Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Virginia 'Broadband Deployment Act' Would Kill Municipal Broadband Deployment (arstechnica.com)

Posted by msmash on from the wait-what dept.

Virginia lawmakers are considering a bill called the "Virginia Broadband Deployment Act," but instead of resulting in more broadband deployment, the legislation would make it more difficult for municipalities to offer Internet service. From a report: The Virginia House of Delegates legislation proposed this week by Republican lawmaker Kathy Byron would prohibit municipal broadband deployments except in very limited circumstances. Among other things, a locality wouldn't be allowed to offer Internet service if an existing network already provides 10Mbps download and 1Mbps upload speeds to 90 percent of potential customers. That speed threshold is low enough that it can be met by old DSL lines in areas that haven't received more modern cable and fiber networks. Even if that condition is met, a city or town would have to jump through a few hoops before offering service. The municipality would have to pay for a "comprehensive broadband assessment," and then issue a request for proposals giving for-profit ISPs six months to submit a plan for broadband deployment. After receiving proposals from private ISPs, the local government would have to determine whether providing grants or subsidies to a private ISP would be more cost-effective than building a municipal broadband network.

38 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. Hey, cable companies: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can't even do as well as the government, you don't deserve to be in business.

    1. Re:Hey, cable companies: by neonv · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The government can subsidize the costs and offer service for well below the actual costs, which is unfair competition.

      The issue in high costs with broadband come from partial or complete monopolies of ISPs. ISPs like Comcast can charge whatever they want in many areas because they are the only viable option.

      In order to reduce costs, the government can help introduce competition. When many companies offer similar service, they compete for customers in price and customers win. I really like this idea in Virginia of providing a means for municipalities to introduce competition rather than become competitors themselves. It provides a means to offer lots of competition to companies like Comcast. This is something Comcast fights with a passion since they won't make as much money.

    2. Re:Hey, cable companies: by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In order to reduce costs, the government can help introduce competition.

      Here is how to do it: When trenching the streets, install a wide (12" or more) PUBLICLY OWNED conduit pipe. Then allow any bonded provider to run cable or fiber through that pipe for a small standard fee. Since 99% of the cost of providing service is the trenching, this will make the market far more competitive.

      Imagine how competitive the package delivery business would be if FedEx, UPS, and USPS each had to build their own network of roads? A single network of publicly owned roads fixes that problem, and allows competition to thrive. We can do the same with cable conduits.

    3. Re:Hey, cable companies: by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Horseshit. This "act" is Rent-seeking at its most basic and obvious, and all the Free Market evangelism in the world won't change it.

    4. Re:Hey, cable companies: by Lendrick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. Government is bad. Any idea that involves government is bad. In cases where the government consistently does something better and cheaper than private industry (like health care in every other first world country), government is still bad because government is bad.

      What's important is that you conclude that government is bad first, and then figure out how you'll reach that conclusion. Otherwise, you may actually come to a different conclusion in some cases, which would be wrong, because government is bad.

    5. Re:Hey, cable companies: by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      there is a LOT more to package delivery, than roads. There is nothing else to ISP beyond running and maintaining cables (and routers), so your analogy is not valid.

      What? Who told you that? There are basically three major physical parts to package delivery, namely roads and interchanges, vehicles, and drivers. Networks have cables, routers, and switches, as well as hardware and users. (We will omit international considerations from both examples at this time.) Networks and roads both require maintenance as equipment fails. And they both require management to deal with malicious actors. They both also require the other kind of management to make them happen; networks have routing, and so do delivery companies. Networks use servers, and... well, so do delivery companies. UPS for example was well-known as the first surface shipper to optimize out left turns. But the truth is that delivery tracking and management is a relatively trivial exercise, on the modern complexity scale. I used to work for a company called ADAQ which made a delivery tracking program which ran on SCO Xenix and SCO Unix. Everything a small to medium size shipper needs to manage their business will fit on a 386, and that includes least cost routing and support for messaging with MDTs. If you want vehicle tracking, you might need a Pentium.

