Nearly Half of Colorado Counties Have Rejected a Comcast-Backed Law Restricting City-Run Internet (vice.com)

bumblebaetuna shares a report from Motherboard: In Tuesday's Coordinated Election, two Colorado counties voted on ballot measures to exempt themselves from a state law prohibiting city-run internet services. Both Eagle County and Boulder County voters approved the measures, bringing the total number of Colorado counties that have rejected the state law to 31 -- nearly half of the state's 64 counties. Senate Bill 152 -- which was lobbied for by Big Telecom -- became law in Colorado in 2005, and prohibits municipalities in the state from providing city-run broadband services.

Some cities prefer to build their own broadband network, which delivers internet like a utility to residents, and is maintained through subscription costs. But ever since SB 152 was enacted, Colorado communities have to first bring forward a ballot measure asking voters to exempt the area from the state law before they can even consider starting a municipal broadband service. So that's what many of them have done. In addition to the 31 counties that have voted to overrule the state restrictions, dozens of municipalities in the state have also passed similar ballot measures. Including cities, towns, and counties, more than 100 communities in Colorado have pushed back against the 12-year-old prohibition, according to the Institute for Local Self Reliance.

Comments

That's odd

[Anonymous Coward]

What could possibly motivate state legislators vote for a law that restricts the ability of communities to compete with companies?

Re:That's odd

[interkin3tic]

You're suggesting bribery, but I think a lot of state legislators are/were simply motivated by the religious belief that government cannot do anything useful beyond police and military. "Government no make jobs! GOVERNMENT NO MAKE JOBS!!!"

In some ways, that's worse. Bribery is at least logical, and can be outlawed. The cult of the free market on the other hand cannot be reasoned with, nor can you jail someone for it.

Re:That's odd

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Because the legal power to force you to pay for a service whether you want it or not is not competition? If a private concern did that, you'd rightfully howl.

Are you going to exempt people who continue to buy the better private service? What? Nooo?

What surprise!

To give you a hint of what's to come, Detroit Metro airport built a massive new parking structure, staffed it, and nobody came. Private shuttle services to lots a mile or more away were more than worth it. So the government passed a "government is inefficient" 30% tax on those lots, and still had problems.

Meanwhile, out state people who drove in to the airport the night before their flight and stayed in airport hotels would leave their cars in the hotel lots when they left the next day, with the hotel's blessing.

Nope! That was made illegal too. Because the government cannot compete in legitimate business. They must cheat and put their thumb on the scale and skimp and finally outlaw the competition which outdoes them in spite of all that.

That is why it isn't competition.

Re:That's odd

[Tailhook]

Money. Michigan just had a little episode involving a Senator from Comcast. Michele Hoitenga introduced a bill to block any township or municipal funding of community broadband initiatives state wide. She did this because there are some now voter approved plans to wire up a few semi-rural townships that Comcast et al. can't be bothered with, and because the telcoms and cable outfits are funding her campaign.

People are clued in though; she withdrew the bill after enough people noticed and let her know. She trotted out the usual "death threats" claim for good measure.

Re:That's odd

[WheezyJoe]

Bribery is at least logical, and can be outlawed. The cult of the free market on the other hand cannot be reasoned with, nor can you jail someone for it.

Bribery can be obfuscated, and the strongest "cult" is the one with the most money to build the biggest church on the most valuable piece of property. Politician say "GOVERNMENT NO MAKE JOBS!!!", corporation/fat-cat say "Good boy, now roll-over while Daddy pays Super-PAC to produce vicious attack-ads to run at all hours on all channels of his big cable network spanning every district."

Politician say "Big cable GOOD! Big cable GOOD!"

Re:That's odd

[Anonymous Coward]

... cult of the free market ...

Many times, Comcast and friends aren't using the 'free market' excuse because they have a monopoly over the county. They use the 'socialism is bad' (which, strictly obeyed, would ban the municipal government), or the 'privatisation is the answer' (no-body ask what the question was) arguments.

Re:That's odd

[alvinrod]

I think people who make this argument really misunderstand what is meant when people say that government cannot make jobs, though I suspect there are plenty of people who make the statement and support it without understanding it either.

From a plain language perspective, it's pretty obvious that government can make jobs. At a minimum any government official is holding a job position that wouldn't exist without the government. Those officials will likely create a lot of other government jobs as part of a bureaucracy in service of those initial jobs, much like a company has administrative assistants, HR departments, and plenty of other staff that don't have anything to do with the core business of the company. Similarly, the FBI, IRS, and other government agencies all need staff. The Department of Homeland Security certainly created a lot of jobs in order to fulfill the purposes it was created for.

But here's the funny thing. Government doesn't create jobs, but neither do companies. Sure a company can employee people for some task just like a government does, but the company can't just create any job at its whim. I could pay a few hundred people to create sculptures of 16th century philosophers fashioned entirely out of their own shit, but I could scarcely afford to for very long. It's consumer demand that ultimately creates jobs, and not any one person's particular whims about what kind of labor should be done. Unless you have customers willing to pay for your products, any job you might create is extremely temporary at best.

The notion that governments can't create jobs isn't about whether or not they can pay people to perform some activity. It's plainly obvious that they can. What is really meant by the phrase is that governments can't hope to direct the economy because they cannot possible imagine what it is that people actually want and value most. The Soviets and many others tried and failed miserably to direct economies no matter how much effort they devoted to central planning. That is also plainly obvious from history.

The difference is that a free market system allows for participants to see the kinds of jobs created that they're willing to pay to maintain rather than have them created by government decree. Furthermore, a government ban on municipal services is against free market principles. Also long as a city municipal internet company does not have any unfair competitive advantages by law, there's no reason why that option shouldn't exist. A free market cannot possibly exist if the government has legislated a monopoly.

If it seems that so many people who are in favor of free markets are against the government getting involved in markets its because a business in a free market is able to fail, freeing up the labor it used for other uses. Government jobs tend not to go away once created, even when most people wouldn't want to buy those services in any form. Look no further than the TSA for an example of where the government is forcing something down consumers throats when you'd be hard pressed to find people who would be willing to voluntarily purchase that kind of service.

