ACLU Urges Cities To Build Public Broadband To Protect Net Neutrality (thehill.com)

The ACLU is calling on cities across the country to build their own public municipal broadband networks to help preserve net neutrality after the Federal Communications Commission repealed the open internet rules. From a report: In a report released Thursday morning, the civil liberties group argued that in the absence of the FCC's rules cities could give residents an alternative to private service providers who will soon no longer be required to treat all web traffic equally. "Internet service has become as essential as utilities like water and electricity, and local governments should treat it that way," Jay Stanley, an ACLU policy analyst who authored the report, said in a statement. "If local leaders want to protect their constituents' rights and expand quality internet access, then community broadband is an excellent way to do that," Stanley added. The ACLU sent the report to more than 100 mayors across the country who had spoken out against the FCC's decision to scrap the rules.

Comments

Re:Great idea!

[CodeHog]

The people who use it perhaps? Or would you rather have Big Company ISP nickel and dimeing you to death for each 'tier' of service you want? Basic - email and basic web sites, ISP search engine only. Basic plus get's you a few more web sites and maybe some with embedded video. Then your social teir, twitter, instagram, facebook, snapchat, etc etc. Then streaming per each service. Oh and they get to double dip by injecting their own advertisements into your service. VPN to circumvent? Block that traffic.

Re:Society's wealth is the business of The People.

[CodeHog]

Except this has nothing to do with monopolies created by the internet was a commonly used utility. Other than the monopolies created also control the common use utility. You want to do away with NN? Then the ISPs should gave up their right to own a market. But they won't and they will stifle competition anywhere it pops up. And if they have to pass laws to make what they're doing legal, that's what they'll do. Why are they so insecure in their business if they are suing to keep competition down?

Re:MESH

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to find the time between growing my own food, home schooling my kids, and making my own clothes.

Nonstop hysteria is hysterical.

[Anonymous Coward]

People didn't bat an eye when the last Bush administration first exploded the government budget for domestic spying. No protests were heard when it turned out Obama's bunch was exploiting Facebook data for electioneering purposes. As for "net neutrality", it wasn't even a meme before Obama's political appointee decided to misinterpret outdated depression-era communications law and step on the toes of other regulators like the FTC. It'll be just wonderful to have Slashdot load 0.5 us faster whenever I get fiber to the home, but not if my local taxes are going to jump up and the city finances are going to go into the red just because they embraced a boondoggle project that is outside of their narrow zone competence and turns out to be of interest only to a handful of single-issue voters. Anyone who has visited the DMV or tried to navigate a government website understands what I mean by "competence". As for privacy, maybe the hysteria does serve a purpose in that it represents a large crowd of dullards suddenly realizing the impact that their indiscretions and stupidity have on their own lives in an increasingly interconnected and transparent world.

Re:Society's wealth is the business of The People.

[Comboman]

Why should government be in business?

Because private business has refused to supply a necessary public service.

There needs to be a Separation of Business and State.

You are free to use a private internet service (or buy bottled water from the store to flush your toilet) if you so desire. Those of us that feel the State is better suited to provide those services will utilize them.

After all, this whole problem has arisen from the fact that State's have chosen winners and losers, and thereby granted monopolies over communication infrastructure.

There are a limited number of available frequencies and places to put utility poles. This is the very definition of a Natural Monopoly which the State can choose to either heavily regulate or own to serve the public good.

In 21 states, cities *can't* do this

[elrous0]

State lawmakers in 21 states, after generous brib....ahem "campaign contributions" from cablecos and telcos, have decided that cities in their states don't get to make this choice for themselves. The most embarrassing example of this is Tennessee, which restricts other cities in the state from following Chattanooga's groundbreaking example.

Re:In 21 states, cities *can't* do this

[ooloorie]

I don't think states should impose this on cities; if cities want to screw their citizens, they should be allowed to do so.

But don't pretend that city governments do this for pure motives. Politicians in cities depend on the support and donations of city employees and their unions, and those employees and unions have a massive interest in expanding city government at the expense of city tax payers.

Re:In 21 states, cities *can't* do this

[mrun4982]

That's why we have the power to vote. Vote those idiots out of office and replace them with folks who actually have a brain. My state prohibits this as well unless the city specifically votes for it and that vote passes. That vote failed the first time around where I live but it passed the second time. You won't find someone where I live who doesn't love their socialist internet service.

Re:In 21 states, cities *can't* do this

[Patent Lover]

Do you have any date to support that city employees and unions drumming up support for municipal broadband? I couldn't find any.

Re:In 21 states, cities *can't* do this

[ooloorie]

I said that it was in their interest, not that they are "drumming up support". They don't need to "drum up support" because they are already sitting at the levers of power.

(But some basic data may help you understand the issue better: it's primarily Democratic and progressive politicians that are pushing for municipal broadband; public sector employees are 2:1 tilted in favor of Democrats, and public sector unions donate to Democrats over Republicans 10:1.)

Re:In 21 states, cities *can't* do this

[thoughtlover]

Government 2.0... in principal, the same as 1.0, just less-willing to change than the previous.

So, I guess money (and reelection campaigns) must have something to do with why state legislatures would 'screw over' their constituency.

Re:In 21 states, cities *can't* do this

[ooloorie]

So, I guess money (and reelection campaigns) must have something to do with why state legislatures would 'screw over' their constituency.