      If you are determined, you can claim package delivery includes policing and whatnot. But then you can do the same for internet service.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Hey, cable companies: by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The real hurdle to ISP-propagation is the local governments' corruption and ineptitude

      If there were high prices and lack of competition in 5 or 10% of locales, then simple corruption and ineptitude would be a reasonable explanation. But when the problem exists everywhere, you need to look for systemic structural problems.

    7. Re:Hey, cable companies: by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just what we need.... an expansion of government powers and responsibilities. Did you learn nothing from the last election?

      My municipal water system is cheaper and far more reliable than my internet service. In the past 10 years, I can't remember a single unscheduled outage of water service, and scheduled outages for water infrastructure improvements are rare and are announced months in advance (often with public hearings years in advance) and generally only lasted a couple hours.

      If that's the kind of service I can expect from government owned conduit, I say bring it on.

    8. Re:Hey, cable companies: by by+(1706743) · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...but isn't this the very definition of small government? It sounds like this legislation uses *large* (state) government to take away powers from *small* (municipal) government.

      From the standard arguments of small government that I've heard, this sounds like a very bad thing. Shouldn't the People vote on these things through their small municipal government, where your vote buys you more substantial representation? (It looks like the smallest city in Virginia is around 4k people.)

    9. Re:Hey, cable companies: by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      Since 99% of the cost of providing service is the trenching, this will make the market far more competitive.

      Citation, please...

      Do a little research on how LDDS started It wasn't because the cable they paid for was expensive.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    10. Re:Hey, cable companies: by n8_f · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'm really surprised Wired published that. TechFreedom is a well-known industry schill. They had an equally stupid article against net neutrality. I love this from a recent article of theirs:

      The Wheeler FCC has fixated on building government-run gigabit networks to serve small numbers of users in heavily Democratic cities. We need a more humble, realistic, pragmatic and inclusive approach.

      The best, cheapest Internet access in America is consistently community owned. And it doesn't even have to be a large community. The small town of Sandy, OR has the best, cheapest Internet in the country. Forty dollars for 300Mbps symmetric or $60 for gigabit. No bandwidth cap. And they work with content providers like Netflix so their citizens get the fastest, highest quality content they can. Far better than any of the cable companies, which refuse to work with Netflix without significant payment. It's amazing how well your incentives align when your shareholders are also your customers.

    11. Re:Hey, cable companies: by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      For fuck's sake, local governments already running sewer pipes and water lines, why not just run conduit for fiber as well, and then lease it out? I think the idea is genius.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:Hey, cable companies: by mi · · Score: 2

      If there were high prices and lack of competition in 5 or 10% of locales, then simple corruption and ineptitude would be a reasonable explanation

      Why must my methodology differ?

      when the problem exists everywhere, you need to look for systemic structural problems.

      Indeed it is a system problem. And, according to the article I cited, that problem is the local governments mistreating commercial ISPs. The companies need the governments' cooperation to lay cables, and the local mayors, town councils et al consider it a golden opportunity — to extract favors. The favors are either for themselves (corruption) or for their cities (ineptitude)...

      Now, you didn't include the requested citation(s) in your reply. Was that an accident you can promptly rectify, or are you taking back your earlier claim:

      99% of the cost of providing service is the trenching

      ?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    13. Re:Hey, cable companies: by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      My municipal water system is cheaper and far more reliable than my internet service...

      Two problems with your assertion:

      1) If governments tightly regulated ISP pricing and behavior like they do the local water utility, you might have had a workable analogy.

      2) Two words: Flint, Michigan.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    14. Re:Hey, cable companies: by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      why not just run conduit for fiber as well, and then lease it out? I think the idea is genius.

      I see nothing in this law that prevents such an operation, only the operation of an ISP service by the municipalities. In fact, I would bet that there are cities that do exactly this already, in places where there is sufficient population to justify the cost of the conduit.

