After Beating Cable Lobby, Colorado City Moves Ahead With Muni Broadband (arstechnica.com)

Last night, the city council in Fort Collins, Colorado, voted to move ahead with a municipal fiber broadband network providing gigabit speeds, two months after the cable industry failed to stop the project. Ars Technica reports: Last night's city council vote came after residents of Fort Collins approved a ballot question that authorized the city to build a broadband network. The ballot question, passed in November, didn't guarantee that the network would be built because city council approval was still required, but that hurdle is now cleared. Residents approved the ballot question despite an anti-municipal broadband lobbying campaign backed by groups funded by Comcast and CenturyLink. The Fort Collins City Council voted 7-0 to approve the broadband-related measures, a city government spokesperson confirmed to Ars today.

While the Federal Communications Commission has voted to eliminate the nation's net neutrality rules, the municipal broadband network will be neutral and without data caps. "The network will deliver a 'net-neutral' competitive unfettered data offering that does not impose caps or usage limits on one use of data over another (i.e., does not limit streaming or charge rates based on type of use)," a new planning document says. "All application providers (data, voice, video, cloud services) are equally able to provide their services, and consumers' access to advanced data opens up the marketplace." The city will also be developing policies to protect consumers' privacy. The city intends to provide gigabit service for $70 a month or less and a cheaper Internet tier.

Comments

Neighboring CIties started this

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Longmont, about 40 minutes south of Ft. Collins, and we have had fibre internet through the city for over a year. 1 GB speeds up/down and only $49/Month. Forever. It's on our utility bill. When they went live everyone left comcast and centurylink in droves, and I hope it happens over and over.

Re:Neighboring CIties started this

[sdinfoserv]

What's happened to your property & sales taxes?

Re:Neighboring CIties started this

[sdinfoserv]

The City of Olympia tried to do the same thing and built "ClickNet". That system loses almost $10M per year.

Re:Neighboring CIties started this

[Areyoukiddingme]

What's happened to your property & sales taxes?

Property tax in Longmont, CO is unchanged since 1991. Sales taxes went up from a total of 8.26% to 8.515% effective January 1, 2018, after a ballot measure approving it was voted on by the residents in November. History data does not seem to be readily available.

There's some complaining that property tax assessments have risen sharply in recent years in Boulder County, where Longmont is, but that's county-wide, in both incorporated and unincorporated areas.

Re:Neighboring CIties started this

[roc97007]

I live in Longmont, about 40 minutes south of Ft. Collins, and we have had fibre internet through the city for over a year. 1 GB speeds up/down and only $49/Month. Forever. It's on our utility bill. When they went live everyone left comcast and centurylink in droves, and I hope it happens over and over.

The sun is shining... the birds are singing... Wow, you really made my day there. Let's hope the trend continues.

I'd expect Comcast to try federal legislation next.

Re: Neighboring CIties started this

[Anonymous Coward]

Budgets can be misleading. A common tactic is to cut some funding from one service, because they are getting some State or Federal monies to shore it back up. Then that money gets spent to subsidize a different service which they want to appeat less burdensome.

What you have to examine is how much they end up actually spending on the internet services. Even then it's still less than clear, because it doesn't take into account things like loss of revenue from permits for right of way access. And some costs can be hidden, for example labor and equipment used to run and maintain infrastructure can be rolled into the budget for more generic city services.

I'm not against municipal internet, don't get me wrong. But be careful thinking that it's actually cheaper at the end of the day.

Re:Neighboring CIties started this

[PPH]

The City of Olympia

I think you mean Tacoma. And until a few years ago, they wholesaled fiber bandwidth to some ISPs. That proved to be money losing. So they are switching to selling direct to their customers.

Re: Neighboring CIties started this

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet services isn't as expensive as you seems to think. There's plenty of calculations out there that shows that after a handful of years, the investment pays for itself and basically generate money. Don't let the big ISPs fool you, it's not as expensive as they charge you to deliver internet to your home.

Re: Neighboring CIties started this

[Darinbob]

Cheaper or not, it's what the citizens wanted. No amount of anti-government hand-wringing can change that or force the citizens to start loving the evil cable companies again.

Re: Neighboring CIties started this

[Darinbob]

A lot of this oppositions isn't just from corporations, there's a huge libertarian swath that believes no government is the best government, and any municipal services are inherently evil. Thus the libertarian oriented question that implies taxes must have gone up; and if someone had said taxes did go up they would say "Aha! This proves that abusive corporations are far preferable to local governments responding to the will of the people."

Re: Neighboring CIties started this

[BlueStrat]

Cheaper or not, it's what the citizens wanted. No amount of anti-government hand-wringing can change that...

You appear to be confused. It was government acting on behalf of the cable co.s that allowed the cable co.s to prevent municipal internet service in the past in the first place. It's not "anti-government" people that have stood in the way.

Besides, almost nobody is "anti-government". Just because someone thinks the central government is too large, too free and easy with our civil rights (domestic spying,, civil asset forfeiture, etc) and collects & spends too much of your and my money, does not make them "anti-government" any more than someone wanting women free to choose to have an abortion makes them "anti-life".

Strat

Re: Neighboring CIties started this

[Anonymous Coward]

Your libertarian sounds like Ajit lol

Re: Neighboring CIties started this

[MoarSauce123]

You are right, but you also need to take into account that one of the core reasons for municipal fiber is municipal use, as in linking all municipal sites together. The city or town has to pay someone else for that service when not rolling their own. Also, many municipal fiber networks are primarily expanded to industrial and business zones with the effect of attracting business and thus increasing tax revenue. That investment will offset expenses long term. Determining true cost will be very difficult, if not impossible.

Re: Neighboring CIties started this

[Wild_dog!]

No government is best government sounds more like anarchism than old school libertarianism which seeks maximum personal freedom and choice.
I guess modern libertarianism has morphed.

Re: Neighboring CIties started this

[Bengie]

Actual real ISPs in the USA that try to be transparent and offer quality reliable services to mediocre income areas with sub-optimal densities are claiming that all technical aspects of the Internet, including upgrading, managing, and maintaining their infrastructure and providing transit bandwidth, is 1%-3% of operating costs.

The Internet is only 1%-3% of your Internet bill. This begs the question of why incumbent ISPs are so up in arms about restricting the Internet and trying to charge overage fees and the like, if 1% of their costs have anything to do with you actually using the Internet.

Re:Neighboring CIties started this

[ctilsie242]

Nope: Untrue.

Re:Neighboring CIties started this

[geoscodin]

Mid-Carolina Electric Cooperative is currently laying fiber in the Columbia, South Carolina area with two tiers: 100 Mbps for $49.95 or 1 Gbps for $89.95. In response Spectrum raised my 25 Mbps service to 100 Mbps for $29.95 bundled or $69.99 alone. If nothing else, it's sure nice to have competition.

Re: Neighboring CIties started this

[penandpaper]

Additionally, I can be 'anti-federal government' and be very libertarian toward any federal initiative but that does not mean I am against the local government from doing something. The point is, the people in CO voted to have this service and it is not my business so long as they are not forcing me to pay for it through federal taxes. I don't have to share in the risk that it may fail or the problems that may come about. I don't have to be concerned what happens in CO because they are doing it by themselves.

If it works and is a great model I can petition my local government to use their framework to get something similar where I live. It's a win-win. People in CO get what they want. I don't have to pay for it. If it's a great idea it can be used as a framework in other municipalities. If enough of the states are doing it, then a federal framework might be an acceptable choice to ensure that the different state and municipal 'solutions' play nice across state lines.