Re:That's odd

[FudRucker]

lobbyists are just legalized bribery in Washington DC

Re:That's odd

[dgatwood]

Because the legal power to force you to pay for a service whether you want it or not is not competition? If a private concern did that, you'd rightfully howl.

Private concerns do it all the time. They get "redevelopment funds" to build out the infrastructure, but then it is privately owned. You, the taxpayer, end up paying for it whether you use it or not, but you don't get the benefit of the government continuing to own the infrastructure and getting to benefit by leasing it to ISPs. Private infrastructure is generally the worst of all possible options other than perhaps no infrastructure at all.

Are you going to exempt people who continue to buy the better private service? What? Nooo?

From the infrastructure buildout cost? No. That wouldn't be feasible. From the cost of operating it? Yes. Municipal ISPs work just like any other ISP. If you aren't using it, you don't pay for it.

That said, they are usually much cheaper and faster than the commercial ISPs, because they don't need to turn a profit. And often, multiple commercial ISPs spring up to lease access from the city and provide additional value-add services (e.g. cable-TV-over-fiber) at prices that are also much cheaper than the existing cable companies and ISPs, because the infrastructure cost (the expensive part) is run on a non-profit basis. So in the long term, most people will be using it....

To give you a hint of what's to come, Detroit Metro airport built a massive new parking structure, staffed it, and nobody came. Private shuttle services to lots a mile or more away were more than worth it. So the government passed a "government is inefficient" 30% tax on those lots, and still had problems.

They made the mistake of assuming they could charge ridiculously high prices to pay off the cost of the structure quickly. This probably means that either they didn't really need the parking structure or they didn't do sufficient financial planning to support it over the lifetime of the loan. It happens.

But experimentally, public fiber services have not had those sorts of problems. Quite the opposite. In the absence of unreasonable regulatory hurdles from incumbent ISPs, new fiber providers kick the living crap out of the incumbents cost-wise and service-wise, regardless of whether those fiber providers are governmental or commercial. But government-owned fiber has the advantage of being able to be leased non-preferentially, which allows for true competition that would otherwise be infeasible because of the cost of the infrastructure. That makes it by far the best approach to rolling out fiber, in the absence of laws preventing it.

Re:That's odd

[Ol Olsoc]

lobbyists are just blatant baksheesh in Washington DC

FTFY ;^)

Re: That's odd

[ShanghaiBill]

Except that you know companies do exactly the same thing.

No they don't. Cable and utility services are natural monopolies, and will be abused if not regulated. But airport parking is NOT a natural monopoly, and in this case the monopoly was imposed by government coercion. That is not "the exact same thing".

Anyway, making everyone pay for the cable installation, whether they use it or not, may make sense. If the government builds a park, everyone pays even if they will never use the park, because they still benefit from rising property values since the park makes their city a nicer place to live. Ubiquitous internet may have a similar effect of raising property values and creating job opportunities.

The important question is: "What does the data say?" Enough cities have municipal internet that there should be data to show whether it is a good idea, and whether it leads to growth and property value appreciation.

Re:That's odd

[dryeo]

The city and their stockholders, I mean residents, are happy to make 1% or less profit. What private company is going to be happy with that?

Re:That's odd

[Zaelath]

If it seems that so many people who are in favor of free markets are against the government getting involved in markets its because a business in a free market is able to fail, freeing up the labor it used for other uses. Government jobs tend not to go away once created, even when most people wouldn't want to buy those services in any form. Look no further than the TSA for an example of where the government is forcing something down consumers throats when you'd be hard pressed to find people who would be willing to voluntarily purchase that kind of service.

There's broad community support, particularly from those that don't fly or at least don't fly often, for the TSA. People do want to /feel/ safe.

Trouble is most people get really annoyed about the government interference that stops them pissing in the stream, but really think something should be done about those folks up the hill pissing in the stream.

Re: That's odd

[thestuckmud]

Anyway, making everyone pay for the cable installation, whether they use it or not, may make sense

Perhaps, but this point is moot if other local governments in Colorado use the model that the city of Fort Collins just approved. Our plan creates an "enterprise fund" whiose funds "can only be spent on a specific purpose and rely on charges and user fees generated by the service to recover cost." [private communication from city manager's office]. Users of competing broadband providers will not be taxed in any way to subsidize the city's program.

Re:That's odd

[interkin3tic]

If it seems that so many people who are in favor of free markets are against the government getting involved in markets its because a business in a free market is able to fail, freeing up the labor it used for other uses

That's a compelling argument, I've never thought about it that way.

Two points though:
One: Saying "Government doesn't create jobs" is a fucking lie then. The statement should be "government doesn't create jobs that go away," except that would of course make it sound like a good thing.
Two: That's a pretty big generalization that doesn't hold up. Government funded scientist jobs get cut all the time. Many government jobs, including municipal broadband workers don't go away because the need doesn't go away. And government budgets go up and down, leading to people being cut. It's not as ruthlessly efficient at laying people off, sure, but I've yet to see the proof that benefits anyone except for the elites who don't really need much extra.

Re:That's odd

[Obfuscant]

In the absence of unreasonable regulatory hurdles from incumbent ISPs, new fiber providers kick the living crap out of the incumbents cost-wise and service-wise,

Quite right. A city operated ISP without those regulatory hurdles will always win over a cable system that has to follow the franchise contract. A city "company" that has to provide only ISP services can certainly operate more cheaply than a cable system that the city mandates must provide ISP, cable, and other services. (That's what is meant by "cherry-picking". The city picks the services it wants to provide; the cable company has a contract with the city to do all of them.) That's why the city should not be competing.

That makes it by far the best approach to rolling out fiber, in the absence of laws preventing it.

Comcast in this area rolled out fiber a long time ago. Not because of city competition, but because the franchise required it. No other competitor to Comcast in this area has a requirement to install a specific kind of medium.

