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
Have gnu, will travel.
" Fort Collins, Colorado will be the latest to try and table a petition..."
US English - to table something means to put it away without further discussion. "Let's table this motion till next week."
British English - to table something means to place it on the table for discussion. "Let's table this ISP motion and vote on it."
I always thought DSLReports was US based and used US English... who knew?
E
P.S. WAY TO GO FT COLLINS and the other 100 CO cities that have fingered "you're number one" to Comcast and the telcos.
"Comments have been disabled for this video"
I'm shocked.
From the Comcast ad
It absolutely will.
I work from home, logged into my employer's computers over the internet.
That takes my car off the road 10 trips per week, during rush hour, the busiest time of day.
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.