Convince me that your idea is good by leading by example. Another example is New York doing free college. Good no them and good luck. I am not convinced free college will work (particularly in small sates without Wallstreet subsidy) but them trying is many times better than any Bernie Sander federal initiative. If it works it will be hard to deny the reality of a working system. Do not immediately go to the federal government expecting me to buy into w/e passion aroused your petition to get votes in your district.

Re:Neighboring CIties started this

[grahamsz]

Longmont is a bit of an unusual example (I live there too) because the city already operates an electricity utility as a quasi-governmental business.

The fiber is built out and run by Longmont Power & Communications, and so the current design makes it hard for the city to secretly bail out the broadband service if it's failing. Certainly they could push up electric rates to cover it, and I believe the city is guaranteeing the $40M bond issue that funded the construction but I don't think they have an opportunity to dump millions into it without some form of public approval.

It's also probably instrumental in driving up property prices, certainly I know it was a major factor in us deciding to move to Longmont. That's perhaps not great for everyone in town, but it's nice for homeowners.

Fort Collins is also in a very similar position because they also operate their own electricity company so they already have poles, vaults and rights of way. Also interestingly both utilities are a part of the Platte River Power Authority who started this whole thing by running fiber to all their substations and generating facilities, so I expect that Fort Collins and Longmont will be directly peered.

I also assume that'll end up creating a municipal backbone along the northern front range, which will benefit smaller cities and also help give some protection against net neutrality issues.

Re: Neighboring CIties started this

[Darinbob]

That's true. There are a lot of libertarians, and I have some streak of it. But the Libertarian Party (capital L) is more dogmatic about what is or is not Libertarian. Even so, there is a new wave of libertarianism that has come along, partially with Republicans championing the cause, the tea party that has moved the Republican party to more extreme positions who seem to be leading a government dismantling push.

So there's a wide range of views just under that one umbrella. I am referring to slashdotters who self identify as libertarian who also seem dismayed that a local government is getting in involved in a new type of public service. This is not about criticizing federal or state governments for overbearing control or regulation, but local governments which have the most citizen and voter involvement.

Re: Neighboring CIties started this

[Darinbob]

The reason for the Libertarian Party, why it is different from the Democrats and Republicans, is which freedoms to have. The Democrats are reasonably good (in the modern age) at allowing personal freedoms but who want regulations and oversight in the economic sector. The Republicans, traditionally, have been much more pro-corporate and want a hands off approach to economics but with a much heavier hand restricting personal freedoms. Libertarians advocate for both types of freedoms. But just like Democrats and Republicans can be extemist or moderate, the same is true for Libertarians.

In some way the libertarian wing of the Republican party is not really very libertarian as they're focusing on the freedom in economics but covering their eyes when it comes to the restrictions in personal freedoms. Similarly, though it's not talked about as much, there are libertarians in the Democratic party as well. Usually they're just called moderates.

A libertarian is not necessarily anti-tax or anti-regulation. But they want appropriate and smaller tax and regulation. They're not necessarily opposed to public owned infrastructure, they're not necessarily pro-corporation, they're not necessarily Randians.

Re: Neighboring CIties started this

[Shotgun]

It's called greed.

How much is enough?

Just a little more.

Re:Neighboring CIties started this

[werepants]

They stayed the same, but the state income tax got a hike, and is now one of the highest in the US.

It's already been noted, but it's worth saying again that this is a complete and total lie. The state income tax did not get a hike, the state income tax is in no way related to municipal internet anyway (which is funded and operated by a CITY), and the state income tax is lower than the national average.

Re: Neighboring CIties started this

[penandpaper]

Sure, but they are more homogeneous (in racial and ideological senses). If a European solution is the correct solution, a left state that thinks like Europe (there are many) should be able to properly implement it. That hasn't happened, why? A few try and it doesn't work, why?

Re:Neighboring CIties started this

[grahamsz]

Looks like it! I've heard of him before but didn't know he was local

Doesn't matter

[sdinfoserv]

Muni-Broadband is just the last mile of pipe. If Netflix or Youtube traverses any one of the cabal members upstream infrastructure (which is highly likely), the traffic can/will be degraded or throttled.
As much as I detest these companies, I don't believe it is the role of local government to compete with private business using public tax dollars and staff with life long benefits again paid by citizens.

Re:Doesn't matter

[PoopJuggler]

You mean like the police and fire departments?

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like the police and fire departments?

Agreed. It is 100% fair game for the government to provide services if there is a compelling public interest in doing so. For instance it could save people money, improve service, or expand coverage.

Also, just because the government does something, doesn't mean private businesses won't be involved. Work like that would likely be bid out.

Re:Doesn't matter

[mrun4982]

It's the government's job to step in and provide a solution if the monopolies refuse. Myself and lots of people I know have municipal run gigabit internet and you won't find someone disappointed with it. It's the best service I've ever had and yes, it is very fast. Large games, big updates, etc download orders of magnitude faster than on ordinary broadband.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

This city council V O T E D to pursue this. You as a citizen are entitled to your opinion and so too are the folks from Fort Collins.

I am lucky enough to live in a city with municipal fiber. It was expensive, took forever to build out, but now that is has been done for a few years it is making money like gangbusters, is fast, is cheap and has been so successful that is about to expand into neighboring towns because they are begging for it to do so.

I have no data caps and a fully symmetrical 100Mbps connection for 50 bucks a month with no contracts what-so-ever. This is what everyone deserves and what AT&T, Cox Cable, Charter Cable, CenturyLink, etc could not manage despite being here for decades longer.

Re:Doesn't matter

[ShanghaiBill]

You mean like the police and fire departments?

Privatized police are problematic, but there are privately run fire departments.

If you don't pay your bill, they let your house burn down.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Ichijo]

Why can't they bill you like the paramedics do?

Re:Doesn't matter

[Ichijo]

As much as I detest these companies, I don't believe it is the role of local government to compete with private business using public tax dollars and staff with life long benefits again paid by citizens.

So the roads should be privatized and tolled?

Re:Doesn't matter

[AHuxley]

All the gov is doing is clearing an equal path for capitalism.
A local network ends with a wide selection of very different private sector ISP.
Want an ISP for a hobby? Select one with the services needed.
Want a new POTS? A digital network has that covered.
Want a fast service thats not consumer junk? A few ISP can support that within a new price range.
The big pipe just brings more ISP to more of the city.
Stop the monopoly of one private company as the provider and network and let in many new ISP over a pipe thats open to all ISP.
Build the pipe and collect ISP product offers from all over the USA. Let the consumer have a connection and then use an ISP that has the services for them.
But for that the work the local monopoly network has to be changed. A new equal pipe allows all ISP to try for that consumer account.
The city can attract new services due to a big new pipe. The user gets a wide range of ISP products and services to select.
The private sector can innovate and offer many very different products to each and every user. The new pipe allows the private sector equal access for the first time.
Think of it as a new paved road and a bridge. A private sector truck, car, van, SUV, motorbike, advance self driving pod car can now legally be used.
No more just accepting a monopoly dirt road and monopoly bus at a set time of the day. Freedom needs the road and for others to be able to use the road.

Re:Doesn't matter

[silas_moeckel]

This really depends on how it's done, it's it's done right like say Amsterdam the city is not competing. It's building only the shared infrastructure. ISP's fill in the actual transit. Now adding in CWDM and IPv6 suddenly you can easily handle multiple providers on a single fiber and get sensible routing. The muni can even be a provider of last resort, for example, giving access to city services but not internet access Netflix can colo a box with them and provide streaming.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Radical Moderate]

Who do you buy your water from?