    15. Re:Hey, cable companies: by Jiro · · Score: 2

      If the private company can't build a better network and provide better service than the people doing it for themselves then the private company doesn't get any business.

      Even if the private company can build a better network at the same price, the customers of the private network will not just be paying that price--they don't become exempt from taxes, so they'd have to pay double. This prevents private networks from becoming successful.

      What you would be saying is only correct if the people can choose to purchase the private network's service instead of the government network's service. This is not an option.

    16. Re:Hey, cable companies: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One way to prove that government is bad is to eliminate government funding, create gridlock, spread misinformation about government, and so forth until the government actually is bad. Republicans are on the cusp of perfecting this technique.

    17. Re:Hey, cable companies: by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Improper Government is bad. Just that most modern governements are involved in way more than they should be (arresting people for serving food to the homeless??? WTF??)

      My solution is much more simple. Government manages not just the Conduit, but the actual Fiber in it. Bring it all back to a COLO facility where the competition happens. The "cable" companies no longer control the cable, only the content. And since each customer can get the services they want, from the provider(s) they want, it is all open to anyone who want access to those customers. All they need is a feed from the COLO to whatever they are offering.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    18. Re:Hey, cable companies: by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      Horseshit. This "act" is Rent-seeking at its most basic and obvious, and all the Free Market evangelism in the world won't change it.

      Stigler nailed it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    19. Re:Hey, cable companies: by Enigma2175 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's amazing how cheap internet can be when the "company" providing it doesn't have to worry about a profit

      Yes, it sure is. A normal business needs to charge cost of business+profit where government only needs to charge cost of doing business.

      or keeping the shareholders happy, and they don't have to provide service to everyone who is putting money into the system.

      There are tons of things that people pay taxes for where they don't receive a direct benefit. For example, childless people paying for schools or paying for public transit when you never use it. Much like municipal fiber networks, even if you don't directly utilize the service it still makes your city a better place to live. Having good schools, transit and internet encourages companies to locate in your city (which can lower your taxes) and also can encourage high-income people to locate in your city (which also can lower your taxes). Sometimes doing things for the public good is the best path even if you don't partake of the particular service.

      That being said, I do live in a city with a municipal fiber network and I have used it ever since it was installed, for the last 10 years or so. I have never had a problem with it and it has always been a much better level of service than I ever got from Comcast (who was my former internet provider and my current cable provider). It's superior from a technical point of view as well as from a customer service point of view. I choose my own ISP and can easily switch if they do something I don't like, which certainly can't be said of the cable company monopoly that exists in most places. As you observe above, the city can provide the service cheaper than a private company because they don't need to make a profit, they just need to break even.

      --

      Enigma

    20. Re:Hey, cable companies: by Woldscum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      LUS Lafayette LA City owned.
      http://www.lusfiber.com/index....

      Speed Levels & Details

      3x3 - 3 Mbps download & upload
      - $19.95 - With purchase of LUS Fiber television or phone services

      60x60 - 60 Mbps download & upload
      - $29.95 - With purchase of television service and two-year agreement. Months 1-12 only.
      - $52.95 - Standard price

      100x100 - 100 Mbps download & upload
      - $39.95 - With purchase of television service and two-year agreement. Months 1-12 only.
      - $62.95 - Standard price

      1,000x1,000 - 1,000 Mbps (1 Gbps) download & upload
      - $62.95 - With purchase of television service and two-year agreement. Months 1-12 only.
      - $69.95 - With purchase of all three LUS Fiber services
      - $89.95 - With purchase of two LUS Fiber services
      - $109.95 - Standard price

      2,000x2,000 - 2,000 Mbps (2 Gbps) download & upload
      - $299.95 - $500 installation fee, $500 activation fee and 48-month contract required.

