Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Networking The Courts Technology

Telco Sues City For Plan To Roll Out Own Broadband 681

Syngularity writes 'MaximumPC is featuring an article about one broadband provider's decision to sue the city of Monticello, Minnesota after residents passed a referendum to roll out their own fiber optic system. TDS Telecommunications had earlier denied the city's request for the company to provide fiber optic service. During the ensuing legal battle, which prevented the citizens from following through with their plans, TDS Telecommunications took the opportunity to roll out a fiber system.'
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Telco Sues City For Plan To Roll Out Own Broadband

Comments Filter:
  • by MikePo ( 579147 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @09:00AM (#29908947)

    The Citizens of Monticello request several times to TDS Telecommunications that they upgrade the cities connection. They kept saying "Soon, we'll get to it" That is when the citizens, not the government, passed a referendum to install a city run fiber network.

    It was only after the city started installing that TDS Telecommunications sued the city and tied them up in a prolong court battle, which prevented them from continuing their install. During that time they started laying fiber of their own, by the time the city won the law suit TDS Telecommunications had completed their project and now offer 50mb to every household there for about 50$ a month.

    I guess this just shows if you want your ISP to upgrade your connection, pass a law to get the city to do it and force their hand.

  • by dunezone ( 899268 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @09:05AM (#29908985) Journal
    I used to live in a Tri-City area outside of Chicago. The three towns were going to go in on a municipal internet system that would have provided TV, Phone, Internet, over fiber-optic.

    Comcast did a massive advertisement campaign against the system and how if it failed we would foot the bill. They also had techncians out for three weeks straight installing new lines across the town. When it came to vote in my city of the three city's it failed 6000 votes to like 7500 votes, the funny part is, if the 6000 people who voted yes bought into the system and the system lasted for 5 years it would have paid itself and would have become self-sustaining.
  • by figmagee ( 1183813 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @09:10AM (#29909037)
    has had a municipal fiber-to-the-premises system for the past two years. I doubt I would have been alive long enough to see FIOS rolled out, particularly since the outfit that Verizon dumped^H^H^H^H^H^H sold their landline infrastructure to, Fairpoint, has just filed bankruptcy. Comcast, the only other game in town, has been howling to the state regulators about the sheer UNFAIRNESS of a publically-owned body actually implementing something that they had no intention of providing (in their neverending quest at maximizing shareholder value). Most recently, certain parties (first two guesses don't count) have been agitating to have the city shut down Burlington Telecom over perceived financial malfeasance. After all, it's downright UN-AMERICAN to have such an important piece of infrastructure exist without money flowing into corporate coffers!
  • by bleh-of-the-huns ( 17740 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @09:13AM (#29909069)

    Easier said then done..

    Outside of large metro areas where we might be lucky if we have 2 options, most smaller areas are outright monopolies. I personally do not consider DSL broadband anymore, then again I have FIOS :) ....

    I believe that the municipalities should put in the backbone connecting all the housing and business infrastructures of an area with their choice of networking, then lease that to the telcos and ISPs, that way, anyone who wants entry into the market just has to provide the infrastructure up to the municipal peering locations.

    That would provide competition.. and easier entry for non incumbents...

  • by Simulant ( 528590 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @09:17AM (#29909119) Journal

    ... on what grounds TDS sued the town? This is not explained in the article.

  • by commodore64_love ( 1445365 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @09:18AM (#29909123) Journal

    False. The amount of money collected from gasoline/diesel taxes *far exceed* the amount spent on annual maintenance. Where does the excess go? I don't about your state, but in mine the gas taxes are used to subsizde the Light Rail trains. I've sat in the State House and seen the vote for myself - money taken from the road fund and used to build a new rail line from Tysons Corner to Towson.

    The senior minority leader had a fit, saying it was a misappropriation of funds, but of course he was unable to stop it.

  • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @09:35AM (#29909321) Journal
    Way off topic here, but the reason that 'socialist' fire departments are common now is that the people who were paying for private fire protection saw things like the great fire of London. It's much cheaper to pay for someone at the other end of the street to have their house put out than it is to pay to fix the damage caused (by both the fire and the water) when the fire reaches your house.
  • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @09:36AM (#29909347) Journal
    So, rather than deploy it as a government system, why not deploy it as a non-profit cooperative?
  • by socsoc ( 1116769 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @09:44AM (#29909433)
    Even in major metro areas, good luck. It's usually between the local telco and cable operator. If you're really lucky there's a third game in town and hopefully at least two of them service you. I'm so fed up with AT&T that I canceled their DSL and Comcast doesn't service my block (in the middle of a metro neighborhood), so I'm basically fucked.
  • free market (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @09:48AM (#29909489) Homepage Journal

    So, they're not friends of competition, are they?

    50-100 years ago we had this collective dream of free markets, capitalism, solving our problems.

    Then, corporations found out that the actual free market is bad for profit margins. Once they grew powerful enough, they started changing the game.

    Events like this should have the capitalists and free market supporters up in arms. But it doesn't. Why?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29, 2009 @10:05AM (#29909709)
    Corporations don't just need to make positive cash flow. They need to show GROWTH each quarter. Personally I would rather hand my tax money over to someone who only had incentive to break even. Letting a company who feels compelled to profit and show constant growth take control of a necessity, something such as the roads or the water (or any other natural monopoly)... Well that's about as stupid as paying your bills with a credit card and carrying the balance.
  • by plague3106 ( 71849 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @10:20AM (#29909913)

    Well if killing were always wrong, you'd have a point, but there are times where its justified.