As far as I'm concerned, state legislatures outlawing municipal broadband is actually good for their constituencies. It's city governments that screw over their constituencies by wasting money on municipal broadband.

However, as a matter of principle, I think cities should be free to screw themselves over any way they like, provided the state government doesn't bail them out.

not true

[sdinfoserv]

This is false hood that needs die
I run the IT department for a municipality that already provides municipal broadband services. The fact is Public/ municipal does almost NOTHING to assist in net neutrality. IPS’s provide a conduit from the end user to the internet backbone. If the content is punished upstream, as it goes across say, Verizon’s backbone, the local pipe is already receiving degraded, delayed, punished data.
The one thing it does however, is stop your local ISP from tracking you and monetizing your online behavior which can be done more quickly and cheaply by use of a VPN.

Re:not true

[Obfuscant]

The one thing it does however, is stop your local ISP from tracking you

And hands that ability right over to your local government, including law enforcement. It also does not prevent the government ISP from shaping traffic or violating net neutrality. If there are no rules to stop a commercial provider who needs customers to keep making a profit from violating net neutrality, then there is even less incentive for a government broadband service with a taxpayer-backed, non-profit status and plenty of captive customers to keep from doing it.

We saw a signpost up ahead for the problems of government ISPs with the upstate New York municipality that banned the use of the electricity they sell for crypto-mining. I don't know if this is the first government monopoly service that has implemented rules to restrict what the public can do with the services they buy from the city, but it will not be the last. Do you want your city ISP telling you what you can and cannot do with your broadband internet, with the ability not only to make it a violation of the TOS but a violation of the law? Do you want your city to monitor your internet use to make sure it does not violate any local, state, or federal laws in the first place?

Re:not true

[sdinfoserv]

Local municipality's don't have "monitoring" resources. Local Governments are usually run by direct citizen elected councils. Local IT departments are understaffed with stretched budgets. For a city council to increase staffing/software/infrastructure is literally a vote to raise local taxes - a nonstarter for the most part.
If you think muni-broad band when implemented money maker, think again. It's really expensive and subsidized by tax payers. Just look at Tacoma (Washington State) ClickNet. https://www.clickcabletv.com/p...
It supplies municipal broadband, cable + content and runs a $18 Million Biennial loss.

Re:not true

[sdinfoserv]

Not necessarily. Don't think for a second the cabal won't have agreements in place that punish non-cabal members. Remember, traffic doesn't go:
home.user --> netflix, but rather home.user --> local.isp --> verzion --> comcast --> att --> amazon --> neflix. Verizon/Comcast/ATT/Netflix all know the source IP belongs to a muni-ISP is not a member of the "group". Thus they would be able to slow, or in their terms "de-prioritize" traffic that hasn't "paid to play.". Since the Muni is down stream, they have not control over what happens upstream. I have personally experienced this for some of my customers. (again, I run a muni-ISP).

Re:not true

[Obfuscant]

Local municipality's don't have "monitoring" resources.

Oh my God, how naive are you?

Local Governments are usually run by direct citizen elected councils.

Don't be stupid. I didn't say that the city council members would be doing the monitoring themselves.

Local IT departments are understaffed

We're not talking about the local IT department, we're talking about the municipal broadband "company". If you want to claim that they will be staffed with people who are ignorant of modern technology and how to monitor users, then you need to explain why you would expect any kind of reasonable service from them.

For a city council to increase staffing/software/infrastructure is literally a vote to raise local taxes - a nonstarter for the most part.

Except that is EXACTLY what it takes to create a municipal broadband service. They can't do it with the staff they already have, they must hire new people, and to build the infrastructure does require, if not new taxes, then taxpayer-backed bond measures.

If you think muni-broad band when implemented money maker, think again.

Where the hell did you get the idea I think this? I've been very consistent in saying "taxpayer-backed" and "taxpayer-funded", which means they operate at a loss made up for by the taxpayers. That's one of the real downsides to such operations. It doesn't need to operate at a profit so it can charge a lot less. It doesn't even need to operate break-even, so it can charge even less. Any deficit will be paid for by all the taxpayers, even if they never touch the internet, or if they buy their service from a commercial ISP.

And while this municipal ISP is charging less, it will be driving competition out of the market. It will leave, at best, only the major companies, eliminating the local competitors.

Re:not true

[CodeHog]

Yeah, that's a big issue. All the more reason to break up companies like comcast, verizon, att that have wireless/isp/cable/b2b services. Just do the damn service and don't play games because your company also wants to force users to pay more for the same service that isn't costing them any more than if they just leave it alone.

Re:not true

[CrimsonAvenger]

and to build the infrastructure does require, if not new taxes, then taxpayer-backed bond measures.

Which bonds require raising taxes to pay for. It's not like the people who buy bonds are just throwing their excess money away - they expect a return on their investment. All the bonds to is spread the extra taxes out over enough time that your children and grandchildren get to pay for the excesses of this year's government.

Or do people still believe that governments automagically have enough money to do anything they want to?

Re:not true

[Obfuscant]

It's not like the people who buy bonds are just throwing their excess money away - they expect a return on their investment.