The city certainly isn't going to require itself to pay the costs of installing a complete fiber cable television plant, but it has required Comcast to do that. If you can regulate costs onto the other guy, it sure make it easier to sell the same product cheaper.

Re: That's odd

[Obfuscant]

Users of competing broadband providers will not be taxed in any way to subsidize the city's program.

What happens when the fees don't cover the costs? And who is paying to install the infrastructure before there are any fees being collected to pay for it?

Taxpayers are always on the hook for city services. If any service doesn't collect enough fees to cover costs, taxpayers have to fill in the deficit.

[private communication from city manager's office]

Politicians are scum who lie every time they speak, unless they say something we like. Then they are speaking gospel truth. If you listen carefully to what he said, you will note that it does NOT say that the only source of money to pay for the system is this "enterprise fund". He said that the only thing the enterprise fund monies CAN pay for is "the specific purpose". If there aren't enough "enterprise fund" monies to cover the costs, the general fund is the next stop.

You've also forgotten, what is true today is not necessarily true tomorrow. Our Fair City has set up lots of "funds" that are intended for a special purpose, only to wind up with a change later that puts the money into the general fund for general spending, or even better, to change the "special purpose" that the fees are spent on. ("Temporary road use fee on the water bill to pay for repair of two sections of road the contractor screwed up" has morphed into "permanent general road repair fund so we can spend the general fund money on something else", for one example.)

Re: That's odd

[thestuckmud]

What happens when the fees don't cover the costs? And who is paying to install the infrastructure before there are any fees being collected to pay for it?

Taxpayers are always on the hook for city services. If any service doesn't collect enough fees to cover costs, taxpayers have to fill in the deficit.

First, let me say this. We won. You lost. Nana nana boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.

I know that was childish, but it actually does make me feel better and may well be the best way to address your misinformation and conspiracy theory.

OK. Here's the deal. Ft. Collins taxpayers have agreed, by vote in this election, to allow the city to issue bonds for the broadband enterprise fund, to be repaid by network subscribers. In doing so, we collectively agreed that the benefits outweigh the risks, and we implicitly accept that in the unlikely event of failure we will cover the bonds or face city bankruptcy.

Your objection has been noted, but you have been outvoted,.

If there aren't enough "enterprise fund" monies to cover the costs, the general fund is the next stop.

You are plainly wrong here. The new utility is an enterprise fund, which, in this case, has its finances separated from other city funding.

You've also forgotten, what is true today is not necessarily true tomorrow. Our Fair City has set up lots of "funds" that are intended for a special purpose, only to wind up with a change later that puts the money into the general fund for general spending, or even better, to change the "special purpose" that the fees are spent on. ("Temporary road use fee on the water bill to pay for repair of two sections of road the contractor screwed up" has morphed into "permanent general road repair fund so we can spend the general fund money on something else", for one example.)

Well... Taxation is constrained by TaBOR, so I would not be surprised to learn that some creative redirection has been enacted. But the point here is that you can choose to use other broadband providers, and if you do so you won't have to pay any of the fees charged by the Ft. Collins municipal internet.

Re: That's odd

[Darinbob]

Governments have already created monopolies, that's how Comcast got the upper hand in the first place. Forbidding municpal broadband would in essence be the same as supporting the Comast monopoly. Except for those people who somehow don't believe that monopolies exist or that they can last long because their free market religion forbids such heresy. People in the real world however know that the free market screws up all the time.

Re: That's odd

[Darinbob]

Hmm, didn't GM dump its bankruptcy on the government?

Re:That's odd

[blindseer]

lobbyists are just legalized bribery in Washington DC

Oh really? Do you care to qualify this? I mean *ALL* lobbying can't be legalized bribery, can it? If I go to DC and ask my senators for clean air and water does that mean I've committed some kind of legalized bribery?

I'm sure that there are solar power lobbyists in DC right now. Wind power lobbyists too. Lobbyists for public education, blood and organ donation, drunk driving prevention, drug legalization, drug crime mandatory minimums, nuclear power, anti-nuclear power, and lobbyists for lobbyists. Regardless of what political stance you approve or disapprove there are likely lobbyists for and against. Are all of these people committing "legalized bribery"? Or, are only the lobbyists that lobby for the political stance that you disapprove are guilty?

I do believe that lobbying is necessary to the political process, how else are elected officials supposed to know what their constituents are concerned about? Or, is the voicing of these opinions not always lobbying? I'm quite certain that people have the right to speak to their elected officials. I'm also quite certain that this right is protected by the US Constitution. I may not like what some of the lobbyists have to say but I'm not going to claim they don't have the right to lobby. That might not go over well should I feel the need to go to DC any lobby myself, such as for clean air and water. That is unless you have a problem with clean air and water.

Re: That's odd

[Darinbob]

Which is why the telecom lines should be treated as public infrastructure. This was true after the breakup of AT&T, all the competing new phone companies were allowed to make use of AT&Ts existing infrastructure, even those companies that were not originally a part of AT&T (ie, Sprint and such). The infrastructure created by monopolies like Time Warner and Comcast should be opened up to allow competition under the same rules as for telephone companies.

Re: That's odd

[Anonymous Coward]

Asking by talking is not the same as asking by giving the politician money. Giving the politician money so they will listen to you is the same as legalized bribery. The politician listens better to the larger donor, so yes, votes are purchased.

Re: That's odd

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there are exceptions doesnâ(TM)t mean a comment is not substantively correct. As one who has been part of the process, buying laws that are not good for the majority of constituents is easily 90%+ of lobbying in my opinion. At least in the USA. you donâ(TM)t get a say unless you are quite wealthy. Well, you have a say, itâ(TM)s just that nobody listens.

Re:That's odd

[jeff4747]

What is really meant by the phrase is that governments can't hope to direct the economy because they cannot possible imagine what it is that people actually want and value most.

When it comes to things like consumer goods, government is ill-suited to satisfy consumer demand. Tastes change, and innovation is critical. Both are better handled by private entities.