Re:Doesn't matter

[Excelcia]

I don't believe it is the role of local government to...

It is the role of local, actually any, government to do precisely whatever it is the people who selected that government wants them to do with their money. If that means compete with business, then it's compete with business. The people have the right to decide exactly what services their government provides. I, for one, think network connectivity is basically essential in today's society, therefore why not make it a service like water or electricity.

Where the interference came from is not from the local government, but from the private business who decided it was their role to try and tell the people what their government should or shouldn't do. When the first local and state governments were deciding whether to adopt electricity as a public utility, I wonder if Tesla and Edison were paying lobbyists to try and shoot the idea down so they could keep their monopoly.

Re:Doesn't matter

[interkin3tic]

Yes, the right wing does want to do that too.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Comcast isn't going to do anything that doesn't maximize short-term shareholder value. Their notion of economic feasibility is constrained by this, much as their incentive to cut prices is constrained by lack of competition.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Darinbob]

The citizens are in favor of this. I know this may not agree with your personal views, but this is how democracy works.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Darinbob]

And so your preference is to override the will of the voters for their own good? I really don't understand the thinking of you anti government people.

Comcast could do this, but they will not. In the same way the phone companies refused to supply service to rural or poor areas until the federal government came in and fixed this (allowing a nationwide monopoly in exchange for requiring universal service). This was a GOOD thing.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Kjella]

It's the government's job to step in and provide a solution if the monopolies refuse.

That's the weakest argument you could use. As a general rule of thumb if the market - that is, the users - aren't willing to pay for the service that service should not exist. Otherwise you'd approve of every public, subsidized boondoggle sucking money out of general taxes. Most public services replace or compete private services, like if there was no public fire department or waterworks I'd probably have a private fire department and some sort of well association and you have mixed markets like public/private transport.

The government should step in where there's market failure, usually because it's unfeasible for anyone else to service you and you're being gouged. Like if you don't like your local grocery store could you go to a different one. But if you can't get out of your driveway without being subject to a toll road's prices and terms you don't have a real choice. If the rest of the city district is connected to one sewer system nobody's laying down pipes for a different one. Or a second set of rails and railway stops.

Is the ISP market that bad? Potentially yes. Potentially no, like you got many kinds of networks with huge benefits of scale where there'll never be many competitors like say physical cell phone networks, with leased access you can have many names but it'll all come down to at most 3-4 different sets of infrastructure. That doesn't mean it's a market that is so limited the government has to step in. It's the kind of market you can keep competition open if you regulate it well, but if you don't it'll decent into monopoly abuse.

Re:Doesn't matter

[mwvdlee]

How about if you do pay the bill, but letting the house burn down is cheaper than puting the fire out and paying the fine for breach of contract?

Re:Doesn't matter

[Bengie]

If Comcast could run 100Mbps with no caps, they would.

Please explain why rural areas have 1Gb fiber for $80 from small private ISPs and the city has 60Mb copper for $100/m from incumbents. Obviously is cheaper in rural areas, right? Running that fiber line to the farm 3 miles away must be easy money.

Case study after case study shows that being an ISP in even a moderately populated area is a cash cow of high margin profits. Case studies are also showing that the most difficult part of becoming an ISP is getting through the red-tape trap incumbents have setup and the crazy expensive and drawn out legal proceedings that can take years because incumbents will fight tooth-and-nail to keep competition out.

Re:Doesn't matter

[burtosis]

With no police at first it sounds like the solution is an instant and involuntary extinguish fee, leveled on the landowners by the government. But in reality, making up the losses by a some moderate weapons purchases and extracting it from the weak is actually more profitable, the begging for thier lives part is just guac on the toast of the "screw you I got mine".

Re:Doesn't matter

[rogoshen1]

because these fire departments (usually rural) are basically a kind of like insurance, they couldn't operate if people only paid when their house was on fire.

(They will go in and rescue people who are trapped inside, but yeah.. if you don't pay in, they will stand by and make sure the fire doesn't spread, and that there are no human lives at risk)

Re:Doesn't matter

[rogoshen1]

it's working quite well if you happen to be running one of them.

For everyone else.. not so much.

What kind of person decides "i want to make my living off of incarceration of human beings" anyways?

Re:Doesn't matter

[Sloppy]

As much as I detest these companies, I don't believe it is the role of local government to compete with private business using public tax dollars and staff with life long benefits again paid by citizens.

If you're outraged by this, wait until you learn the city owns City Hall, the courthouse, and fire stations, instead of renting them all from private companies. They even have employees (instead of contractors) who mop the floors. It's scandalous!

Re:Doesn't matter

[penandpaper]

government wants them to do with their money. If that means compete with business, then it's compete with business... why not make it a service like water or electricity.

To play devils advocate. How is it the right of the government to infringe on the rights of a business to compete? I can start a business and try to compete in a market but if I am competing against the government I will lose and my rights to commerce and property have functionally been restricted directly by the government for no obvious reason because ISPs are not a monopoly by legal definition. DSL competes with cable as an ISP. Should the government choose which technology is the most competitive technology? How will that allow for innovation in the market and allow for new competitors?

  Water and electricity are utilities which means a private monopoly the government allows to exist with many additional regulations. You physically only need one waterline and it does not compete with your electrical line. Cable and phones lines DO compete.

Re:Doesn't matter

[rogoshen1]

So I grew up in rural eastern Oregon (Umatilla county), which is pretty big geographically, yet has a low population (~80k).

There's quite a few people (relatively speaking) living outside of what passes for a city -- farmers, ranchers etc. A *county* based fire department would either be prohibitively expensive to run because of the area to cover, or would have such shitty response times, it's not even worth having.

So, groups of residents band together and form a rural fire department (again, think of it like an insurance co-op) -- it works pretty well. There's no free-ridership, and there's no external costs passed on.

Seems like a pretty reasonable and sane way to do it to me.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Ichijo]

because these fire departments (usually rural) are basically a kind of like insurance, they couldn't operate if people only paid when their house was on fire.

Not even if they charged the full cost of fire response to the homeowner? That doesn't make sense..

Re:Doesn't matter

[tepples]

In a properly written contract, "the fine for breach of contract" is the insured value of the house. Intentionally allowing it to burn would allow your house insurer to collect from the nonfeasant private fire department for what amounts to arson.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Ichijo]

I see, it just doesn't work when gated communities pay for their own roads. It's better when the poor subsidize the rich, right?

Re:Doesn't matter

[Shotgun]

Muni-Broadband is just the last mile of pipe. If Netflix or Youtube traverses any one of the cabal members upstream infrastructure (which is highly likely), the traffic can/will be degraded or throttled.

That is handled by the CDN. It wouldn't take many servers at all to cache all of Netflix's movies.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Obfuscant]

but from the private business who decided it was their role to try and tell the people what their government should or shouldn't do.

A private business who is being regulated by that government and will be in direct competition with it, after entering a ten year contract for services to and with that government.

My objection to government internet is not a blanket "government shouldn't do it", but that "government should do it on a level playing field, without taking advantage of their status as a government." That's what's missing in municipal ISP services -- costs that the company is required to pay don't apply to the city, and some of those costs are mandated by that city (and state, and feds). The municipality is in the position of being able to regulate their competitors out of business. Why should they be able to do that?