In fact, the expected return on investment means that if there isn't enough money coming in to run the broadband operation, then not only is the deficit operating expense paid for by the taxpayers, but the interest on the debt as well.

Or do people still believe that governments automagically have enough money to do anything they want to?

Well, it certainly seem that they do, given the number of things they expect the government to give them. "Single payer healthcare", for example, which is actually a dishonest name for "taxpayer funded healthcare". There was a recent editorial in our local paper talking about the costs of implementing that in our state. Something like an estimated 15% tax on income.

There are two ways to fix this

[Solandri]

• Regulate the industry (net neutrality) and/or create publicly-funded competition (public broadband) which keeps ISP's behavior in check.
• Deregulate the industry - prohibit the government-granted monopolies which leave most people with a "choice" of only a single cable Internet and single DSL provider. Either require there be at least two cable Internet providers in an area. Or award a monopoly cable infrastructure maintenance contract, but regulate that company's rates and prohibit it from offering service over the wires it maintains. Instead, other companies act as ISPs providing service over those wires, with all paying the same rates to send data over those wires so that they're competing against each other strictly on service.

The ACLU has (perhaps not surprisingly) chosen to promote the former, which leaves the public on the hook for paying for it all. With the latter, the private sector pays for it while the public reaps the benefit. It's important to understand that the major cable internet companies aren't natural monopolies like Microsoft. They were given a monopoly by local governments who got into the regulation game to keep telephone poles from becoming too cluttered with wires, but somehow it morphed into a scheme where in exchange for a monopoly the local government got kickbacks or other guarantees from the sole ISP. This is why net neutrality isn't as big an issue in other parts of the world - most non-Americans have a choice of multiple ISPs, and can simply switch to a different ISP if theirs does anything stupid like try to throttle Netflix. The problems net neutrality tries to solve are only possible because of these government-granted monopolies.

Re:There are two ways to fix this

[StormReaver]

The ACLU has (perhaps not surprisingly) chosen to promote the former, which leaves the public on the hook for paying for it all.

You're missing the obvious, proven solution: the City owns and maintains the infrastructure, while private businesses provide the service on top of that infrastructure. See Ammon, Idaho as a model.

Re:There are two ways to fix this

[CodeHog]

Insightful ^^^ Adding that these monopolies the governments granted where mostly started when cable TV was built out across the US. The companies doing the build out wanted to recoup the costs to run wiring all towns and cities, and rightfully so. I think it was sold to the local governing entities as a short-term license deal so after x number of years it should have opened up to competition. But like any drug addict, once the companies found the revenue stream they began doing whatever it took to keep it flowing. Internet was just another revenue stream for them to lock in and now a new side effect of allowing them to decide what goes into the data stream you pay for, which NN helped keep their hands off. Fox meet the hen house. But they promise not to do anything to your data stream (eye roll). I agree with the sentiment, get rid of the government granted monopolies, allow for more competition.

Re:There are two ways to fix this

[tomhath]

That assumes something is broken. Option 3 is to continue on with the internet as we've known it from the beginning.

Re:There are two ways to fix this

[Obfuscant]

prohibit the government-granted monopolies

If there is no competition in broadband internet in an area, it is not because of a government-granted monopoly, it is because there is not sufficient economic incentive for anyone to compete. I.e., not enough customers for multiple companies to succeed.

Creating a non-profit, taxpayer-backed government ISP to drive what few competitors there are out of business is not the answer.

They were given a monopoly by local governments who got into the regulation game to keep telephone poles from becoming too cluttered with wires,

And all such monopolies are now illegal. Not even the telephone company has a monopoly on telephone service. Modern distribution of internet is not dependent upon "telephone poles" anymore, and there are plenty of opportunities for competition that does not use them, in addition to the competition that does.

but somehow it morphed into a scheme where in exchange for a monopoly the local government got kickbacks or other guarantees from the sole ISP.

ISPs have NEVER been granted a monopoly. Ever. The cable companies started out that way, but federal law now prohibits exclusive franchises. The telco still has theirs, as far as I know, but only for wired telephone service. But ISPs as ISPs have never been granted such protections from the government.

But even today, without monopoly protection, cable and telephone companies pay your "kickbacks", which are more correctly called "franchise fees" and are there to pay for the access to the public rights-of-way. They don't go into politician's pockets.

This is why net neutrality isn't as big an issue in other parts of the world - most non-Americans have a choice of multiple ISPs,

I deal on a daily basis with four or five, and there are a handful of others I don't but could. "Americans" have choices, but they self-limit because they say it costs too much or it isn't fast enough for them. This is like saying that Chevy is a government-granted monopoly because they're the only car company that builds a car with the horsepower and features I want. Ignore all the other cars on the road that don't say "Chevy" -- they are a monopoly because I say so.

The problems net neutrality tries to solve are only possible because of these government-granted monopolies.

I'll end this response with my standard challenge. Name one. Nobody has yet been able to provide the name of an actual, government-granted monopoly holder.

Re:There are two ways to fix this

[david_thornley]

You mean, to have the FCC reinstate Net Neutrality provisions? That's the Internet as we've known it.

Re:Great idea!

[Altus]

Yeah, all these broadband companies are loosing money left and right. Comcast is practically begging on the street to keep its broadband service solvent.