When it comes to basic utilities like water, power, and now Internet service, government does just fine. The product is absurdly simple and demand is more-or-less universal. And before the "must sell all public utilities" cult took over, government delivered those utilities at a lower cost than the now-private utility companies.

Re:That's odd

[david_thornley]

Comcast starts with good connections to each house, and so internet service is not that difficult. Having a city infrastructure (which will typically build connections to each house) is going to cost a lot of money.

Cable TV at least used to make money, which is why cable companies went to all that bother to get the franchises. Forcing someone to bundle a profitable service in with another service that uses most of the same equipment doesn't sound particularly onerous.

Now, if you like your Comcast service, great. Lots of people don't. As long as it's Comcast or DSL, Comcast doesn't have to be very good to be the best choice. Comcast is known for not necessarily building high-speed connections to areas where it would be unprofitable. If the city internet is competitive, people have more of a choice.

Re:That's odd

[Obfuscant]

Comcast starts with good connections to each house, and so internet service is not that difficult.

"Internet service" on the level that Comcast operates (national) is much much more than just a wire to the house. It is a complete network infrastructure, including hardware to piggyback a network service on top of a cable television service.

Having a city infrastructure (which will typically build connections to each house) is going to cost a lot of money.

Yep. But it cost Comcast a lot of money, and on an ongoing basis, to build and maintain its internet service, too.

Cable TV at least used to make money, which is why cable companies went to all that bother to get the franchises.

Cable TV still makes money or Comcast wouldn't be doing it. No company can operate at a loss. Undercutting the existing ISPs by selectively removing costs that the incumbent cannot is why competition from a government is unfair. A city doesn't have to make a profit, for example. It can operate at a loss forever. It has free access to the city rights-of-way. It has city employees to perform maintenance. Comcast is not so lucky. That's just a few cost differences.

Forcing someone to bundle a profitable service in with another service that uses most of the same equipment doesn't sound particularly onerous.

Until you realize that the costs of bundling are not going to be one of the city's costs of operation. Comcast has to pass on the cost of the cable TV service when it bills the sub; the city has no cost associated with cable TV so it can charge a lot less.

Isn't the issue that Comcast does not provide the service at a price that people want to pay? They do broadband, they just don't do it at the price the people who want free internet want to pay. Anything that factors into the higher price, like city-regulated services that Comcast must provide but the city does not, are relevant.

As long as it's Comcast or DSL, Comcast doesn't have to be very good to be the best choice.

So why is there nobody else coming in to eat Comcast's lunch? Why has no smart entrepreneur come into town selling just internet service for a lot less than Comcast? They could certainly make a profit given Comcast's prices and embedded costs, and by avoiding a lot of the costs that Comcast has. For example, a city-sized ISP doesn't have to maintain a long-distance backbone of their own, they can peer with a commercial backbone locally.

But nobody, in all those Colorado cities, has done that. That should be a good clue that there is no profit to be made by running an ISP there. (In my city there are other options, so there is evidence it can be done.)

Before some potty-mouthed AC starts spewing profanity about "monopoly" etc, keep in mind that Comcast, as an ISP, is not a monopoly of either kind. It is neither a "government-granted monopoly" nor an economic one. There are competitors. There just aren't many, and some of the larger competitors cost more. But crying that Comcast is a monopoly in a discussion of internet service is just wrong. The fact that there is competition shows that it can be done at a profit; the fact that some competitors charge more shows that the costs aren't as low as people want to pretend.

If the city internet is competitive, people have more of a choice.

By "competitive" you mean "operates at a lower cost by not having to provide anything but internet service, can benefit from cost-savings by using existing city facilities and personnel, can do so with any losses covered by the taxpayers, and isn't regulated like their competitors so they can have a lower cost, so they can undercut any competition".

What choice will they have when the non-profit, taxpayer-backed internet-only service reduces the number of subscribers for the incumbent ISPs to the point they cannot make a profit? Comcas

Re: That's odd

[Obfuscant]

First, let me say this. We won. You lost. Nana nana boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.

This is what mods call "informative"? Wow. By the way, I didn't "lose".

You are plainly wrong here. The new utility is an enterprise fund, which, in this case, has its finances separated from other city funding.

Did you bother to read your link? I did. It says that the funds in an enterprise fund are "generally" sequestered for use for that service. It does NOT say that losses experienced in that service will not be covered by other sources of money, such as the general fund. The cite you give is explicit to that. Let me quote it for your information: "In some cases, however, the governmental entity may be permitted to use funds in an enterprise fund for other purposes and to use other funds to pay costs otherwise payable from the enterprise fund." Emphasis mine. Not only will the city be permitted to cover the losses for a city service from some other fund, they will be required to do so or they will be operating at a deficit. Someone has to cover the loss, and a city internet service doesn't have a national corporate parent to do it. It's the taxpayers. The cite you used doesn't even require it to be covering a loss, the government can choose to use other funds to pay for things the enterprise fund is intended to. Like, who pays for the maintenance of a pole that the city is using to distribute internet? Is it the enterprise fund, or is it public works who normally maintains such things? Taxpayer money collected for public works could easily be used to support the internet operation. That's just one example.

In doing so, we collectively agreed

A plurality of you agreed to this. There is an old saying that is quite appropriate here: "democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for lunch". You've got forced stockholders in your ISP, ones who can have their houses taken from them for failing to pay taxes if they choose to object.

and we implicitly accept that in the unlikely event of failure we will cover the bonds or face city bankruptcy.

So you freely admit that the taxpayer is on the hook for the costs. That's an involuntary risk you're forcing on your neighbors so you can get cheap internet.

Well... Taxation is constrained by TaBOR,

Another deliberate misinterpretation of a simple concept. Tabor does not prevent a city from spending tax money on something other than the excuse they used for extracting it from the public. It requires that a city get a vote to increase a tax rate (not relevant to this at all), or to spend tax revenue "if revenues grow faster than the rate of inflation and population growth." That's also not relevant here.