    21. Re:Hey, cable companies: by Enigma2175 · · Score: 2

      I choose my own ISP and can easily switch if they do something I don't like, which certainly can't be said of the cable company monopoly that exists in most places.

      Uhh, you can chose not to use the municipal service, but you can't choose not to pay taxes. You CAN choose not to use Comcast and you won't pay Comcast a dime if you don't use them. You can switch just as easily if it is Comcast or Citycast.

      No, the city only provides the pipe, an ISP provides the actual internet service. There is competition among ISPs, where there isn't among the traditional providers (telco and cableco)

      And the alleged "cable monopoly" isn't really, since there is no monopoly for ISPs and never has been. The only monopoly that used to exist was for cable TV service, but "video content" no longer has any monopolies, and "Internet" has never had one.

      There is a monopoly on the infrastructure. No other cable companies are allowed to run lines to each house, only the one that the government has selected. If you are so against government, why do you support a government-enforced cable monopoly? No, there isn't a monopoly on video service but there is an effective duopoly on internet service in most places (cable and telco). The telco monopoly got watered down by the government, mandating that they allow the leasing of lines to other providers. However the baby bells have a lot of experience with thwarting such regulations (horrible provisioning process for 3rd party providers, extra downtime on leased lines, etc.) but the cable companies have no such regulations and in most places have a monopoly on coaxial cable to residences and businesses. There is a reason Comcast has consistently been voted the MOST hated company in America, when you have a monopoly there's no reason to provide good service.

      As you observe above, the city can provide the service cheaper than a private company because they don't need to make a profit, they just need to break even.

      As I also observe, they don't need to break even. They can operate at a loss to drive out the commercial competition -- something that the FTC would be investigating were it one commercial venture trying to bankrupt another by such means. People complain vociferously about Walmart coming to town and driving the local mom and pop stores out of business because they cut prices, but at least Walmart has to make a profit overall. City run internet services don't need to do even that much, so why is it ok for them to drive out competition when it's so evil if Walmart does it?

      No, they don't need to break even, but they can. They don't drive out competition, they encourage it. I can choose from a number of different ISPs instead of just one or two. You seem to think that profit is a good thing, but from a consumer's perspective it's a bad thing. Competition is a good thing but for internet service most places don't have that. An open municipal network provides way more competition that currently exists because it lowers the barriers to entry for ISPs, making a more diverse marketplace. I'm not one of the people who rail against Walmart, they were able to put mom and pops out of business because mom and pops are mostly inefficient. The cable companies and telcos are also very inefficient but they are not punished by the market because of their effective monopolies. If you are in favor of healthy competition you should be in favor of municipal networks.

      --

      Enigma

    22. Re:Hey, cable companies: by n8_f · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's amazing how cheap internet can be when the "company" providing it doesn't have to worry about a profit or keeping the shareholders happy.

      You seem to have a very poor understanding of how democracies work.
      My understanding is they are operating at break-even, so people that don't use it aren't really paying anything. In fact, it's saved the city government money that they were spending on very expensive commercial Internet access. Their problem is that demand has forced them to accelerate their build out (they projected very conservatively). Yes, being able to sell cheap municipal bonds helps. But capital isn't what's holding back the telcos. After all, a tiny city government just kicked their asses because they thought their customers had no other options. Also, it turns out that having widely available cheap and fast Internet has externalities that benefit even people that don't have it at home. Hard to fit on to a balance sheet, but still true!
      You should really follow up on this, because it sounds like it would change your world view. Look up Jeremy Pietzold; he'd be happy to answer any reasonably worded questions you have about SandyNet. I think you'd find that he's generally an economic conservative, but perhaps he's more pragmatic than some. He's certainly invested more time than anybody here on this topic.

    23. Re:Hey, cable companies: by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      While municipal should be the best solution, I am beginning to think that a co-op provides a better balance. You just need to find ways for the city to help the co-op. It is easy to be apathetic up to the point that it just doesn't work anymore. This happens no matter who owns the infrastructure. But really, nothing under 50Mb today should be considered broadband.