Re:Careful lefties

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm registered as a Democrat (previously: Independent), don't believe in banning guns (but we can do a better job of keeping nutjobs from getting their hands on them), think we need to be more fiscally responsible sometimes, as a Nation (but not to the point of corporations and capitalism running wild) -- and I think the ACLU is completely correct, the Internet has come to the point where it's de-facto a Public Utility, and ISPs have gotten to the point where they're just price-gouging, sticking their noses into people's business, violating their privacy, and otherwise being so shitty that they need to GO AWAY, or at least be put on a LEASH so they're forced to behave.

Posting as AC because I don't need anyone knowing what my political affiliations are, even if I use a fake name on here.

Re:Careful lefties

[Altus]

Its not being filtered at the "Tube" level though.... Comcast isn't saying you can't have gun videos on the internet. Its the site owners who have made that decisions. A decision they would still be free to make... but by all means don't let that get in the way of some good astro turfing.

How about creating a new nonprofit, ACLU?

[mysidia]

The main obstacle to municipal broadband is the high cost; not to mention lobbying and political advertising budgets of Cable companies and Telcos ---- if word gets out you will setup a municipal broadband network; the big bad cable companys' reps flock to the area to try to convince the officials No, then if the officials aren't persuaded, they'll fund the campaigns of their opponents and try to convince the local that it's a mismanagement of public funds, next the Lawyers and bureaucrats fly in and start working out every possible way they can think of to delay the project ---- from filing lawsuits, to incumbent Telecoms deliberately sabotaging development efforts by failing or being unduly slow when required to modify their wiring to accommodate the additional pole attachments.

So I could see a value for a National Non-profit to help PROMOTE municipal broadband, by:

1. Raise money for lobbying efforts, legal funds, the promotion of municipal broadband projects, and writing grants for projects.

2. Hire full time lobbyists to fight the telecom lobbyists at the state and national level and work against the regulations and laws being passed to discourage municipal broadband --- fight in the opposite direction.

3. Provide funds to be used for legal assistance and promotion of projects such as Google fiber competing against Telco incumbents, to facilitate more competition in the broken markets.

4. Produce national advertising and reports on municipal broadband projects that have been successful; Designed to make citizens who
  don't have municipal broadband feel jealous - Raise awareness and encourage more and more consumers to demand these services ---- spread the word, provide service testimonials and comparisons in the (A) Performance, (B) Speed, (C) Service, and (D) Support of these services.
5. Create a grant program that can issue funds to develop broadband, subject to condition:

          (a). Grant proposals compete for funds, and the ones that provide wired high-bandwidth (10 Megabits or more upload and 20 Megabits or more download) uncapped access to the most population who don't currently have reliable wired high-bandwidth uncapped access have highest priority.

          (b). The project is completed by the municipality, and the rights to 90% of the infrastructure are permanently and exclusively owned by the municipality.

          (c). The project must be operational before a certain deadline no more than 2 years away and service available to a specified number of households within the planned buildout, or else repayment of the funds is due.

          (d). After completion of the project; a monthly fee will be assessed for X years against all households where service would be available
  (whether they chose to turn up service or not) to replenish grant funds and help fund more projects.

Re:How about creating a new nonprofit, ACLU?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too much work. It would be far easier just to take the telco execs out in the woods and shoot them.

Re:How about creating a new nonprofit, ACLU?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too much work. It would be far easier just to take the telco execs out in the woods and shoot them.

Yes except the ACLU doesn't want us to have the guns to do so in the first place.

Re:How about creating a new nonprofit, ACLU?

[Hognoxious]

Plan B: club them to death. Cheaper than ammo too.

Re:Careful lefties

[CodeHog]

I'm fine with them around and doing what they want to with the internet IF there was real competition. I hate the fact that I have only 2 choices for an ISP and it boils down to speed and cost. The fact that they can and now will start doing packet shaping and forcing other shit into my internet connection is just the shit frosting on the poop cake to me. Since I work out of my house I have no real choices at the moment. If people want to use the big ISP that's fine be me. But to have the choice between fire and brimstone is BS. Supposedly a 3rd company is building out in my town but I've got my doubts it will come to much more than some basic TV, which I don't need.

Re:Great idea!

[Kenja]

Now who will pay for it?

The cities? I mean, isn't that the point? Who do you think pays for the stuff where you live?

Re:Society's wealth is the business of The People.

[CodeHog]

If they were all solved then why are the big ISPs suing to keep states from enacting NN laws? AND trying to get a law passed that will stop future NN laws? https://www.politico.com/story... Sorry I confused the ISP with the FCC. Gee no idea why that would happen /s.

A mighty big "if"

[reboot246]

"If local leaders want to protect their constituents' rights"

That made me laugh. Local leaders are no better than national leaders at doing anything for us. Maybe in a small city of 5 or 10 thousand, but in a major city you're no better off than you are nationally. The "leaders" are just as susceptible to corruption and are just as unreachable.

Re:You're still forcing me to pay for Gov solution

[rukiddingme]

I'm not "free" to use a private internet service when there is a competing "public" option; you're forcing me to pay for that "public" option TOO.

If the public option was paid on a monthly subscription basis (such as people pay now), how would that be forcing you to pay for both the public and private options? Don't be such a retard.

