Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Americans Support Letting Cities Build Their Own Broadband Networks, Pew Finds (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the more-options-the-better dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Most Americans want to let local governments build out internet service if the internet providers in their area aren't any good, according to the Pew Research Center. In a phone survey of over 4,000 people last month, Pew found that 70 percent of respondents agreed that local governments should have the power to start their own high-speed networks if current offerings are "too expensive or not good enough." The results show an overwhelming support for municipal broadband -- networks that are at least somewhat run by local governments -- at a time when encouraging broadband buildout is a top federal priority. But despite the support, in much of the US, building out municipal networks just isn't possible. More than 20 states have passed laws banning local governments from starting their own broadband service, largely at the behest of internet providers that want to avoid competition at all cost. Though Pew's survey found some positive results for municipal broadband, it found less support for broadband subsidies for low-income homes. Under half of all Americans, 44 percent, said they supported subsidies, while nearly everyone else surveyed said they felt internet service "is affordable enough" that most households should be able to pay for it. (At the same time, nearly half of all people surveyed said they didn't know what speed of internet they received.)

70 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Way overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Broadband should be a utility this day and age.

    1. Re:Way overdue by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      Broadband data *is* a utility by use, demand, and market. It should be delivered thus.

      We no longer bother to limit it to Internet service - it's more useful than that.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re: Way overdue by PoopJuggler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It should, but we'll be stuck in the 1950's for about four years. The Republicans will never ever let that happen. They only oppose government regulation when it doesn't favor the rich. Like those fat little pigs they always show in the cartoons. Our government is infested with people that are literally the embodiment of swine. What's worse is they pride themselves on their greed and hate and destructiveness like those are honorable things.

    3. Re: Way overdue by youngone · · Score: 1
      I don't entirely disagree, but Democrats are no better, it is just different industry groups bribing them to get what they want.

      The article is pretty crappy though, the question seems slanted to get the desired result:

      Do you think local governments should have the power to start their own high-speed networks if current offerings are too expensive or not good enough?

      I'm not sure what other answer there is.

    4. Re:Way overdue by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Why should broadband be a [public] utility? Do you believe that broadband should be a public service, available to all, regardless of income?
      I do consider the Internet as a whole as a public service, and it is historically operated at one, something I wish to continue. But broadband is a very specific level of Internet access. It's absolutely fine if we get together and democratically agree to do this, but I would like some pretty good justifications before we effectively turn a private enterprise into a government monopoly.

      I'd like to note that we don't consider television a public service, even if the airwaves are public (which does not mean the same as zero cost to broadcast). In the US you have to pay for your TV set, and funding the free broadcasts is arranged through advertisements, sponsors and small public programs. In the UK you have to purchase a set and pay a regular tax. (I'm not certain if this is still the case)

      That TV isn't a public service may be surprising because so much of our information from the late 20th century into the 21st century comes through television. Even important coverage of or democracy such as the Presidential address is primarily received by the populous through television broadcast. Right or wrong, we as a people have not decided to make it a public service, and I like to think it is because we were unable to present reasonable justification. (All our politicians can't really be in the pockets of broadcasters, if they were we should probably elect new ones)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    5. Re:Way overdue by cb88 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because commercial internet is artificially bad... just so it looks likey they are trying really hard to make it better but in fact are just milking the customer and government for subsidies.

      Municipal interent isn't necessarily "public".... in the sense of free, in fact it almost certainly isn't... but is is cheaper just based on the fact that you are getting what you are paying for rather than than just feeding billions into some guy's pocket.

    6. Re:Way overdue by dryeo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Utility is perhaps the wrong word. Here in Canada, it is considered an essential service, meaning that the private (and public where they exist) internet providers have to provide you internet for a reasonable price if you request it, often with government (Provincial and perhaps Federal as well) often subsidizing the buildout in rural areas.
      In my case, living about 40 miles from Vancouver, there is no cell coverage or cable and the phone lines seem to use rusty barbed wire, so only slow (26.4) dial-up. I was informed last year that my ISP was discontinuing dial-up service as of Nov 16th and suggested I switch to cellular (about $70 for 10 GBs + $150 for a modem). They quit charging me in the new year and froze my profile (big deal, I never touched it) but the dial-up is still working as they can't cut me off as long as I'm willing to pay. Once they finish building the new cell tower (subsidized by the Province so the smart metre will actually not require a meter reader anymore), I'll probably be forced to use it but until then, it's an essential service and they can't cut me off. Too much stuff depends on the internet now. Next year fiber is supposed to show up, once again subsidized by the Province and they'll have to sell it me for the same price as in town.
      It's like electricity and the phone, if you pay, they have to supply it if possible and for the same price. You might only be able to get 110 volt service but that is considered acceptable

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    7. Re:Way overdue by OrangeTide · · Score: 2

      Telephone service is treated very similarly around the world as what you describe as an essential service, including the US. Here in the US there are programs to help low-income people get free or subsidized phone service, and to help reconnect people who are behind on their bills.