If a city wants to compete with Comcast, then the city ought to go through the franchise process and agree to the same things they forced Comcast to agree to to get their franchise. They should be required to provide the same services -- all of them -- and pay the franchise fees and corporate taxes. They should have no ability to dip into the general fund to pay for any of the ISP services, even if they would otherwise be operating at a loss.

But that's not how municipal broadband works.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Ichijo]

Now say you had a 'great' year and there were no fires. You need to put in another boatload of money for paying people, maintenance, and so on. No money = no people = unmaintained equipment = no insurance, etc.

So add that overhead to the cost of each truck roll.

Fred's house burns down but the insurance for it is in his wife's name? Fred declares bankruptcy and you get no money.

Unless of course you bill the wife's insurance company!

Re:Doesn't matter

[david_thornley]

So you'd be an arsonist, and possibly a murderer, because a private organization you have no legal connection to you doesn't have its members risking their lives on your behalf?

Re:Doesn't matter

[strodler]

thank you for the info, dan @ http://stroddler.com/ http://shopsousvide.com/

Re:Doesn't matter

[redlemming]

Works well in Texas, where all the major highways in Austin, Houston, and Dallas are tollways. In fact, some cities like Austin refuse to do traffic improvements, and if wasn't for CTRMA, there would be no effective way to go through or around the city. Even with the state funding the private companies to do the construction, the whole project nearly got canned anyway.

Toll roads just make sense. You use it; you pay for it.

Nice propaganda. In reality, a toll is a regressive tax: it hurts the poor a lot, it hurts the middle class some, the rich don't notice it. The fact that there are ANY toll roads at all in the United States is one of the reasons for the increasing concentration of wealth in that country: the rich keep getting richer.

Everybody else suffers, in one way or another.

There are lots of negative consequences for a society as a result of the existence of tolls, in addition to the direct penalty imposed by the regressive tax. Please turn your brain on and think about this.

The power to tax is the power to harm others, or destroy them. It should always be used wisely, and it usually isn't - especially in places like the USA with deeply entrenched corruption and a substantially unethical legal profession.

Everything government does should be funded by a progressive income tax, or by tariffs, with a very simple tax code (not thousands of pages in which hordes of loopholes are or can be hidden, leading to continual bribing of politicians by special interest groups).

Re:Doesn't matter

[Bengie]

those Alcatel-Lucent telco grade switches and network fabric items are very expensive

Yes, they are expensive, because a single switch has enough bandwidth for the entire USA. Most ISPs don't need a 100Tb/s switch. The numbers seem large, but it's only about $100/customer. A month or two of billing. Pure profit after.

Re:Colorado City, Utah

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Unless it's in headline style, right?

net neutrality and competition

[roc97007]

Wow, I haven't seen the bright side in eliminating net neutrality until just this moment. Once it's eliminated, Comcast will inevitably go back to data capping and throttling their competition, (because, hey, money) and people will have even more reason to go with municipal fiber instead. And of course, to keep up profits, Comcast will respond with even more draconian measures, which will cause even more people to quit. This will be very entertaining.

Re:net neutrality and competition

[AHuxley]

The past NN rules kept a few regional monopoly brands in total power as only they could legally and federally prove they could support new federal NN "rules".
NN was cost of entry legal cover for protecting a network monopoly using a term the average person would think was a consumer protection.

With the federal power of demanding NN compliance reduced new competitive ISP finally have the ability to expand all over the USA.

Expect to see monopoly telco brands fight back with epic astroturfing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and the funding of fake community, faith and computer user front groups.
The articulate, photogenic faces and many different protesters all been so supportive of their one paper insulated wire line NN telco.
That the poor won't get a free POTS, that people will have freedom to use a different ISP and that totally evil.
Groups with professional printed t shirts, signs, stickers. Their on message demands for NN, funded for the daily protest by the big monopoly telcos who want their federal NN rules back to totally shut out competition and stop all capitalism.

Re:net neutrality and competition

[dryeo]

You don't think there will be a Federal law stopping this if Comcast has any say? I understand quite a few States have been talked into banning municipal internet and the Federal government can rightly claim interstate commerce.

Re:net neutrality and competition

[roc97007]

Yes, I think I said elsewhere, Comcast's next step is probably lobbying for a federal law banning municipal internet. I think the argument should be made that in this day and age, that's like a federal law banning municipal water.

I didn't say that Comcast would lose, (although I hope they do) only that this would be entertaining.

Buddy of mine wants to cut the cord

[rsilvergun]

Cox just started metering internet (coincidentally right after the change in Administration... but anyway). Assuming he watches the same amount of Hulu/Netflix as he does TV the savings might be about $15-$25/mo. That accounts for all the extra fees you pay to use your internet connection. Meanwhile Comcast had admitted in their SEC filing that it costs them $9/mo to offer internet and I can't imagine Cox is that far off.

We should just nationalize the Internet. The government can already regulate speech on it so it's not like we're losing anything, and there's no reason why we should let something as important as mass telecommunications be left in the hands of profiteering corporations. Besides, it's not like those mega corps care about free speech.

Re:Buddy of mine wants to cut the cord

[Actually, I do RTFA]

. The government can already regulate speech on it so it's not like we're losing anything,

More importantly, if the government censors the Internet, people get up in arms. If Comcast does it, half those people will say "they can do whatever, nah-nah, private corporation"

Re:Buddy of mine wants to cut the cord

[Actually, I do RTFA]

People may protest, but it ain't gonna happen (note that the banners are still hanging up). The government cannot even stop the KKK from adopting part of the Rosa Parks Hwy and then adding "Brought to you by the KKK" signage.

The US just has very good first amendment protections. The courts are very aggressive.

I'd much rather have the government, with restrictions from checks and balancing and the bill of rights, than a company that just does whatever is most profitable. And is far more likely to give in to public opinion than the government is.

Re:Buddy of mine wants to cut the cord

[wyattstorch516]

How much Netflix/Hulu can anybody watch? I mean there is so little left on these services that I would be interested in. I have Netflix DVD and I can look at my queue and see what is available to stream. Typically less than 10 percent of it is on the streaming service (most of that is Netflix originated content).

Honestly I think I can find just as much worthwhile content for free at the public library or on YouTube than I can with Netflix or Hulu. Its only going to get worse as the licensing agreements expire.

Re:Buddy of mine wants to cut the cord

[penandpaper]

, it's not like those mega corps care about free speech.

You mean all those pro-NN companies like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.

Re:Buddy of mine wants to cut the cord

[Obfuscant]

I guess the takeaway from this moderation is that we should trust the government when they promise us cheap internet, but otherwise they are untrustable, bought-and-paid for corrupt appendages of the corporate megaliths. Ok.

Re:Buddy of mine wants to cut the cord

[david_thornley]

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that those untold number of monuments included a lot of unconstitutional activity, specifically favoring a particular religion. Others were opposed by people peaceably assembling and petitioning the government, like it says in the First Amendment.

The government is not anti-religion. There was some confusion at first while the First Amendment started to be enforced, but restricting any sites based on religious content would violate two clauses of the First. No court is going to order such censoring for anyone. It would be unconstitutional. (Okay, a court might. The appeals court would strike that down so fast the original judge would get whiplash.) It would also be unconstitutional to block pornhub, since porn has First Amendment protection. Note that this would apply to a government-run ISP, while a private one, in the absence of regulation, could block any site it liked.

Read the goddam First Amendment sometime. You're making up unconstitutional straw men.

