Slashdot Mirror
Big Telecoms Strangling Municipal Broadband, FCC Intervention May Provide Relief
MojoKid writes: With limited choice and often dismal upstream speeds, it's no wonder many people are excited to hear that newcomers like Google Fiber are expanding super-fast gigabit internet across the country. But some Americans also have access to other high-speed fiber internet options that compete with the big guys like Comcast and Time Warner Cable: municipal internet. In the case of the small town of Wilson, NC, town officials first approached Time Warner Cable and Embarq, requesting faster Internet access for their residents and businesses. Both companies, likely not seeing a need to "waste" resources on a town of just 47,000 residents, rebuffed their demands. So what did Wilson do? It spent $28 million dollars to build its own high-speed Internet network, Greenlight, for its residents, offering faster speeds and lower prices than what the big guys could offer. And wouldn't you know it; that finally got the big telecoms to respond.
However, the response wasn't to build-out infrastructure in Wilson or compete on price; it was to try and kill municipal broadband efforts altogether in NC, citing unfair competition. NC's governor at the time, Bev Perdue, had the opportunity to veto the House bill that was introduced, but instead allowed it to become law. However, a new report indicates that the FCC is prepared to side with these smaller towns that ran into roadblocks deploying and maintaining their own high-speed Internet networks. The two towns in question include aforementioned Wilson, and Chattanooga, TN. Action by the FCC would effectively strike down the laws — like those that strangle Greenlight in Wilson — which prevent cities from undercutting established players on price. The FCC is also expected to propose regulating internet service as a utility later this week.
However, the response wasn't to build-out infrastructure in Wilson or compete on price; it was to try and kill municipal broadband efforts altogether in NC, citing unfair competition. NC's governor at the time, Bev Perdue, had the opportunity to veto the House bill that was introduced, but instead allowed it to become law. However, a new report indicates that the FCC is prepared to side with these smaller towns that ran into roadblocks deploying and maintaining their own high-speed Internet networks. The two towns in question include aforementioned Wilson, and Chattanooga, TN. Action by the FCC would effectively strike down the laws — like those that strangle Greenlight in Wilson — which prevent cities from undercutting established players on price. The FCC is also expected to propose regulating internet service as a utility later this week.
Probably because the people at the ISP's don't give a shit what services the people there need/want?
I briefly tried to take a blog on technology issues into the domain of a youtube channel. However my internet is a 20/1 connection, at 1 mbps it takes me 3-4 hours to upload one ~40 minute segment. While I'm uploading I can't even use the internet for anything else. I need much faster up, but those big companies don't give a rats ass what I need. My best option for internet is what I have now. No business options even exist beyond what I have for residential service (a 3x bill just gets me 24/7 support and a change of name to 'business service').
These companies want to milk existing infrastructure for their own profit with no benefit to their customers. The other big businesses and financial services who own their stock get a good return though.
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
You're missing a few things:[...]
Second, the article shows that operating costs are over $11 million per year and that revenues aren't enough to cover those costs.
That puts revenues at nearly $170/month/subscriber and still money must be taken from the general fund to help pay for the system.
I've been over the article front-to-back and could not find anything about the operating costs.
The article *does* mention the projected prices and tiers:
Greenlight provides Internet-only service ranging from 40 Mbps for $39.95 per month to 1 Gbps for $104.95 per month. There are also package bundles available that add TV and phone service.
In short, you're lying. The article says no such thing.
First, spending this borrowed money might employ a few people in town, but it also means less money is available to employ other people in the town (demand is reduced for some jobs while increased for others).
Secondly, your objection is the "broken window fallacy" and it doesn't apply to this situation.
Ask yourself: does your argument also apply to road and bridge maintenance? By foregoing the buildout and repair of roads, and by avoiding maintenance for bridges one could employ other people doing other town duties such as the fire station and police.
If your argument is valid for internet service then it's valid for roads and bridges, yes?
Also, you're relying on an emotional frame by referring to the money as "borrowed money". Borrowing and being in debt is baaaad! (But let's ignore the fact that all municipal projects of any stripe are built using borrowed money.)