Tennessee Could Give Taxpayers America's Fastest Internet For Free, But It Gave Comcast and AT&T $45 Million Instead (vice.com)

America! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-12 01:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Making legislated monopolies great again!

Re:America! by ckatko · 2017-04-12 02:17 · Score: 3, Informative

Maybe after you twats realize Democrats also voted for the bill, you could stop letting them get away with goddamn murder while you scream "REEEEEEEEE" at only half of the problem.
https://legiscan.com/TN/bill/H...
Facts? Get those goddamn facts out of here.
Re:America! by Thruen · 2017-04-12 02:24 · Score: 4, Informative

In this situation, "their way" (the current way) is to have regulations that prevents competition from entering an area the cable companies aren't expanding into amyway, "my way" (the alternative that got shot down) is to get rid of the regulation and allow a profitable company to expand where nobody has yet at no additional cost to taxpayers...
Cities providing internet does not create a "legislated monopoly," it creates a public service. However, having legislation that protects monopolies by not allowing competition does create a "legislated monopoly." Really basic stuff here, guys, shouldn't be this difficult for this crowd.
Re:America! by beelsebob · 2017-04-12 02:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Not at all. You create a municipal internet, and you still allow everyone else to compete with it. You just use the government option as a method of making sure competition actually works in the public's interest.
Re:America! by JesseMcDonald · 2017-04-12 03:01 · Score: 2

Not at all. You create a municipal internet, and you still allow everyone else to compete with it.
Fair competition is only possible so long as the municipal ISP doesn't receive any special treatment, such as favorable regulation, access to municipal easements, tax subsidies, municipal bonds, etc. At that point, why make it part of the municipal government at all? An internet co-op could do exactly the same thing without all the conflict of interest.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:America! by ooloorie · 2017-04-12 03:02 · Score: 1

Not at all. You create a municipal internet, and you still allow everyone else to compete with it.
That's a predictable but nonsensical response. If you are concerned that a private market "leads to (natural) monopolies", then adding a publicly financed corporation into the mix is unlikely going to help because usually one of two things is going to happen: either the public option is so bad that it can't compete, or it is so well subsidized by taxes that private companies are relegated to minor status. It's usually the latter, because the people running public corporations have large amounts of political power and tend to get whatever taxes and regulations they need to stay in power. When their business is media related, they can additionally use their corporations for self-promotion and propaganda.
Hence my point: A "legislated monopoly" would be if those cities created municipal internets.
Re:America! by Nemyst · 2017-04-12 03:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Nice of you to immediately assume political partisanship when none was mentioned by the parent.
Re:America! by i_ate_god · 2017-04-12 03:14 · Score: 1, Insightful

yes, a public service, where the voting public can have some say in how it is managed.
Tell me, what power do you have over a corporate monopoly to change its ways?

--
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Re:America! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-12 03:18 · Score: 1

> either the public option is so bad that it can't compete
"EPB is profitable"
> or it is so well subsidized by taxes
"and doesn't rely on taxpayer money"
It's almost as if everyone anticipates that tired shit.
Re:America! by Rhipf · 2017-04-12 03:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

Fair competition is only possible so long as the commercial ISP doesn't receive any special treatment, such as favorable regulation, exclusive access to region, ability to get tax money when they feel threatened by a competitor... .
FTFY :-)
Re:America! by sdinfoserv · 2017-04-12 03:49 · Score: 1

Not quite - I was with a local municipality - the only internet as a services works as a Government utility is when there are no options. A really small and/or remote town is not "profitable" enough for the regular guys to wire so they ignore it. Internet is developed by need as opposed to capitalism. It those circumstances, the competition model does not work. It's also REALLY expensive. Fiber to the home for a town of (c) 30K is (c) $40M. That's a tough nut for tax payers to swallow.
Re:America! by Strider- · 2017-04-12 04:20 · Score: 1

The way you structure things like this is that the municipality (or PUD, depending on the region) builds out the physical infrastructure, and then you allow multiple content providers (television and internet) access to that infrastructure.
I'm pretty familiar with the situation in Chelan County and Douglas County in Washington State. There, their respective PUDs have built out nearly complete FTTH networks, running over the PUD right of ways and what not. The PUD handles the physical infrastructure up to, and including the ONTs. The consumers then have the choice of 5 or 6 ISPs and television providers, and business customers also have direct access to transit (Zayo and Level3 have access).
The network is very reliable, the service is extremely affordable, and there is real competition. The PUD is accountable to the citizens of the area both through regular audits, and at election time. It's pretty much a win-win situation for everyone involved, unless you're Comcast, Verizon, or Frontier.

--
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Re:America! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-12 04:23 · Score: 1

Fair competition is only possible so long as the government doesn't partake in graft and corruption
Fixed your FTFY.
Re:America! by beelsebob · 2017-04-12 04:25 · Score: 1

The whole point is to make the competition somewhat unfair. You should what someone who doesn't have a profit motive, but instead a public service motive would do. That forces all the guys with profit motives to show them how to run the thing efficiently, and *still* make a profit while providing all those good services.
Re:America! by beelsebob · 2017-04-12 04:27 · Score: 1

Which is kinda my point. If you're going to end up with a legalised monopoly, I'd rather have a non-profit one run for the benefit of the people, than a for-profit one run for the benefit of the shareholders.
Re:America! by JesseMcDonald · 2017-04-12 04:52 · Score: 1

The way you structure things like this is that the municipality ... builds out the physical infrastructure, and then you allow multiple content providers ... access to that infrastructure.... The network is very reliable, the service is extremely affordable, and there is real competition.
I can believe that there is real competition between Internet gateways, but in this scenario the city itself holds a privileged position as the provider of the infrastructure—by far the largest part of a local ISP's capital investment. The separation is beneficial, to be sure, but there is no need for the city to supply the network. Unless there is special treatment (i.e. corruption) involved, a co-op could handle that part just as well as the city can, and competition among local network providers is just as important as competition over peering and transit.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:America! by JesseMcDonald · 2017-04-12 05:03 · Score: 1

The whole point is to make the competition somewhat unfair. You should [show?] what someone who doesn't have a profit motive, but instead a public service motive would do.
Changing the motivation does not make the competition unfair. Granting one service provider special treatment and legal privileges not available to other providers of similar services makes the competition unfair.
A co-op is managed for by the benefit of its members/customers, not outside investors, and would thus serve just as well while maintaining a level playing field with commercial service providers. The options are not limited to investor-driven corporations and governments.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:America! by Strider- · 2017-04-12 05:10 · Score: 1

but in this scenario the city itself holds a privileged position as the provider of the infrastructure—by far the largest part of a local ISP's capital investment.

I would argue that in this kind of a situation, the physical plant is about as close to a natural monopoly as it can get. It isn't beneficial to the citizens to have multiple water mains, multiple sewer mains, or multiple electrical distribution systems. The optimal response to that situation, then is to have a well regulated monopoly that is responsible to the people it affects, not just those it serves, or some faraway shareholder. Back in the days of copper it made sense to have a phone system, and a cable distribution system. In the modern era, to me it doesn't make sense to have more than one fiber plant.
Now, I'm not going to argue that this should prohibit the deployment of other technologies. The satellite network I operate out of that region is dual-homed, one connection on the PUD fiber, the other on a cable modem on the old physical CATV plant.
I'm not going to argue politics here, it's just that I have seen it work very very well for the consumer and taxpayer in those regions. Those counties also have amongst the lowest power rates in the nation, because they also own and have well maintained a couple of hydro-electric power plants over the decades. Part of their incorporating papers is that the profits earned from selling power to the outside is plowed back into a) maintaining and improving their own infrastructure and b) subsidizing local rate payers. They were also able to use those profits to build out the fiber network.

--
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
Re:America! by Shotgun · 2017-04-12 06:06 · Score: 1

But, in this scenario, the city owns the only part of the network which requires the city to use the power of eminent domain to be built out. This scenario allow the government to avoid the moral quandary of forcibly taking property from private individuals to serve the desires of another.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Re:America! by ooloorie · 2017-04-12 06:33 · Score: 1

If you're going to end up with a legalised monopoly, I'd rather have a non-profit one run for the benefit of the people, than a for-profit one run for the benefit of the shareholders.
False dichotomy. The only reason we end up with "legalised monopolies" is because government regulations create them. Cable and Internet service is no more a natural monopoly than apples or bolts. The idea that the market causes monopolies is tired, ignorant old Marxism and fascism.
Having said that, government monopolies are not run for the benefit of the people; they are run for the benefit of politicians and government employees, which in no way coincide with the benefit of the people.
Re:America! by erapert · 2017-04-12 07:17 · Score: 1

What if I'm against both kinds of legislated monopolies?
Re:America! by grahamsz · 2017-04-12 07:37 · Score: 1

It also really works.
I've got municipal 1Gbps fiber and Comcast are offering me 300Mbps cable for $50/mo or 2Gbps fiber for $300/mo. Centurytel are supposed to be making fiber available here too. The net effect is that i will soon have 3 choices for fiber to the home, when without municipal internet I strongly suspect that i'd have none.
Re:America! by LoyalOpposition · 2017-04-12 08:18 · Score: 1

So let's say it doesn't receive any special treatment (not like private ISPs don't get special treatment because they do). According to the libertarian conservative narrative there's no way a publicly run enterprise could possibly be competitive with the lean, efficient, absolutely perfect capitalist private sector. There's just no way that could possibly happen so why not let them?
Because if you were to try it then the municipality would have a vested interest in the success of the publicly run enterprise. The municipality would find it irresistible to refrain from putting their thumbs on the scale, especially if it means that failure of the publicly run enterprise would reflect negatively on the municipal government. If only one enterprise could go first, then the publicly run enterprise would get first choice. When measuring success, profits by the private sector would be counted as a negative. Costs of the publicly run enterprise wouldn't be counted because they are paid for by government. (Office space in city hall, for example.) The list is endless.

--
I aim to misbehave.
Re:America! by AaronW · 2017-04-12 12:25 · Score: 1

My water is county and I have no complaints about it compared to when my water came from Citizens Utilities. After the county took over (and spent a fortune), the water became drinkable and no longer came out brown from the faucet. Additionally, the price of water dropped to a fraction of what it was when CU controlled it. The county water also sends me quarterly reports and the board members are elected so they answer to the voters. I wish our power were municipal. A nearby city has municipal power and their rates are a lot cheaper than PG&E and without the mismanaged criminal lack of maintenance either (i.e. the San Bruno explosion. It took years before PG&E would fix a gas leak at my parents house (even when you could see it bubbling though the ground when the sprinklers ran).

