Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Tries To Derail Fort Collins Community Broadband (dslreports.com)
Karl Bode reports of Comcast's efforts to "derail Fort Collins community broadband": Colorado is one of more than twenty states where incumbent broadband ISPs have quite literally written and purchased state protectionist laws prohibiting towns and cities from getting into the broadband business, even in instances where the private sector has failed to deliver. But Colorado is unique in that town and cities in the state have been able to vote locally on whether to overturn this ISP-lobbying-for- law, SB 152. And guess what? They keep voting to exempt themselves from the law, usually overwhelmingly. Dozens of cities and towns continue to opt out of the restrictive state measure during local elections. More than 100 have done it so far, which should tell you plenty about how locals feel about their local broadband options. Fort Collins, Colorado will be the latest to try and table a petition on November 7 simply exploring the idea of opting out of this state provision and considering a city-run broadband network. But Motherboard highlights how incumbent ISPs like Comcast have already spent more than $200,000 to prevent this conversation from even happening. To be clear Fort Collins isn't certain to proceed with such a network, but incumbent ISPs are terrified they've even begun to have the conversation, and have been running ads like this one to try and derail it.
Government of the people, by the corporations, for the profit.
If you can't vote and can't be put in jail, you shouldn't be able to lobby or contribute to politicians. Corporations are NOT people.
On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
You paid $200K to not have any competition?
No, they paid $200k for advertising to express their ideas and opinions. And it isn't just "not have any competition", it is to prevent taxpayer based, non-profit, non-franchised competition. Three very important concepts.
The bonds are a burden on the taxpayer. That's who gets to pay back the money that they are borrowing to build the system. It's money taken under threat of force from everyone in a municipality. There is no risk to the investors, they are going to get their money back whether the project is a success or not. They're the rich people who are making profit by investing. The same rich people that we think already make too much money. Tax-free muni bonds are a low-risk profit maker for investors.
The system is non-profit, which means they can undercut the incumbent and force it out of business by always having lower costs. We have laws against corporations "dumping" to do this, and people routinely oppose companies like Walmart that can afford to operate at a loss for some time in a new market, but if a city can do the same thing to a for-profit that's just peachy?
And finally, the municipality is avoiding the franchise process altogether. That's the laws and contracts that require the incumbent cable company to pay fees for access to the public rights-of-way, and provide certain service guarantees like covering the entire franchise area with a variety of services, not just internet. Even if the "city broadband" pays franchise fees, they are paying them to itself and thus what one hand counts as an expense the other counts as profit.
How is it hard to imagine that any company that has invested money and time into building a system, based on contracts signed by both parties, to oppose a change that makes their contracts still binding but doesn't require those who compete with them to have the same provisions? If you ran an auto repair shop, let's say, where you had contracted with the city to lease a parcel of land from them with a provision that they'd send all city maintenance to your shop, and suddenly the city is letting a competitor use city land for their auto shop for free, paying the competitor's employees, and sending all their business to that other shop, wouldn't you object?
you forfeit your rights, you lose your $200K and you give everything built/upgraded so far to the competition you just prevented.
This is a fascinating idea, and I wonder how we apply it to other advertising. Do political candidates who spend $200k in political advertising but don't win the election owe $200k to the winning competitor and have to give the winner all of their campaign stuff? The losing political candidate did try to spend $200k to not have any competition, so why wouldn't your idea apply?
What is scarier is the "forfeit your rights". The right to free speech is kinda important. Or maybe every losing candidate in a political arena loses his right to free speech and we never hear from them again. One and done. Yeah, I like it.
If the broadband market is so underserved that cities think they have to do it, why aren't there more broadband companies springing up to serve this teeming mass of yearning netizens? You'd think that anyone who came to town offering a cheaper alternative to the incumbent, using cheaper distribution systems and not burdened by non-internet services (like paying ESPN and local broadcast carriage fees for cable TV) would be raking in cash hand over fist.
And yet, we hear that these companies don't show up. They leave the huge piles of cash on the table for the cable company to rake in. (We "hear" that, because in my city there is an alternative that uses cheaper distribution systems and is competing quite well.)
Comcast cannot stop competitors who follow the required franchise process from entering the market, so where are the competitors -- if there is a demand?
The fine article tries to point out that the
No, they paid $200k for advertising to express their ideas and opinions. And it isn't just "not have any competition", it is to prevent taxpayer based, non-profit, non-franchised competition. Three very important concepts.
I have received three mailings and seen ads on Satellite TV "local" channels from a coordinated disinformation campaign opposing the city's proposal. The points made are carefully crafted to scare voters into believing in highly unlikely risks and that municipal internet will take away from other priorities (specifically road maintenance). While I do consider this free speech, the views expressed appear carefully crafted talking points that have distinctly false implications rather than honest "ideas and opinions".
The bonds are a burden on the taxpayer. That's who gets to pay back the money that they are borrowing to build the system.
