Slashdot Mirror
How One Little Cable Company Exposed Telecom's Achilles' Heel (backchannel.com)
Reader mirandakatz writes: Forget net neutrality -- the real fight is over controlling price-gouging monopolies. As Susan Crawford writes at Backchannel, a little-known cable company, Cable One, just exposed the telecommunications industry's Achilles' heel: regulation. Cable One has been raising its data transmission prices quickly, and it's making cable giants very, very nervous. If people begin noticing that there's no competition, that Americans are paying too much for too little, and that the entire country is suffering as a result, that's a big problem for Big Cable. As Crawford writes, 'don't fixate on net neutrality... Even though the state of internet access is an issue that touches the bank accounts and opportunities of hundreds of millions of Americans and gazillions of businesses, very few people understand what's actually going on. Now you are among them. Do something about it.'
"Forget net neutrality - "
No. Paying attention to ANYTHING else does not justify forgetting net neutrality. Net neutrality SHOULD be a positive for anyone's political stance - it just means however imperfect the companies involved in providing services, they should have to treat content as just bytes, regardless of the source. That shouldn't be controversial, nor should it be forgotten, even 'for the sake of argument'.
Ryan Fenton
> How One Little Cable Company Exposed Telecom's Achilles' Heel
Your clickbait mind tricks will never work. The day before I read TFA before I start commenting is the day I turn in my SlashDot ID.
That's just another good reason why the network - the data center, the cables in the road etc. should be a public service like water pipes and electricity.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
In the USA, backbone data is cheap, the cable companies are a monopoly with built out networks that are 10+ years old, and they are raking in the cash with no price regulation and minimal oversight. It is high time that laws were passed to:
1. Determine a fair pricing model and require that where there are less than 4 ISPs available. Net neutrality is really about the quality of the product and what exactly you are buying every month. I am surprised no lawsuits over net neutrality have been filed over bait and switch yet.
2. Use anti trust laws to break up cable companies into cable providers and internet providers sharing the same lines owned by a third company that maintains and owns the lines.
3. Protect internet access in the same way that the federal laws currently protect US mail (both privacy and penalty wise) both the privacy of email and browsing.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Trying to co-opt public outrage over net neutrality to a related, yet still entirely separate issue, is despicable. Net neutrality is absolutely one of the "real" fights. The idea that there can be only one is absurd. Who the hell is this woman? "Forget net neutrality?" No, fuck you. I will fixate on net neutrality as much as I damn well feel like it. She's actively hurting the case for her issue by spreading this nonsense, and that's a shame, since it is an important issue as well. Most U.S. Americans have absolutely no clue just how much more we pay for so much less than the rest of the civilised (and often, even uncivilised!) world.
Building networks is actually quite cheap, in comparison with the profit margins of major telecommunication companies. This is how many less developed countries are able to offer higher speed internet access to residents for far less money, using the same commodity networking equipment.
Nice strawman, that's obviously not what he said or meant. But by all means, just scream "communism" as loud as you can until you get your way.
And if the content providers ARE the broadcasters?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
That's just another good reason why the network - the data center, the cables in the road etc. should be a public service like water pipes and electricity.
Not the datacenter. Just a termination facility for the last mile that any ISP can hook into. The last mile, specifically, is what needs to be a public utility. That's where the natural monopoly is. The rest the market really could sort out, as the barrier to entry would be small.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
So, my datacenter that I have built and put together myself should be a public service for everyone to use without compensating me for things like startup costs and growing pains? I don't think so.
No. In this simile in which the internets are like roads (which is relatively apt, it's better than tubes anyway) your data center is analogous to a shopping center. People do retain certain rights which people expect in a public place when they enter a shopping center, like photography, or not having your car towed away unexpectedly. People retain certain rights in your data center, like privacy. But they don't get space in your data center for free. They get access to the digital network used to get to your data center for free, just as they get access to the road network used to get to a shopping center for free.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's EXACTLY what he said and meant.
Who told you that, and when will you get your own opinion?
Calling for the government to control infrastructure is not the same as calling for government to control everything.
Government already controls infrastructure, the only thing we have left to argue about is what that control should look like.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
so dumbfuck - who pays?
Public power is common in America. About 50 million Americans, or about 15%, get their electricity from government owned utilities. They get a monthly bill and pay for their electricity the same way that the other 85% do.
So does "public power" work better? No, not really. But it doesn't seem to be any worse either. It is about the same in terms of both reliability and price. In general, a competitive market is superior to government provision, but since power generation is a natural monopoly anyway, competition isn't really possible, so the government isn't any worse than a regulated utility.
www.publicpower.org
This is the correct solution. The last mile should be a public utility and brought back to interconnection points. Charges for use of these interconnection points would based on the cost of running them. Anybody can run a fiber into these centers, pay for use of router ports, and interconnect without further charge.
I'd like to see towns stop renewing franchises for existing cable systems, nothing says they have to renew them. Give them five year warnings that the franchise won't be renewed and then conduct arbitration for purchasing the last mile infrastructure. It is not like you are throwing them out, they can hook up at the interconnect centers just like everyone else.
So does "public power" work better? No, not really.
Well where I live it does indeed work better.
My city owns the "power company" that provides electric power to the people/businesses that are here.
And it's significantly cheaper (and from anecdotes, better service) than the investor-owned utility that operates in the cities surrounding mine.
The IOU in the cities next door is Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). For a similar house in PG&E area vs. in my city - the house using PG&E will spend more than 2x for electricity because they charge more.
And I haven't seen any evidence that my city subsidizes the electric rates or electric infrastructure via property tax (or other tax) proceeds.
You can get its footprint from publicly accessible sites like broadband.gov. It's not hard, just more work than the reporter wanted to do.