Major error in your thought

[gurps_npc]

There are certain things that private corporations should not do. Except for the most ardent libertarians, the army is a prime example.

Another is the road system. It is stupid to let a bunch of companies build toll roads. Why? Because 1) everybody needs them. 2) Once a minimum quality level is reached, there is little difference, aside from how much you use it. 3) It is to everyone's benefit that the road system goes everywhere, not just the most high traffic areas. 4) There is minimal innovation, we know how to build this, it isn't hard, there really isn't anything to compete on except for price and capacity. 5) It makes no sense to build multiple road systems side by side - doing so would take up excess space with minimal advantages.

All of these same arguments except the last apply to the internet just as much as it does to car roads. There is one other difference - a state run ISP would be tempted to censor. But the same does not apply to a CITY run ISP, or even a county run ISP.

Basically, private business have ZERO business competing with local government tax dollars on this. They have NO benefit to anyone except themselves and the people they bribed to get monopolies.

Which is the real problem here - you are so upset with the government owned monopolies that you are ignoring the major disadvantages of the government SOLD monopolies.

Corporations are great and wonderful in their place. But they have severe limitations and frankly, running an ISP is a bad idea.

If a corporation can not compete with a local, municipal run ISP, then it has no business existing. They are not owed a business, they must EARN it.

Re:Major error in your thought

[Obfuscant]

There is one other difference - a state run ISP would be tempted to censor. But the same does not apply to a CITY run ISP, or even a county run ISP.

The city and county are elements of "the state" -- government. If a "state run ISP" is tempted to censor, so would a city run ISP. My God, you mean you can see child porn using the Wapakanko City internet system? That should be BLOCKED! And SPAM! They should block all spam!

Which is the real problem here - you are so upset with the government owned monopolies that you are ignoring the major disadvantages of the government SOLD monopolies.

There are no "government sold" ISP monopolies. There are simply too many ISPs already operating to make such a claim seriously.

If a corporation can not compete with a local, municipal run ISP, then it has no business existing.

A corporation cannot compete against a government run ISP for many reasons, at least not on a even footing. The government has the power of eminent domain, it pays no franchise fees, it has taxpayer-funded maintenance of facilities, pays no sales or corporate taxes on the revenues, and is not regulated by itself to provide a raft of services other than the highly profitable internet service. Corporate ISPs have all those costs and regulatory limits imposed on them, in many cases by the very government that is exempting themselves.

When you can avoid many of the costs associated with providing a service, you can always charge less than a company that must pay those costs. When you can amortize the costs that remain over an entire taxpayer base instead of only over a subscriber base, the prices will always be lower.

Why is it that many slashdotters hold an inherent distrust of government, unless it is making promises to give you something you think should be cheap?

I'll point out, if you read the actual proceeding, the city isn't actually going ahead with building the fiber internet, they're going ahead with the studies and plans. The final approval still requires a public vote in November of 2018. There are very few details in what the council approved.

Re:Major error in your thought

[thestuckmud]

I'll point out, if you read the actual proceeding, the city isn't actually going ahead with building the fiber internet, they're going ahead with the studies and plans. The final approval still requires a public vote in November of 2018. There are very few details in what the council approved.

I am delighted to say you misread the proceedings. Rather than having to wait until Nov, 2018, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 011, 2018, which authorizes "the City Electric Utility to begin implementing its provision of broadband facilities and services and to receive and expend the General Fund loan through the Light and Power Fund."

Regarding your other arguments:

First, Fort Collins has pledged to uphold net neutrality as an ISP. Municipal efforts like this on are the best solution currently suggested by net neutrality advocates in response to the FCC's new approach to regulation. In response to the FCC, Comcast has withdrawn their promise to provide net neutrality in their services.

Second, we can argue whether Comcast is a de facto mopnopoly or a de jure monopoly in Fort Collins, but whatever name you choose way, Comcast has exclusive access to the cable through which they provide internet and they are my only choice if I want a broadband connection at my house in this city.

The notion that Comcast cannot compete is ludicrous. Their profits are too high for them to leave town, as evidenced by the $900,000 ($55 per vote) they (along with Centurylink) spent trying to influence the municipal broadband election. They will continue to offer cable, internet, telephone, security, and other services, with all the advantages of a major content producing conglomerate.

Finally, you ask why many government distrusting slashdotters are willing to take their chances with Fort Collins' city government? I can only speak for myself, and the reasons are twofold: First this is a case of trust governement or trust a company that has already proven itself duplicitous. But more importantly, the city government here in Fort Collins does a darned good job of governing and has earned my trust.

Re:Major error in your thought

[Bert64]

Building infrastructure is expensive, it's only profitable if you have economies of scale... You have to bulk build the infrastructure past every property even if those properties won't sign up as customers...
The more competition in a given area, the more properties you'll pass who won't use your service and the more the build out will cost. If multiple companies are building their own infrastructure then competition will actually increase prices.
You will also get areas which are not profitable to provide any service whatsoever.

Of course with a government run service, you are stuck with whatever they provide... If their service is poor then thats what you get.

What's really needed is a non profit to build the physical infrastructure, and then provide a dumb pipe which other companies can use to provide services to end users. After the initial build out, whatever rental fees are charged to the consumer facing companies can be used to maintain the physical infrastructure.

Re:Major error in your thought

[interkin3tic]

Another is the road system. It is stupid to let a bunch of companies build toll roads.

Oh, it won't be a bunch of companies, it'll be one that happens to have ties to Trump.

Re:Major error in your thought

[slack_justyb]

Why is it that many slashdotters hold an inherent distrust of government, unless it is making promises to give you something you think should be cheap?

See that's where you have it all wrong. Comcast, AT&T, et al have shown that they cannot be trusted. I've got no problem with any of the big ISPs if they weren't being fucktards with Internet access. No, it's not that we run to the government because we see cheap. It's that we run from the big ISPs because they've fucked shit up, just happens that some local governments tend to be in the general vicinity of "away from" who we're running from. You think we're looking around going, "where's the government?" You've got your directions all mixed up on this topic.

Re: Major error in your thought

[WindBourne]

Nice thought/argument, except to my knowledge none of the Muni fiber systems are losing money once they are ran out to residences. As such, it makes sense for the gov to own the last mile and then allow multiple companies to provide service over it.

Re:Major error in your thought

[Darinbob]

And if a city blocked access then it would be extremely easy to sue for restricting free speech (which a corporation can do, but a government cannot).

A lot of slashdotters have an inherent distrust of all government universally because they've drink the libertarian koolaid. Sure, you may have a political opinion that you are entitled to, but the citizens of this city voted and decided on a different approach. Democracy means that sometimes you lose.

The hypocrisy is that some of these people who are opposed to any municipality being allowed to do anything will turn around and appeal to the state legislature to overturn the will of the "misguided" voters. Of course it sweetens the pot if the corporations also provide, in an entirely unconnected and coincidental action, suitable campaign funds.

Re:Major error in your thought

[Darinbob]

Sure, there are drawbacks. That is why we should allow the voters of the municipalities to decide. Which the citizens of Fort Collins did. Of course, that sticks in the craw of people with firmly held political stance. But that's how democracy works, sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. You may think the voters are misguided, but that is none of your damned business if you're not one of the citizens.

Re:Major error in your thought

[serviscope_minor]

The notion that Comcast cannot compete is ludicrous. Their profits are too high for them to leave town, as evidenced by the $900,000 ($55 per vote) they (along with Centurylink) spent trying to influence the municipal broadband election. They will continue to offer cable, internet, telephone, security, and other services, with all the advantages of a major content producing conglomerate.