Not true. While, the taxpayers are the ultimate guarantor of the bonds, it will be subscribers to this network who pay the costs, including the interest and principal on this debt. The proposal has to be revenue neutral - otherwise it is a tax which the city cannot under Colorado law raise without a new vote.
The system is non-profit, which means they can undercut the incumbent and force it out of business by always having lower costs.
Boo, hoo! The sole reason the city is looking into this is that the "market" has failed to provide the options that many of us want, and has unreasonably elevated prices due to lack of competition.
And finally, the municipality is avoiding the franchise process altogether. That's the laws and contracts that require the incumbent cable company to pay fees for access to the public rights-of-way, and provide certain service guarantees like covering the entire franchise area with a variety of services, not just internet. Even if the "city broadband" pays franchise fees, they are paying them to itself and thus what one hand counts as an expense the other counts as profit.
The franchise model is a choice a city makes coupled with an agreement with a franchisee to provide access to the internet to the people in the city. When better options become available, it is the city's duty to explore them. Comcast is working hard to prevent this, having lobbied hard to pass a ridiculous anti-municipal-competition law, and now flooding the city of Fort Collins with misinformation. We owe them no duty of "fairness" vis-a-vis existing franchise fees here. Indeed, if Comcast cannot provide better service than the city at a better price, then they should no longer be entitled to a privileged monopoly withing the city.
How is it hard to imagine that any company that has invested money and time into building a system, based on contracts signed by both parties, to oppose a change that makes their contracts still binding but doesn't require those who compete with them to have the same provisions? If you ran an auto repair shop, let's say, where you had contracted with the city to lease a parcel of land from them with a provision that they'd send all city maintenance to your shop, and suddenly the city is letting a competitor use city land for their auto shop for free, paying the competitor's employees, and sending all their business to that other shop, wouldn't you object?
Giant cable companies are the opposite of naive in business dealings like this, taking advantage of loopholes and lobbying strongly (>$18M, in the case of Comcast) to get what they want. This is the big league and if Comcast can't make it, they don't deserve to play.
The bonds are a burden on the taxpayer. That's who gets to pay back the money that they are borrowing to build the system. It's money taken under threat of force from everyone in a municipality. There is no risk to the investors, they are going to get their money back whether the project is a success or not. They're the rich people who are making profit by investing. The same rich people that we think already make too much money. Tax-free muni bonds are a low-risk profit maker for investors.
You reference the second sentence later in this diatribe, so presumably you just forgot. "The broadband budget is going to be funded 100 percent through subscriber fees," Atkins noted. "If you don't build the network, it doesn't magically create $150 million to spend on something else". Historically this is exactly what happens. Here is the exact same scenario played out a couple years earlier in california. Those people now enjoy $50 gigabit internet, and the taxpayers there never even needed to be forcibly robbed by those evil rich people like you suggest!
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/19/longmont-internet-service/19294335/
The system is non-profit, which means they can undercut the incumbent and force it out of business by always having lower costs. We have laws against corporations "dumping" to do this, and people routinely oppose companies like Walmart that can afford to operate at a loss for some time in a new market, but if a city can do the same thing to a for-profit that's just peachy?
Yup! Pretty cool huh? You see the reason we don't let large companies operate at a loss just to drive their competitors out of business is because we learned long ago that this is straight out of the monopolist playbook and the reason they are doing it is so that right when their competitor is gone, they can jack up prices and screw people over all they want. As the local government exists to provide services to local residents, that isn't a risk... so no reason to prevent it.
And finally, the municipality is avoiding the franchise process altogether. That's the laws and contracts that require the incumbent cable company to pay fees for access to the public rights-of-way, and provide certain service guarantees like covering the entire franchise area with a variety of services, not just internet. Even if the "city broadband" pays franchise fees, they are paying them to itself and thus what one hand counts as an expense the other counts as profit.
How is it hard to imagine that any company that has invested money and time into building a system, based on contracts signed by both parties, to oppose a change that makes their contracts still binding but doesn't require those who compete with them to have the same provisions? If you ran an auto repair shop, let's say, where you had contracted with the city to lease a parcel of land from them with a provision that they'd send all city maintenance to your shop, and suddenly the city is letting a competitor use city land for their auto shop for free, paying the competitor's employees, and sending all their business to that other shop, wouldn't you object?
Companies don't have a right to profit, nor to be protected from competition - public or otherwise. Would it be illegal for me to start a (non profit) charity that focuses on installing fiber lines to the poor? Does the US Military unfairly compete with private military contractors? By your logic they do. Nice try to work in a car (auto shop) analogy, but it doesn't make a lot of sense. If the local government had signed a binding contract that governed this outcome, Comcast would only need to ask a court to enforce it.
If the broadband market is so underserved that cities think they have to do it, why aren't there more broadband companies springing up to serve this teeming mass of yearning netizens? You'd think that anyone who came to town offering a cheaper alternative to t