Nothing in this Tabor prevents a city from repurposing an existing tax or fee. In fact, if you read past the first paragraph of your cite, you will find this fascinating amendment:,

Any retained Referendum C revenue (revenue above the allowable TABOR limit but below the Referendum C cap) is statutorily required to be spent on health care, education, firefighter and police retirement plans and strategic transportation projects.

So, if the fees and taxes from providing internet service go up more than the limit, it CANNOT BE SPENT ON THE INTERNET SERVICE. It must be spent on other things.

But the point here is that you can choose to use other broadband providers, and if you do so you won't have to pay any of the fees charged by the Ft. Collins municipal internet.

What a disingenuous statement. Nobody said that non-participants have to pay the "fees charged" by the city internet. The issue is that they have to pay the TAXES that back the service and cover the costs that the fees don't. They've already had to pay the taxes that went into the $20 million DORA grant funding. They'll have to pay the ta

Re:That's odd

[desdinova 216]

I know first hand at least 4 of the Detroit airport area hotels offer packages where you can leave a car with a one night stay.

Re: That's odd

[thestuckmud]

But the point here is that you can choose to use other broadband providers, and if you do so you won't have to pay any of the fees charged by the Ft. Collins municipal internet.

What a disingenuous statement. Nobody said that non-participants have to pay the "fees charged" by the city internet. The issue is that they have to pay the TAXES that back the service and cover the costs that the fees don't. They've already had to pay the taxes that went into the $20 million DORA grant funding. They'll have to pay the taxes that fund the bonds during system construction. So no, the "fees" are not the issue at all, but you probably know that.

And if the incumbents have to increase prices based on lower subscriber numbers (fixed costs spread across fewer payers, basic economics) that is, effectively, a tax on users of that service because the increased cost was directly due to government competition. That's also an issue.

Read my lips: no internet taxes! At least not for Ft. Collins, Longmont, and cities like them. I'm not going to explain debt (bond) funding here, which you plainly do not understand, but in my city's case the bonds are funded by fees not taxes.

Regarding Colorado's DORA Broadband Fund: This fund supports underserved areas of the state which cannot obtain adequate internet connectivity. Personally, I think this is the right thing to do. DORA grants are not going to cities like mine.

Competition...

[Zorro]

Is GOOD right?

What would Comcast be afraid.

Re:How is it possible?

[CaptainDork]

Before you spend our time contemplating your assumptions, you could have taken 3.2 minutes (I timed it) to come up with this:

But ever since SB 152 was enacted, Colorado communities have to first bring forward a ballot measure asking voters to exempt the area from the state law before they can even consider starting a municipal broadband service. So that's what many of them have done.

Re:How is it possible?

[caladine]

The law has an "opt-out" provision, provided a referendum is approved to do so.

Re:Trump brand cronyism, brought to you by Comcast

[Calydor]

Yeah, how DARED Pai and Trump do this back in 2005!

Suck it, Comcast.

[Rick Schumann]

The People have spoken: they're tired of ISPs and their autocratic bullshit. I look forward to more of this happening around the country.

Re:Suck it, Comcast.

[will_die]

So how does the motor vehicle department running your ISP help?

Re:Suck it, Comcast.

[jeff4747]

The DMV is far more responsive to complaints, and operates at a lower cost than my ISP.

It's not like a private monopoly is going to give a fuck about keeping customers happy, and at least I can vote on who is in charge of the DMV.

Love-hate relationship with the irony

[istartedi]

The irony of this--Colorado rejects Federal drug laws and goes rogue because the "war on drugs" has become nothing but pork for the prison-industrial complex. Now their counties reject the state's law because it's just pork for the telecoms.

My love is that there's a fight back against these things. My hate is that we even got here in the first place.

Re:Love-hate relationship with the irony

[blindseer]

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

This discussion led me to go look up the Tenth Amendment Center website. They are certainly big on letting people shoot and smoke all they want. If you think that the "war on some drugs" is just something to prop up the prison industry then what do you think of the "war on some guns"? I believe that it's going to be hard to tell people that they can smoke what they can grow but not shoot what they can build. If you think it's silly for someone to go to prison for three years for growing a common weed then would it not also be silly to put someone in prison for playing in their garage with some scrap metal?

What is this "bump stock" that so many congresscritters want to ban now? It's a piece of plastic on a threaded pipe, that's about it. What's a "silencer"? According to the ATF it can be a piece of metal that's got male threads on one end and female threads on the other, as in it can fit a common oil filter to the end of a rifle barrel. What is a "machine gun"? According to the ATF it can be something as simple as a length of string with a loop on each end, people have actually got these "machine guns" registered with the ATF.

I believe that what we've been seeing happen with federal drug laws will soon also happen with federal gun laws. It appears I'm not the only one. I went to the Tenth Amendment Center website and found a couple interesting recent articles on this debate over federal control on guns and drugs. I know lots of Slashdot readers don't like Second Amendment advocacy groups like the NRA, but if you are not a fan of federal prohibitions on marijuana possession then you need to have a different attitude on the NRA. The legal constructs that prohibit marijuana possession are the same constructs that prohibit the possession of silencers. If one goes then so does the other.

Here's just one example explaining this connection between gun laws and drug laws, the connection is the Tenth Amendment.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.co...

There is one important distinction though between gun laws and drug laws, gun laws have an additional amendment in the US Constitution that makes them problematic while drug laws do not. If you believe that Colorado can "go rogue" on drug laws and expect a federal ban on bump stocks to hold up in court then I believe you will be disappointed in the long run.

Re:Love-hate relationship with the irony

[Opportunist]

Drugs: Potentially dangerous to yourself.
Guns: Potentially dangerous to those around you.

Notice the difference.

Re:Love-hate relationship with the irony

[blindseer]

Everything you know about the NRA you must have learned from Whoopi Goldberg.

What's the argument for legalizing marijuana or any other drug? It will be something like the benefits outweigh the harms, states' rights, personal rights, federal government over reach, or so. All the same arguments apply for the right of self defense, or most all anyway.

