Slashdot Mirror
Louisville's Fiber Internet Expansion Opposed By Koch Brothers Group (usatoday.com)
Slashdot reader simkel shared an article from the Courier-Journal:
A group affiliated with the Koch brothers' powerful political network is leading an online campaign against Mayor Greg Fischer's $5.4 million proposal to expand Louisville's ultra-fast internet access... Critics argue that building roughly 96 miles of fiber optic cabling is an unnecessary taxpayer giveaway to internet service providers, such as Google Fiber, which recently announced plans to begin building its high-speed network in the city. "Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding broadband or internet systems," said David Williams, president of the taxpayers alliance, which is part of industrialists Charles and David Koch's political donor network... The group says $5.4 million is a misuse of taxpayer funds when the city has other needs, such as infrastructure and public safety.
To shore up public support, the mayor has begun arguing that high-speed connectivity would make it cheaper to install crime-monitoring cameras in violent neighborhoods.
To shore up public support, the mayor has begun arguing that high-speed connectivity would make it cheaper to install crime-monitoring cameras in violent neighborhoods.
US really need ban all "political donations" which comes out of constant election costs. Have the government pay for the election funding where each candidates will get fixed amount for their campaigns.
But money will talk and the Koch Brothers will 'own' another bit of the USA.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
We've seen how well private industry does it. In the places where taxpayers fund the internet, you get gigabit speeds at rates around a quarter of what private industry offers for any internet service at all. Private industry might complain that it isn't "fair", but private industry won't step up and do it, either. And if life were "fair", you'd die penniless in the gutter after spending a lifetime enriching yourself by destroying the planet. So I'm not going to worry about that too much.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Interesting comment from someone who's defending two thick, white Kochs.
...I think most people here on /. agree that fast internet access *is* vital infrastructure. We may disagree on how best to pay for this, of course, but it's essential.
The last portion of this article stood out the most.
Basically put:
The only way we can truly be a big brother society is by installing high speed internet everywhere to connect the devices.
We feel you should pay for it because this will make you feel safer.
Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding broadband or internet systems
What a stupid fucking asshole. We're struggling to keep our business afloat because neither of our two ISP's (TWC and AT&T) can provide us with stable Internet connections at one of our locations. Everybody needs government funded, government regulated Internet access ASAP.
I don't respond to AC's.
"Old monopolies are the only free market you deserve"
Kentukywired intends to wire the whole state. The Kochs have strategically chosen to pick this fight in Louisville, a classic (D) run bed of corruption.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Fiberoptic is infrastructure.
If the city owns the fiber then they can rent it out to which ever operator that is interested in that area. Even two competing operators.
The ones complaining the most about towns and cities running their own fibers are the ones that want to control the consumers the most.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I saw on Youtube when my local power company was working to get the law changed so they wouldn't have to pay for the extra power solar installations put back into the grid. It was a bunch of old people sitting around talking about something scary that was gonna happen and it ended with "Vote No on Prop such and such". The law passed, no problem
The gov't's been paying for expanding broadband for decades. The Koch bros own companies continue to suck up subsidies left and right. They couldn't be any more transparently hypocritical if they tried. But old people vote. They're easily frightened because they're brains go in old age and this stuff works.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
And treating it as such is the only way to get decent competition among ISPs.
Instead of Kockblocking this; just try to remember that a fiber buildout is basically dumping chemically doped glass fibers into populated areas. Doesn't that feel so much better? Don't think about the service, think about the emissions.
"Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding broadband or internet systems,"
Translation: Fundamentally, instead you should let us rake hundreds of millions per year from these same taxpayers with our inferior service.
Ang that for those lucky enough to get anything reasonable at all.
They oppose government giveaways to rich corporations that aren't them.
Perhaps we should start having public executions for enemies of the people and progress?
Broadband providers already recieve federal grants to subsidize the expansion of service. This is part of a federal mandate to ensure that information can be swiftly communicated across the country. An argument that is based on the proposition that the use of tax revenue to subsidize the expansion of a service provider is an unfair burden to taxpayers is an argument that has cosmetic appeal but no legitimatimacy based on current and ongoing practices. The conclusion is that the true reason for opposing the expansion is a reason that cannot be stated as the true reason would most likely reveal an association with an interest attempting to avoid free market competition.
Hah, you make a fine point but unfortunately we can see that the Internet is a utility, whether or not law treats it this way. The internet is not long just a thing that can be had or not had, it has become as much a part of society as electricity is. Much of what someone does from day to day, be it work or otherwise depends on good internet access. You can't buy food unless those local businesss have an affordable (read, not a significant portion of their monthly expenditures) internet connection that allows fast transactions. Not just so you can swipe a card but so the store can account for inventory (it's true cash can be used but as you I'm sure know we don't have enough paper notes for everyone to use cash as their primary spending method). Lots of philosophical conversation can be had beyond this sure but let's keep things focused on what is reality vs what we as a society might be.