      Some countries operate their entire telephone network as a state run service, other countries allow heavily regulate private regional monopolies (roughly what the US has). But they still are able to provide essential telephone service to individuals in urban areas. For the US's rural areas state and federal grants have been used instead of private money at various times to bring telephone services to remote communities. My point being that a service does not automatically have to be free for everyone or publicly controller, and instead you can address the needs of people with a mix of private ownership and government subsidies, grants and regulation.

      Broadband quality and costs will suffer the further away from urban population centers you get. It's not reasonable to expect people living 40 miles from a major city to have the same speed and cost as an urban dweller. The infrastructure simply costs more. It is more expensive to install and it more expensive to maintain. Right of way is perhaps a little simpler for a government entity, but it's still a lot of digging and cable and less centralize switching. Instead of one central office rack serving 20,000 households in a square mile (like in NYC), you have equipment to serve about 5,000 households in 40 square miles (using my hometown as an example).

      You certainly can make the whole population pay for the expenses created by a rural minority, but that doesn't seem fair to me. You can also set a high standard for Internet access that includes top tier broadband for all people, but that seems like an unnecessary extravagance to me. And frankly I reject that assumption that Internet service must be state owned for it to be distributed fairly, when there are other examples of services that privately operated (but heavily regulated) yet can be provided to people who need them.

      PS - I am against telephone de-regulation, and I am against the merging of the Bells back into an all-powerful monopoly. We're moving away from the programs I mentioned above, and I this is a real disappointment in my opinion.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    8. Re:Way overdue by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Yo ass-hole he said utility. Regulated like utility, such as Gas, Electric, Water, Telephone.

    9. Re:Way overdue by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      The TV is free, but not a government organization nor is it a non-profit. Television is not a municipal service, at least not in the US. Television broadcast is a for-profit venture to make money selling advertisement. Cable TV subscriptions is just gravy on top of an already lucrative business. Cable TV started on the premise that while you can't own the airwaves but you can own the wires.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    10. Re:Way overdue by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Nice thought, but why should it be a [public] utility? Is there a good reason?

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    11. Re:Way overdue by dryeo · · Score: 1

      You're mostly agreeing with me, at least in the case of the telephone, an essential service that has been subsidized to make it available to the vast majority of the population, with similar rates for everyone (here it varies depending on how large the calling area is, costs about 30% more 10 miles west but they can phone about 2 million more people toll free).
      Internet now isn't much different then the phone, bills, jobs, government services, requirement for school etc, all depend on the internet. While I agree that the speed is usually going to be better close to an urban center, the price for X speed should be consistent whether yo live downtown or in tiny community, it takes both for society to function with lots of jobs/resources dependent on those tiny communities.
      We build roads everywhere, we have electricity everywhere, we have phones everywhere, we have postal service everywhere and all those are priced the same. I can send a letter or parcel next door or to Inuvik for the same price. Inuvik will take a couple of days longer (think bandwidth). Today how is Internet different? I think too many people still think that internet is a luxury rather then a requirement to participate in society..
      BTW, the cheapest phone, cellular, and internet in Canada is in Saskatchewan, which is the only province to still have a public phone company, even all the competition is much cheaper there. The problem with private is that there is always the overhead of needing to make a profit, often an ever increasing profit whereas a public utility only has to break even plus a minor profit to put into a contingency fund.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  2. Works for me by Enigma2175 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have been on a municipal fiber network for over 10 years and it's been great. A high bandwidth symmetrical connection with a wide choice in ISPs. Previously I had cable internet through Comcast and the network stability, level of service and price have been like night and day. Internet is pretty crucial to living in modern society, it should be treated as a utility and a basic level of service provided to each home by the government. TV, phone and internet service providers still compete for the customer's business, they just do it on a level playing field.

    --

    Enigma

    1. Re:Works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have been on a municipal fiber network for over 10 years and it's been great. A high bandwidth symmetrical connection with a wide choice in ISPs.

      This is how it should be. The article is about "letting" cities build their own broadband. The very concept is absurd. Maybe it should be put to an actual vote, but the letting part just has to go, it some how implies that a collection of people working for a common cause has less rights than say a megacorp headed by maybe as few as a single person. In shorty, it doesn't pass the smell test.