    Personally, I think its a great way to deal with the dregs of society; eliminate the ones causing problems, and you'll only be left with people who aren't causing problems.

  • by kbw ( 524341 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @10:32AM (#29910085) Journal

    If they lost a number of law suites, I take it they'd be liable for costs. Presumably there wasn't a business case for building the network in the first place. And finally, no one thinks the better of TDS for the these events.

    How much did this cost TDS and did anyone in a decision making position loose their job?

  • by Obyron ( 615547 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @10:48AM (#29910357)
    There's a chapter about this in "Freakonomics" by Dubner and Levitt, where they run the numbers and point out that legalizing abortion and putting more cops on the streets has done more to lower the crime rate than any number of executions per year ever will.
  • by commodore64_love ( 1445365 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @11:41AM (#29911189) Journal

    >>>How is a corporate monopoly (accountable only to their own profit) better than a government monopoly (accountable to voters)?

    I would flip that around and ask (given recent events like healthcare) - How is a government monopoly (which routinely ignores the voters; can suck money directly from wallets, or send you off to die in Iraq or jail)..... better than a private monopoly like Comcast (which consumers can simply ignore and not buy the product)??? I think the gov't monopoly is far, far worse.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29, 2009 @11:49AM (#29911339)

    Um, isn't this a good thing?

    TDS may have won the battle against Monticello, but didn't they just lose the war? TDS lost every single legal appeal to delay the town's work just to roll out their own fiber, but isn't precedent set now in U.S. courts such that the appeals process will be shorter? Or that any new defendants can argue that a delay in implementation is merely a delaying tactic used to thwart the will of the court?

    Monticello will be screwed, but won't other towns and hamlets now have case law on their side?

  • Re:Privitization (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Bagellord ( 1656577 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @12:01PM (#29911535)
    Clearly you have never driven on the Kansas Turnpike. It is maintained by a private company and is the best maintained and nicest road I've ever driven on.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29, 2009 @12:06PM (#29911625)

    I could tell you about American Alarm in Orange County, CA who writes contracts seemingly with 1 length filled into a blank on the front but then a blanket 5 year term overriding on the back.

    They have this fat, ugly, semi-female "non-lawyer" (I wrote that for her benefit since she routinely scours the internet looking for negative news about American Alarm so that she can bully sites into cleaning it up... Hi, you ugly piece of crap that was obviously raped as a child to do what you do and look like you look!)

    Anyway, she sits at small claims court all day every day suing all their customers to get money for service they never provided and obtained through fraudulent means and the court backs them up, all day, every day in a complete travesty of justice...

    How's that?

  • by tmosley ( 996283 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @12:12PM (#29911745)
    Umm, yeah, we don't need them. Volunteer fire departments are more efficient and don't bankrupt cities with the longstanding obligations they create, as they have in California, and now in Houston.

    When I had a house fire a few months ago, the first truck on the scene was from a volunteer fire department, and they got there something like 3 minutes after 911 was called. Damn efficient, and at no cost to the taxpayer.
  • Re:Privitization (Score:4, Interesting)

    by NeutronCowboy ( 896098 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @12:49PM (#29912381)

    You don't have to imagine what the country would look like - there's actually a neat historical example in Germany for this. At the end of the 18th century, Germany was splintered into many local city states, and had approximately 1800 customs barriers. The impact on traffic and goods was so blatantly obvious to everyone that the states voluntarily abandoned their individual independence and formed toll coalitions.

    The people who argue for privatization of everything are merely ignorant of history. Most of their ideas have been tried already, and abandoned because of their catastrophic impact.

  • Re:Privitization (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 29, 2009 @12:52PM (#29912441)

    The interstate system has allowed people to drive their cars without paying for the full cost of driving, or thinking about all the consequences of driving. If we had not built the interstate system, our passenger and freight rail system would not have deteriorated to the point they are in now. For a fraction of what we pay for our roads (Suburban Nation says 8% of or GDP goes int subsidizing driving), we could have cross-continental, underground, hyper-sonic, maglev bullet trains. Our driving addiction has made us a country of fat, anti-socialites that spend large portions of our lives driving solitary in cars from disgusting, identical houses in sterile non-communities, to cities where jobs are. Meanwhile we, waste a tremendous amount of this planet's oil. This means we get in wars and conflicts over oil. To make it worse, we are screwing up this planet.

    We SHOULD let private industry run the interstates, let people pay the actual cost of driving. See if they still want to do it so much. End the government subsidy of the Private car. End the government subsidy of the suburb.

    So, yes, I can imagine this country with out interstates. I do it every day. It's a fantasy.

  • by DusterBar ( 881355 ) on Thursday October 29, 2009 @08:36PM (#29919021) Homepage

    Not only emergency services but health care - would you actually negotiate the care given to your child to drive down costs? Do you really think you are going to hunt for lowest cost provider for your child's health (or even life)?

    I would claim that this is exactly why we need to have universal health coverage - since when you need it you can not actually make those choices nor should you have to.

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Working...