Now that infrastructure should not be given away but access could be granted in exchange for either steep discounts or perhaps a munisciple broadband offering.
Or, because the infrastructure belongs to the public, we can then dictate rates to the businesses. Meaning each Mb/s costs a certain amount per month (note I'm referring to rate, not an additive sum). This would allow a competitor to offer more than just access, maybe offering adblocking or offering opendns as the default dns so malware could go away.
They could even take the approach that was originally required for DSL, where you pay one entity for the physical infrastructure usage, and pay a different entity for the final connection to the backbone of the Internet.
With modern routing you could even do it without having to result to changing physical patching, assuming that equipment used at the customer premises and at the network-equivalent of the neighborhood exchange or central office is capable of sub-line-rate service to the level that the customer is paying for and that the backbone linking NX or CO locations is sufficiently high-throughput.
If anything this approach would allow for more players, not fewer players, as providers would only have to cable-in infrastructure to the central offices instead of worrying about the last-mile links. This could allow for less expensive private WANs between multiple facilities within the metro-area; the customer with multiple locations could pay for their own private metro optical MLPS network without having to to onto the Internet for simple site-to-site networks.
Lastly it might make it easier for customers in less-desirable areas from a service-provider point of view to actually get service. This can affect both poor neighborhoods where an ISP might not expect enough adoption, and even some wealthier neighborhoods where the housing density is too low to make for a good return on the trenching or other infrastructure requirements to put the network in even if a lot of households want it.
I don't see any losing proposition except for ISPs that want monopoly or effective-monopoly positions in markets.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
In New Zealand, the government (in conjunction with a private company Chorus) is putting in Fibre to something like 90% of the population and high speed wireless elsewhere.
ALL ISPs get to rent it out at the same price.
We have tiers in pricing based on speed and data caps but a 100/20 is available with unlimited data for NZ$95 or less.
Different ISPs offer different packages, i.e. free Netflix, Cheaper SkyTV, Local support, etc etc etc
We have net neutrality, data is data no matter where it comes from.
Here's the thing, the government is elected by the people, for the people. The taxes we pay SHOULD be benefiting us so the government putting in decent internet in this day and age IS what they are there for.
Like happened near me (Jackson, WI), the municipality spends a fortune setting up an internet utility and is quickly out-competed by private companies.
The Internet is a utility. It may not have started that way, but today, it is as necessary a public utility as water or electricity.
To that end, governments everywhere gave telecoms huge tax abatements to bring internet to everyone, and they basically stole that money.
So, I have no sympathy for the AT&Ts and Comcasts when they collectively steal billions of dollars from taxpayers.
Tax payers have already been funding it federally and it hasn't moved for shit.
At least if it's done locally, it will get things moving.
These are the type of people who probably still claim Coal and Oil is the way of the future. Out with the old generation filled with morons stuck in their old ways, in with the new generation that knows what it wants instead of letting the old generation tell them what they should want. (ie nothing because it's all going to the old gen's pockets)
The group says $5.4 million is a misuse of taxpayer funds when the city has other needs, such as infrastructure and public safety.
I'd think that building a publicly accessible fiber optic network does in fact meet the definition of infrastructure. I'd also think that providing a means for communication for the public does add to public safety.
Not the best argument in my estimation.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
>The group says $5.4 million is a misuse of taxpayer funds
Louisville is apparently 3/4 of a million people, so this comes to seven dollars per person. Surely less than 1% of anybody's property taxes. Louisville undoubtedly spends that on road maintenance every couple of weeks.
But that's just operating, this is capital. If they're spending less than $54M replacing pavement and wires and pipes every year, the city would be a shambles. This is probably about a 2% hit on one year of capital spending.
These bastards must hate the environment, as much as they oppose any regulation to protect it. I'm sure SuperKendall will be along shortly to spew idiocy in defense of the Koch Brothers. Now they want to oppose efforts to improve infrastructure in Louisville. At what point do we decide that these people are just evil and seize their assets for the public good?
If you are OK with the cable monopolies that exist in many cities, then you have a point because this is set up basically the same. Multiple companies will get a chance to bid, but a single company will win, and we know they will pretty much have a stranglehold on the infrastructure after that. I don't know of any cases where a company is such a position has been displaced. Or maybe you saw 'Koch' and decided your position based solely on that?
