described is basically the one used in Australia and I'm pretty sure several parts of Europe.

      You have a wholesaler who is either government owned or is a government regulated monopoly with legislated fixed prices which sells access to ISPs who use the infrastructure to provide competing services; the competition keeps prices low, stops them from fucking with the service (fast lane bullshit) and provides a variety of 'value-adds' to choose from without having to go and legislate regulations for every little thing because the bastards are too big to escape from (Comcast/Warner).

  2. Hey Verizon, can you hear us NOW! by haruchai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nice to see cities stepping up to build better network infrastructure
    And if we can hold onto Net Neutrality, even better.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    1. Re:Hey Verizon, can you hear us NOW! by haruchai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hmm, well sometimes you need a little socialism to keep the capitalists in line.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    2. Re:Hey Verizon, can you hear us NOW! by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I see it more as monopoly busting in the last mile, not socialism. The companies sitting on their last mile monopolies are not all about free markets. They are all about capturing legislators and regulators to pass laws and regulations to maintain their monopolies. It is capitalism ("moneyism") in its crudest form, but has nothing to do with free markets.

      Unfortunately, the last mile tends to be a natural monopoly, as far as municipal planners are concerned. They don't want companies to come in and compete over the easiest to serve neighborhoods, and leave people in less dense areas out of luck. Planners like that often lose votes. So they have to make a company agree to cover everyone, and then make sure no competitor comes in and serves just the easy areas. See? It just ends up being a monopoly.

      So rather than have some new private company come in and take over the monopoly, cities are just deciding to provide services themselves. They do it with roads, sewers, water, and other utilities. Why not internet? You need right of ways, permits, etc. But you don't need to be a genius entrepeneur to run fiber and connect people to the Internet.

      --
      Join the IParty!
    3. Re:Hey Verizon, can you hear us NOW! by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Indeed, I'm mostly a libertarian and I view this as not really any different than a neighborhood, town, or city getting together and forming a cooperative. My reaction is 'good on them! Fie on established businesses that are failing to meet demands'.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    4. Re:Hey Verizon, can you hear us NOW! by mysidia · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's already socialism, because the big Telcos and cable providers have a government-protected monopoly.

      I like the "socialism" where the cities build some public infrastructure a little better. As long as they aren't going to start attempting to regulate content.

    5. Re:Hey Verizon, can you hear us NOW! by rioki · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The last mile is really a logistical problem. The current US system is quite problematic. In many cases whoever owns the last mile provides the service and you basically have no choice.

      In contrast, I like the German system. Whoever owns the last mile, is forced by law to lease it at a reasonable price. The result is that you have real competition with dozen of telephone, internet, cable, gas and electricity providers. This is an almost perfect win-win system. The people owning the last mile infrastructure have an incentive to keep it running and upgrading it or else they will lose their income (penalties, incensed fees for better service, government subsidies) and the service providers can reach a large volume of people. This only mildly fails for rural areas, but here subsides are used to alleviate the problem. The other mild problem that established players (e.g. Deutsche Telekom) can rest on their laurels of existing infrastructure and provide crappy and overpriced service, but fixes itself in the long run.

  3. Re:Boston by peragrin · · Score: 4, Informative

    It gets better as sections of Boston get FIOS from Verizon. but for reasons known only to monopolies Verzion stopped rolling out new FIOS in Boston. I guess the market isn't big enough for them.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  4. Really pisses me off! by EzInKy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even with my tiny less then 6mb connection AT&T continues to threaten to charge me more for exceeding their 150gb bandwidth limit. They are already sucking over $100 a month from me, yet they still want more. It is way past due for the entire U.S. to consider cruising the internet as neceassary as cruising the roads. This is required infrastructure as necessary to survive today as highways were 30 years ago. So many mundane tasks such as keeping up with current events and even paying your bills necisatate using the internet that considering it a luxory is really out of synch with the current reality. The internet as become necessary for everyone to have, so the internet must be free for everyone to access.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  5. No, there is hope! by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is no need to throw up your hands and give up. Chatanooga managed a high speed public interenet. http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/2.... Plus, you have people like Lawrence Lessig going after the root of the problem of corruption, and getting some serious traction with Mayday PAC. http://mayday.us./ Hell, even I am trying to fix the problems, but I am not getting too much exposure or traction. http://i-party.us./ But I still have hope. There are too many people trying to fix the problem of corruption and increasing monopolistic control for everyone to fail.

    --
    Join the IParty!
  6. Re:Where is the list? by _xeno_ · · Score: 3, Informative

    Right here, the list is located on the side of that page. I have JavaScript disabled as well, but I still found it in the menu at the top of each page.