    24. Re:Hey, cable companies: by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2

      The gov't doesn't have to manage it any more than they manage the water or electric networks. You can totally pay a private company to run said network.

      But there needs to be ONE network on which all providers provide the service. Just like water and electricity.

      I know that's basically what you meant, just stating it explicitly for the trolls :)

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    25. Re:Hey, cable companies: by Enigma2175 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, the city only provides the pipe, an ISP provides the actual internet service.

      The city IS the ISP. Lmgtfy: here: "SandyNet is the Internet Service Provider owned by the people of Sandy and operated as a public service by the City of Sandy." Now tell me again how the city only owns the pipes. Tell my how ANY municipal ISP service "only provides the pipes". If they only provide the pipes, they aren't an ISP -- BY DEFINITION.

      I wasn't talking about Sandy, OR, I was talking about my local municipal fiber network, Utopia, that link is a list of the 9 different ISPs that provide service on the network. Comcast and Century Link have also been invited to provide ISP service on the network, but they prefer to lobby the state government to shut down Utopia, just like in Virginia. As the article notes, this isn't the people telling their government to ban municipal networks, this is the Virginia Cable Telecommunications Association, a cable industry group, pushing the legislation.

      An open municipal network provides way more competition that currently exists because it lowers the barriers to entry for ISPs,

      You have got to be joking. It increases the barriers to entry. If you know that you're going to have to charge a price for services that competes with a non-profit taxpayer backed service that can operate at a loss, you're not going to try. Your barrier is now the fight you'll have to make to get any subscribers, and a need to make a profit.

      I am talking about ISPs that run over the municipal network. Any company that meets the basic requirements are free to offer internet, phone or video services on the network. The barriers of entry are much lower than a service provider that has to string cable across the city (if they are even allowed to).

      If you are in favor of healthy competition you should be in favor of municipal networks.

      The world of 1984 and Ministry of Truth has arrived.

      No, ignorance is not truth and freedom is not slavery. This isn't 1984, and my city government is not Big Brother. How many ISPs can you get gigabit internet from? I have at least 10 that I know of, if that's not competition then what is?

      At its core, government is the people banding together to provide those same people with services. It's no different than a farm co-op. Yes, government (particularly at the national level) is growing much larger than I would like to see it but at the local level there is still a great deal of control by the people and a method for firing elected officials that don't use the people's money wisely. You are just so convinced that government == bad (and probably taxation == theft) that you just can't even conceive the notion of the government providing a useful service for the people. Society doesn't exist for businesses to make a profit, it exists to better the lives of the people in the society. I think that basic services that everyone or most everyone in the city use should be provided by the government to keep costs down - because the people banding together to provide the service is more efficient (read: cheaper) than having a company do it with the associated profit margin. These services include roads, police, firefighters, water, sewer, power, and in my view, communications. If it's something that everyone needs to use then why should the people pay a middleman (a for profit company) to build such services when they can provide it themselves, via government.

      Incidentally, here is a White House report on how municipal networks spur competition, but I'm sure you'll immediately discount it because Obama is the debbil.

      I can see yo

      --

      Enigma

  2. Well... by Frightened_Turtle · · Score: 2

    ...Strike Virginia off my list of potential places to live. :/

    --


    Whew! This water sure is cold!
    1. Re:Well... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Interesting

      First, this isn't a law yet. The Republicans have a majority in the statehouse, but the governor is a Democrat (though I haven't seen any word on how he intends to respond). That said, there's already a law on the books restricting Municipal broadband. Most of the built-up suburbs have at least two options between FiOS and Cable (mostly Comcast, but Cox has a few counties including Fairfax, the biggest DC suburban one). Currently the only part that has municipal broadband is Bristol, in the southwestern part of the state on the Tennessee border, where they have full FTTP. Unfortunately, it's not exactly a large city (population ~17k).