Re:You're still forcing me to pay for Gov solution

[dahlellama]

I'm not "free" to use a private internet service when there is a competing "public" option; you're forcing me to pay for that "public" option TOO.

B.S. My local muni broadband is funded by those who use it. http://swiftel.net/

Re:Great idea!

[CodeHog]

Roads are free aren't they? And the PD and FD? /s

Re:Careful lefties

[CodeHog]

I'm not talking about filtering. Although it appears that has been done in the past (can't find the article I'm thinking of right now) it may have just been a simple mistake. I'm talking about packet shaping and traffic prioritization of my internet connection. The ISP has few, if any, good reasons to prioritize my network traffic.AND revenue is not one of them. However since they are loosing the battle of content revenue against services like netflix, hulu, amazon, they can now start to look at options where I have to pay more or the service provider has to pay more to get that service at my connection. My biggest problem with this is that I pay for the connection (and it's not cheap) so just give me a connection and keep your money grubbing mitts off of it. If I choose to stream Netflix or Youtube or play Steam all day that's my business and they shouldn't be charging me extra because they can't force me into their cable package in addition to the internet.

gee. Imagine that

[WindBourne]

Finally, 1 group that no longer has their head up their ass.
Calling for net neutrality is a waste of time, effort, and money.
OTOH, for a lot less effort, real competition can destroy the executives that continue to harm America.

Re:gee. Imagine that

[Obfuscant]

OTOH, for a lot less effort, real competition can destroy the executives that continue to harm America.

All that municipal broadband will do is drive out the smaller competitors, who are not the evil America-destroying companies that everyone here loves to hate. Comcast can survive a long time at a loss in any specific market. Joe's local ISP cannot.

Let's me ask you this: if I can get wireless broadband from my city government at a very cheap rate (ignoring the taxes I have to pay to get it, too) then why would I buy wireless internet from the local company? Why would anyone? That local company goes out of business, reducing competition. Isn't that an obvious result?

Re:Great idea!

[ooloorie]

The people who use it perhaps? Or would you rather have Big Company ISP nickel and dimeing you to death for each 'tier' of service

In short, yes. Net profit margins for telecoms are around 11%; that's the maximum you could save if government operated as efficiently as a for profit corporation. But government has no incentives to operate that efficiently.

Furthermore, what you call "nickel and dimeing" amounts to charging people with different needs different amounts; I think that's a good thing. My parents only need E-mail and a few news sites; why should they be forced to cross-subsidize the real-time low latency streaming of gamers and Netflix addicts?

Re:Careful lefties

[ooloorie]

I think the ACLU is completely correct, the Internet has come to the point where it's de-facto a Public Utility

A public utility is something that is owned by the public. So, no, the Internet is not a "public utility", not even close.

ISPs have gotten to the point where they're just price-gouging

Telecoms have a net profit margin of around 11%. That's the maximum they could be overcharging for their services. So where is the "price gouging"? Where is the evidence that municipal broadband is any more efficient?

Municipal broadband appears cheaper because it loses money, money that needs to be made up for by tax payers one way or another.

I love my socialist internet but that doesn't help

[mrun4982]

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love my municipal run internet. Gigabit speeds both directions, no data caps, excellent customer service, etc and all for less than I would pay for internet that's 1/20th the speed from Comcast and whatnot. However, how do you think the municipal ISPs hook up to the internet? Hint, it's not the government or a public service. It's just a bigger ISP.

I can't wait ...

[John Jorsett]

for the various pressure groups to descend if this ever takes place. In an era when cities are divesting themselves of Confederate statuary, pension funds receive demands to disinvest in hated sectors like tobacco or gun manufacturers, and the wrong tweet can get you fired, how long do you think it'll be before public ISPs are being lobbied to block websites like "hate" sites, porn sites, or anti-vax sites? And do it in many cases, because those ISPs will be run as spinelessly as university administrations.

Re:I can't wait ...

[david_thornley]

All the public connections have to do is be dumb pipes. University administrators have to make decisions on who can speak where and when because their capabilities are limited and there's demand for them. They don't always make the best decisions, but they do have to make decisions. City connectivity doesn't. If it just sticks to that, it'll be fine.

Re:Great idea!

[CodeHog]

Fair enough but what happens when your parents are the only ones using e-mail and a few sites so that tier is aged out and their forced to subscribed to a higher tier? That's exactly what they did to me with cable. Each year or so they'd force the basic up a bit. I finally got sick of it and quit cable all together. When satellite did the same, they were out the door too. And Why should I subsidize your parents when they become the few people using e-mail and demand that tier be kept around? I've set it in this thread earlier, keep your hands off my data stream. Just do your job and connect me to the internet. It's NOTB what I do on it. Only when I impact other customers should they intervene.

Re:Great idea!

[Obfuscant]

Net profit margins for telecoms are around 11%; that's the maximum you could save if government operated as efficiently as a for profit corporation.

You assume the government operation would break even from user fees. They don't have to. They can make up any deficit through taxes. You can save a lot more than 11% when you are taxing you neighbors to fund your internet use.

why should they be forced to cross-subsidize the real-time low latency streaming of gamers and Netflix addicts?

The whole reference to paying for "tiers" regarding email, video, streaming was a fiction. It didn't happen before NN rules went into place, and nobody has announced such a pricing structure now that they are removed. We can make up all kinds of horror scenarios, but doing that is a really bad basis for laws.