What kind of restrictions are people expecting for marijuana possession? I mean even the marijuana legalization people aren't expecting a free for all. Largely the argument is that marijuana should be regulated like alcohol. Only adults can possess marijuana. If allowed for children (I emphasize *IF*) then it must be under adult supervision (parent, physician, other person responsible for the health of the child). Sellers must be registered, inspected, and trained. Buyers must present an ID. People in prison or a mental institution will not be allowed access with perhaps exceptions for medical need. All of these same restrictions are called for by the NRA and would at least be tolerated by most Second Amendment advocates, any medicinal claims excepted as I am unaware of any medicinal use of a firearm.

I recall a Second Amendment Foundation official that addressed a "gun show loophole" bill by proposing this alternative, everyone that entered a gun show must have a background check done at the door, no exceptions. This background check would be done through the same FBI database as used by licensed firearms dealers. The groups wanting to close the "gun show loophole" rejected this. Why? Because it didn't require the registration of the firearm transfers. This proves beyond a doubt that this is not about background checks, this was an attempt to create a database of all firearms and who owns them. Why would any government want a database of all firearms and who owns them? Ponder that, and look at what history taught us about previous firearm registries.

Whatever you can think of that would apply to removing restrictions on marijuana would also apply to firearms. You think I don't know that the government might ban bump stocks? Of course they are going to try, they might even be successful in passing that into law. Here's the thing, this will be just as successful as previous bans on marijuana, alcohol, and "assault weapons". If I wanted marijuana then I'm pretty sure I know I could get some by this weekend. I don't because I have respect for the law. Those that lost respect for the law have their drugs, and guns, and alcohol, and bump stocks, and silencers, or whatever else the government thinks that they can make disappear with a law. Marijuana is a weed, people will get it. A bump stock is a piece of plastic, people will make them. A silencer (at least according to the ATF) is a short piece of threaded pipe. A machine gun (again, according to the ATF) is a piece of string. These laws don't keep the criminals from having them. All they do is put good people in prison, because if a piece of string is a machine gun then the government can put anyone in prison.

Re:Love-hate relationship with the irony

[blindseer]

Good thing guns are dangerous to those around you, that's kind of the point, is it not?

Re:Love-hate relationship with the irony

[Opportunist]

I'd still prefer someone shooting heroin to someone shooting a gun. It's easier to dodge a needle.

Re:Love-hate relationship with the irony

[istartedi]

I'm wishing not for states rights; but for laws based on the will of the people as opposed to corruption.

Re:Love-hate relationship with the irony

[david_thornley]

What's the argument for legalizing marijuana or any other drug? It will be something like the benefits outweigh the harms, states' rights, personal rights, federal government over reach, or so. All the same arguments apply for the right of self defense, or most all anyway.

Sure, but there's lots of people who say there should be no restriction on owning guns without going for a cost-benefit analysis. They often cherry-pick studies that support their point of view and make up stories to make it seem more important. I'd like to see a good, honest discussion on gun control, the good points, and the bad points, and nobody seems willing to provide me with one.

This proves beyond a doubt that this is not about background checks, this was an attempt to create a database of all firearms and who owns them. Why would any government want a database of all firearms and who owns them? Ponder that, and look at what history taught us about previous firearm registries.

That they aren't important? The firearm owners in the USA are not a threat to government. The government can always apply vastly superior force if necessary, and trained soldiers in trained units are going to win against a civilian militia approximately all the time. Lots of them seem to have a delusion that they could oppose what they see as tyranny, and this capability has not existed in developed countries for more than a century.

Re: Love-hate relationship with the irony

[blindseer]

Why do you need to ponder it? The intent was stated,namely to deter straw purchases, prevent thefts, and insure proper taxes were paid.

The stated intent was met by the alternative proposed by the SAF. With the alternative being rejected outright, without discussion or debate, means that there was an unstated intent for the background check law. What was that unstated intent? SAF knows what that unstated intent was and so they were not surprised when their proposal was rejected. SAF offered a solution that met all their stated goals, meaning the SAF was in agreement with the need to keep firearms from the hands of the criminals, mentally handicapped, children, and drug addicts.

The gun control advocates keep asking for compromise, SAF offered one that met every stated goal, and the compromise was rejected. This means that they don't want compromise. What is it that they want then? I know what it is, as does the SAF and NRA. If these people were so concerned about keeping guns from the people that should not have them then the SAF offer would have been snapped up immediately.

So why don't you explain why the NRA won't let us do that? Are they just interested in perpetuating tax fraud or do they want to smuggle guns to criminals?

Wait, who's smuggling guns to criminals now? It's not the NRA. Here's a hint...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:How is it possible?

[PopeRatzo]

How did it take you more than three minutes to read the summary, only to come up with a quote that does not explain HOW they can exempt themselves from the law?

The law itself has provisions allowing for exemption mechanisms.

Re:How is it possible?

[sexconker]

Clearly you didn't read TFA or the law. Otherwise you'd understand. Maybe spend a bit more time on it? 3.2 minutes seems to be enough.

Re:Did the communities actually build a network?

[PopeRatzo]

Did these communities that "rejected Comcast" actually build their own networks, or are they still using the service that they supposedly rejected?

The ballot initiatives that will allow the communities to build their own networks were only passed yesterday.

They're going to need more than 24 hours to build their municipal networks.

Re:How is it possible?

[Sique]

Maybe because a provision in the SB 05-152 law says that counties are extempt where a majority of the population voted to have municipal broadband? You could for instance read the law and find this section:

PART 2

CONDITIONS FOR PROVIDING SERVICES

29-27-201. Vote - referendum.

(1) Before a local government may engage or offer to engage in providing cable television service, telecommunications service, or advanced service, an election shall be called on wether or not the local government shall provide the proposed cable television service, telecommunications service or advanced service.

Re:How is it possible?

[blindseer]

Should not people be governed most by those nearest to them? Especially on matters that affect them the most? I'm also quite sure that these votes were allowed within the state law, although that might not have been clear in the article. The state law said that if a city government is to create a broadband internet provider it must get permission from the citizens first in a referendum. That makes sense to me.