--
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Re:America! by Darinbob · 2017-04-12 16:33 · Score: 1

The government here only stepped in when it was clear that the commercial provides had zero interest in providing reasonable service. The city government is responsible for providing necessary infrastructure and services to its residents, including water, sewer, power, etc. If there are commercial entities providing such services then governments will usually rely on them or contract to them, but will provide their own services when necessary. Broadband access to the internet is rapidly becoming a necessary infractructure, so it is the responsibility of governments to ensure the infrastructure exists even if the corporate interests continue to treat it as a luxury item suitable only for the largest cities.
Fair competition is irrelvent when there is no competition because of a monopoly, or when there is no competition because no provider is even in the market to begin with. People need to stop worshiping an unfettered free market as if it was the answer to everything and start noticing when the free market screws things up. The major ISPs can compete with governments, they just don't want to since it's easier for profits to rely upon the inability of their customers to choose better options.
Re:America! by Darinbob · 2017-04-12 16:38 · Score: 1

Conservative politicians are not libertarians. They're basically identical to liberal politicians, both are up for sale to the highest corporate bidders.
Re: America! by Renaissance+Slacker · 2017-04-13 00:17 · Score: 1

This to me is what the role of government should be, where the market fails to serve citizens. One state had shitty, super-expensive monopoly electric service. State and/or federal agencies helped a fledgling electric co-op get organized and recruit more members until it was big enough to force the shitty utility to upgrade its equipment and slash its rates. Why can't the FCC start a program that models broadband co-ops?
Re:America! by Dr_Terminus · 2017-04-13 08:24 · Score: 1

What are you talking about? The market absolutely causes monopolies! Historically it has been the government who has had to come in to bust up the monopolies. Go look at what Roosevelt had to do in the early part of last century to prevent monopolies from screwing the country.
I do agree with you that cable and internet service is no more a natural monopoly than apples or bolts, but with a caveat. If the actual copper/fiber is treated as a utility (like water/sewage pipes, power lines, etc), then there is no reason why multiple companies shouldn't be able to compete to sell me their internet/cable service over the same set of lines that go to my house. But if you are suggesting that Time Warner, Comcast, etc all run separate lines to my house to compete, then that makes as much sense as advocating for 'competing' roadways. It just won't work.
Re:America! by ooloorie · 2017-04-13 12:24 · Score: 1

But if you are suggesting that Time Warner, Comcast, etc all run separate lines to my house to compete, then that makes as much sense as advocating for 'competing' roadways. It just won't work.
No, what I'm suggesting is that the lines running into my house should be privately owned and controlled, just like the roads running into my house (they are owned by an HOA that I'm a member of). The distinctions between an HOA and municipal ownership may seem small, but they are actually huge in practice.

What are you talking about? The market absolutely causes monopolies! Historically it has been the government who has had to come in to bust up the monopolies. Go look at what Roosevelt had to do in the early part of last century to prevent monopolies from screwing the country.
FDR and the progressives at the time were fascists-lite, with the same broken ideas about the economy as Mussolini and Hitler (for whom they expressed open admiration). FDR was probably a necessary evil at the time, but I hold no admiration for that man or his ideas.
Re:America! by Dr_Terminus · 2017-04-13 12:33 · Score: 1

Might want to do some brushing up on your history.
First, FDR certainly did not express open admiration for Hitler and Mussolini.
Second, trust busting happened under a different Roosevelt (hopefully you knew there were two). Teddy Roosevelt was president at the turn of the century, and was a Republican, so really has nothing to do with your screed on FDR.
Getting basic facts wrong like this makes it really difficult to give credence to any of your other ideas.
Re:America! by ooloorie · 2017-04-13 13:32 · Score: 1

First, FDR certainly did not express open admiration for Hitler and Mussolini.
He most certainly did. There are plenty of other sources.

Second, trust busting happened under a different Roosevelt (hopefully you knew there were two). Teddy Roosevelt was president at the turn of the century, and was a Republican, so really has nothing to do with your screed on FDR.
They were both progressives and they both believed in massive interference in the economy. Their party affiliation is largely irrelevant: although progressives (and their bad ideas) were more common among Democrats, they existed in both parties. Next time, just be specific which Roosevelt you are referring to.
Re: America! by MooseMiester · 2017-04-14 01:07 · Score: 1

I agree with you but I'd bet that State had a shitty, super-expensive monopoly electric service because the government allowed it to come into existence. The five year ban on a revolving door between government and lobbying implemented by the Trump Administration needs to be implemented nationwide.

If you put the government in charge of the Saraha Desert, in five years there would be a sand shortage - Milton Friedman. It's a true statement...

--
Murphy was an optimist
Re:America! by AutodidactLabrat · 2017-04-14 08:51 · Score: 1

Fair competition is only possible so long as the government doesn't partake in graft and corruption
Fixed your FTFY.
So only corporations are permitted to gain by graft and corruption?
Thanks for explaining away libertarian idiocy

Money well spent. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-12 01:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Government working for it's constituents at the finest.

Re:Money well spent. by Shatrat · 2017-04-12 01:12 · Score: 4, Informative

A politician's constituents are the people who donated the most to their campaign.

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re:Money well spent. by religionofpeas · 2017-04-12 01:47 · Score: 2

The best government money can buy.
Re: Money well spent. by cjjjer · 2017-04-12 01:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

You realize that Republican and Democrat does not mean anything in the USA anymore right? Lobbyists have owned both parties for awhile now so there is no more red vs. blue only the green party (and I don't mean environment).
Re:Money well spent. by Opportunist · 2017-04-12 01:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Anarchy essentially means that whoever has the most power will rule, make the laws and enforce them to his own benefit.
Hmm. I fail to see the difference to the current situation.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Money well spent. by PoopJuggler · 2017-04-12 02:05 · Score: 1

Anarchy means exactly the opposite of what you said.
Re:Money well spent. by DontBeAMoran · 2017-04-12 02:06 · Score: 1, Insightful

I think you just described a totalitarian regime, not anarchy.
On the other hand, you also described the U.S.A.

--
#DeleteFacebook
Re: Money well spent. by knightghost · 2017-04-12 02:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

Spot on. The only real party in the USA is the Corporate Party. It's biggest enemy is Social Media and it does everything it can to twist it.
Re:Money well spent. by religionofpeas · 2017-04-12 02:11 · Score: 2

I think you just described a totalitarian regime, not anarchy.
One leads inevitably to the other, because power begets power.
Re:Money well spent. by methano · 2017-04-12 02:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

This has gotten to be standard fare. About 6 or 7 years ago, Wilson NC, fed up with Comcast or some such equally evil monopoly, took the bull by the horns and installed fiber throughout the city and gave everybody 1 Gbit service for $40 a month. Anyhow, the NC legislature, bought and paid for, almost immediately passed a law banning such practices. And that was with a Democrat as Governor, though a very Republican legislature would have overridden if she had the guts to veto. And so we all bent over and let TWC put it to us for another 5 years. When AT&T showed up, things got slightly better. The remote works pretty well now.
Re:Money well spent. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-12 03:30 · Score: 1

Anarchy means no government.
No government means whoever has the biggest stick wins.
Whoever has the biggest stick likely wants to continue having the biggest stick, and will thus amass allies.
This person will then direct their allies in a certain fashion, designed to ensure that they remain the one with the biggest stick.

So.. how exactly is anarchy "exactly the opposite" of what Opportunist described?
Re:Money well spent. by Opportunist · 2017-04-12 03:48 · Score: 1

Yes, but people are assholes and would rather make others work than work themselves. "True" Anarchy is the absence of rule. But, as stated a few words back, people are assholes and if I can make you work instead of working myself, that's what I will do.
Hence whoever has a chance to oppress someone else will do so, if only for the sake of having to work less for more gain.
That's why Communism failed. People don't like working.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Money well spent. by Opportunist · 2017-04-12 03:50 · Score: 1

Anarchy in its purest form, the total absence of any kind of rule, works exactly as long as there is exactly one person.
As soon as you have two, one of them will try to make the other one work for him.
People are assholes. And they really, really hate to work if they can get away without it.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Money well spent. by Opportunist · 2017-04-12 03:52 · Score: 1

A power vacuum is quickly filled by someone wanting to wield that power.
Yes, in theory Anarchy is the absence of rule. In practice, it ends up as whoever can oppress the rest rules. Take, well, any place ever where organized rule (i.e. government) breaks down. Take, say, Somalia.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re: Money well spent. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-12 03:59 · Score: 1

Sounds like you described the federal government. The US is an anarchy?
Re:Money well spent. by Pfhorrest · 2017-04-12 05:37 · Score: 2

Anarchy by definition means nobody is ruling over anybody.
The problem is that anarchy is unstable and tends to collapse into states; and new states are usually the worst kind, where whoever has the most power rules.
So if you've got a stable state that's better than that, that's better than switching to an unstable utopia that will immediately collapse into something much worse.
But if you can keep making your stable state better and better, the limit toward which you are perfecting it is anarchy.
Improving states over the "whoever has the most power will rule" kind is a slow march of progress toward anarchy, not away from it.
Anarchy is the peak we're trying to climb up to. "Whoever has the most power will rule" is the ground below. The hard part is climbing further up the mountain without losing your tenuous grip on where you already are, and falling all the way down to the bottom again. Leaping straight from the cliff face you're barely clinging to while stretching your arms upward is not a recommended technique.

--
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Re:Money well spent. by Pfhorrest · 2017-04-12 08:54 · Score: 1

Anarchy means no state; no monopoly on the use of force. Nobody ruling, unchallenged, over everyone else. Preventing states requires some kind of governance. The challenge is just how to have governance that is not backed by a state, and so self-defeating. That is what (stable) anarchy is: stateless governance. You can briefly have ungoverned statelessness, which is technically anarchy, for a moment, but it will almost immediately collapse into the worst kind of states and cease to be anarchy anymore.
"Whoever has the biggest stick wins" is that worst kind of state, which is not anarchy but its opposite, even though unstable anarchy will tend to collapse into it. All other forms of government in between them are various degrees of having states act less state-like, more anarchic, more free and equal and less concentrated power ruling over all with an iron fist, without sacrificing their stability and collapsing into the worst form of state.

--
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Re: Money well spent. by Pfhorrest · 2017-04-12 08:59 · Score: 1

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." The international stage is anarchic, because governments (states, technically) are not governed by anything but themselves. There is no world-state mediating international disputes, just various attempts between the individual states to get along with each other, to various degrees of success.

--
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Re:Money well spent. by Pfhorrest · 2017-04-12 09:04 · Score: 1

Somalia has a government. Somalia has lots of governments; it's essentially a bunch of tiny countries now. They're the worst kind of governments, because that's usually the kind of government that springs up out of a power vacuum, but they're still governments, not anarchy. Somalia is what you get in the aftermath of an unstable anarchy's collapse; it's not anarchy itself. (That leave the hard question of how to make anarchy stable and keep it from collapsing; or at the least, to keep it from collapsing into that, to make sure that if it fails, it fails safely into a liberal democracy instead of warlords).

--
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Re:Money well spent. by sjames · 2017-04-12 12:15 · Score: 1

That's the thing, given an anarchy, it WILL devolve to something like Somalia because by definition there's nothing to forbid it.
Re:Money well spent. by Pfhorrest · 2017-04-12 12:58 · Score: 1

Not by definition. In concept it is possible to have governance without states; governance where nobody claims a monopoly on the use of force, but there is a stable arrangement of force keeping anyone from the unchecked use of it against anyone else. That is what stable anarchy requires. The difficulty is in coming up with such a distribution of force that stays distributed and does not become a monopoly, a state. One of the primary difficulties is in funding such an organization in a way that guarantees universal access for everyone. Even if a state were to evolve to such a mode where it allowed the maximally compossible liberty, providing the law enforcement necessary for that and not transgressing against that itself, not even claiming a monopoly on the legislation or enforcement of that law, merely providing the universal service of defending people from each other and mediating disputes, and allowing others to provide that service as well if they so chose (only existing so that everyone has universal access to such a service, and not only the rich)... how is it going to fund the provision of that service? States are funded by taxes, which would be reckoned theft if done by one party among equals and not a monopoly that grants itself an exception. So until we can figure out a way to fund a government without taxes, we cannot have stateless governance, and so cannot have stable anarchy. Which is still not an a priori insurmountable problem. It's just a very hard one.