      This is also one of those things I don't think should be denyable by the next tier of government. It is too critical to current life. Heck I'm not even sure how to apply to many jobs without it.

      You also can't have a state or federal government telling a city not to do something so obviously beneficial to their residents. Now the federal government could mandate reasonable minimal standards, but they need to be cautious there. If we as a country want to say that a 1Mbps connection should be within reach of 90% of the population, then fine, provided that someone has actually done the math and proved that the net benefit of that mandate justifies the cost and does not unduly burden any particular area. They could also mandate that 1Mbps connection should be without bias or favour of any particular site or sites. That doesn't stop a local ISP from selling you the all right wing/left wing ISP with 100Mbps to all the right/left wing sources and 1Mbps to the left/right sources, it just mandates that there must be a limit, and while you may be slowed down you are not forbidden from accessing arbitrary sites. (The exact point you would put the minimum is arguable.)

      Of course, in general I'd prefer actual net neutrality be mandated, with no bias period, but just establishing a limit to the max bias may be acceptable.

    2. Re:Works for me by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      Lucky you!!!

    3. Re:Works for me by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      it some how implies that a collection of people working for a common cause has less rights than say a megacorp headed by maybe as few as a single person.

      When that "collection of people" is a government that has entered a contract with the "megacorp" to require certain conditions be met for them to be allowed to operate within that jurisdiction, and then the same "collection of people" decides to directly compete with that corporation without requiring any of the same conditions, yes, they should have "less rights". They entered into the contract and now want to compete without playing the same game.

      You also can't have a state or federal government telling a city not to do something so obviously beneficial to their residents.

      Whenever an argument devolves into "obviously", it is usually wrong. I don't know that it is obvious that is it beneficial to all the residents. It's a great deal for those who want the service without paying the going commercial rate, but not so good for those who don't want or can't use the taxpayer-backed service. It is certainly not beneficial to the employees of the company that is being competed with unfairly, many of whom live in that same location.

  3. No kidding by quonset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With lower prices, faster speeds and better service, you bet people would want municipal broadband. We've all seen what happens when there is no competition: the U.S. still isn't in the top ten of industrialized nations when it comes to broadband speeds (page 12 of the report).

    I distinctly remember when my area got "competition" in broadband providers. Verizon came in and their CEO proudly stated, "We're not going to compete on price. We'll compete on quality." Well gee, thanks. To whom should I bend over for?

    If Republicans would stop preventing broadband competition we'd be far better off. And before anyone wants to whine about being partisan, go take a look at the places which have outlawed municipal broadband. See the pattern?

    1. Re:No kidding by SnowZero · · Score: 5, Insightful

      p>If Republicans would stop preventing broadband competition we'd be far better off. And before anyone wants to whine about being partisan, go take a look at the places which have outlawed municipal broadband. See the pattern?

      California, Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, Washington, Virginia all voted blue in the last presidential election, and all have some form of restriction or hurdle for municipal broadband. That's about 30% of the states with such regulations. The pattern is that of corporate corruption of politics, which affects both parties but Republicans more. Since you have solidly blue states such as CA and WA in on this, you really can't call it just a Republican problem.

    2. Re:No kidding by quonset · · Score: 4, Informative

      Take a look at the states who have passed laws to prohibit or effectively restrict municipal broadband. Citing a handful of states is cherry-picking. Of the states listed in the above report, 17 out of 24 voted for Trump and all of them have laws regarding municipal broadband.

      In other words, 70% of states who voted red in the last presidential election and have laws restricting municipal broadband constitutes a pattern. Exactly as I said.

    3. Re:No kidding by thogard · · Score: 1

      The core of the problem is Representational Democracy when votes can be bought. The winning party will claim to have a mandate from the people when they won by an stistcically insignificant majority. If you can't get 2/3 or 3/5 of the people's representatives to agree to something, chances are it shouldn't be law.

    4. Re:No kidding by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      You definitely got the picture! It's a game of who is paying who, and not the quality for the people they supposedly serve.

    5. Re:No kidding by wbr1 · · Score: 2

      Cherry picking is decidedly wrong when used to mislead. That said.. when will you and those like you admit that both sides have sold out. The buyers, and hence the favored corporations may differ - but to them YOU do not matter other than a sheep to corral into a voting booth with unkept promises.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    6. Re: No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      GP was wilfully misrepresenting things. Also ignored that of that 30%, D, half were R in the legislature too.

    7. Re:No kidding by SnowZero · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You know when you combine our pots, 30+70=100 and 7+17=24, so you're saying the same thing. Also, it's 23 states, not 24, because you counted Washington twice as it shows up in the report table twice.