Ah yes the advntages. You'll get some crappy, glitchy, content poor streaming service, an overpriced landline that you never use with bizarre rates and a raft of expensive, dubious add-ons to go along with the high prices and royal screwing that you also get.

Sign me up!

Re:Major error in your thought

[Obfuscant]

I am delighted to say you misread the proceedings.

In the summary, a "new planning document" that is dated Jan. 9, 2018 -- five days from now -- contains a clear outline of remaining steps. Wait a minute! Why the FUCK is the summary pointing to a BOULDER planning document when the story is about Fort Collins? Wow. I missed that. Fine. The rest of the points are still valid.

First, Fort Collins has pledged to uphold net neutrality as an ISP.

That's nice. I've heard governments pledge to do all kinds of things. It's naive to trust "pledges" when the courts have jurisdiction over those pledges, as well as the city council who can change their minds at any time. My fair city "pledged" that a new tax ON THE WATER BILL, to pay for the repair of a specific street, would go away when the money was collected and the repairs complete. It never did. They decided that the method of taxes on the bill for water worked so well, they kept that road tax and added tree trimming, bus service, and a couple of others. That's what their pledge was worth. We had a tax levy that the government pledged would be used for building maintenance and city pool repairs, and the money went to build a really fancy new building and the "best outdoor water park in the valley".

Pledges from governments aren't worth the paper they aren't printed on.

Second, we can argue whether Comcast is a de facto mopnopoly or a de jure monopoly in Fort Collins,

No, we have no possible argument about whether Comcast as an ISP is a monopoly of any kind. If you actually look at the situation, you'll find 8 different ISPs that serve Fort Collins. A couple of them offer 1000Mbps (gigabit) fiber service. One of them is Level 3, a major backbone provider. So no, there is no monopoly ISP status for Comcast either in law or in fact.

Comcast has exclusive access to the cable through which they provide internet

Big deal. Comcast has exclusive access to something they own. So what?

The notion that Comcast cannot compete is ludicrous. Their profits are too high for them to leave town,

Right now their profits are probably good. You do realize that profits rely on having customers, right? That when the city that regulates Comcast starts undercutting Comcast, do you imagine that nobody will switch? If nobody will switch, then why build the city service? If everyone needs it and thus switches, Comcast's profits go away. This is pretty simple, basic stuff.

Other companies have gone out of business when a undercutting competitor comes to town, and the only reason Comcast would not is because it would be subsidized by other parts of the company. Comcast as a whole will not shutter their doors, but the local company might. Will they stay in a place where they consistently lose money? Would you?

You do realize that there are regular protests and efforts to keep Walmart out of a location because it can mean local stores go out of business. Walmart undercuts the competition, and sometimes that means the competition goes away. Borders, another example, came to our fair city and we lost the one really good magazine dealer because of it. Then Borders couldn't make a profit here and they folded. This is not rocket science.

I hope things work out well for you, but trusting government only because they are giving you something you want is pretty naive. Hatred of Comcast will get you only so far. I understand you have a vested interest in getting cheap internet so you will argue in favor of a government solution to what you think is a problem, but when the eggs wind up in one basket and you realize the government did not keep yet another "pledge" that they weren't legally bound to keep, it will be too late.

Re:Major error in your thought

[Obfuscant]

See that's where you have it all wrong. Comcast, AT&T, et al have shown that they cannot be trusted.

They haven't shown that to me, and I don't accept the argument that they are no longer promising something they don't need to promise means they're going to do the opposite. But that's a personal decision.

Also irrelevant. The question is not whether to trust Comcast, but trusting government. "Government" is the one that spies on our phone calls, can't manage NN regulation, and a host of other things. Civil forfeiture which charges objects with criminal violations and then confiscates them, while the government claims that this is not a penalty to the person who used to own that nice boat or car or stack of money. Local government agencies that bring in Stingray. Or attach GPS trackers to people's cars. Or use IR cameras to look through the walls of homes. Or any of a large number of other things that they would do were it not for the courts to stop some of it.

So the question remains: who do people who exhibit a complete distrust of the government suddenly accept promises at face value from the same government?

You think we're looking around going, "where's the government?"

Yes, I've seen exactly that sentiment from many people who post to this forum. "Government's job is to provide what monopolies will not" is just one recent example.

Re:Major error in your thought

[Shotgun]

Building infrastructure is expensive, it's only profitable if you have economies of scale... You have to bulk build the infrastructure past every property even if those properties won't sign up as customers...

It's worse than that. The value of the network is directly correlated with the percentage of people using it. What is the point of having a municipal website to register your car online and avoid a yearly trip to the DMV, if only a small percentage of your population has access to it. The value of a communication network is that everyone is networked. Not only is a monopoly natural and inevitable, it is DESIRABLE.

These are the sort of problems that the government should be responsible for.

Re:Major error in your thought

[Obfuscant]

And if a city blocked access then it would be extremely easy to sue for restricting free speech (which a corporation can do, but a government cannot).

Wow. Yes, after someone has sued to get religious sites blocked, someone else can sue to get them back. Will you step up and sue to get access back to CP sites when they are blocked as "illegal"? Hey, pedophile, why do you want access to kiddy porn? And don't even start trying to claim that commercial speech can't be blocked. Commercial speech has all kinds of limits.

but the citizens of this city voted and decided on a different approach.

This changes nothing about the issues. The tyranny of the masses is still tyranny even though everyone voted for it. The protections you seem to rely on are eroding -- which is a pretty basic reason why the government isn't trusted. But for cheap internet, we'll swallow anything government says.

The hypocrisy is that some of these people who are opposed to any municipality being allowed to do anything will turn around and appeal to the state legislature to overturn the will of the "misguided" voters.

That's not hypocrisy, that's the proper resolution of the problem. If a city does something they shouldn't be doing, it is quite proper to take some action to try to stop them. Courts and the legislature are two avenues for redress of grievances. The "misguided voters" cannot vote to approve something they cannot legally do. Would you accept a vote of the "voters" to order mosques shut down because they host "them nasty terrists"? Of course not -- that vote is invalid on its face. Your "voters" don't get to do everything you can find a majority to approve.

Re:Major error in your thought

[Obfuscant]

You may think the voters are misguided, but that is none of your damned business if you're not one of the citizens.

OK! If some southern town decides to vote that blacks must use "separate but equal" facilities, it's none of my damn business and I'll just go on about my life as if nothing were wrong. Heck, even if the "equal" facilities aren't equal, that ain't no nevermind for me. All them furners in Washington, DC don't live there either, so they ain't got no right to say nuthin', neither. Majority rules! Democracy da bomb.

Re:Major error in your thought

[Obfuscant]

The value of a communication network is that everyone is networked. Not only is a monopoly natural and inevitable, it is DESIRABLE.

While the goal of "everyone is networked" is laudable, it does not take having a monopoly to achieve that. It also doesn't take internet to everyone's home to achieve reasonable approximation. Those who don't want to pay for internet (in taxes, for example, so that "everyone is networked") should be able to avoid that, while still going to the library to use a public terminal. (And yes, the goal of "everyone is networked" is a fine argument for taxing everyone to pay for it. Our city uses that argument -- everyone can ride the bus -- to tax all of us to pay for the "free" city bus service. That's also the argument for single payer -- "everyone is healthcared".)

These are the sort of problems that the government should be responsible for.

It is not the government's job to give us everything we want.