Re:Great idea!

[CrimsonAvenger]

and their forced

Their forced??? What about MY forced, that's what I want to know....

Re:Surprise, surprise

[k6mfw]

Will throw in my two cents into this fray... I saved this from another slashdotter:

Do not confuse Stalinism or Maoism with socialism, those first two where strictly police states with the masquerade of what ever political system they were pretending to be. This being no different to Nazism.

So want to see socialism, first the psychopaths have to go, quite simply they will corrupt any ism they are a part of, attempt to turn it into an authoritarian state where they have control and can dominate and exploit the citizens of that society.

Socialism is the system that the majority of people were born into, the family unit, a socialist government is basically about expanding the socialism of the family unit into the greater community to gain the all to obvious outcomes, a caring and sharing society of human beings and the extended family concept.

The 'Free Market' is straight up marketing lie because it is wholly and totally dependent upon nothing in that market ever being Free, everything 'owned' and 'controlled', so that those with the most can control and exploit those with the least. With everything that can be owned being owned, including all of the essentials to life, so that denial of life becomes the tool of exploitation of the not free at all market place of human lives.

Either we shift to socialism or die as a species, that is the choice, suck it up.

Re:Society's wealth is the business of The People.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should government be in business?

This history section of this article will give you a little insight into why, since the 1700s, Americans have found it sometimes appropriate to do that. Though you can also see that they debated whether it should be feds or states.

And while you might live 10 miles from your nearest neighbor, some other people live in things called cities, and having the government establish utilities was a huge performance hack that massively outweighed the disadvantage of private citizens being unable to compete with it. Once people tried regulated utilities and lived through all the advantages, there was never any going back.

Penultimately, in this particular case, the telecoms have been so abusive and uncompetitive that they've been practically begging the government to just plain nationalize them. The big telecoms are today's biggest preachers that internet connectdion is too important to leave to uncompetive monopolies, and while we don't have to jsut believe everything they say/show, they really have made some compelling points throughout the years.

Finally, the more communication get politicized, the more you want to avoid infringing anyone's rights by forcing them to deliver messages they disagree with. Let's say Disney is your ISP but you want to post your opinion that DRM should be outlawed. Disney shouldn't have to deliver your message. By taking them out of the picture, you can voice your opinion, and Disney doesn't get trampled. They can post too. All over the neutral network, which doesn't care about anyone's politics and disagrees with no one. Not because it's "too cool" but because it's "too nobody."

There needs to be a Separation of Business and State.

For whatever reason, not a single person who agrees with you has ever voted in the last century. Today's scientists speculate that the reason they don't vote, is that they all died of cholera after drinking from a private water company's faucet. It's interesting that you, a survivor, have turned up. But even without knowing you, I know one thing: you don't vote. That's why you probably still suffer through a municipal water system, a regulated electric company, a federal (not even state!!) postal service, etc.

Potentially just as bad

[BlueCoder]

We don't need cities to become ISP's... what is specifically needed is Last Mile + VPN's as service providers so we can go back to choice like when we had modems and ISP's to choose from. We need VPN's least state and federal governments use them for spying which they will.

Re:Great idea!

[ShanghaiBill]

Simple. Just tax the rich.

"Soak the rich" doesn't work at the municipal level. The rich move to the suburbs. You get urban sprawl with Detroit in the center.

Re:Great idea!

[Local ID10T]

The whole reference to paying for "tiers" regarding email, video, streaming was a fiction. It didn't happen before NN rules went into place, and nobody has announced such a pricing structure now that they are removed. We can make up all kinds of horror scenarios, but doing that is a really bad basis for laws.

Not entirely true.

In the bad old days of AOL, CompuServe, etc. there was the basic fee for X hours of service, plus additional fees to access Usenet, WWW, and internet mail.

Competition caused these access fees to go away, but without viable competition among providers, we can expect new and exciting predatory practices to become the norm.

Re:Great idea!

[ooloorie]

And Why should I subsidize your parents when they become the few people using e-mail and demand that tier be kept around?

You shouldn't. Now, with a private broadband provider, the provider is only going to offer services to my parents if they pay for what they use. On the other hand, with a public or regulated utility, my parents, being a desirable voter class, might ultimately well be able to force you to subsidize them. That's what happens when you move business decisions out of the market in to the political arena.

I've set it in this thread earlier, keep your hands off my data stream. Just do your job and connect me to the internet. It's NOTB what I do on it. Only when I impact other customers should they intervene.

But it makes a huge difference to costs when and how you use data, and where your data comes from. You're trying to force ISPs to ignore those cost differences. It's like trying to force supermarkets to offer every kind of wine for $10/bottle, no matter the origin or size of the bottle because "supermarkets should keep their hands off the contents of the bottle and focus on delivering the bottles".

Re:Great idea!

[ooloorie]

You assume the government operation would break even from user fees. They don't have to. They can make up any deficit through taxes. You can save a lot more than 11% when you are taxing you neighbors to fund your internet use.

So you agree then: municipal broadband is a scheme by which some people have their Internet usage subsidized by their neighbors via taxes. Why do you think it is fair or just to force some people to subsidize a lifestyle luxury for others?