      You were implying this is somehow a Republican-only problem, which as a Californian, I can confirm that it's not. Since CA has 12% of the US population all by itself, and is D controlled at nearly every level, it's pretty disingenuous to call it merely cherry-picked. Hell in my post I even say that it's mostly a Republican problem ("affects both parties but Republicans more"). However if you must view everything through the lens of "if one party is wrong the other must be right", then I can't help you.

      Besides, raw counts are dumb since 30/50 states voted R, so really we ought condition or even weight by population:
      Voted D: 6/20 = 30%, 49% population-weighted
      Voted R: 17/30 = 56%, 69% population-weighted

      So if you are in a D state, odds are 50/50 that you have restricted municipal broadband. In R states it jumps to almost 70%. What it most definitely is not, in either case, is near zero.

    8. Re:No kidding by cb88 · · Score: 1

      The fact is if politics weren't a circus, with everone in it for the under the table money... getting people to agree on 3/5th votes would be *easy*.

      Gorsuch is a case in point... a judged cherry picked by the democrats who happens to be conservative enough for republicans to vote for but everyone is voting party lines less they break their piggy banks, all the while the rest of the country is falling apart.

    9. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're making a false equivalency, just because both sides do bad things doesn't mean the scale of the problem is equal in both parties. I try to pick the best people regardless of affiliation however its getting harder and harder to find an honest and informed republican or for an honest person to support the pack of thieves currently calling themselves the GOP.

    10. Re: No kidding by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      Which part of the 4 sentence post is a misrepresentation? The first two sentences are verifiable facts, and with obvious math you can see that 70% are R-leaning, just like the GGP "corrected" me with. The remaining two sentences which make any kind of claim are:

      (1) The pattern is that of corporate corruption of politics, which affects both parties but Republicans more.
      (2) Since you have solidly blue states such as CA and WA in on this, you really can't call it just a Republican problem.

      Which of those two do you disagree with?

      In my other post I broke this down in a spreadsheet; if you can link a table with legislature majorities I'd be happy to incorporate it. Note that most of these regulations came prior to 2016, and 2008/2012 has a more D states and the population was split was 58% and 63%. Of course states don't need to be defined by who they voted for president, but that is the definition most people use for "red/blue" rather than governor or the current state legislature.

    11. Re:No kidding by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      If Republicans would stop preventing broadband competition we'd be far better off. And before anyone wants to whine about being partisan, go take a look at the places which have outlawed municipal broadband. See the pattern?

      Mitch McConnell, preventer of broadband services.... doesn't quite have the same ring to it as 'Grand Moff' does it?

    12. Re:No kidding by brianerst · · Score: 1

      The Presidential vote matter not one whit when it comes to these laws - the makeup of the state government at the time of enactment of the statute is what matters.

      For instance, bright red Arkansas was a Democratic-controlled state in 2010 when Arkansas Code 23-17-409 was amended.

      The Iowa House of Representatives was majority Democratic when Ann 388.10 was passed in 2016.

      Louisiana was run by Democrats when 45:844.49 was passed in 2004.

      Michigan was largely controlled by Democrats when their laws were passed in the 1990s and 2005.

      Wisconsin's governor was Jim Doyle, a Democrat, and at least the State Senate was Democratic in 2007 when their law was last amended.

      That moves 5 states from the "Trump" column to the "Democrat or Democrat leaning" column when the laws were actually passed. That's a 12/12 split.

      I didn't check every single legislative / gubernatorial makeup, so maybe something was Republican that is now Democratic, or there might be a Democratic governor or two that I missed. (Both ECS and Ballotpedia have spotty coverage when it comes to dates and states). But, in general, this is a bipartisan attempt to screw us.

    13. Re:No kidding by brianerst · · Score: 1

      Eh... I made two math errors - that's 6 states that "flip", not 5, and while you gave the total as 24 states, ECS counts Washington twice, so it's only 23.

      Plus, Ed Rendell was governor of Pennsylvania in 2004 when they passed their municipal broadband amendments.

      So, you've now got 7 additional states that were at least partially controlled by Democrats from the ECS list. Add California, Colorado, Minnesota, Nevada, Washington, and Virginia and you get 13 out of 23. Virginia has flipped around a lot and it's hard to determine the exact date of the relevant amendment (the text has been amended basically every two years) so we can call that one a draw. Still 50/50.

    14. Re:No kidding by outlander · · Score: 2

      Gorsuch was suggested to the GOP by the Federalist Society, which is decidedly NOT a Democratic organization.

      Merrick Garland was an olive branch from the Democrats to the Republicans, and it was roundly rejected.