Re:Major error in your thought

[Darinbob]

There are federal laws and the constitution that deals with your example.

Re:Major error in your thought

[david_thornley]

You seem very fuzzy about the First Amendment. Discriminating against sites on the basis of religion is unconstitutional.

You really don't seem to have arguments. Apparently, it's legal for the city to do this. You haven't told us why it shouldn't be. You just seem to dislike municipal broadband on the basis that "gubmnt bad".

Re:Major error in your thought

[david_thornley]

Do you realize that "It is not the government's job to give us everything we want." doesn't actually disagree with "These are the sort of problems that the government should be responsible for."?

The biggest argument for single-payer is that, in the US, health care costs about 50% more per capita than any other country, and more advanced countries with universal health care have better public health statistics.

Re:Major error in your thought

[No Longer an AC]

No, we have no possible argument about whether Comcast as an ISP is a monopoly of any kind. If you actually look at the situation, you'll find 8 different ISPs [highspeedinternet.com] that serve Fort Collins.

And if you actually lived in Fort Collins you'd know your choices are limited to Comcast or CenturyLink so bravo - you're right. It's a duopoly, not a monopoly.

I've contacted some of those other companies. They just said they can't or won't serve any of the addresses in FoCo where I've ever lived.

I look forward to the day when my internet is run the way my electric utility is run - efficiently and reasonably priced just the way Fort Collins Utilities is run.

Actually, I do know one person whose ISP is one of those other companies, but he can't get Comcast. They have all staked out their territories and agreed not to encroach on each other's turf.

Re:Major error in your thought

[slack_justyb]

Let me focus in on something you got there...

Or any of a large number of other things that they would do were it not for the courts to stop some of it

So I'm going to go with this idea that you believe in legal recourse. If not then just skip the rest of this, we're just not going to go anywhere.

So the question remains: who do people who exhibit a complete distrust of the government suddenly accept promises at face value from the same government?

The thing is this. There have been at least three dozen cases but here's one for you 600 F.3d 642 that have established that there is not a legal recourse for network traffic manipulation without the following things. The FCC must approve of what those rules are for network traffic, which they did in 2007. The FCC may only apply those rules to those classified as Title II, which in 2010, Comcast was not classified as. So, lacking Title II classification the courts have ruled that there is no current legal recourse for network traffic manipulation.

So the question is, where does this all come from? PL104-104 passed by Congress in 1996. In this law Congress dictates in section 509 that section 230 of Title II of 47 USC 201 is amended that gives the FCC the power to dictate what is "fair" for "network traffic". That basically sets it up as, the word "fair" can be defined by the FCC. And after several legal battles between 1996 and 1998, the FCC commissioned a study to define what "fair" meant, because that's what Congress told them to do and judges really couldn't do much because the definition by law of fair was to be defined by the FCC.

They haven't shown that to me, and I don't accept the argument that they are no longer promising something they don't need to promise means they're going to do the opposite. But that's a personal decision.

You are right except when you walk into a court room. Which is the entire point here. We've all got different points of views on what "fair" is, that's why we have laws. It's sort of the axiom of what "fair" means except not agreeing with it means going to jail or fines. And that was the entire point, judges couldn't just magically whip up a definition of what fair meant back in 1996, but there wasn't really anything in the books to give them guidance. But I digress. The FCC in 1998 begins to make rules on what fair meant, and in 2002 they come forward with what those rules are in something with a horrible name called the "Cable Modem Order" here I'll save you a Google.. Here's a fun bit for you.

The Communications Act does not clearly indicate how cable modem service should be classified or regulated; the relevant statutory provisions do not yield easy or obvious answers to the questions at hand; and the case law interpreting those provisions is extensive and complex.

As you can see by this point (and we're only at 2002), there were so many lawsuits that you couldn't even make good rules based on case law, because I know a lot of us find it hard to remember this, but the Internet was literally fucked traffic wise back then. Now I should make it abundantly clear here, we're talking about traffic here. Case law had already established a clear distinction between "service" and "traffic". Basically, as long as your connection didn't go dark, you weren't in any violation of FTC rules and since the FCC hasn't spoken up yet about it. A connection to the Internet, even if it completely blocked email, was just a connection to the Internet, no harm/no foul. That's the difference that case law had at least agreed on by "service" versus "traffic". And so if you couldn't access Microsoft's website, there's no legal recourse, but if you just couldn't get on

Re:Major error in your thought

[thestuckmud]

And if you actually lived in Fort Collins you'd know your choices are limited to Comcast or CenturyLink so bravo - you're right. It's a duopoly, not a monopoly

Centurylink has not been able to connect me at modern broadband speeds in Fort Collins in two separate locations. The old overhead twisted pairs are badly mangled, with a splice every block or two, and many of those splices were made before the DSL era with hardware that can't handle high frequencies. One location was newer construction that promised higher speeds, but the modem would never connect reliably.

But that's only half of the problem. CL has also under-provisioned our connection so speeds sometimes slow way, way down across disparate connections. Comcast, as the only provider offering broadband speeds in my neighborhood, looks like a monopoly from where I sit.

The old wires really ought to be replaced with fiber... Oh, wait. We just voted to do that!

Please explain...

[kenh]

Please explain "Net Neutrality" and specify how a municipal network replaces the protections lost with the repeal of the 2015 Net Neutrality regulations...

Too many people use the label "Net Neutrality" as a catch-all for anything and everything they don't like about their ISP - i've seen Net Neutrality held up as the solution for expensive monthly costs, slow speed, ensuring streaming data all treated equally, low infrastructure investments, slow pace of innovation, etc.

It's a serious question - I'm looking for the impact Net Neutrality has on the last-mile provider, and curious how Ft. Collins will become a peer on the internet, ensuring, for example, Netflix (or a startup competitor) isn't throttled or blocked "upstream."

Re:Please explain...

[WaffleMonster]

Please explain "Net Neutrality"

NN means ISPs don't get to pick winners and losers based on packet header and payload "subject to reasonable network management"

and specify how a municipal network replaces the protections lost with the repeal of the 2015 Net Neutrality regulations...

Muni networks restore competition by removing barriers for last mile access. You don't like your ISP blocking your traffic? Do they charge too much? Don't appreciate per gigabyte overage fees? Your in luck because there are now many providers for you as the customer to select from. With a functioning local market for access the monopolistic bullshit tends to evaporate on it's own without any stinking government regulation designed to make crappy monopolies tolerable.

It's a serious question - I'm looking for the impact Net Neutrality has on the last-mile provider

NN is really only an issue for markets with no competition and massive national providers. Whether legislation exists or not is a moot point in a competitive market.

and curious how Ft. Collins will become a peer on the internet, ensuring, for example, Netflix (or a startup competitor) isn't throttled or blocked "upstream."

They are building out a last mile "pipe". To be useful you as a customer still need to select someone to fill your individual pipe with "water". It isn't Ft Collins acting as an ISP or peering with anyone. Any number of third parties will be plugging into Ft Collins pipework to arrange for water to be delivered to specific customers on an equal basis. Those third parties will manage their own peering/CDN relationships if they are acting as ISPs.

Re:Please explain...

[penandpaper]

Those 2015 regulations were not "Net Neutrality" but an attempt to classify ISPs under Title 2. What makes that classification anything like the Net Neutrality you speak of and why is Title 2 the solution? Net Neutrality is only necessary if you have a monopoly which ISPs do not have. Title 2 assumes service over one physical line but does not address 2 physical lines competing (DSL and cable compete which the FCC says most US households have "broadband" for). Competition is the answer and I am not sure how more regulations by reclassifying ISPs help that when it will increase the cost of entry into the market for new competitors.