You can pretend all you like, but you've been shafted twice to get internet access.
I got this from a 20 second search.
Virtually all the infrastructure that makes your data center anything more than a heap of silicon was paid for by my tax dollars. The Roads, the power lines, telecom, the engineers (paid for with subsidized schooling). Everything. It wouldn't exist without my tax money.
And the total cost of providing high speed internet (datacenter + everything else including cust service)? $9/mo. How do I know this? Comcast puts that little tidbit in their SEC filing. You can lie to everyone in America except your major shareholders. Those guys we protect.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
A friend of mine went to law school at NYU. Near where she lived, there was a park where the drug dealers did business. Drugs aside, it was the safest place in town. Because the dealers didn't want any shit going down that would attract the police.
Big Cable is pissed at Cable One because they don't want hearings on the industries business practices.
Have gnu, will travel.
> a public service like water pipes and electricity
vs
> All private property
EXACTLY: I don't think that word means what you appear to think it means.
FTA: See the problem? If people begin noticing that there’s no competition, that Americans are paying too much for too little, and that the entire country is suffering as a result, that’s a big problem for Big Cable.
Really? People haven't noticed? BS.
Everybody knows.
Everybody already knows that territories have been divided up to avoid competition. Duh.
Anecdote: As president of my HOA (almost 100 units), I pushed through an opportunity we had to get every unit pre-wired with fiber from Verizon FiOS. That meant that every unit had on-order access to telephone, cable (TWC), and fiber (Verizon/Frontier). I turned my complex into a location that had actual competition between internet providers. The result has been lower prices for everyone.
And, politics being what they are, and me having spent my political capital on creating an even playing-field, I was not re-elected to the Board. Such is the nature of politics: If you do good, you will lose your elected office. I think it's a law of nature.
Again: Everybody knows.
I realize this is just an anecdote, and other localities may have the opposite situation, but I live in a small New England town, served by a private power company. I currently pay ~$.23/kWh for residential electrical service (when my PV array isn't pushing into the grid). There is a neighboring town that maintains a municipal (town-owned and operated) electrical system, and they pay ~$.06/kWh, and their system is better in almost every way, including buried lines instead of overhead lines on poles in their town center, and better overall reliability. I don't know all the details or the history of their municipal system, but that certainly seems better to me.
I fully agree, comrade. The answer is always to take public ownership of all private property.
What the fuck is wrong with you people? Do you really prioritise a company's ability to make as much profit as possible over your ability to get a fair and decent service? All the while you bang on about the free market fixing things while simultaneously doing everything to make the market as closed as possible. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
That's EXACTLY what he said and meant.
So do you think, roads, power, sewage, water etc should all be in private hands with access to them charged at whatever rate the owner sets? Do you think they should be able to have any competition or be able shut it down with lawyers and lobbyist and buckets of cash (that they got from gauging you) instead of with, you know, competitiion? Is it that you don't see internet connectivity as essential as water, power and transport is? Or is it it more that you got yours and fuck everyone else?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Well, you might be right, but not for the 'for free' part.
Nobody said it was free. The claim was that access was free, which is the case for non-toll roads. The majority of roads are not toll roads no matter how you measure.
Government steals my money to pay for those roads so it's hardly free for me.
If you're getting something back for your money then it's not theft, it's taxation. Those who derive the most benefit from the road network (or any other aspect of the government) should pay the most to support it, which is precisely the kind of thing a graduated tax scheme like the one we employ here in the USA accomplishes, or at least it would if there weren't a whole bunch of corporate loopholes available to the wealthy. The poor have no access to these loopholes because simply employing them involves relatively fixed fees (not proportional to income) which represents a prohibitively larger portion of their available wealth, which is why the system is breaking down. The wealthy (who make policy, sometimes simply by purchasing legislation) are shielded from the results of their actions because they themselves do not have to pay for them. Even if they pay a larger number of dollars into the system than people who make less money, they actually wind up paying a proportionally smaller share when you compare the amount of benefit they're deriving.
TL;DR: Those who benefit most from the roads should be most glad to pay for the roads, and when any other situation prevails, the system fails.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This word "all". Does it confuse you? Does that make you ignore it? Or, come to think of it, maybe it's the word "EXACTLY" that troubles you.
That's EXACTLY what he said and meant.
No, he said, "That's just another good reason why the network - the data center, the cables in the road etc. should be a public service like water pipes and electricity."
Then AC said, "... The answer is always to take public ownership of all private property."
How you and he make the leap from "The network should be a public service" to " The answer is always to take public ownership of all private property" is the part I don't get. It is manifestly, demonstrably not what he said.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
so dumbfuck - who pays?
Everybody, collectively; since everybody benefits from it, collectively. It's fairly straightforward. I'm not sure where your confusion lies.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I fully agree, comrade. The answer is always to take public ownership of all private property.
What the fuck is wrong with you people? Do you really prioritise a company's ability to make as much profit as possible over your ability to get a fair and decent service? All the while you bang on about the free market fixing things while simultaneously doing everything to make the market as closed as possible. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
This is what happens when ideology becomes divorced from reality.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Have you seen the infrastructure in the USA? You know how many bridges and overpasses have an F rating? I've seen how well the government handles that along with the VA hospitals.
It's almost as if putting people who hate government in charge of the government creates a a self-fulfilling prophesy. People (maybe not you) rail about taxation as "theft" and then complain about inadequate government goods and services.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Where I live, government provided power is significantly better.
I used to live in a city which had a city owned power plant. Rates per kWh were about 20% lower than surrounding cities, and there were no monthly connection fees. Depending on how much power you use, the total bill is 25-35% lower.
Reliability numbers are slightly better as well, but not by much.