So, by this logic, building highways and city streets was just the government giving away taxpayer dollars as a gift to the likes of Ford, Chrysler and GM?
"Multiple companies will get a chance to bid, but a single company will win, and we know they will pretty much have a stranglehold on the infrastructure after that"
Depends on the contract. No reason for it to be a problem if it's done right.
Depends on the contract. No reason for it to be a problem if it's done right.
What makes you think it will be done in a way that you think is 'right'? History?
"What makes you think it will be done in a way that you think is 'right'? History?"
All the cases when infrastructure has been, and is being, done right.
If "Google Fiber, which recently announced plans to begin building its high-speed network in the city" let them pay for all of it they have billions and billions of dollars!!! OMG why would the city pay for them to make even more money. That is beyond stupid!
Who said kock Bros oppose gov give away to any corps? They never have before.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
All the cases when infrastructure has been, and is being, done right.
Care to give us an example, or are you just going to stick with that weak, useless generalization?
Actually all along the Colorado front range, a number of localities have put in fiber, and then have a companies bid on managing the fiber for 5-10 year contracts. As to isps hooking up, they will allow a number of them and they just compete on service.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You might catch a break. It's Sunday night. SuperKendall won't be able to concentrate on typing because that's when he tunes in to one of those "special" websites to watch Koch videos.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
If the billionaire Koch bros are against it, it must be good for the average folks!
The Koch Brothers opposed Donald Trump and opposed Obama. Their track record of buying election isn't so good.
Hello? McFly? You do know that that presidential election isn't the only election in the country, right?
The Koch bros have been fantastically successful at buying elections. They were the driving force behind the state-level turn over of political offices to the republican party. They've also been so succesful at buying elections in congress that there is a 40 member "koch caucus."
PS its weird you capitalized the "B" in brothers. What's that about?
Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding broadband or internet systems,
MhmmmKay. Let's whip that around a bit, shall we?
Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding fire departments,
Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding police departments,
Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding Public water & sewer systems,
Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding Hospital systems,
Fundamentally, we don't believe that taxpayers should be funding streets and highways,
Because, fundamentally, internet access isn't about browsing porn anymore. It's about scheduling medical appointments, getting prescription refills, it's about having a job, or looking for a job. It's about paying your bills, taxes, and doing your banking. It's about ordering things on line you simply can't get at your local brick and mortar store even if you wanted to take the trouble.
Because, fundamentally, if a person doesn't understand how all pervasive and simply necessary internet access is, they are either planning to rip off the public, or they are thinking with their fundament.
Fundamentally.
You can discern the hypocrisy in their statement by observing how fast they get on board if it's building (with tax dollars!) a billion dollar sports stadium or for a multi-billion dollar air port expansion, or a new freeway. Better watch out then, because they will leave hoof prints (like all jack asses do) across your back.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
This is why synchronization clocks, power demand limiters, and crowbar systems are required on back feeding power into the grid. As a last resort, the grid operator can blow the fusible links via the crowbar system either automatically or manually.
I do agree there are some challenges to backfeeding the grid, but it's all mostly older control systems. About the worst problems grid operators these days face is an over supply of power in off peak periods - that's why power demand limiters are required. It's very rare now days to have a phase lock loss causing a net grid drain due to feeding power back into the grid out of phase.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Affiliated with their network. In plain English, at two degrees of separation from them.
This is just clickbait.
Minority parties generally don't have the luxury of being corrupt.
Not an issue because the cheapest inverters blow themselves open while the better ones should be able to manage themselves.
Could we add that opposing A doesn't equate endorsing B?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yes, but when you're putting down new cables, why not use whatever is state of the art?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Most areas in Europe where the cables were put into ground by government monopolies. Usually the deal when the market was liberalized was that the infrastructure (that was paid for by tax money before the opening of the market) went into a holding company and every service provider who wanted to use it has to pay them on equal footing. Or put down their own if they so please.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They oppose government giveaways to rich corporations that the Koch Brothers don't own or have invested interest in.
Infrastructure spending supports companies and individuals as well. Your highway which Walmart uses to ship their products is the same highway that you use to commute to work. Upgrading to fiber will have a net improvement for the community. The big companies will benefit from it, also the individuals.
Unfortunately there are too many groups who wants the government out of everything, doesn't see the big picture, where infrastructure which is expensive, has a low profit margin to build. Needs government support to keep it running and operational, as it is one of the few things that really will pay for itself over time.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Modem....routing? Holy balls. 802.1q. Double-tagged traffic, with tags added at the ONT (FTTH customer prem equipment). Outer tag identifies Service Provider, Inner tag identifies Customer, or there could be other schemes. Some access equipment supports MPLS encapsulation so you don't even need to worry about VLAN assignments being unique accross ISPs. The access equipment can be connected directly to a colocated ISP on a dedicated LAG, or there could be an ENNI between routers of the facilities based ISP and the colocated ISP, which would require fewer physical connections but would burn more of the ISPs router ports ($$$).