--
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Re:Money well spent. by sjames · 2017-04-12 14:41 · Score: 1

So, in other words, short of a handwavy something or another not yet known to man, anarchy will inevitably devolve into the worst form of state.
It looks to me like the balance of force necessary to manage that makes my broken teacup spontaneously re-assembling and returning itself to the cupboard look like a sure bet.
Whatever the handwavy thing must be, it cannot be a monopoly that grants itself an exception. That would be a state. It cannot be a consortium of non-monopoly actors unless each person is a member of that consortium by virtue of existing. But they would all need to be equally powerful. I am not aware of anything but a powerful communist state that could maintain that state of affairs for long, and even that would have to have an unprecedented low level of corruption. (and of course, it would not be anarchy)
Re:Money well spent. by Pfhorrest · 2017-04-12 15:19 · Score: 1

People said similar things about democracy never working. People probably said similar things about the ability of a decentralized network of academic peers to explain the origins of life, the universe, and everything better than their favorite religious authority. The point is that it's not "inevitably" or "by definition", we just haven't figured out all the finer details yet, and it's a worthwhile long-term goal, what we should be striving generation over generation to inch ever closer toward.
Big picture, broad strokes, it's super easy to imagine something like it. We can argue all day about ways in which that broad strokes big picture would fall apart, and what we could do to prevent that, but that's the finer details we've yet to work out; the general idea is easy to imagine. A free society of roughly equal people freely trading with each other for the goods and services they need to survive, organized together into cooperative organizations with widely distributed ownership (employee-owned, member-owned, etc), including the service of protection from those who would wrong them, i.e. governance. Where "wrong", matters of law, are not just decreed by any one party but worked out in a reasoned, methodical, collaborative way, much like the way matters of fact are worked out by science, and not for anyone to simply decree. I was starting to write out more of this "rough sketch" but then I realized I'm going into too much detail, and I'm not here to argue the details right now. The point is that it's easy to imagine, broadly, a system of stateless governance. It's also pretty easy to poke holes in any quick statement of what it would be, to find ways that it would fail. But it's not hard to patch up most of those holes, to come up with ways to prevent that failure. It's a little harder to poke further holes, and harder still to patch those up, and you can go back and forth getting into more and more nuance and detail and it becomes harder work for both sides the further into it you go.
But it's hard work that's worth doing, when it's not at all clear that it's going to be impossible from the outset, and the results would be magnificent if you finally got it done. And it's work that we, human civilization, have been doing. Liberalism, democracy, various approaches to socialism, are all trying, with degrees of success that would surprise ancient peoples, to inch us closer and closer to a world where we are all free and equal and not ruled over by anyone. We still have a long, long way to go, but we've already made remarkable progress, and it would be foolish to say "this is as far as is possible" and give up on all further progress.
(Of course, it would also be foolish to risk all that we've achieved so far on a reckless gamble for more that will almost certainly lose everything, but I'm not suggesting we do that).

--
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Re:Money well spent. by Pfhorrest · 2017-04-12 15:40 · Score: 1

A quick addendum I thought of after writing my other reply:
Go back in time a thousands years and tell anyone, anywhere, that you live in a country where there are no monarchs, no aristocracy, and no slaves; where everyone is both a freeman and a commoner; and where a laundry list of rights are legally guaranteed and the powers of the state are legally curtailed. They wouldn't believe you; such a civilization is impossible, it would collapse immediately, they'd say. But we look back on them now as primitive unenlightened civilizations of a darker age. I hold out hope that a thousand years in the future, people will look back on us the same way, and see our states, capitalists, and working poor the same way we see medieval kings, nobles, and serfs.

--
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Re: Money well spent. by Renaissance+Slacker · 2017-04-13 00:41 · Score: 1

No, there are lots of workaholics. People don't like working when it doesn't directly benefit THEM. Some people don't like working if it benefits people or classes of people they don't like, no matter how tangentially.
Re: Money well spent. by Opportunist · 2017-04-13 20:46 · Score: 1

The people you describe as workaholics here are actually only interested in money. If they could get it easier otherwise, they wouldn't work.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Well who'd've thunk it! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-12 01:08 · Score: 1

The US is super corrupt. Film at 11.

Re:This is what you voted for America. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-12 01:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Let's not pretend like this is a party-specific issue. While they pay more lip service to helping the little guy, Democrats are every bit as much in the pockets of big business as Republicans are.

One party government by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2017-04-12 01:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is what happens when you let one party have a complete stranglehold on state government. The number of Republicans in the state senate are almost 6 to 1 in favor of Republicans. It's almost 3-1 in favor of Republicans in the state house. The governor in Republican and there's no accountability. Voters have shown consistently that the vast majority of them only care about whether a D or R is next to a candidate's name and everything else is negotiable. I'm sure we'll get a few "Throw the bums out" posts, but that's not going to happen. Most of the state governments in the southeastern USA have sizable Republican majorities. I've seen corrupt practices out of the Democrats too when they had strangleholds on states with huge majorities in the state legislature. It's what happens when one party gets entrenched and there's no hope of getting them out.

Re:One party government by matthewcharles2006 · 2017-04-12 01:41 · Score: 2

I was thinking of this in the wake of the K04 election last night. There is a lot of places where it seems no matter how bad Republicans govern, they will not be punished by voters. The incentive for corruption and poor management is extremely high. The reverse does not seem to be true in many "liberal" places, like New York City, NJ, or Massachusetts where there is a strong preference for Democrats but where Republicans can still win if the Dems fuck up enough.
Re:One party government by Opportunist · 2017-04-12 02:00 · Score: 1

And burn all the churches instead of the witches, let's not forget about that!

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:One party government by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-12 02:07 · Score: 1

There's one big difference between the South and the North, and it is closely related to why it's Chattanooga that has muni fiber and not, say, Memphis. That difference is called "black people". Blacks cannot be allowed to control things, because they make an utter hash of it - if you don't think so, name one majority-black city you would want to live in and believe to be well-governed.Everything in Southern politics flows out of this. You think the average redneck gives a damn about what Wall Street wants? No. But he sure as hell knows that a corrupt government run by people like him is preferable to one run by the blacks. He's heard of Detroit, Gary, Compton, Memphis...
Re:One party government by Immerman · 2017-04-12 02:07 · Score: 1

That is one of the big advantages of "top two" primaries - if your state is securely "locked in" to one party, then the primary will reflect that, and you'll end up with a choice between two members of that party for office. Then it won't be party loyalty that decides which candidate wins, and corrupt established politicians will face genuine competition for their seat.
Plus it gives an advantage to moderates who are able to reach across the aisle and appeal to opposing party voters as well, so "losing party" voters get at least some say in their government, and are more likely to at least get the lesser of two evils,

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:One party government by chihowa · 2017-04-12 02:41 · Score: 2

Unfortunately, they do try that shit every time they get even a slight majority.
If the Dems would drop the "OMG gunz!!1!" issue, they would get a lot more support. Drop the identity politics, too, and they'd become a pretty reasonable party (if still heavily authoritarian, like almost all US parties).

--
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Re:One party government by jbgroup1 · 2017-04-12 02:43 · Score: 2

There's one big difference between the South and the North, and it is closely related to why it's Chattanooga that has muni fiber and not, say, Memphis. That difference is called "black people". Blacks cannot be allowed to control things, because they make an utter hash of it - if you don't think so, name one majority-black city you would want to live in and believe to be well-governed. He's heard of Detroit, Gary, Compton, Memphis...
Washington. DC
Re:One party government by Trailer+Trash · 2017-04-12 02:46 · Score: 1

This is what happens when you let one party have a complete stranglehold on state government. The number of Republicans in the state senate are almost 6 to 1 in favor of Republicans. It's almost 3-1 in favor of Republicans in the state house. The governor in Republican and there's no accountability. Voters have shown consistently that the vast majority of them only care about whether a D or R is next to a candidate's name and everything else is negotiable. I'm sure we'll get a few "Throw the bums out" posts, but that's not going to happen. Most of the state governments in the southeastern USA have sizable Republican majorities. I've seen corrupt practices out of the Democrats too when they had strangleholds on states with huge majorities in the state legislature. It's what happens when one party gets entrenched and there's no hope of getting them out.
Unfortunately, that doesn't apply here. When we were fighting the SuperDMCA bill so many years ago, the cable lobby had Curtis Person (R) as the senator (his son headed the cable lobby here in TN, by the way) and Rob Briley (D) as their house boy. Basically, they own both parties and it's really difficult to get decent legislation passed that affects them.

--
Do you have ESP?
Re:One party government by houghi · 2017-04-12 02:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

It is a one party government, even if there are two parties named. The issue is the 'winner takes all'. So it does not matter if they have 90% or 51%
With a multi party system where it is not winner-takes-all you need to do real politics. That means negotiating and making deals. That will lead in general to what most people want, not want the mere majority wants.
Instead of black-white, you will see a LOT of grey. And in the end that will serve more people.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:One party government by moeinvt · 2017-04-12 02:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Democrats will take ma guns..."
Go ahead & mock people while you keep losing elections by alienating millions of voters who lean Democrat but will vote Republican based on this one issue. Your last presidential candidate even went so far as to say that Australia-style gun confiscation is "worth considering".
If you're a Democrat, you'd be smart to tell your party to drop gun control from the platform. It's no coincidence that Democrats lost their decades-long majorities in both Congress and the Senate right after they passed the first major federal gun control law since 1968; A defeat from which they have never recovered.
This issue is a boat anchor on your party. After 22 years, isn't it time to cut your losses & move on to more important things?
Re:One party government by bugs2squash · 2017-04-12 03:07 · Score: 1

One shouldn't compromise on values.

--
Nullius in verba
Re:One party government by mea2214 · 2017-04-12 05:09 · Score: 1

I've seen corrupt practices out of the Democrats too when they had strangleholds on states

Illinois
Re:One party government by Anonymous+Curmudgeon · 2017-04-12 06:30 · Score: 1

Arguably, the Freedom Caucus in the House and President Trump in the White House make it something of a four party system, currently. Three of those parties operate with the Republican label, but maybe sub-parties are the way we need to go. Perhaps this will lead to more negotiating and deal-making in the future, but I don't think anyone is there, yet.
Re:One party government by gruntspeak · 2017-04-13 06:17 · Score: 1

Your last presidential candidate even went so far as to say that Australia-style gun confiscation is "worth considering".
If you're a Democrat, you'd be smart to tell your party to drop gun control from the platform.