It's not like Colorado doesn't have a history of telling a distant government to go to hell, they made marijuana legal in 2012. Should the federal government march in and start arresting state officials for their part in the sale of marijuana? However you answer there is a difference between state vs. county and state vs. federal. The state is what created both the federal and county governments. The state is at the top of this hierarchy of governments in the USA. State governments have a say in what powers the county and federal governments have. If there is a problem with what either the federal or local governments can or cannot do then this is something to be brought up with the state government.

It sounds like the state is enforcing a restriction on what city and county governments may provide as a utility, specifically if that includes running internet access as a utility. When it comes to a state having authority on things like marijuana possession then perhaps we need to re-examine what the "commerce clause" allows the federal government to do. When it comes to states telling what a city or county has authority to do then, likewise, one should go to the documents that created the government.

I do see little things like this having far reaching effects. You think that the federal government cannot tell Colorado they cannot allow the sale and possession of marijuana without the permission of the federal government? Then what of the sale and possession of firearms? Either the federal government can regulate such state matters or not, trying to split that baby down the center of firearms and drugs will be impossible. If a city is barred from offering internet access as a utility is it also barred from offering water? How can that be split?

I believe that a government should only do what a private entity cannot. Things like roads and a military are of little dispute in being authority granted to the government. Maybe a distinction should be made between the wires in the ground within a city and the signals that they carry, much like how phone lines and cable TV services are run in many places. The city will own the wires and the internet providers will rent or lease them from the city to provide internet access. If no private entity comes forward to provide this service, and the people want it, then it seems appropriate for a city created entity to provide this service.

Not super relevant after 2022

[Kohath]

In about 2 years 5G wireless will begin rolling out and most Americans will start getting competitively priced, high speed, fixed point-to-point wireless broadband service offered to them. The cable monopoly will be ending for everyone with line of site to a wireless base station.

Just FYI.

Re:Not super relevant after 2022

[PPH]

And we'll call it WiMax. And we'll sell it under a name, like Clearwire. And since it isn't encumbered by that nasty last mile problem, like it's FTTH competition offering 1G speeds, it will be great.

Fooled me once.

Re:Not super relevant after 2022

[just another AC]

One word:

Saturation [of the wireless link].

I'll leave you to contemplate the consequences.

Re:Did the communities actually build a network?

[geek111]

As someone who lives in a community in Colorado that just passed it's exemption I can tell you that SB 152 is highly unpopular. (Our SB 152 exemption passed by 84.5%.) For many small rural mountain towns, treating internet as a utility makes sense to people. It also allows towns to provide free wifi in public use areas such as shopping districts or parks.

What the article does not mention, is that DORA has already allotted $20 million in grants for community/government broadband in CO. But in order to qualify for any of it, communities must pass a SB 152 exemption. So regardless of how much cable companies spend to lobby, cities and counties are opting out because it is in their best interest to do so.

Re:Did the communities actually build a network?

[elistan]

It's one thing to huff and puff, it's another to take action. Did these communities that "rejected Comcast" actually build their own networks, or are they still using the service that they supposedly rejected?

The communities did not reject Comcast - they voted in favor of allowing the city to provide Internet access (alongside all existing providers.) It's now up to the city to put together a plan to fund and provide that access, and get approval for that plan. In Longmont COs case, once the city voted to exempt itself from the ban, the city proposed floating a bond to fund the build-out, which was approved by the city in yet another vote. The city then did in fact built out a gigabit fiber service. And it's awesome.

I support this

[ryanmc1]

As a conservative, free market supporter I also support this. I think you will find that most conservatives support states, counties, and cities doing this. What we don't want is the federal gov imposing these kinds of things on everyone. I would also support state single payer health care, and any other social program as long as it is done at the state, or lower, level where the people actually have a say in what is going on.

Re:I support this

[Opportunist]

Actually, as a free market supporter, I can't help but think that certain services that are a requirement to provide goods and services MUST be run either by government or with relevant regulations to ensure a level playing field. Gas, power, water and yes, today internet, are a requirement if you want to open a business yourself and having access to them at the same conditions as some large corporation means that you can actually compete with them. If these services are not available or only available at higher cost, we end up with more monopolies which are by their very nature anathema to a free market.

Re:I support this

[jeff4747]

I would also support state single payer health care, and any other social program as long as it is done at the state, or lower, level where the people actually have a say in what is going on.

Btw, there's a technical problem with this. States can't run deficits.

That's a problem because demand on these services increase greatly during an economic downturn. At the same time, tax receipts go down because of the economic downturn. The state must now cut jobs and other spending in order to pay for the increase in services, which means the state must lay people off and cut other spending. Which makes the economic downturn worse. Which lowers tax receipts and increases demand on these programs. So more layoffs...lower tax receipts...more demand........

You really want those programs backed by an entity that can run a deficit during a recession (and then not run a deficit during good economic times). In our current system, that leaves the federal government as the only one who can do it. The fact that one party slashes taxes during good economic times doesn't mean it's impossible to run a surplus, it just doesn't help their drown-it-in-a-bathtub ideology.

Florida would have turned into something Greece-like in 2009 if it had to supply all safety-net funding. Instead, the feds did it and Florida recovered much, much faster with far less economic ruin.

Anyone ever wonder how this stuff gets passed

[rsilvergun]

at all? I actually have the answer. In my neck of the woods the local power company wanted a law that said they didn't have to pay solar owners for their excess power. This is obviously a ridiculous thing on the face of it, but low and behold it passed. How you say?

They ran commercials everywhere (seriously, I kept seeing them on Youtube) with a bunch of old people sitting around a table talking about something vaguely scary. At the end of the commercial they told you how to vote. No details whatsoever. I only know about it because I looked up the proposition to see what they were up to. They literally used the Old Glory Robot Insurance marketing method and it worked.

The basic problem is that as you get older your brain starts to go. It just does, whether we like to acknowledge it or not. And you become vulnerable to all kinds of scams. This is just one of them.