      --
      "Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
    15. Re:No kidding by cb88 · · Score: 1

      Gorsuch had Democratic support in 2006... the only reason he doesn't have it now is because people are petty, and if they don't have control noone will.

      http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/01/meet-the-democrats-who-upported-gorsuch-in-2006/

  4. Last mile by SnowZero · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My dream: local governments (or the local power company) run the "last mile" passive fiber to every home. Then any company can apply to come in and start hooking up at the switch boxes. This means new offerings like Google Fiber could hook up quickly, and the old guard can still provide competitive service if they choose to (also dragging them into a fiber-first model). No need to fret over who gets connected at the house level, because you have public oversight at that level, and not having to do the last-mile means there's less incentive to hook up only the rich neighborhoods, because all of them can be done fairly efficiently once you have backhaul. This design also keeps the government from trying to be an ISP, which they aren't really equipped for -- instead they maintain the street-level infrastructure, something they do a lot of already.

    Before telecom deregulation I had a small ISP over Verizon's copper, and (for the time) it was great. The ISP of course got killed off as soon as Verizon was allowed to stop sharing the lines. A decade of stagnation followed. I'd love to see the smallest changes on the public side to make private competition viable, and a municipally owned last mile makes a lot of sense.

    1. Re:Last mile by mikeiver1 · · Score: 1

      I have been saying the very same for years now, close to ten actually. The last mile should be owned and run by the municipality and come back to a local CO. where all the ISPs have to serve from. In this way the service you have is dependent on nothing more than a change in the routing table. They have to compete with each other and provide service other than lip.

    2. Re:Last mile by kwalker · · Score: 1

      That is the model where I live, finally. It works marvelously. My speeds make everyone I know jealous (256Mbit synchronous, with a 1Gbit copper connection into the house) and my costs are certainly no worse, it only costs slightly more than the lowest-speed packages from the local incumbents, including a home number. It was a requirement for me to get into one of the served areas when I moved the family; and now that we've had it, we don't want to live anywhere else. Everyone I talk to is jealous and would vote for it in their city if it came up.

      The most important thing is open access to the fiber network though. Without that, it's just another crappy local monopoly ISP.

      --
      Improvise, adapt, and overcome.
    3. Re:Last mile by BlueCoder · · Score: 1

      YES! But let me say that the ONT or "optical modem" should and needs to be provided by the city. There isn't exactly one pair of fiber going from your house all the way to a central location. It's a network and whatever your have at your house needs to plug into the local switch on your block or group of blocks. The actual modulation may be standard based or proprietary but it doesn't really matter since that decision should be left for whomever administrated the system. The equipment has to be standard for the area and the city to manage. Data goes over it all the same. Every house needs a connection even if they don't use internet because this is what is replacing the phone lines. Everyone needs options for communication.

      The important part is that the city function as a central hub so that whomever wants to hook into them can do so just by installing their own optical cables and equipment on site. Instant competition. You'll see internet prices fall to at least a third with better service all while paying back the city and the ISP at those prices.

      When operated like this for the last mile it is a utility. Necessary common infrastructure.

    4. Re:Last mile by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      Mind if you share where you live, or other places with the same model? I'd love to be able to point to real examples.

      If my state ever gets it's head out of it's rear and drops its municipal network quazi-ban, I'd love to push this in my city. We were briefly on the "possible" list for Google Fiber, but instead of waiting for a unicorn I feel like we'd do well to push it far enough on our own that it becomes cheap for any ISP to move in.

    5. Re:Last mile by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      Thanks that's a good point. I don't know much about the networks since I've never lived somewhere where fiber was a realistic option. In my previous town DSL barely worked over the ancient copper.

    6. Re:Last mile by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      My worry with that is that there's a big disparity in who gets it, as new construction tends to go to the upper-middle class and rich (at least in most of the US). In my previous state (Pennsylvania) the fiber really only went to the expensive neighborhoods; from a business sense I understand -- regular neighborhoods would be less likely to care about those packages, but it still leaves a bad taste. If the gov't is running something, it ought to be inclusive.

      Of course what you say would be a good part of the ongoing solution, making sure the city doesn't need to spend nearly as much after the initial push.

    7. Re:Last mile by swb · · Score: 1

      What's kind of stupid is how we used to have that very same network, but it was called the phone system.

      I'm curious if any telephone system, especially smaller ones if they still exist (county or regional co-ops), actually continuously upgraded their networks to the point where they were running a FTTH home network.