Yeah, except that she didn't. As a gun-owning Libertarian, the only thing I find more frustrating than everyone's willingness to spread and consume misinformation is how much everyone seems to have missed the whole point about gun ownership. If you're a Republican OR a Democrat, you'd be smart to remember that the 2nd amendment isn't about letting you have guns just because you like them. The 2nd amendment is about giving you have the ability...the responsibility actually...to defend the Constitution against tyranny. All of it. Even the parts of it you don't always care for. Liberals aren't coming for your guns. An no, owning a gun isn't a sign of mental illness. But paranoia sure is.

doubts by argStyopa · 2017-04-12 01:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

I know the intent of the article is to make people enraged, and it certainly seems like something's going wrong here.

However, I have serious, fundamental reservations about government competing with the free market.

While certainly there are some circumstances, and this may well be one, where government can beneficially 'manage the commons' better than private or for-profit interests, there's something troubling about government agencies, on taxpayer funds, driving private firms out of business.

Yes, I see from the article that EPB runs a profit, and doesn't take tax money for operation. But do they bear the long-term capital costs that a private firm would for infrastructure? They certainly get use of city right-of-ways, no? In disputes over land use or zoning, I have to imagine they get a far more sympathetic hearing from city agencies?

In any case, it should be in the interest of any citizen to doubt the wisdom of establishing and protecting anti-competitive markets in the long run, not to mention the idea of a business having (essentially) the power of law enforcement on their side.

http://reason.com/archives/201...

--
-Styopa

Re:doubts by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-12 01:38 · Score: 1

"However, I have serious, fundamental reservations about government competing with the free market."
This is the government competing IN the market, not WITH it. For instance, one thing we could do to improve the ACA would be to have the government provide a public option to compete in the health insurance market - which would be helpful, because right now competition in the exchanges is little to non-existent. Or we could just replace with single-payer, but I digress.
In an age where there is very poor competition among ISPs and they have become oligopolies, yes, it's a demonstration that true free market capitalism fails. When we don't have the government stepping into a market to ensure competition, the market has a tendency to let mergers and acquisitions reduce competition. So I am all in favor of the government intervening to promote competition, especially when we're talking about a service that has become so essential as decent-speed internet. For all kinds of things, but even searching and applying for jobs, having a decent internet connection is practically a necessity. Internet is not essential to life in the way that water is, but again, it's a practical necessity and we should ensure everyone has access to it. Yesterday, Slashdot posted an article about a similar topic (https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/04/10/218226/americans-support-letting-cities-build-their-own-broadband-networks-pew-finds), in which 70% of the Americans surveyed agreed that local governments should be able to provide high-speed service when existing companies fail to do so. It's mildly similar to how the USPS delivers packages to remote locations on behalf of FedEx and UPS, because they won't deliver that far out. Sometimes we do need government to do what private companies won't.
Re:doubts by Maritz · 2017-04-12 01:47 · Score: 2

there's something troubling about government agencies, on taxpayer funds, driving private firms out of business.
What private firms have been driven out of business here? The ones that have been given $45M of taxpayer money? I don't see anything in the article about companies going out of business. Sorry if i missed it.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Re:doubts by dontbemad · 2017-04-12 01:50 · Score: 1

Its sad that yours is the only post I've seen thus far that even begins to doubt the validity of the article. If I had mod points, I'd give them, but since I don't, just know that you are certainly not the only one here who views inflammatory nonsense like this with skepticism.
Re:doubts by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-12 01:53 · Score: 1

Why does this have a score of 2? The so called "free market" doesn't exist as most people understand it. Let me be very blunt and clear about this. The "free market" does not exist. No market can be completely free because of inefficiencies. Just like no system can violate the laws of thermodynamics. No market can be perfectly competitive, and therefore all markets will have irregularities that can be manipulated. Economists create theories to explain systems, but to simplify their equations they make assumptions like the market has perfect information available to all participants in the market. This is akin to high school physics where you work equations with no friction in the equations to simplify your calculations, and to allow you to learn the other laws, before the complexity of friction is introduced.
Unfortunately, amateur economists sometimes read these papers and extrapolate past the capabilities of the model because they don't realized that the model has been simplified to make a point but has to be interpreted in light of its limitations.
This is one of those cases. Monopolistic markets (BROADBAND service fits this), must be regulated, or provided by the government or you will get significant issues.
Re:doubts by Rockoon · 2017-04-12 02:01 · Score: 1, Insightful

What private firms have been driven out of business here? The ones that have been given $45M of taxpayer money?
Its all the ones that didn't get taxpayer money.

But you wont discuss this subject in any way that resembles an honest consideration of the situation.... because you have an agenda to push.

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:doubts by saider · 2017-04-12 02:04 · Score: 2

I think the difference here is that this is a government owned company, rather than the government itself. For infrastructure needs, I think this makes more sense than a government granted monopoly since the company officers are accountable to the owners, which is the government and people they serve, instead of some distant faceless shareholders.
Personally I think most utilities should be Co-ops where the owners are the people being provided service. The only place where I see free markets working for utilities is in large urban areas where the compact footprint makes deploying service worthwhile and potentially profitable. In rural areas I have visited, Co-ops deliver better service because the big companies are focused on the urban areas.

--

Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
Re:doubts by swb · 2017-04-12 02:10 · Score: 1

I thought the summary was a little bit hyped, but in my opinion municipal data networks aren't inherently anti-competitive and actually encourage competition.
Let some free-standing but government-owned corporation run the municipal network at layer 2 and lower. Mandate they run at only enough profit level to cover their operating costs and future investment/expansion. They provide nothing more than link layer connectivity and operate a CO data center open to all comers -- schools, businesses, for-profit companies, etc, that want to sell data services to subscribers.
In short, regulate the shit out of them but make them independent enough that they can't be easily bullied politically. It might even make sense to bid running the entire infrastructure out to some private company for a 5-10% profit ceiling with all the expected rewards and penalties for mismanagement or cost overruns.
At this point, there is no real state "competition" to business. No business wants to compete on last mile connectivity -- it's a money loser for sure, and its why so few businesses, including Google, have made much of an effort or traction in building out new last mile networks in the face of existing last mile networks. Comcast, et al, only want to be in that business to the extent its a practical monopoly to extract rents from.
In a municipal network, the data providers (ISPs, video, phones) whatever you can pump over a data network can actually compete. Of course Comcast hates this because now they're having to justify a $100 TV package versus $50 for a half-dozen streaming accounts. No rents to be extracted for an inferior product.
Re:doubts by sjames · 2017-04-12 13:35 · Score: 1

Take every single internet provider (minus resellers) and force them to all compete in the same territory and you still don't have enough competition to make market forces work properly. But you will get hopelessly snarled utility poles.
Of course, even were that not so, free competition apparently wasn't on the table. The options were give public money to private interests or let the public utility expand.
Re:doubts by sjames · 2017-04-12 13:48 · Score: 1

Its all the ones that didn't get taxpayer money.
So where have they been the last 20 years? Certainly not in any of the areas still on dial-up.
Re:doubts by AaronW · 2017-04-16 12:17 · Score: 1

I like how our county water system is handled. The voters elect the directors. If they screw up they'll be voted out of office. Since the water is decent quality and is reasonably priced compared to nearby counties I'm fairly happy, especially compared to what I remember before the county took over the water system from Citizens Utilities. Under CU the water was undrinkable and came out of the tap brown. The county had to replace everything (and found CU was still using wooden pipes in places). The local county system is also quite transparent and sends out quarterly reports on the water system and what they are doing and what their future plans are.
As long as a government run public utility is answerable and accountable to the voters (and not politicians) I think it's fine.

--
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Re:doubts by jon3k · 2017-04-20 02:09 · Score: 1

I have the same inherent concern, but I start from the premise that the internet as as important as roads or power. Second of all, these telcoms have a natural monopoly by being assigned the MSO (which there is massive collusion between cable providers to allow, its basically like a mafia boss meeting) and the LEC laws. So best case you have a government granted duopoly. Third, we've seen successful deregulation to breakup these monopolies in the past all over the world.

The model that interests me is allowing the municipality to own the local infrastructure and then internet providers pay for access to the last mile.

I am absolutely a free-market capitalist, but the problem is we've already strangled broadband with regulation. We have to rethink the model, it's not working nearly as well as it should be.

Free fiber! by LaissezFaire · 2017-04-12 01:22 · Score: 1

In other news, Chattanooga has discovered a way to expand infrastructure without paying for any labor or buying any materials.

Re:Free fiber! by bluefoxlucid · 2017-04-12 01:26 · Score: 2

yeah I was wondering: if Verizon and Comcast can build it, can the government then lease it after getting right to expand? Hell, since they paid for it, can they lease it for free?

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.

Even Hitler by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-12 01:26 · Score: 1

Even Hitler din't give millions of dollars of taxpayer money to broadband companies

Re:Even Hitler by Opportunist · 2017-04-12 02:02 · Score: 1

Apologize for that, young man!

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Even Hitler by Maritz · 2017-04-12 02:44 · Score: 2

To be fair, if he did, it would have been quite bizarre to say the least.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.

Will someone from Tennessee by Are+You+Kidding · 2017-04-12 01:27 · Score: 2

please tell us why you tolerate this corrupt behavior by your legislators? $45 million isn't pocket change. Are you really going to ignore this the next time your representatives run for re-election?

Re:Will someone from Tennessee by ScentCone · 2017-04-12 02:29 · Score: 1

Sure, it was a misleading, clickbait headline. But maybe you should at least read the summary.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Will someone from Tennessee by Maritz · 2017-04-12 02:45 · Score: 1

Are you really going to ignore this the next time your representatives run for re-election?
And the answer will be: ignore what?

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Re:Will someone from Tennessee by iggymanz · 2017-04-12 04:33 · Score: 1

nothing corrupt about it, that is vote to use money to help city infrastructure, where most the taxpayers/citizens live.
$45M for all the rural areas in the state is far too little to do anything useful anyway, cities already have foundation in place for networking

It's not a free market by sjbe · 2017-04-12 01:31 · Score: 5, Informative

However, I have serious, fundamental reservations about government competing with the free market.

That might be a valid concern if provision of wireline data was actually a free market. It is not and never has been and there is no reasonable prospect of it becoming one in the near future either. Companies like AT&T and Comcast have a government granted monopoly because of the substantial capital costs involved in setting up and maintaining such a network. As such they need to be regulated to assure against abuses. Given that fact it is perfectly reasonable for the government to get into the market with alternative offerings if the private corporations are not providing sufficient value to the citizens.

Re:It's not a free market by jittles · 2017-04-12 02:28 · Score: 5, Informative

It is not and never has been and there is no reasonable prospect of it becoming one in the near future either.
That's not exactly true. Just look for pictures of NYC at the turn of the century and you can see neighborhoods with hundreds of power and telephone lines from competing companies going through neighborhoods. It's an eyesore and incredibly dangerous. This is why it will never be that way again and why there should be no corporate interests invested in owning utility lines.
Re:It's not a free market by jenningsthecat · 2017-04-12 03:37 · Score: 2

... some local entrepreneur will decide that bringing good internet in a town of 20.000 in bumfuck rural america is profitable in two years and will bite the bullet. he will then be bought by another entrepreneur who's servicing the slightly bigger town next door, and soon you'll have competition.
Yes, you'll have competition - until there are only a few big players left forming an oligopoly that is the antithesis of a 'free market'. That's the thing that free marketards don't get - it doesn't STAY free. And no, don't trot out that old 'if the big players abuse the market someone else will come along to compete' BS. Anyone who comes along to challenge the oligopoly, either gets squashed by the greater resources and deeper pockets of the incumbents, or becomes big and abusive in the process, thereby joining the oligopoly. When for-profit companies get past a certain size, it's almost impossible to bring them down without regulation that has the force of law. (And when laws are purchased by big incumbents, even that's not an option - see TFS). Also, customers in a free market have no power to KEEP that market free unless they get their shit together and act collectively to boycott abusers consistently, for a long enough time to deplete the abusers' war chests. That almost NEVER happens.

