How Big Telecom Smothers Municipal Broadband 111
Rick Zeman writes: The Center for Public Integrity has a comprehensive article showing how Big Telecom (aka, AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Time Warner) use lobbyists, paid-for politicians, and lawsuits (both actual and the threat thereof) in their efforts to kill municipal broadband. From the article: "The companies have also used traditional campaign tactics such as newspaper ads, push polls, direct mail and door-to-door canvassing to block municipal networks. And they've tried to undermine the appetite for municipal broadband by paying for research from think tanks and front groups to portray the networks as unreliable and costly."
This Just In! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what's scarier about this article (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that a 67-year-old grandmother from Tennessee has more progressive views on municipal internet than a large portion of the rest of the country, or that AT&T stepped in and threatened a 67-year-old grandmother over her attempt to provide municipal internet to her community.
Re:This Just In! (Score:4, Insightful)
Because you can't have the government competing with them in an area that they might, someday, begin to consider serving.
There is only one reason for the government to step in: make it easier for smaller ISPs to start shop. I'd love to start a small ISP in my area, but it is practically impossible.
Crowding Out Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't know what's scarier about this article (Score:5, Insightful)
She doesn't have more progressive views than most in the country. This is yet another issue that proves the country is an plutocracy rather than a democracy. In this instance, a few corporations (who Republicans will have you believe are, "people") are buying up politicians and subverting the will of the masses.
It just happens to be one of the more glaring flaws with our campaign finance and electoral systems. And it still can't be fixed.
Re:This Just In! (Score:5, Insightful)
There is only one reason for the government to step in: make it easier for smaller ISPs to start shop. I'd love to start a small ISP in my area, but it is practically impossible.
Given a few common, yet unproven, assumptions about how markets operate. ISPs operate a lot like utilities in terms of fundamental market behaviors, and the prevalence of natural monopolies. Organizing the structure of the market to allow smaller competitors, to me, is one way a government could help. Not the only way.
Re:This Just In! (Score:5, Insightful)
There is only one reason for the government to step in: make it easier for smaller ISPs to start shop. I'd love to start a small ISP in my area, but it is practically impossible.
No, there is only one real reason for the government to step in: To serve the interests of its citizens.
You may argue that smaller ISPs are in the interests of the citizenry, that's certainly reasonable enough to assert.
But never forget why it's done.
Re:Crowding Out Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
It comes from the fallacious belief that non-government created monopolies leveraging their position will face competitors who can "do it for less". The truth is that infrastructure just isn't that conducive to competition. Who'd want 3 different water/sewer systems connected to their house?
Re:This Just In! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This Just In! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you can't have the government competing with them in an area that they might, someday, begin to consider serving.
That's not why. It's because they're afraid of getting shown up.
If you have a bunch of people out in the country getting gigabit internet for $25/month while the city folk are still paying $50/month for 1mbps DSL, it makes AT&T/Verizon look either corrupt or incompetent. It also destroys their argument that they can't provide good Internet in the US because of the low population density.
Huh! (Score:4, Insightful)