The whole reference to paying for "tiers" regarding email, video, streaming was a fiction. It didn't happen before NN rules went into place, and nobody has announced such a pricing structure now that they are removed.

You're right that the ludicrous scenarios proponents of net neutrality tried to scare people with didn't happen. What did happen is that numerous companies tried to offer various kinds of free services and were beaten down by net neutrality rules. Hopefully, we'll see more of those free services return again now that net neutrality has been repealed. But it's much easier to destroy a market via regulation than to create a market, and it may be many years before the damage of net neutrality restrictions can be reversed.

Re:You're still forcing me to pay for Gov solution

[Anubis IV]

I'm not "free" to use a private internet service when there is a competing "public" option; you're forcing me to pay for that "public" option TOO.

That’s...not how local public utilities typically operate. If your local municipality is operating utilities via taxes instead of usage-based billing, I’d say you’ve got some idiots at the helm and that the incentives are not aligned with the best interests of the community. Thankfully, that approach isn’t exactly common.

Instead, public utilities are generally operated via usage-based billing on an at-cost basis, rather than through taxes. I can live entirely off the grid without having to pay a dime to my local municipality for utilities. I could pay a private utility company and avoid paying the local municipality. There may be an infrastructure buildout paid for via taxes, but private and public groups both usually benefit from and get to use that infrastructure, so you’d be paying it either way.

Re:Great idea!

[Anubis IV]

Net profit margins for telecoms are around 11%; that's the maximum you could save if government operated as efficiently as a for profit corporation.

The dominant ISPs achieved their positions by leveraging natural monopolies. They’ve had no real competition in years. They’ve grown complacent and lazy because they’ve had no reason to innovate, compete, or even just try.

Why in the world would you consider their low standard to be the best that a local utility could hope to achieve in terms of efficiency? At a minimum you can cut the lobbyists to see an immediate improvement to the bottom line.

As for your other point about cross-subsidizing, I agree, but I don’t see the relevance. Where I’m from, the public electric and water utility bills us based on our usage. I’d assume they’d do the same with Internet, and I’m fine with that, given that it’s a perfectly equitable way of handling things, even if it does mean that I’m likely to be paying the highest bill in the neighborhood I live in.

Re:Great idea!

[ooloorie]

The dominant ISPs achieved their positions by leveraging natural monopolies.

Almost all Americans have two or more broadband providers available to them, in addition to numerous wireless providers. Where is the "monopoly"?

They’ve had no real competition in years. They’ve grown complacent and lazy because they’ve had no reason to innovate, compete, or even just try.

Net neutrality advocates want ISPs to be just dumb, interchangeable pipes with a simple rate structure, and that has pretty much been reflected in government policies. Innovations like "we give you a free phone with Facebook in return for ads" have been killed. So what area do you want ISPs to innovate in?

Why in the world would you consider their low standard to be the best that a local utility could hope to achieve in terms of efficiency? At a minimum you can cut the lobbyists to see an immediate improvement to the bottom line.

Private monopolies have no incentive to keep prices down, but they have the same incentive as any other private company to keep expenses down because that maximizes return for investors. Government monopolies, on the other hand, have the incentive to keep prices down but no incentive to keep costs down, which frequently makes them money losing propositions.

Also, I have lived with government-run telecoms and they were a disaster; when they were privatized, service improved massively and prices went down.

Where I’m from, the public electric and water utility bills us based on our usage. I’d assume they’d do the same with Internet, and I’m fine with that, given that it’s a perfectly equitable way of handling things, even if it does mean that I’m likely to be paying the highest bill in the neighborhood I live in.

Utility pricing is completely out of whack. In California, low income electric rate payers subsidize high income home owners; water is ridiculously underpriced, leading to massive shortages. In Germany, residential rate payers subsidize electricity used by industry. Past government owned or regulated telecom monopolies delayed the widespread deployment of the Internet by 10-20 years and were massively gouging consumers. And public transportation is even more of a disaster and money pit.

Red Alert!

[easyTree]

This sounds like socialism. The American way is to support nickel-and-dimeing and institutionalized corruption. Get with the program.

Re:Great idea!

[easyTree]

Dude, the forced is all around us, it belongs to noone.

Re:Great idea!

[Obfuscant]

Not entirely true. In the bad old days of AOL, CompuServe, etc. there was the basic fee for X hours of service, plus additional fees to access Usenet, WWW, and internet mail.

That was not paying for tiers of internet. The AOL base membership did not include internet. AOL was a private "internal" service, just like Compuserve. Both were basically large scale implementations of dial-up BBSs. The additional fee to access internet services was to access the internet when they first opened that gateway.

It's like today with some cell services. You pay for voice and text, and then there's an addition service charge for "data", which is the internet. That's not tiered pricing of internet, it's one charge for "data".

but without viable competition among providers, we can expect new and exciting predatory practices to become the norm.

And I've already pointed out, if you believe that there is no competition now, then why have such practices not already been the norm? But the fact is, there is already competition, and creating a government-backed broadband service at cheap rates will only cause competition to decrease as smaller providers are forced out of business.

Re:Great idea!

[Anubis IV]

Almost all Americans have two or more broadband providers available to them

The FCC disagrees. Keeping in mind that broadband is still officially classified as 25Mbps down/3Mbps up, Figure 4 from last month's Internet Access Services report shows that only 56% of census blocks have a choice (i.e. 2+ broadband providers available), which is a far cry from "almost all Americans".