... a free market works well in the rest of the world, why not in america?
Citation, please.

--
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Re:It's not a free market by MooseMiester · 2017-04-14 01:30 · Score: 1

It's the LEX that's the problem. We have a score of fiber providers competing with each other. In many states we have lots of electricity companies competing with each other (Texas is a great example) and there is only one set of wires. The LEX is controlled by governments who create the monopolies based on the biggest bribe...

--
Murphy was an optimist

"Broadband Accessibility Act of 2017" by The+Grim+Reefer · 2017-04-12 01:38 · Score: 1

Here's the problem, the bill was called "Broadband Accessibility Act of 2017". So that has to be better than "EPB wants to expand their service". Plus with a name like that, how could any politician not vote for it. If they did, their opponent in the next election would be holding it up as if the incumbent was against broadband accessibility. Politics at most levels has become such a twisted cesspool of lies and misdirection it's no wonder why any decent person avoids running for office.

Separate the infrastructure from the service? by Gilgaron · 2017-04-12 01:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

Through means which don't make sense prima facie, I can switch electric and natural gas providers at will while the utility company continues to provide the connectivity. Why can't we 'nationalize' the fiber but let service providers compete on the service?

Re:Separate the infrastructure from the service? by elrous0 · 2017-04-12 01:45 · Score: 1

Because bribes.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Separate the infrastructure from the service? by Immerman · 2017-04-12 02:21 · Score: 1

Probably no fancy means involved - after all it doesn't matter to you or the providers if you're using gas or electricity that actually came from them, so it can all be done in the utility company's bookkeeping. For every unit of energy that you buy "from Provider A", the utility delivers one unit of energy to you, while buying a unit of energy from Provider A. Ditto for the other providers. Where the specific unit of power delivered came from is irrelevant.
I think it's a wonderful way of doing things, and have advocated for it before. I'd go so far as to suggest banning utility companies from actually being providers at all, in order to avoid the inevitable conflicts of interest.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Separate the infrastructure from the service? by ooloorie · 2017-04-12 02:36 · Score: 1

If all you want is equal access to the wires, there is no need to "nationalize the fiber", you can just separate the hardware provider from the service provider.
However, an even better solution is for cities to just put in conduits instead of digging up the road for every cable.
Re:Separate the infrastructure from the service? by green1 · 2017-04-12 03:12 · Score: 1

What advantage do you get from the extra layer of administration over your gas and electricity providers? There's only one set of wires/pipes. so "deregulation" is a farce. They've convinced you to pay twice for the same service, once to the company actually providing it (the one who actually reads your meter, fixes the pipes or wires, etc) and another one who does nothing but add a layer of extra administration for no benefit.
You can't solve a natural monopoly by adding a competitive layer on top of it, that just means you pay twice for the same service. Either have real competition (doesn't make sense for utilities as nobody wants 30 different wires running to each house) or realize that there's no way to make it a competitive market and start treating it as such by regulating it.
Re:Separate the infrastructure from the service? by techdolphin · 2017-04-12 03:20 · Score: 1

We could nationalize the fiber. They do this in South Korea and internet connectivity is faster and cheaper than in the U.S. Companies pay they same amount for connectivity and compete on price and service. I do not know how South Korea handles their power grid. Given the powerful vested interests supporting the current system, it would be very hard to do.
Re:Separate the infrastructure from the service? by sims+2 · 2017-04-12 03:58 · Score: 1

How? Out here in oklahoma at home I have one choice for electric and water. In town you have one choice for electric, water and gas. That is if you live in an area of the city that the city allowed to have natural gas lines run.
I've heard the city is pretty picky about the permitting anymore something about the natural gas competing with their electric for heating in the winter.
But how would that work I don't really have anything here I could compare it to?

--
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
Re:Separate the infrastructure from the service? by Gilgaron · 2017-04-12 04:10 · Score: 1

It is some accounting thing... the utility company still does the billing, but by changing suppliers I can get different/better rates for the consumable part of things. I'm not sure how to calculate if it saves me any money over before they deregulated, but I suppose it has 'created jobs' in the door-to-door energy supplier salesmen market. You can even get a 'renewable only' provider, but it ends up costing more. In practice it is like calling the cable company every so often to get the better rate, and also akin to that in how they can upgrade your speed without changing anything on your end. It isn't for the water, but if it was, the analogy would be like if any water company could dump water into the source reservoir and you could contract them directly, even though it all mixes together and the utility company owns the pipes used to get the water from the reservoir to your house.
Re:Separate the infrastructure from the service? by Gilgaron · 2017-04-12 04:11 · Score: 1

I'm not sure that I do get much advantage in those cases, it's just the 'way things are'. But if it works for things it is stupid to use it on, like gas and electricity, surely internet connectivity would be even easier.
Re:Separate the infrastructure from the service? by green1 · 2017-04-12 04:42 · Score: 1

So you now pay "x" for internet, your proposal is to continue to pay "x" but have "x" regulated by the government at that price, and then add a surcharge "y" from a different company that provides no service other than administration.
I'm not sure how this is supposed to improve anything. If anything, it causes the company actually providing the service to stop caring about it's quality, after all, you're stuck with them, no matter who you move to for your billing (arguably no different than now, but at least you only pay the one company instead of paying 2)

Re:This is what you voted for America. by Maritz · 2017-04-12 01:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

Golf clap for a master job the GOP did getting people to vote against their own best interests. Bravo, my friends.

Credit would be due if it were somehow 'hard' to fool people. As Mark Twain (allegedly) said, "It's easier to fool a man than to convince him he's been fooled."

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.

Re:Has nothing to do with Telecom Lobby Law by Maritz · 2017-04-12 01:44 · Score: 1

You should have pasted a link or something, because you seem to be the only one saying that.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.

Re:This is what you voted for America. by Opportunist · 2017-04-12 01:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm no fan of the GOP, but face it: It would not have been any different if the Democrats ruled. What would change is who gets to steal from you.

And frankly, if you're a rabbit, do you care whether fox or wolf eats you? It sure matters to fox and wolf, but to you, the outcome isn't that different.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Then maybe Democrats should change policies by Nova+Express · 2017-04-12 01:59 · Score: 1, Insightful

Maybe if Democrats weren't relentlessly pushing for bigger government and SJW victimhood identity politics they could compete with Republicans.

But they chose a relentless drive for power and pushing the culture war over policies Americans actually want. Democrats deliberately pushed "blue dogs" out of the party so progressives could control it to-to-bottom. Democrats backed Bloomberg on civilian disarmament, backed Soros and Steyer on funding #BlackLivesmatter, insisted a man changing his name magically made him a woman, and then wonder why ordinary Americans no longer vote for them.

And really, where are Republicans stopping Democrats in such paradisaical deep blue enclaves like Chicago and Detroit?

--
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

Re:Then maybe Democrats should change policies by AmiMoJo · 2017-04-12 02:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Democrats won the popular vote. In a two horse race they seem pretty competitive.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:Then maybe Democrats should change policies by pj2541 · 2017-04-12 02:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Let it go already. There is no popular vote in the US for president, and never has been. The republicans won by the rules that were in place. If the rules had been different, the campaigns would have also been different, but they weren't.
Re:Then maybe Democrats should change policies by pr0t0 · 2017-04-12 03:04 · Score: 2

Nova Express indicated that Democrats are not competing with Republicans due to their various political stances. What AmiMoJo rightly pointed out was that given we have a two party system, if the popular vote is +/- a few percentage points either way, then support for the political stances of both sides is evidently competitive. I don't believe anyone was making a statement as to which party should currently occupy the Oval Office.
That should have been obvious. As a helpful hint, it's the misinterpretation of information that makes one side think the other is not particularly bright.

--
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Re:Then maybe Democrats should change policies by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-12 03:12 · Score: 1

The point was that more people voted for a Democrat nationwide than a Republican. So it isn't accurate to imply that Republicans are sweeping up voters and winning elections because people don't want to vote for them.
You'd have to be a dense or disingenuous motherfucker to believe the statement meant anything else.
Of course, Republicans are well practiced at both being dense and disingenuous.
Re: Then maybe Democrats should change policies by BlytheBowman · 2017-04-12 05:13 · Score: 1

I was with you till the last item. Being transgender is a helluva lot more involved than just "changing your name to a woman's name" I don't like Caitlyn Jenner, because she did not earn her transition and instead bought her way through it. She did not have to face being abandoned by her entite family, or have to face threats and violence, or have severe depreesion and suicidal thoughts which are often followed by self harm (cutting, etc...), or be denied employment and be forced to do degrading sex work where you have to worry if you will be beaten, tortured, or killed by your client AND getting caught by the police, just to survive. This is what most transgender women and men who don't have $100 million sitting in their bank accounts have to go through. To me, she is just as alien and out of touch as any big celebrity or politician.
Re:Then maybe Democrats should change policies by Holi · 2017-04-12 07:18 · Score: 1

The republicans won due to massive gerrymandering period. If states had proper districts there would never be another republic president.

--
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Re:Then maybe Democrats should change policies by AaronW · 2017-04-16 10:52 · Score: 1

One of the big problems is that voters aren't choosing their candidates. In many cases the politicians are choosing their voters through gerrymandering.

--
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.

Re:This is what you voted for America. by jeff4747 · 2017-04-12 02:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Your statement presumes the Democratic party would yield a different result. That isn't the case. The Democratic party shifted to neoliberalism in the late 80s/early 90s.

The parties differ on social issues. They are identical when it comes to corporate issues.

Re:This is what you voted for America. by PoopJuggler · 2017-04-12 02:06 · Score: 1

And that makes it ok?

Re:This is what you voted for America. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-12 02:08 · Score: 1

The DNC did a bang-up job of shooting themselves in the foot by actively undermining a candidate's campaign (and getting caught with their pants down), then subsequently nominating one of the most corrupt, untrustworthy, and disliked candidates in DNC history. So don't give the GOP too much credit, the DNC did more than their fair share.

In reality, we were screwed either way. It was a choice between a madman or perhaps the last phase in the elitists push for globalization. The AVP tagline comes to mind... "Whoever wins, we lose."

captcha: royally, as in we were ROYALLY screwed.

INSTANT RUN OFF VOTING by bussdriver · 2017-04-12 02:11 · Score: 1

Primitive Voting promotes 2 party rule. The single biggest fix one can make is to put in a modern voting system which allows more than 2 parties to get access to power (and by modern I do not mean electronic!) Divide up the duopoly control over the system.