      IE, phase one would have been a skeleton fiber network to neighborhood-level DSLAMs to provide as-good-as-it-got DSL over the existing copper runs to houses. And then over time doing the harder work of distributing fiber to the individual address level (perhaps still finishing this phase), but using the skeleton fiber network for the DSLAMs as the uplink.

      A common CO would allow anyone to buy into the network at the top -- ISP, etc, and then provide a data channel to their subscribers. The school system could be a CO provider, maybe even some businesses with multiple sites could be CO providers using the municipal network as their WAN.

      But somehow, despite being literally decades ahead of anyone else, the phone companies just didn't do this. They got to DSL, and mostly local exchange only, so lots of pairs were too long or too shitty, for more than awful throughput. Or they milked their T1 business to business areas not yet wired for cable.

      But it's like they had every chance to continuously upgrade and literally own the network but they didn't. They got their capital drained dry in mergers and acquisitions and are now a spent shell, like the bad debt of a failed bank.

    8. Re:Last mile by idji · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the rest of the world which has been enjoying this for 20 years already.

  5. Re:The government can supply everything for less by whoever57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In other news, monopolies will always be inefficient, provide lousy service and charge more.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  6. Re:The government can supply everything for less by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    We could permit regulated quasi-governmental utilities, sort of how I get water and electricity here in the Phoenix area. Might be better than the current monopolies.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  7. Re:The government can supply everything for less by sit1963nz · · Score: 2

    Well healthcare in the USA is the highest per capita by a VERY large margin. You are paying more, not getting more.

    Worse, given the massive costs, tens of millions of Americans do NOT have adequate health care options.


    And then it turns out that the infrastructure is also ageing, needing over $1 Trillion to fix it

    And China is doing quite well, its now a bigger economy than the USA, its modernising rapidly in all areas.

    Communism with corruption is a failure, but then so is capitalism with corruption.

  8. free market by umghhh · · Score: 1

    is not what it used to be or why otherwise USicans are bent on forbidding a communal arrangement? I guess for the same reason TTIP wanted to ban buying back privatized waterworks etc in Europe. I guess the word 'community' having common root with word 'communism' causes blood of USican to boil in matter of seconds. Strange. I wonder why is this even possible? As long as people are ready to pay for it with fees and if that is not enough with subsidies this is their decision to make. Or is somehow democracy being lesser good compared to free market? This is a q. that should actually be asked in legislatures where such things are illegal even before a q. whether in this area a free market at all exists.

    1. Re:free market by Altrag · · Score: 2

      Generally speaking, this happens as follows:

      Company: "We don't want to have to compete"
      Politician: "But that's your job"
      Company: "Here's $100k for your 'campaign' if you make it go away"
      Politician: "Sold"

      Now in many cases its not really that nefarious. Quite often the local government promised one company or another a local monopoly because it was the only way to get internet access at all -- this was way back in the days when the internet was fresh and new and nobody would have really thought to just build their own, either due to lack of expertise, lack of interest or lack of available funds. Or all three.

      As those contracts expire, we'll probably see more push for municipal broadband. Of course a lot of those local governments will also just renew their contracts because keeping the status quo is easier than actually doing something (especially when there's that green grease on the palms.)

    2. Re:free market by shentino · · Score: 1

      How do you figure in states that outlaw municipal broadband? Wouldn't that preempt a contract expiration?

  9. Should be handled like roads by zerofoo · · Score: 1

    Government builds and maintains common use roads with private sector contractors and funds them with public money.

    Fiber pulled to neighborhood central offices could be handled the exact same way. Private companies can build and maintain the infrastructure and private companies can install their head-end fiber termination equipment in the central offices.

    This would allow maximum competition for delivered services while eliminating the natural monopoly that is the last mile.

    No one owns the roads, yet everyone benefits from their existence. Optical fiber should be the same.

    1. Re:Should be handled like roads by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      You're right! How come no other person realized that the Web is part of the commons??

  10. Spurs Small Business Growth by un1nsp1red · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These posts are always about individuals and families, but fail to mention small businesses. I live in Boulder, CO, and a lot of new small and medium businesses are opting to move ten miles North to Longmont because they have municipal fiber. (It's certainly cheaper to live or operate a business in Longmont, but many have pointed to the availability of high-speed synchronous fiber as the driving factor.)

  11. Sure, until they actually start talking about it by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Being wary of the government is a hallmark of republicans. I think that tends to materialize as being very susceptible to propaganda from business. It was the same for health care, before Obama was elected, Americans seemed to generally like the idea of single payer healthcare depending on how you phrased it. That support evaporated overnight when it started to look like a remote possibility. A the mention of "death panels" a good number of people were suddenly ready to die to protect insurance companies from the evil government.