Thanx Ft. Fun for doing that.

[WindBourne]

Some of us in Littleton/highlands ranch area are talking about doing this. U make it easier to accomplish.

What else can government do?

[mi]

[...] That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

I wonder, which right is being secured by the governments providing Internet access...

Re: What else can government do?

[cyber-vandal]

Haven't "the governed" given their consent to municipal fibre in this case?

Re: What else can government do?

[mi]

Haven't "the governed" given their consent to municipal fibre in this case?

Consent of the governed, even if we stipulate it, is required, but not sufficient.

What actual inalienable right is being secured by the government taking over this part of the market?

Re: What else can government do?

[cyber-vandal]

Beats me but if the governed consent then what's it got to do with you unless you live there?

Re: What else can government do?

[mi]

Beats me but if the governed consent then what's it got to do with you unless you live there?

That logic would apply to North Koreans too, wouldn't it?

Without getting too dark, my worry is as follows: governments are in a position of immense power over both private residents and would-be businessmen wishing to operate in a town. Especially, when the particular line of business requires infrastructural work — such as laying cables or pipes. Indeed, they are the main reason for the dearth of choices of ISPs already.

An ambitious mayor seeking to expand his power — whether for the Greater Good[tm] or unjust personal enrichment — can easily sabotage all efforts by private enterprises (including the mighty Google!) until the governed give up and permit him to do it instead.

Think about it — a group of people in that town will now be laying the cables, buying the routers, and negotiating with the uplinks. Why do these people have to be government employees? And, as I ask in the subject, what else will the town's government seek to similarly nationalize — after making it impossible for those not connected to town hall to provide competing service?

It is to prevent even appearance of this corruption that various laws exist banning governments from offering commercial services — they have an inherent conflict of interest.

You and most of the rest of Slashdotters are blinded by your desire to stick it to Comcast. But you are cheering the creation of a worse monster... Comcast will survive this — but small guys like these will not.

Re: What else can government do?

[cyber-vandal]

I don't live in the US so I don't really give a shit about Comcast. As for North Korea, I'm pretty sure the general population don't get to choose what their local government does. I didn't read the rest of your comment. I'm sure it was very interesting though.

Re: What else can government do?

[mi]

As for North Korea, I'm pretty sure the general population don't get to choose what their local government does.

At some point the North Koreans decided to support Communism. It looked appealing and the promises were wonderful...

The town in TFA has made the first step in the same direction.

Re:What else can government do?

[Dragonslicer]

Speech? Association? Pursuit of Happiness? For people that rely on it for their jobs, add in Life.

Re:What else can government do?

[mi]

Speech? Association? Pursuit of Happiness?

How were we achieving all of these before 1990-ies?

Re:What else can government do?

[david_thornley]

Differently. Job applications were largely done in person or by mail, for example, instead of being available on the web. Similarly, before cell phones people used public pay phones, which are darn few on the ground nowadays.

Re: What else can government do?

[mi]

So you've spotted the slippery slope that leads from municipal utilities to North Korean communism?

While I do hope we'll stop a few notches above Venezuela, the slippery slope of collective ownership certainly does lead all the way down to North Korea.

Re: What else can government do?

[cyber-vandal]

Did they? They voted for Communism?

One thing I don't like...

[BlueCoder]

All of these municipalities are actual ISP's rather than just last mile. What they need to be doing is subcontracting to VPN type ISP's. The last thing needed is for cities to be fielding law suits and subpoenas. It should be perfectly opaque to them.

Re:One thing I don't like...

[silas_moeckel]

Some do it right, it's glass to central points, CDWM/DWDM mapping database, and some space cental in the CO's. They can still stand up their own network with or without transit, for access to schools government emergency services and the like that ISP's might overlay on.

So done right big ISP's would provide their own gear and just optically connect. Smaller ISP's might reuse the L2 network of the muni to get going and feel out a market till it makes sense to put in L2 gear of their own. This is right way since the muni is just dealing with passive glass and CWDM gear maybe an over glorified spreadsheet thats all in the commons. They have the long-term planning to bury the fiber and not destroy the commons.

Re:Government overreach at its finest

[K. S. Kyosuke]

What happens when the municipality gets cash strapped and decides to jack rats up by a factor of 10?

Uh...new elections?

Re:Colorado City, Utah

[tonique]

There isn't a Colorado City in Utah. The one you're thinking is Colorado City, Arizona.

Re:Government overreach at its finest

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens when the municipality gets cash strapped and decides to jack rats up by a factor of 10?

Most decency laws make it a felony to jack up rats.

Could be an unexpected solution

[XSportSeeker]

Well, it worked for me.
Here in Brazil, the ISP situation is not all that different from the US.
What finally got me out of crappy cable and dsl service was a state wide private public partnership that is now offering fiber in most major cities in my state.
We are not in the same net neutrality ending situation as the US is, but suffice to say that general ISP services are plenty crap.
And in general brazilian politics and the public sector in general is as shitty as they come, but for some reason fiber Internet is a glaring exception. Fair prices, great upkeep, upload stream equal to download stream, no datacaps, great costumer service.
Not that it'll be the same for all cases, but you know.

Re:Government overreach at its finest

[Wild_dog!]

Umm didn't the voters vote for the people in office to do what they are doing?

Our community did the same thing but got blocked by the state who wrote a law to forbid local municipalities from building internet infrastructure the voters approve.
That seems more like over-reach because that decision was written and pushed by companies and not the voters.

Re:Government overreach at its finest

[thestuckmud]

Umm didn't the voters vote for the people in office to do what they are doing?

Not only did we elect the city council, we voted twice in favor of this municipal broadband. And not only did city council vote to proceed with implementation, but they did so unanimously. All this despite a state law hindering city run internet services and 60:1 spending by opposition groups trying to influence last November's election.

Re:Government overreach at its finest

[grahamsz]

There's really no precedent for that.

My city (Longmont) has been operating their own utility for over a century and i'm not aware of any jacking of electricity rates in that time. The suggestion that they will jack up internet rates is simply baseless scaremongering. Certainly it could happen if their costs for wholesale bandwidth rise, but that could happen to any ISP. The city of longmont provide water, sewer, power, fiber, phone, trash, compost and recycling and while it's a large monthly bill, the rates are better than private providers in surrounding areas. Plus when I call them i'm talking to someone in an office downtown, who likely lives in the city and spends their salary here. That provides more benefits to the immediate area.

I assume Fort Collins will also have their city-owned electricity company do the same thing. They've been in business since the 1887 and haven't fucked over customers significantly during that time, i'd be very surprised if they can't manage a smooth rollout.

Re:Government overreach at its finest

[werepants]

. What happens when the municipality gets cash strapped and decides to jack rats up by a factor of 10? At least with Comcast or AT&T, you can switch or even do without. That $50 a month is basically an added tax to a state that already has a high income cost.

Wrong on every level. The internet is just a public option - you are still welcome to choose CenturyLink or Comcast, which have suddenly and mysteriously dropped their rates. The $50 a month is a price you can choose to pay or not, but you would be stupid not to because it's 20x the speed of the competitors at a lower monthly rate.

Additionally, Colorado doesn't have a very high income tax - it's below the national average: https://taxfoundation.org/stat...

I miss the days when the telco shills and Trumpist trolls would put at least a cursory effort into believable arguments.