That is just 1 big thing; there are so many other problems wrong in the system (and the citizens) no single thing will fix it. The American Empire is falling after such a short run; I never read about one that turned it around.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news

Re:Monopolies suck. $4,400/house aint free by drinkypoo · 2017-04-12 02:18 · Score: 4, Informative

It's not free. It's government providing needed infrastructure. High speed Internet access is a requirement for being a first-class citizen in the modern age.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

What is with these headlines? by ScentCone · 2017-04-12 02:27 · Score: 1, Informative

I know it's hardly a new complaint, but Slashdot's recent trend towards not merely provocative but 100%-contrary-to-the-facts-of-the-matter headlines is really getting ridiculous.

Yes, the city/state government could have spent a bunch of money to "give the fastest internet for free" to the people inside the urban bounds of Chattanooga. OR, they could use that money to make it worth the providers' time to extend that lovely fast service out in to the surrounding areas that have no access at all. Which is what they're doing. They didn't "give" the money to the infrastructure people. They're funding an expansion of the infrastructure into areas of the state where the availability of such business offerings will eventually do a lot to grow the state's economy and tax base. The headline is very and deliberately misleading. We can certainly debate whether or not TN should be spending money in this way, but that's not the same as purposefully misrepresenting the situation in a fit of juvenile clickbaiting. Knock it off, Slashdot.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.

Re:What is with these headlines? by ScentCone · 2017-04-12 05:32 · Score: 1

Really? You consider reporting what the SUMMARY SAYS instead of what the clickbait headline says to be doing "mental gymnastics?"

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:What is with these headlines? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-12 05:58 · Score: 1

I live in NW Georgia just outside of Chattanooga ... the issue is that EPB wants to be able to sell service outside of Chattanooga, to include where I live. The service is far superior to Charter which is the only broadband provider available where I live. EPB doesn't want any tax dollars to expand service to under served areas, they want the law that Comcast/Charter bought repealed. The headline means that taxpayers (me) could get the fastest internet available at no cost to taxpayers for EPB to expand. Service won't be free as we will still pay monthly.
Re:What is with these headlines? by ScentCone · 2017-04-12 06:15 · Score: 1

I would consider that to be just fine. If you want to live a bit on the outskirts, it's never about paying, it's about being able to get high speed service at all, regardless of who's buying.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:What is with these headlines? by Headw1nd · 2017-04-12 06:30 · Score: 1

I have to agree, the title is misleading of the both the article and the facts. However, I don't think you are helping. There was no talk of making internet free for Chattanooga. What EPB (who charges money for a very good product) wanted to do was extend their range out of Chattanooga into the surrounding rural area, asking for no state money whatsoever to do this (It would be "free" to the state). The state decided not to allow that. Then, in a separate move, the state legislature threw a big bucket of cash at AT&T and Comcast to improve rural service. Overall, this shows a strangely inconsistent set of priorities.
Re:What is with these headlines? by erapert · 2017-04-12 07:29 · Score: 1

give the fastest internet for free
It is not free. Do you know what taxes are?! How do you not how this whole government taxation thing works?!
Re:What is with these headlines? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-12 07:51 · Score: 1

I know it's hardly a new complaint, but Slashdot's recent trend towards not merely provocative but 100%-contrary-to-the-facts-of-the-matter headlines is really getting ridiculous.
I know it's hardly a new complaint, but ScentCone's recent trend towards not merely provocative, but 100%-contrary-to-the-facts-of-the-matter comments are remaining especially ridiculous.

Yes, the city/state government could have spent a bunch of money to "give the fastest internet for free" to the people inside the urban bounds of Chattanooga. OR, they could use that money to make it worth the providers' time to extend that lovely fast service out in to the surrounding areas that have no access at all.

No, the city of Chattanooga already has coverage from EPB that provides internet, as do its surrounding areas(including into the state of Georgia, and possibly Alabama), due to the provision of service by EPB who was already covering that area as an electric utility. However, it is the state of Tennessee that is preventing EPB (and other community-owned providers) from offering further services beyond their current domain, even if the market is there for it. By free, we mean the state of Tennessee would not have to spend money to do anything, at all, other than repeal its onerous restrictions.
That's right, EPB would gladly service more areas, except they aren't allowed to do so. Why? Because Beth Harwell won't let them.

Which is what they're doing. They didn't "give" the money to the infrastructure people. They're funding an expansion of the infrastructure into areas of the state where the availability of such business offerings will eventually do a lot to grow the state's economy and tax base. The headline is very and deliberately misleading.

What they're doing instead of taking the reins off a company that they have unduly hindered, is handing money to already known incompetent wastrels(Comcast and AT&T's incompetence already being documented), who have done a lot to harm the state's citizens and taken away from their productive. Your post is very deliberately misleading.
Much like Comcast's recent spate of advertising, claiming they were introducting "GIG Internet" to Chattanooga. This some 6 years after we'd already had it, which reminds me of Comcast's behavior on the forums of the local paper. They actually revealed how they were "encouraging" people to post in support of Comcast, which caused a bit of a scandal.
You remind me of the state senator who demanded a reporter be fired because despite wearing a press pass, and headset, and carrying a microphone, he claimed he didn't know that he was being recorded. Or the state legislators who are claiming that we don't need to increase the gas tax because they can just pave the roads with some other money. Or raymorris, who once claimed that EPB only had some 300 customers. Or Donald Trump, who claimed nobody used the Internet anyway. Or Sean Spicer who claimed that even Adolf Hitler didn't gas his own people.

We can certainly debate whether or not TN should be spending money in this way, but that's not the same as purposefully misrepresenting the situation in a fit of juvenile clickbaiting. Knock it off, Slashdot.
We could certainly debate whether or not the state of Tennessee should be spending money in many ways, but you are purposefully misrepresenting the situation in a fit of jejune karma-whoring. Knock it off, ScentCone.
Re:What is with these headlines? by ScentCone · 2017-04-12 12:37 · Score: 1

Right - there WAS NO TALK of making it free. EXCEPT IN THE SLASHDOT HEADLINE. That's my entire point.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.

Common carrier? by oneiros27 · 2017-04-12 02:30 · Score: 2

I've been arguing for years that if telecommunications companies take public money for expanding infrastructure, they need to be designated as common carriers.

in the 1990s, back when it was Bell Atlantic (before Bell Atlantic-NYNEX, before Verizon) got public money to build out infrastructure in the general I-95 corridor. They then didn't do it for YEARS.

We need to go back to the old ISP days -- line (physical connection) was separate from port (data to the internet), and the ILECs (incumbent local exchange carriers ... ie, phone companies) were required to publish tariff rates at which people could buy dedicated lines from them. ... and I believe common carriers, they're not sell information on their users other than basic directory to third parties.

--
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.

Re:Common carrier? by ooloorie · 2017-04-12 02:40 · Score: 1

I've been arguing for years that if telecommunications companies take public money for expanding infrastructure, they need to be designated as common carriers.
First you force them at gunpoint to get in bed with the government, then you say "now that you're in bed with me...".

We need to go back to the old ISP days
You mean 9600 baud dial-up, with semi-illegal third party modems or leased lines that cost more than the apartment they go to? I absolutely don't need that, thank you very much.

Re:Monopolies suck. $4,400/house aint free by omnichad · 2017-04-12 02:37 · Score: 1

Infrastructure isn't cheap, but it's a lot cheaper to maintain than it is to build. This is also how most AT&T-owned copper was built. This is better than handing the money over to a single private company.

Re:Pockets by Alain+Williams · 2017-04-12 02:37 · Score: 1

or, more likely, ''campaign contributions'' or ''research grants''.

Same deal here in Portugal by cloud.pt · 2017-04-12 02:39 · Score: 3, Informative

In the 2000's, Portugal's ANACOM (kind of our very own FCC, but much more "lobby-able") allowed the subsidization of copper, cable and fiber installation to unserviced areas exclusively to Portugal Telecom (PT, now commercially known as MEO), then a mostly public company with a big monopoly on phone and internet services but none in cable or satellite TV, with the state itself covering up to the 90 %'s of the cost but ownership being kept by PT. All PT had to do was compromise on maintenance and also service the rural areas where they already had a presence, thus providing close to 100% home owners with basic cable DSL. It was very good - for the 2000's, many villages ended up with 256kb internet services with copper, although they were more expensive than in cities.

Problem: rural lines were never maintained or upgraded. By 2010, internet users in rural areas had ascended to more than 80% due to population renewal - most schools, services and even income tax forms or civil services are now internet-based and people need a solid bandwidth for accessing these services, and these services are not made for 2000'ish bandwidth. Our income tax website for instance is a 50MB Java Applet that constantly fails and requires refresh, does bad caching. Moodle and other educational web platforms, even email, demand decent down and upload speeds for word, pdf or other assignments. In technological terms, we have the xDSL protocol but not even close to the throughput to support it effectively. I've seen multiple cases of people subscribing to 24mbit services, effectively getting 2mbits tops, and the instability at that speed prompts most people to even request a reduction to 1.2mbits to PT so they get a stable service.

Bigger problem: PT/MEO was sold by our previous right-wing government under pretext that it was a demand for targeted Troika goals for having received a bail-out, and a known company dismantler Altice, spearheaded by Luso-French CEO, took the majority share (and abolished the state-owned golden share) of PT, while managing to include a monopolizing contract clause specifically for rural areas, where the installed lines were mostly payed for by the state, but are still fully owned by the company. And they pretty much payed below asking price. Better offers were denied from more decent parties for reasons that were never actually disclosed. PT is now a super-aggressive marketing company, with the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo and our best comedians stepping in their commercials. The service, obviously, hasn't improved sh*t the last 5 years.

So now, in Portugal we have at least 4 fiber providers, 2 of them expanding their own line strongly to rural areas not serviced by PT, but they are constantly blocked from providing service because they can't use the tubing that is now owned by PT (part of the lines deal), and new licenses for cabling will not be issued because of the monopolizing clause. They can't even demand the lease of existing lines or tubing in some instances. That's how strong ANACOM is defending PT.

For this reason, Portugal is now becoming a home-3g/LTE playground with actual decent speeds. I am seeing more and more people switching to home-LTE plans because they are much cheaper and immensely more modern and reliable. They are provided by all ISPs unlike landlines because PT does not have a monopoly there, and so prices and plans are a lot more competitive. And yes, I said mobile services in Portugal rural areas are more reliable than landline. That's how bad it gets.

Now, why do I have to live in a country where rural areas get the same treatment as 3rd-world countries, who pretty much skipped landlines for cost, and are jumping to mobile data instead. It is appalling.

Re:Same deal here in Portugal by cloud.pt · 2017-04-12 02:48 · Score: 1

TL:DR Portugal's government pretty much payed installation of high-speed internet infrastructure, in the 2000's, to then state-owned company PT. Now that company is no longer state-owned, and they got to keep the taxpayer-payed infrastructure, and a monopoly clause for rural, non-competitive areas. Service by PT hasn't improved much the last 10y in rural areas, and companies intending to service those areas (which stopped being non-competitive long ago), are being blocked from it by the monopoly that our FCC allowed. Mobile services are booming in those areas as a consequence to that landline monopoly.

Re:They sound like homos to me by Maritz · 2017-04-12 02:43 · Score: 1

You realise you're basically announcing yourself as a closeted homosexual right?

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.