    Asking people if they like municipal broadband you're going to get yes. Asking them after comcast says "THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE SPYING ON YOU" with "like we do" in fine print? There will be a ton of morons instantly declaring it's an anti-american idea.

    I personally can't fathom why someone would fear the government they can vote in but love corporations they can't even sue, but I've been accused of being an out-of-touch liberal...

  12. Sorry by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter what America wants. The people you keep re-electing don't have to listen to you. they respond to those who pay them the money for their vote.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  13. Americans also support "in God we trust" by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Americans also support "in God we trust" as our national motto, so there's not much credibility here.

    1. Re:Americans also support "in God we trust" by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Too bad God doesn't provide internet service. That comes from the Devil.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  14. By definition, NO private ISP is good enough. by devloop · · Score: 1

    All of them fail when it comes to respective the privacy of their users, and all of them are now empowered to collect and resale your browsing history.
    Municipal ISPs, however, won't happen either: Government has been captured at all levels by corporations.

  15. Somewhat misleading headline by tomhath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pew found that 70 percent of respondents agreed that local governments should have the power to start their own high-speed networks if current offerings are “too expensive or not good enough...

    Under half of all Americans, 44 percent, said they supported subsidies, while nearly everyone else surveyed said they felt internet service “is affordable enough” that most households should be able to pay for it. (At the same time, nearly half of all people surveyed said they didn’t know what speed of internet they received.)”

    Read the headline carefully. The survey did not find that most people think their municipality should provide the service. What it did find is that people think that under certain circumstances a municipality should be allowed to provide the service.

  16. We were building them 15 years ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But the fucking scumbags that lobbied to make company profits more important stopped us. Community WIFI was a thing and was growing in a LOT of cities until scumbags like Comcast worked hard to make it illegal.

  17. Re:Thank God for the Constitution by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Which part of which constitution do you think does that?

    If it exists, I don't think anybody is following it. cf. student loans, health insurance, roads, etc.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  18. Conflicted by darkain · · Score: 1

    I'm highly conflicted on this idea now. On one hand, YES, PLEASE, SOMETHING OTHER THAN GREEDY FUCKING CORRUPT AS SHIT ORGANIZATIONS PLEASE RUN OUR INTERNET.

    On the other hand, I live in Tacoma, a city that has had government municipal internet since the 90's, and I was on it from then up until a year ago. The problem? The government agencies involved with the local internet is just as fucking corrupt at this point. It wasnt that way when it was built out initially. But now it is also horribly mismanaged and falling further and further behind corporate options. I switched to a symmetrical gigabit fiber connection, because right now the government board is too busy arguing if they should implement gigabit DOCSIS or not (with shit upload still, something I require). Nobody wants to take responsibility for bad accounting and mismanagement of services, while attempting to make back room deals without the public involvement, despite it being a public utility company in charge.

    Oh, an in case anyone who ever reads this is actually involved with TPU... Customer account passwords are stored and emailed in plain text. I attempted to file a complaint about this as soon as I found out, and was given a "NOT OUR PROBLEM" attitude.

    1. Re:Conflicted by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Yep. Governments trying to run companies are usually pretty bad at it.

      The problem in this case, and why municipal broadband seems like such a great idea is because monopolies are even worse at it.

      Where governments are usually mismanaged due to incompetence, monopolies have a habit of being actively malicious in order to squeeze every last cent out of their customers while providing as little service above "slightly better than not having it at all" as they can get away with.

      The free market only works when there's competition. Any market controlled by a monopoly or even a small enough oligopoly can never really be free in the economic sense.

  19. I mean by nightfire-unique · · Score: 2

    There are lots of ways to broadcast your ignorance, but not too many as effective as "I am against community broadband."

    Like, seriously. :)

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
  20. Re: Would be nice,but doubtful that it happens imm by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

    Um. No. Wireless will never beat wired. I can pump only so much through the air before that link is saturated. Worse yet, I have to share it with everyone. Not only is there a tradegy of the commons scenario, there's also increased security and privacy concerns as well. With wired, I can keep adding wires. You can't keep adding wireless channels.

  21. Who matters by Maritz · · Score: 1

    Unless corrupt politicians, lobbyists, and cable company wankers all decide that cities should be able to build their own networks, cities won't be building their own networks. What "Americans" think is only tangentially related.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  22. A cooperative corp. seems a natural play IMHO by bdwoolman · · Score: 1

    From Wikipedia "A cooperative (also known as co-operative, co-op, or coop) is an autonomous association of people united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled business."