Re:Anyone ever wonder how this stuff gets passed

[caseih]

You'll have to explain what you mean. Because based on what I know about the solar industry, such a law would not be ridiculous. If you say the law was ridiculous, are you arguing that power companies should have to buy back power from home solar at all?

Power buy back doesn't make sense to me anyway. And that's for several reasons. First, peak solar production does not correspond with peak demand. So what is the power company going to do with all the extra generation when it's not needed? It's not easy to spool down and spool up whole generating units. Then there're the issues of transmission costs and upkeep of the lines. That does not change even if you're generating some of your own power needs. And if a power company _is_ going to buy solar power from home owners, it has to be at wholesale rates. Anything else doesn't make sense.

In my mind, home owners have been sold a bill of goods by many of these solar companies talking about how home owners will make money when the meter runs backwards, tricking home owners into thinking they'll get paid retail rates. It's a scam, really.

Re:Anyone ever wonder how this stuff gets passed

[caseih]

I'm not sure you know anymore than I do. I'm puzzled why you would opine in turn. You know nothing about what I do or do not know, but I assure you what I have said was given to me by others who are quite acquainted with the industries in question.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information about peak demand from. Certainly in areas where industry and datacenters are located, you'd probably be correct. But in many urban areas, peak demand is in evenings. Sorry, but that's the way it is. I've seen this in numerous studies. Houses don't use a lot of power when people are out of the house and at work. In many cities, households are the majority of electrical consumption (no industry at all).

You're correct that homeowners pay for transmission costs. They do so in their combined, retail rate. Thus it's simply wrong to demand that electrical companies buy back electricity at that same full rate, which is what many folks want (I've heard it from their own lips), and what some of these scammy solar companies are telling their customers (again heard this from a friend who's trying to get solar installed on her home). At the very least transmission and fixed charges have to be taken out of the payback equation. As for wholesale prices, maybe wholesale is the wrong word. But I assure you that power companies do not buy power from other generators at retail rates!

Again, though, I find it silly that anyone would think an electrical company should be compelled to buy back solar power from end users. It's a bizarre notion. If you want to go off grid, that's great! Do it! Cut the electrical company completely lose. But if you want to stay connected to the grid, you can't honestly expect the power company to voluntarily buy back your power just because reasons.

Re:What's the point of the law, then?

[PPH]

Why does the state tell cities they can't do something

Because 'the state' actually consists of a bunch of legislators. Who can be bought really cheap. I guess Comcast could buy the voters. With something like decent broadband service. But that would be too expensive.

Re:Citizen's United made bribery legal

[Obfuscant]

The Citizens United verdict made bribery a perfectly legal item, as money is considered free speech.

The CU decision reiterated what was existing law. That law said that corporations have the right to free speech, because corporations are made up of people who have the right to free speech. Money is not "free speech", but money is necessary for effective speech.

The taxpayers should not be paying for Internet access.

Yep. And the government should not be in direct competition with companies that they regulate, especially when the government is cherry-picking the services it provides.

Re:Did the communities actually build a network?

[Obfuscant]

What the article does not mention, is that DORA has already allotted $20 million in grants for community/government broadband in CO.

Assuming you mean "Department of Regulatory Agencies" and not "Dora the Explorer", you're saying that there's already $20 million in taxpayer money going to build these systems. And yet, we are told, the taxpayers won't be paying to build or operate these systems, it will all be done with user fees. I'm confused. Or maybe not.

Re:Citizen's United made bribery legal

[thestuckmud]

In reality, government should step in with Colorado. The taxpayers should not be paying for Internet access. Companies who know what they are doing and can provide top tier service and support should be doing this. Not government bureaucrats who can't even spell "TCP/IP".

In reality, Coloradans are excited about having additional options for broadband that compete with commercial offerings without touching taxes. For me, this means faster speeds from a company that is not using their profit to lobby against my values. If the the "market" provided this service, we wouldn't have voted for local government intervention.

Comcast is driving people to Communism

[Opportunist]

This company is evil. Have you seen what happens here? Their service is SO crappy that people start to think even a Pinko Commie idea like having the government run something is better than relying on them.

It's time we shut that fifth column down NOW!

Re:communism by any other name

[Opportunist]

But doesn't it make you pause and think when voting for "Communism" makes people richer? Now when has that ever happened?

Re:What's the point of the law, then?

[Opportunist]

Then I guess the legislators must be quite cheap hos if they're cheaper than providing a decent enough internet service that the apathetic voters shrug their shoulders with a "don't give a fuck who gives me my porn".

The state can intervene to fix competition

[iTrawl]

I'm sure some minimal government supporter out there already exploded and graffitied "socialism" on the idea, but the state should be able to intervene and fix competition even if that means starting one or more state-run companies. The state-run companies should be privatised by IPO after a while, and the state should deny merger requests on competition grounds if necessary. Let's call it "Investment of last resort". It is possible that just hinting of starting such a company would make incumbents scramble for improvements, because "you can't let the commies win".

Re:The state can intervene to fix competition

[gDLL]

You do realise minimal != no-government. Gov can compete in the free market all it wants, and is welcome to. Problem is most times it fails to keep up. Mostly what it should do is *FOSTER* competition. Like exactly the opposite of what is happening there.

Re:The state can intervene to fix competition

[david_thornley]

How does the government foster competition in a natural monopoly situation?

reason....

[gDLL]

You can reason that the free market produces things most efficient. And you can reason that your socialism is suicidal by the fuckton amount of countries where it failed (or succeded if you count famine and devastation). BUT local gov could *compete* with a business (offer low price and acceptable service) and this does happen in many places happily. What you got there is government refusing to compete....

Re:How is it possible?

[blindseer]

Owning a gun is potentially a crime.

So is owning a lot of other things.

Owning an ISP is not.

That's potentially a crime too, such as a local Colorado government obtaining or creating one without first getting permission to do so from their constituents.

You may question the wisdom or purpose of these legal conditions on ownership of an ISP but that's the law in Colorado.