Re:Monopolies suck. $4,400/house aint free by aicrules · 2017-04-12 02:52 · Score: 2

Except that's exactly how it should be. That's a use tax. Some services (Fire/Police) you can't have a use tax and have them be available when you actually need them. They are a benefit that everyone gets just by them existing. Some people don't like having to pay taxes to fund them, but they get the benefit anyway. Public internet access is not something that benefits everybody implicitly. The only people who it benefits are those who use it. I shouldn't have to pay for you to have public internet access. Just like you don't have to pay for me to have private internet access. Tax me for the infrastructure, fine. I do implicitly benefit from my city having the infrastructure for public internet access, because I do have the option to use it, even if I didn't agree it needed to exist. But do not tax me for the operation of it or for other people to use it.

Re:This is what you voted for America. by houghi · 2017-04-12 02:57 · Score: 1

"Fool me once, shame on â" shame on you. Fool me â" you can't get fooled again.â --Benjamin Franklin

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Re:This is what you voted for America. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-04-12 03:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

No. Which was GP's point, as opposed to GGP pretending that it's okay when one side does it. This is the problem; when you only focus on what the other team does, it's easier for 'your' team to get away with worse and worse things.

Pedantic by sjbe · 2017-04-12 03:11 · Score: 2

Just look for pictures of NYC at the turn of the century and you can see neighborhoods with hundreds of power and telephone lines from competing companies going through neighborhoods.

You kind of missed the point but I'll revise. There hasn't been any meaningful version of a free market in power line or wire line telecom or cable TV networks within the lifetime of anyone who will read this.

This is why it will never be that way again and why there should be no corporate interests invested in owning utility lines.

I don't see a problem with a (regulated) private company owning utility lines as long as they don't also own what is being transmitted over those same lines.

Re:Pedantic by stinerman · 2017-04-12 07:48 · Score: 1

I don't see a problem with a (regulated) private company owning utility lines as long as they don't also own what is being transmitted over those same lines.
We kind of have that with power at least in Ohio. AEP owns the infrastructure, but I can buy the electrons from whomever I want. It's decent in theory, but 9/10 times the "standard" tariffed AEP offer is better than that of any of the other competitors.
But getting back on track, if I wanted to use Spectrum's wires to deliver my internet service, they'd tell me to take a hike. That's what needs to be de-coupled just like we have for power. My preference is that we own the wires like we own the roads, but I can settle for the regulated private utility method, so long as that utility has to open up its infrastructure to anyone who wants to offer service.
Re:Pedantic by MooseMiester · 2017-04-14 01:31 · Score: 1

Looks like plenty of players here with small shares to me http://broadbandnow.com/Fiber

--
Murphy was an optimist

Re:This is what you voted for America. by cyberchondriac · 2017-04-12 03:15 · Score: 2

And that makes it ok?

It actually makes them more dishonest. They pretend to be something they're not.

--

Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.

Here is a radical idea.. by fallen1 · 2017-04-12 03:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

..that has actually been brought up before on Slashdot, but it bears bringing up again.

Why not let each county/city build out a fiber optic network that will serve its citizens, connect to each county that touches them in a peering agreement, then connect to the overall backbone that is the Internet? Once those fiber networks are built out, the county/city can then let any ISP that wants to connect to the fiber and sell services -- with the county/city collecting $XX.xx per connection for upgrades and maintenance. THAT would create competition. Even if the local county/city creates their own ISP, then that service provider/entity must be separate from the entity owning the fiber optics and still has to pay $XX.xx per connection for access to the physical fiber. Fair play and all that.

The county/city entity that owns the fiber should have a completely "hands off" policy (net neutrality) when it comes to data flowing over the fiber and their only concern is the physical upkeep and maintenance.

--

Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~

Re:Here is a radical idea.. by michael_wojcik · 2017-04-14 03:47 · Score: 1

I don't understand how your proposal would benefit AT&T and Comcast.
Re:Here is a radical idea.. by jon3k · 2017-04-20 02:12 · Score: 1

This is a model that's brought up frequently, and my personal favorite. Like a lot of things, bringing the power to a local municipality to make these decisions is critical. It also ties someone's re-election to the quality of my Netflix video, which is fantastic culpability at a very direct and local level.

Re:Monopolies suck. $4,400/house aint free by ranton · 2017-04-12 03:26 · Score: 5, Informative

Chattanooga EFB took over $300 million from taxpayers. There are 75,000 households in Chatanooga, so the cost is $4,400 per family even if you don't get the service, with an additional monthly charge if you want the service. When you have to pay $4,400 plus $60-$150 per month, that's not free. That's not anywhere near free.

This is quite inaccurate. EPB only took $111 million from taxpayers. $300 million was the total cost including the amount paid for by Internet, cable, and electricity customers of EPB. That comes to $1628 per household, not $4400. Fiber optic cables are tax depreciated over 15 years, with a presumed service life of 25 years, so that is $15 per month per household in taxes.

And considering these taxes then mean you don't have to deal with companies like Comcast, it seems like quite the bargain.

--
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke

Transportation vs Municipal Internet by AnalogDiehard · 2017-04-12 03:28 · Score: 1

Someone needs to explain to me why taxpayer dollars freely go to public transportation systems - highways and airports - while taxpayer dollars for internet services go to private corporations whose only perceived purpose is legalized monopolization.

The cable TV and telecommunication corporations' ultimate goal isn't just eliminating competition, their ultimate goal is absolute ownership of the wires/fiber networks that deliver internet services. That is the key to shutting out or hampering competition. We saw this happen when cable TV providers tightened their iron grip on delivery systems when deregulation reared its ugly head.

I hate the cable and satellite TV providers with a passion, in the last 25 years they have shown they are despicable greedy bastards. They continue to raise prices, restrict program material, and shut out competition who desire to lease their networks. They infiltrate government positions and maintain lobbying services to perpetuate their monopolies. I refused to patronize them and have cut the cable since 2000.

Contrast this with the transportation network. Before the 1950s, many bridges were still privately owned and vehicles had to pay a toll. Likewise with roads that were on private property. These assets were removed from private ownership, which opened the gates to better maintained and patrolled roadways. The public benefits from the arrangement as it permitted freer safer flow of goods and services. Likewise with the airports. Because those arteries are such an essential component to the nation, labor unions are forbidden to initiate any action that could impede them.

Give the $$$ to the cable and telecommunication corporations, and the public gains NOTHING. It is a safe bet that once the networks are established, the corporations will use the "tier" subscription system to restrict high speed internet to the most expensive plans to the consumer. We have seen this already with large telecommunication corporations and with entertainment content with the cable TV corporations. The public taxpayer ultimately LOSES in this deal.

--
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10

Re:Transportation vs Municipal Internet by CrimsonAvenger · 2017-04-12 05:25 · Score: 1

Someone needs to explain to me why taxpayer dollars freely go to public transportation systems - highways and airports - while taxpayer dollars for internet services go to private corporations whose only perceived purpose is legalized monopolization.

What, noone ever explained to you that highways and airports are built by private corporations?
The actual work, I mean. Government says "we want an airport here with the following specifications", and then they start issuing contracts to diverse corporations to do the actual work of building the airport/highway/etc.
What I'm curious about vis-a-vis this article is why the comparison between a government-run regional system and a $45M contract to provide service to an entire State? It's not like the $45M is going to only provide access to the area around Chatanooga or anything, though you wouldn't know that from the headline....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

It's not just about Monopolies by rsilvergun · 2017-04-12 03:51 · Score: 2

legislated or otherwise. A lot of folks want these things left in private hands, but they also want the government to take an active role so that rural communities have access at a price they can afford. If you want those two things together the only solution is subsidies. Big ones. Otherwise you have to accept some level of nationalization or state run utilities. Usually you're talking nationalization since the money's coming from the Fed in a lot of cases (since most states with big rural populations don't have enough of their own money to run all that expensive cabling...).

The third option: Low prices due to competition, isn't on the table. Even if these weren't natural monopolies (which given that they often need eminent domain to run cable they are) the amounts of money they make (Comcast charges $80/mo for Internet that costs them $9/mo, support included and that's from their SEC filing so it's accurate) they'll just buy up their competitors.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

$45 million by backslashdot · 2017-04-12 04:13 · Score: 1

How do you expect the telcos to supply broadband to even one rural house with that? That won't even cover the interior decorating cost of a yacht these days.

Re:Has nothing to do with Telecom Lobby Law by TheCastro1689 · 2017-04-12 04:15 · Score: 1

I found this: http://www.timesfreepress.com/... But it doesn't support the AC.

Re:This is what you voted for America. by Wintermute__ · 2017-04-12 04:23 · Score: 3, Funny

"Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again!

No, no!

YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!"
- Abe Lincoln

Re:Monopolies suck. $4,400/house aint free by hipp5 · 2017-04-12 04:23 · Score: 2

The only people who it benefits are those who use it. I shouldn't have to pay for you to have public internet access.

I'm not sure that's entirely true. Society, by and large, has moved online. For example, most job postings (if posted at all) are online. There is a societal value (including to you) in having people able to access those job postings. Also, many government activities (information dissemination, license renewal, etc.) can be provided more efficiently online, saving the government (and by extension, you) money. I'm sure there are many other examples of how other people having internet benefits you. It might not be the most direct benefit, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

They really have it? by AndyKron · 2017-04-12 04:25 · Score: 1

I didn't know Tennessee had the Internet yet.

Re:It' s the American way by cloud.pt · 2017-04-12 04:48 · Score: 1

a.k.a the double reverse Robin Hood - taking from the small and poor to the rich and established groups, that in turn sell value created from that to the small and poor again. Basically corporations get to sell the taxpayer, a product that the taxpayer paid itself. That is some convoluted definition of capitalism.

Money uber alles by BlytheBowman · 2017-04-12 04:59 · Score: 1

What, give internet away for FREE, and in the Deep South? Why that is SOCIALIST and will make the Soviets invade us!

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2017-04-12 04:59 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Here is an example of a functioning co-op by bdwoolman · 2017-04-12 05:30 · Score: 3, Informative

In reference to an article yesterday on a similar topic I posted the following link to a functioning co-op. Co-ops take leadership, but they can really serve the public good in ways that a government bureaucracy or a for-profit cannot. Not a panacea, but the Maryland Broadband Cooperative has a pretty good record I think. As states outlaw municipal broadband it seems to me that this kind of institution is one that they can't sensibly outlaw. They could try, of course, an no doubt will. Anyway, MDBC has put a lot of fiber into the countryside.

--
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy

Re:Here is an example of a functioning co-op by Areyoukiddingme · 2017-04-12 07:20 · Score: 2

As states outlaw municipal broadband it seems to me that this kind of institution is one that they can't sensibly outlaw. They could try, of course, an no doubt will.
You damn betcha they will. And they'll succeed, too. I'm a member-owner of an electricity co-op. My average monthly bill is 1/3rd that of people who are in the service area of the for-profit company in the region, for the same size house. The for-profit company successfully lobbied the state government to forbid the co-op from servicing any city in the state (decades ago). So for higher reliability and a vastly lower rate, my rural co-op provides me power at a dramatically lower meter-per-mile density than the for-profit power company. They are by definition more efficient than the for-profit company, and far better for the citizens. So why can't all the citizens have access to their service? Lobbyists and their deep, deep pockets full of campaign donations.

No, $111 million is one of the federal tax grants by raymorris · 2017-04-12 05:30 · Score: 1

No, one specific grant of federal tax money was $111 million by itself. Which was matching grant. Then there was the state and local tax money, which paid most of the cost.