    Anyway, the full list:

    Ammon, ID
    Auburn, IN
    Austin, TX
    Boston, MA
    Centennial, CO
    Champaign, IL
    Chattanooga, TN
    Clarksville, TN
    Jackson, TN
    Kansas City, KS
    Kansas City, MO
    Lafayette, LA
    Leverett, MA
    Louisville, KY
    Montrose, CO
    Morristown, TN
    Mount Vernon, WA
    Palo Alto, CA
    Ponca City, OK
    Portland, OR
    Raleigh, NC
    Rockport, ME
    San Antonio, TX
    Sandy, OR
    Santa Cruz County, CA
    Santa Monica, CA
    South Portland, ME
    Urbana, IL
    Westminster, MD
    Wilson, NC
    Winthrop, MN

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  7. It works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    North State has done this in High Point, NC and the surrounding cities. It works, and OMG it works well. 100 a month for 250 channels, 1 Gig internet, and a landline. Flat rate. No big brother. No filtering. No raping on bills and nickel and diming BS. http://northstate.net/

    If other cities can do this or better, then go for it. Having this infrastructure in place free's up money and increases tech production throughout. It's about time people took internet infrastructure as seriously as electric power. Without it, your civilization is a 3rd world ghetto.

  8. and the cities are... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 5, Informative

    for those who are curious, the cities are:

    Ammon, ID
    Auburn, IN
    Austin, TX
    Boston, MA
    Centennial, CO
    Champaign, IL
    Chattanooga, TN
    Clarksville, TN
    Jackson, TN
    Kansas City, KS
    Kansas City, MO
    Lafayette, LA
    Leverett, MA
    Louisville, KY
    Montrose, CO
    Morristown, TN
    Mount Vernon, WA
    Palo Alto, CA
    Ponca City, OK
    Portland, OR
    Raleigh, NC
    Rockport, ME
    San Antonio, TX
    Sandy, OR
    Santa Cruz County, CA
    Santa Monica, CA
    South Portland, ME
    Urbana, IL
    Westminster, MD
    Wilson, NC
    Winthrop, MN

    1. Re:and the cities are... by Aryden · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even the buses in Chattanooga have free wifi, blew my mind when I went home this last time.

    2. Re:and the cities are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      WARNING. WARNING. Make sure ISPs get classified as common carriers before your city takes over as your ISP.

      City council will vote to fuck you over if they're not required to be common carriers.

      e.g. "Woah. We can add $10 billion to the annual city budget if we inject ads and block encryption. All in favor? ... Passed by unanimous vote."

  9. Re:Boston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I met the VP in charge of FIOS. I point blank asked him. It came from above his pay grade. The irony is he gets AT&T DSL at his house and they have no plans to expand uverse there.

    Until the current top CEO is gone FIOS is dead in the water. He came up thru the ranks of Verizon wireless and thinks charging people more for less service is a totally awesome idea. They are busy reneging on every deal they made with every municipality they promised to roll it out to. Your politicians (on both sides of the isle) are all well bought and paid for and there is not a thing you can do about it.

  10. Re:Boston by See+Attached · · Score: 3, Informative

    Verizon stopped in North Jersey too, despite promising to get broadband to the whole state in 1993 by 2010, and tacking on a surcharge to EVERY bill they send out. For some reason the jokers that run the show decided to let em off the hook : http://www.dslreports.com/show... This is just wrong.. These little monopolies are not justifiable.

    --
    Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
  11. Boulder, CO has a ballot measure by 2centplain · · Score: 3, Informative
    https://bouldercolorado.gov/in...

    "If approved, this ballot measure would reestablish city autonomy for investing in community broadband services currently limited by Colorado Senate Bill 152 pdf (SB-152). SB-152 significantly limits the ability of municipal governments to provide broadband services, including potential partnerships with private entities. SB-152 includes a provision allowing Colorado municipal governments to exempt themselves from the law’s provisions via a public vote.

    The Boulder community would significantly benefit from more economical, higher-capacity broadband services, given the tech-savvy demographic, readiness for next-generation services, and publicly available fiber-optic infrastructure. Learn more about the benefits pdf.

    Although the City of Boulder has no current plans to create a public broadband utility or engage in new public-private partnerships, passing the ballot measure would ensure that the planning and execution of new public initiatives would be unencumbered by significant limitations in state law.

    Approved Ballot Question
    Affirming the City’s Right to Provide Telecommunication Services Shall the City of Boulder be authorized to provide high-speed Internet services (advanced services), telecommunications services, and/or cable television services to residents, businesses, schools, libraries, nonprofit entities and other users of such services, either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners, as expressly permitted by 29-27-101 to 304, “Competition in Utility and Entertainment Services,” of the Colorado Revised Statutes, without limiting its home rule authority?"

  12. Re:Boston by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Verizon isn't seeing the return on capital for FIOS; that is well known. They think they can increase subscriber rates in areas they have covered and recover the capital that way.

    What they completely miss is the fact that the use-cases that will drive more valuable service plans only exist when ~gigabit networks are available everywhere.

    The problem I see with either approach is that business internet costs aren't going down fast enough to push that evolution. You get better speeds for less in a co-lo, but that doesn't help enough if you use a single office location.

  13. In unrelated news by Snufu · · Score: 5, Funny

    ATT, Comcast and Verizon just lowered rates and expanded fiber coverage to the same 32 cities.