Moreover, just because broadband is available in a census block does not mean that it's available for any given household. If an ISP provides even a single residential address in a census block with broadband speeds, that census block has broadband speeds "available" so far as the self-reported numbers used in that chart are concerned, even if the remaining 99.9% of people have no access at all. In my suburban neighborhood, for instance, I have two fixed ISPs and one WISP claiming to provide broadband, but in personally contacting all of them I discovered that only one actually provides broadband at my specific address (smack dab in the middle of the neighborhood).

All of which is to say, the actual availability of 2+ broadband ISPs for any given household within the US is at most 56%, but is in all likelihood actually far less.

Innovations like "we give you a free phone with Facebook in return for ads" have been killed.

And what exactly killed them? It certainly wasn't regulation, since wireless is—and has been—specifically exempted from Title II regulation. If that innovation stopped it's not because regulations killed it: it's because market forces did. Even so, I'm not actually convinced those sorts of "innovations" are nearly as dead as you claim. T-Mobile seems to be making a habit of delivering services (e.g. Binge On) that are contrary to Net Neutrality yet good for them and consumers.

I have lived with government-run telecoms and they were a disaster; when they were privatized, service improved massively and prices went down.

I'm not suggesting we take private ISPs public, nor do I view government-run utilities as the panacea that some make them out to be. I simply view them as a way to introduce healthy competition, which is what's sorely needed in the broadband space. Some public ISPs will be lousy and some will be outstanding (just as with private ones), but the outstanding ones will force private ISPs to improve, and that improvement will bring benefits to customers outside the regions they serve.

Utility pricing is completely out of whack. In California [...]

Let's just stop right there and agree that California is doing it wrong. California's example is not how it should be done, nor is it how it's done in most other places. The fact that some places do it incorrectly doesn't mean that it's an inherently bad idea. It just means that they've botched the implementation. My local municipality provides electric and water at rates that make sense to everyone, and I'd certainly trust them to provide Internet as well, were they allowed to do so by the state.

Re:Great idea!

[david_thornley]

Such practices haven't been the norm because we've had net neutrality enforced. Also, there are approximately no small broadband providers. That requires last mile service to everyone, and that's typically the cable and phone companies. If small ISPs could buy service to homes at the same price as the existing ones, there'd be more small ISPs.

Re:Great idea!

[david_thornley]

Net neutrality advocates want ISPs to be just dumb, interchangeable pipes with a simple rate structure

Actually, that's what we want for last-mile data service. If that's available, we get actual competition among ISPs, who can offer assorted capabilities at whatever price they want. The city connectivity service doesn't have to be an ISP. It doesn't need to connect to the Internet directly.

Re:Great idea!

[ooloorie]

The FCC disagrees.

The FCC keeps moving the goalposts.

And what exactly killed them? It certainly wasn't regulation, since wireless is—and has been—specifically exempted from Title II regulation

There are many, many countries other than the US, and we can look to them what happens when net neutrality gets applied to a networking technology.

My local municipality provides electric and water at rates that make sense to everyone, and I'd certainly trust them to provide Internet as well, were they allowed to do so by the state.

So you are happy with a government-granted monopoly to provide electricity and water and say it works well. Yet you say that you are not suggesting to do the same for ISPs. Why not? Somewhere your reasoning is wildly inconsistent.

Furthermore, how do you know that these rates "make sense to everyone"? Did you poll everybody? And how is "everybody" even qualified to pass judgement on utility rates? Do you live in a neighborhood of expert quantitative economists?

I'm not suggesting we take private ISPs public, nor do I view government-run utilities as the panacea that some make them out to be. I simply view them as a way to introduce healthy competition, which is what's sorely needed in the broadband space

Then why do you advocate net neutrality and municipal ISPs? Those pretty much guarantee that there will only be a single ISP available: net neutrality means that there is little ability for product differentiation, and a taxpayer funded competitor means that companies have little incentives to enter a market at all.

Re:Great idea!

[ooloorie]

Actually, that's what we want for last-mile data service. If that's available, we get actual competition among ISPs, who can offer assorted capabilities at whatever price they want.

In the context of the net neutrality discussion, "ISP" right now refers to companies like Verizon and Comcast. They are not just last mile providers.

If you're advocating for publicly owned or regulated last mile service that is shared by other kinds of providers, you are not talking about anything related to what is currently under discussion for net neutrality. In different words, you are trying to mislead people with a bait-and-switch argument.

Has it happened yet?

[eric_harris_76]

Has the sky fallen yet, now that "net neutrality" is gone?

Re:Great idea!

[david_thornley]

Really? I think having last-mile service that isn't tied to anything more is an excellent idea. It favors net neutrality, since we can have multiple ISPs. Given enough competition, we don't need regulation. It's only the lack of such service that forces us to push for Net Neutrality.

Re:Great idea!

[ooloorie]

Really? I think having last-mile service that isn't tied to anything more is an excellent idea. [...] It's only the lack of such service that forces us to push for Net Neutrality.

In different words, you actually realize that net neutrality/ISPs and publicly owned last mile infrastructure are distinct issues, yet you deliberately confuse them.

Thanks for illustrating again what a dishonest debater you actually are.