    I wonder if a state could successfully outlaw a cooperative corporation? IANAL but it seems to me that if they tried they would fail if the co-op had enough public support. And what would the courts say? Now, admittedly, my state of Maryland is bluer than a B.B. King discography. It turns out to have what appears to be a vibrant broadband co-op. which is taking broadband to Southern Maryland. S. Maryland was very rural when I was a boy, but it is now an X-Urb. It seems to me that with some leadership a locality that wanted broadband badly enough could form a co-op if the voters were on board. Anybody have any experience with this?

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
  23. Re: Would be nice,but doubtful that it happens imm by Altrag · · Score: 1

    Wireless beats wired in one significant area: Cost. Not having to obtain right-of-ways (which is not always easy nor cheap) and not having to lay, monitor and maintain hundreds or thousands of miles of cable is an enormous savings. Throw in portability advantage and wireless is a pretty easy sell over wired.

    Sure if you're extremely security conscious, you probably don't want wireless (but then you probably don't want to be using a public ISP at all..) For the rest of us, as long as the data isn't being transmitted raw we're probably safe enough (the ISP and the government can just pull the data from their end anyway.. they don't need to hack the airwaves.)

    As for the bandwidth.. yes its a finite resource, but we're nowhere near exhausting it yet. There's lots of bandwidth out there that's assigned to stupid things from decades ago that could easily be repurposed if the owners relinquished their claims (whether voluntarily or by the government simply confiscating it.) We've seen a few blocks go up on auction in the past several years and there's plenty more out there waiting to be used when the demand starts justifying the cost of going through the repurposing procedures.

    And of course bandwidth is also a shared resource from a geographic perspective. That is, you only need enough to satisfy the most densely populated area.

  24. Re:Sure, until they actually start talking about i by Freischutz · · Score: 1

    Being wary of the government is a hallmark of republicans.

    No it isn't, being wary of government is supposed to be the hallmark of Republicans, but they have shown a great fondness for big government. This is especially true when it allows them to use public funds to buy votes, pokbarrel large defense contracts, shield their friends' businesses from unwanted competition, gerrymandering districts to keep themselves in power, ... , the list goes on. Now, I'm not suggesting Democrats are any better. Just thought I'd get that out there eventhough we are not discussing Dems. and their failings just to preempt the inevitable snowflakes who'd otherwise fill in the gap and accuse me of claiming Dems. are angels of virtue.

  25. I'm sure by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the majority of Americans have zero choices in the broadband market as it exists today.
    ( We're pretty tired of paying $$$$ for mediocre service due, in total, to the monopoly status granted by existing laws )

    If you want a decent internet connection, you'll have exactly one possible choice to go with and it's very much their way or the highway.
    ( Note I said the majority of us. Some of you lucky bastards have Google Fiber or what's left of Fios as competition in your area. The truly
    unlucky ones will have a piss poor DSL connection over an aging copper plant the Telco doesn't even want to maintain anymore. )

    Basically, since our politicians are bought and paid for by the various industries ( in this case, the Cable and Telco lobbies ) our only
    recourse is to try and get enough new folks in place to make some common sense changes before the Lobby Vampires get too cozy.

  26. I have a municipal ISP by enjar · · Score: 1

    I live in a town with a municipal ISP. Our town has a municipal light and power, and it's a part of it.

    Pluses: Price, speed, support are good. Certainly better than I experienced other other commercial ISPs. By extension, our power rates are also very low compared to the rates of other towns that use commercial power providers. They also provide VOIP phone for a decent price. Reliability has been decent. You can unbundle or bundle cable TV, phone and Internet as you like with no significant penalty. A lot of the employees live in town so they are quite literally your neighbors.

    Minuses: We still don't have more than one provider in town. ISP support hours are not 24/7, they are "business hours" only. The electric side of the organization does respond quickly to outages.

  27. Americans say a lot of things. by mcmonkey · · Score: 1

    So supposedly some survey says Americans support municipal broadband. And then those Americans go out and elect politicians who outlaw municipal broadband.

    Surveys say Americans support a higher minimum wage. And then those Americans go out and elect politicians who will fight any minimum wage increase.

    Surveys say Americans support the individual aspects of the Affordable Care Act (when asked about the actual policies and not just about "Obamacare"). And then those Americans go out and elect politicians who will repeal the ACA.

    Surveys says Americans value clean air and water. And then those Americans go out and elect politicians who will defund and eventually destroy the EPA.

    Either these surveys are full of shit, or Americans are.

    I'm guess the truth lie somewhere in "all of the above" territory.

  28. NSA, CIA, FBI.... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    all most certainly will support this.... so they don't need to use their hacking tools to get at what user do, to bypass corporate blocks. if there are any...