> $300 million was the total cost including the amount paid for by Internet, cable, and electricity customers

You think they had customers (paying $4,400 each) BEFORE they built it?

Re:Monopolies suck. $4,400/house aint free by OhPlz · 2017-04-12 05:45 · Score: 1

There's a societal value in having food to eat, but it's not the municipality's role to provide it.

This is completely false... by gosand · 2017-04-12 05:46 · Score: 1

A politician's constituents are the people who donated the most to their campaign.

I think that their constituents are those who are waving money in front of their face at any given point in time.
They don't limit themselves to whoever contributed to their campaign.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

Re:Monopolies suck. $4,400/house aint free by MightyMartian · 2017-04-12 05:53 · Score: 1

So what is the solution then? Just accept subpar service from the big ISPs? Regulation bad. Government-run services bad. EVerything is bad unless it's run by a crook in a board room, it seems to me.

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

Private companies can't compete by rsilvergun · 2017-04-12 06:37 · Score: 1

not with someone who has no shareholders and no need to run a profit. You're either going to nationalize it or you're going to create a public option in name only (with a ton of money being handed out to the well connected while you're at it). Do one or the other (I'd prefer the public option) not both.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

That's all true by rsilvergun · 2017-04-12 06:40 · Score: 1

but why should I have to pay for someone else's Internet connection? I'm devil's advocating here, but I'd love to get a nice, pithy answer to that question. While we're at it how about an answer to "What right do you have to force me to pay for somebody's Internet?". There are sound, logical answers to both of these and they both sound & feel just awful. The left never did get the hang of catch phrases.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:That's all true by sjames · 2017-04-12 11:57 · Score: 1

That's the damnable part of it. You are paying for the subsidy if you live there, but if they simply allowed the city to expand it's municipal service, it would have been paid for by subscribers.

Because anarchy is impossible by rsilvergun · 2017-04-12 06:42 · Score: 1

because governments, especially central governments, are such a useful tool that they will always form. It's like a box of loaded rifles lying around. Somebody's gonna pick 'em up and use them. The question is never, "Should we have a central government", it's always "Are you going to participate in the one we have".

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

That's the "Free Market" for you... by hackel · 2017-04-12 06:47 · Score: 1

Fucking deplorables...

Not True by rsilvergun · 2017-04-12 06:49 · Score: 1

he still needs votes or he's out the door. Period. Even with Gerrymandering.

Bernie's been talking about this. Folks are pressuring the Dems to move right on social issues. To which he replies: I'm pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ and nobody gives a damn. They want health care. They want education. They want higher wages.

People voted for Trump because he made promises and Hilary didn't. Somebody (538?) showed her ads and campaign were almost completely devoid of content. The Dems are moving on a progressive, populist platform. If they do that get ready for some changes.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:Monopolies suck. $4,400/house aint free by Raenex · 2017-04-12 06:51 · Score: 1

High speed Internet access is a requirement for being a first-class citizen in the modern age.

No it isn't.

Not all of us by rsilvergun · 2017-04-12 06:51 · Score: 1

See here.

And the difference is _all_ Republicans are in big biz's pockets. They're unapologetic about it. The Laffer curve will trickle it down. I'm not trolling saying that, it's made a comeback.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:Monopolies suck. $4,400/house aint free by hipp5 · 2017-04-12 06:52 · Score: 1

There's a societal value in having food to eat, but it's not the municipality's role to provide it.

But the government (not necessarily municipalities) does often provide it through social assistance funding and things like food stamps.

Re: Monopolies suck. $4,400/house aint free by erapert · 2017-04-12 07:21 · Score: 1

Why hasn't this been modded up?

Re: Monopolies suck. $4,400/house aint free by Areyoukiddingme · 2017-04-12 07:27 · Score: 2

I like how you get to decide what people are forced to spend money on, then make a complaint about Comcast.

Comcast never threatened to jail someone for not buying their service. You propose totalitarianism.

He didn't decide what the people of Chatanooga are forced to spend money on. The people of Chatanooga decided what they all, collectively, would spend money on. It's called representative democracy, you blithering idiot.

Meanwhile AT&T and Comcast have proven that at the state level, where money talks far louder than votes, they have much more "representation" than the citizens. There's your totalitarianism.

Re:Monopolies suck. $4,400/house aint free by OhPlz · 2017-04-12 07:29 · Score: 1

Which is supposed to be temporary, not a replacement for people being responsible for themselves.

Re:This is what you voted for America. by Areyoukiddingme · 2017-04-12 07:31 · Score: 1

You have a point. Aside from the part where the Democrat-appointed FCC chairman fought this sort of behavior. Wheeler had zero interest in supporting the incumbent telecoms.

Tom Wheeler's behavior was radically unexpected. A former telco lobbyist who actually tried to do things for the citizens instead of corporations. I myself wrote Slashdot posts assuming he would never do such a thing. It's still astonishing. We will miss him. Far more than most people think.

Re:Monopolies suck. $4,400/house aint free by OhPlz · 2017-04-12 07:39 · Score: 1

True, but it's complicated. Our road and bridge infrastructure is in horrible shape throughout the US. The fact that they're maintained by the government doesn't offer a good quality of service to the people using them. At the same time, it's possibly impracticable to privatize them. ISPs are already privatized, the reason they suck is because there's little to no competition. Having ISPs compete on top of a muni-fiber roll-out is one idea. I'd worry that the fiber deployment would be maintained as poorly as other physical infrastructure, but it's something. But then, what are we paying ISPs for? Uplinks from the fiber? Tech support? Advertising? I don't think anyone has come up with a winning model yet.

You know, there are people... by TheOuterLinux · 2017-04-12 10:24 · Score: 1

...that don't want companies building and laying lines all over their beautiful mountain landscapes. You and I can't live without Internet. Some think "yes I could," but no you can't; it's too late for us. Because of this created need, there's a lot of people bitching here for no reason at all that have never been to TN or even camping at all. What good are freedoms if there's no blank spots on the map. Do you know how messed up it is to have to go to a park as your only option to but still pick up wifi signals? I don't like dialup either, but some of us have family that remembers the TVA very well, and want to be left alone.

$112M + $112M + $106M = $330 million by raymorris · 2017-04-12 15:19 · Score: 1

> EPB took a grant for only 112 million

One specific federal matching grant was for $112 million (or was it $111 million?). Do you know what a matching grant is? that means the federal tax payers match what the state and local tax payers were forced to pay. I've given you the link to their financial statement before, so it's not like you don't know this.

> EPB actually serves about 200,000 household

As you did before, you intentionally conflate electric service and internet. As of their latest filing, EPB claims 69,201 households and 6,455 businesses. Again, I've already given you links to their audited reports. So either you know you're intentionally lying to everyone here or worse, you're intentionally lying to yourself as well by making sure not to click the links to EPB financial statements.

Re:Monopolies suck. $4,400/house aint free by Darinbob · 2017-04-12 16:44 · Score: 1

This is called a representative democracy. They voted in the leaders. If the citizens don't like it then they can vote them out of office again.

There is also the hypocrisy of the southern conservative states whining that they should be free of federal rules and regulations, but then turn around and try to restrict the rights of the local governments.

Of course the whole thing is about who pays for the politicians. If you think the Tennessee state legislators have the citizen's best interests in mind here, you need to look closer.

Whoa! That is an amazing about. by bdwoolman · 2017-04-12 17:33 · Score: 1

Thanks for your informative and interesting reply. What a story! And how does a state manage to make a legal business illegal and get away with it? Corruption pure and simple as you indicated. Seems to me that the left could get some real traction in this area in the future. I wonder what the status of utility and communication cooperatives is nationally. A review would make a good Wired article IMHO. You know. Technology and culture.

--
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy

think for two seconds by raymorris · 2017-04-13 03:13 · Score: 1

> enhance their electrical grid, which in just 3 years saved their customers $130mil down time

Read that back and about it for just two seconds. Chatanooga is 75,000 households. That's over $1,700 of cost to each household that didn't happen, which they are taking credit for not happening. Somebody is telling you that if they hadn't put fiber on the poles, there would have been blackouts so severe that they would cost each household $1,700.

Did families in Chatanooga each suffer $1,700 worth of service interruptions before they strung the fiber? I doubt it.

Maybe wrong, not hypocritical by raymorris · 2017-04-13 03:43 · Score: 1

Maybe they should let them expand their service area / tax base. There so much bullshit being spouted for political reasons that it's hard to say. For example, people posting here claim that they have three times as many subscribers as what EFB claims in their official filings. EFB financial statements also show the cost to taxpayers as $330 million, while people here focus exclusively on one particular $111 million grant from taxpayers - ignoring most of the cost. So a good cost/benefit analysis is difficult in the midst of the spin and frankly the bullshit.

Via the Constitution, the states created a federal government and delegated certain powers to the new federal government. In the Constitution, they included redundant clauses for one particular point - the Constitution says that the federal government has only the powers that the states delegated to it, and that all other powers are reserved to the states and the people. (No mention of delegating any powers to cities, which are another creation of the states.) There is nothing *hypocritical* about saying "let's follow the Constitution, and have the federal government do what they Constitution says the federal government can do, and the states do what they do, as written in the Constitution." This particular decision by the state may be unwise, it may be wise, but it's not hypocritical, it's following the plan laid out in the Constitution, which leaves all powers to the states, except the listed powers they delegated to the feds.

HEY! Wait a minute! by martinfb · 2017-04-13 05:00 · Score: 1

I also have a great plan and intention of building out internet infrastructure!
Give ME $45million, too!
I promise to give most to my CEO and shareholders. Do a shitty job, squander the rest, and then demand more (as $45M is not enough).

On a serious note:
Profitable companies need to spend their OWN profits to make more money.
That is how for-profit invesments work.
If it fails, then your risk was called in!

I'll bet that $45M would be better invested in educating people to build out this infrastructure and bring tax revenue IN!

--

Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.

Well, What Did You Expect? by Lord+Flipper · 2017-04-13 05:44 · Score: 1

TN is yet-another state full of morons who voted in hordes for you-know-who. Not exactly an indicator of having a grasp of their own best interests, right? Come on... this is what happens when the National Interest is the driver for decades, and the Public Interest (which includes education) is given the old heave-ho. Get used to it if you aren't already...

Re:Monopolies suck. $4,400/house aint free by MooseMiester · 2017-04-14 01:13 · Score: 1

Time and time again, for thousands of years, the evidence is that if you put a bunch of people in a room, give them a task, and don't pick a leader, a leader emerges.

Ask ANYONE who has managed teams, from a McDonald's franchise to an enterprise class I.T. project.

Problems occur when the leader is chosen for some stupid reason, like the girl with the biggest tits, the bosses son, or the guy who bought everyone donuts for a month. What makes you think the entire world of humans operates any differently?

We have big ISP's because the government created them, and now you want the government to "solve" the problem it created. Good luck with that. It's akin to solving your management problems by having the girl with the biggest tits get a boob job and expecting the project to be completed on time as a result.

--
Murphy was an optimist

Slashdot Mirror

Tennessee Could Give Taxpayers America's Fastest Internet For Free, But It Gave Comcast and AT&T $45 Million Instead (vice.com)

193 of 341 comments (clear)