The main problem with this is that it requires a level of cooperation that most US ISPs aren't competent to handle. There are standards for how services are delivered between carriers, defined by the Metro Ethernet Forum, but they're not widely understood outside the Wholesale game. AT&T or VZ are competent enough, but have no incentive to support it.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Why is it that those that do not pay taxes impose their brand of hate on those who do pay taxes? Hay Koch bro's and friends, you ain't gitt'in any younger; maybe you might want to work on that problem? My solution is to watch these closed minded greed bags, decay.
When people pull this crap, I usually just assume they're pretending to be Jesus, saying something like "Whoever is not with me is against me!" or something to that effect, regardless of if it's even appropriate to the context.
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
e.g. AT&T ... can get decent gigabit service for $100/mo in new construction, but everyone else seems left to rot in 25mbps ADSL hell.
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
Poor A/C, you're so very naive. Percents, princess, percents are how taxes are paid. When you make more than what you're making being Wal-Mart greeter; you'll start to comprehend, maybe. As for stealing from them? Two points bitch; one, calling folks, "Thief," ain't funny or cute. Go to your manager and say it. Second, I want the twirppy shits to just go away. They're a blight, and their lack of presence would be negligible at best. Has anyone considered that these multi-billion off shore companies are Monopolies? Why are they allowed to exist?
"Care to give us an example"
Others have answered for me. How do you think it should be done?
"Care to give us an example"
Others have answered for me. How do you think it should be done?
I have not seen a single response that points to an executed contract in the US that has proven to work out. Like I said, those that win the contracts tend to monopolize them over time.
I don't profess there is a single way it 'should be done'. And I don't even have a problem with some of the suggested (yet unproven) approaches. I'm not going to agree or disagree with an approach just because the Koch brothers said something about it. Concerns that public money often results in an giveaway to a company that winds up in a monopoly situation are certainly valid though, and shouldn't be dismissed because it is by far the most common result.
Short term contracts for 5 or even 10 year holds are appealing, but actually can result in higher consumer costs to account for the risk of displacement. OTOH, the customer investment in user equipment (STBs, etc) gives the holder a unique advantage. I think, if public money will be used for infrastructure, it would be best to have multiple ISPs and TV providers simultaneously supporting the same region.
As for your replies, I've seen no thoughts or insights on anything.
Ah yes, the whiny commie republic terrorists are yet another temper tantrum, this time about internet access and fiber expansion. Yes, the internet is a utility like electricity, but you are not entitled to it and the socialist organization commonly known as goo-goo-gaa-gaa-google isn't entitled either. If they want the fiber they should pay for it out of their own pockets. Oh wait, you republicans want everything handed to you without working for it. Fortunately, the GOP has Washington so all of the entitlement programs you whiny commie republicterrorists will disappear. Once they do you republicans will go into full temper tantrum mode like the devil-spawned autistitards you are, and like James Hodgkinson and Adam Lanza were. After all, hatred for and treason against the Christian nation of America is in your party.
FIFY
Christian nation of America is in your party
This does make me laugh. Christian nation. America is no more a Christian nation as China is.
If techs didn't disagree with each other, then Microsoft would rule the world.
Only Siths deal in absolutes
If techs didn't disagree with each other, then Microsoft would rule the world.
"I have not seen a single response that points to an executed contract in the US that has proven to work out. Like I said, those that win the contracts tend to monopolize them over time."
If the task is a natural monopoly, say like internet infrastructure, once the equipment is installed, using some kind of non profit and clear regulations to maintain the system could work.
Can you provide more information on this Colorado front range solution? I had a big discussion with colleagues about how that is the only way true competition can work in the residential internet world. I'd like to show them it's not just a theory but there are places doing it.
Charter, ATT, a couple smaller ISPs -- all providing higher speeds than the village.
Longmont, CO
Ft. Collins is just figuring out how to do this.
Centennial information is probably the most detailed. Check this out.
There are more that have put in fiber and several others looking to do so. In general, they are taking the approach of 'wide out west'. Basically, they are installing and owning the fiber, BUT, then either sub-contract to another company to manage the fiber, while also allowing multiple companies to provide services. With this approach, you have a city-owned monopoly on the fiber, but all else is contracted on a competitive basis.
This really is the smart way to go. In fact, I would love to see utilities be forced to split their grid assets off (or their generators) and then focus on just 1 things.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.