      Overall the state isn't a bad place to live, though it has its crazy quirks, and some parts of it are very different from others. Most of the tech jobs are up near or in DC, and relate to the Federal Government in some way. The DC suburbs are pricy and traffic sucks (though not as bad as the Bay Area still). The weather usually isn't too bad, though people have no clue how to drive in snow. The food is pretty good, and you're well positioned between both the Northern and Southern regions of the country.

  3. More of that small, local govt freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's just more of that Republican love of smaller, more local government at work. Smell the FREEDOM!

    Notice a funny thing about these Republican bills: their content is usually the OPPOSITE of the bill's name. This is because when you summarize it, it never sounds like sonething you would want to pass. At least if you are an ordinary citizen, that is, and not some megacorp or rich person.

    1. Re:More of that small, local govt freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Consistently retarded.

    2. Re:More of that small, local govt freedom by Kenja · · Score: 2

      It's weird that they have to keep passing laws and increase the size of enforcement agencies in the pursuit of smaller government.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  4. Uh huh... by Desler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Small government!" "Local control!"

  5. Smells Like by DaMattster · · Score: 2

    More entitlements given to the wealthy. Looks like Virginia is going to practice more wealthcare.

  6. Crony Capitalism by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just another case of Gov't providing Corporate Protectionism at the expense of the People Anyone that still thinks that "People" are the Citizens Gov't serves are either delusional or hopelessly naive The real Citizens of the US are the Corporate Personhood and the Wealthy Elite

  7. Results by DaMattster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think this may spur on people to do it themselves on a smaller scale. In parts of rural UK, this is already happening. A group of people got together and decided to hell with muni or corporate, they're going to do it themselves.

  8. Only a problem when they block better (G fiber) by raymorris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think this state law goes a bit overboard. That I can think of, municipal fiber is only a problem in two types of cases. Sometimes, city council just isn't very good at running an ISP - they are mostly car dealers, real estate agents, and insurance agents, not networking experts. So they waste taxpayer money with their toy ISP. The local voters can probably handle that most of the time.

    Many of us probably recall Google announced they'd build out Google fiber only in cities where the local government didn't get in the way too much, dragging out permit processes for years, demanding kickbacks, etc. That reminds us that cities can and sometimes do make it very difficult, time consuming, and expensive for ISPs to offer improved services. Suppose you're councilman Jones. Two years ago, you proposed spending $50 million of taxpayer money building Muninet, run by the city. You get Muninet operational, a bit over budget, but it's providing 25 Mbps for $35. You and the rest of the city council aren't experienced at running an ISP, so sometimes there are glitches, but it should recover the $50 million investment over the next 12 years. You've taken some heat from the local newspaper for increasing taxes to pay for mediocre service, but you'll probably manage to get re-elected - you can spin it as a reasonably successful project, in it's first two years.

    Now Google comes knocking, wanting to offer gigabit for $70. That makes your Muninet 25 Mbps look like utter shit. If Google is allowed to offer gigabit, nobody will pay for Muninet service anymore and your record will show taxpayers (voters) were left holding the bag for the $50 million construction cost. Are you going to approve Google fiber ( the death of Muninet) or are you going to do everything you can to keep gigabit at bay, protecting your Muninet project?

    When the politicians who are responsible regulating / approving services are also running a competing service, they have a conflict of interest. That does need to be addressed somehow, but I don't think it means tax payer ISPs need to be banned.

  9. WTF? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

    "“I just think government needs to be very cautious about investing taxpayer dollars in these networks that they not only have to be able to manage, but they also have to maintain them,” Byron told The Roanoke Times. "Maintaining this type of stuff is much better done by private business.”" http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

    Really cock sucking whore. Do you have proof to support this assertion that does not come with wheel barrels full of cash....

  10. Re:I think this one can be tough to decide..... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

    As opposed to Verizon stopping their roll out of fiber.....