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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Municipal Net Access: Unfair Competition? 202

Posted by timothy from the or-just-common-sense dept.
ruvreve writes: "Net Economy has an article about how Los Angles is attempting to provide the ability for end-users to have a choice between multiple ISPs for high-speed bandwidth access, among other things. The article talks about how a city has an unfair advantage to offer such services. Unfair because the government monitors and regulates the cable and phone company but at the same time wants to compete for their customers. If it gets 100Mbit access to my front door it HAS to be good!" This issue's been raised a few times before, but the article raises some points worth thinking about.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Municipal Net Access: Unfair Competition? More

Municipal Net Access: Unfair Competition?

Comments Filter:
  • 100Mbps won't be showing up at your door any time soon. Price some of the modems -- you are dealing with modems, not simple 100baseT NICs. To bring 100Mbps to your door, it's optical, and the modem will run $15-20k US.

    It will be awhile until that drops to something more reasonable. Maybe PON (passive optical networks) will be the breakthrough. I'm not very familiar with that technology -- anyone?? anyone?? Ferris?

    • Are you nuts? A Fiber Transceiver costs $159 (Score:5, Informative)

      by JM ( 18663 ) on Thursday March 28, 2002 @11:57PM (#3246351) Homepage
      Have a look at the D-Link DFE855 here [shipitforyou.com].

      It translates a 100Base-FX fiber optic cable to a normal 100 mbps ethernet card.

      The drop can be up to 2 kilometers, and it's not affected by static, radio waves and you don't have to ground it, it's glass/plastic, so 100% pure insulator.
      • Indeed....campus here is all fiber to the desktop (and everywhere else...except this lab, for whatever reason), with little media converters they give out each fall. They didn't seem to be that big a deal...after all, they were willing to hand them out to every freshman and liberal-artist with a social security number and student ID.
        They couldn't have been terribly expensive (especially when you buy them in the thousands...), since the fine to replace one wasn't high enough to be impressive over the 1.5 years since I've lived on campus and needed one.
        The government's ISP could buy them in huge volume for three pittances plus tax and rent them to the users, with the cost spread over time.

    • Sweden in 2005: 5 Mbit to Every Household (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This NANOG presentation [nanog.org] talks about Sweden's plans for high-speed access, using 10 Mbps Ethernet (Hint: it's optical to within distance for KAT5-/KAT-6 from the home). It will cost US$75/month, and people will choose between at least 5 operators. Since CAT5/CAT6 cable is run to every house, it will be scalable to 100 Mbps and higher (it's designed to support a yearly doubling of traffic).
    • Ever see a cost-efficient government service? They'd lose money charging $100 a month.

  • broadband and business (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 56ker ( 566853 ) on Thursday March 28, 2002 @11:45PM (#3246304) Homepage Journal
    If the government is serious about getting people interested in broadband they should subsidise it.

    • Re:broadband and business (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FatRatBastard ( 7583 ) on Thursday March 28, 2002 @11:52PM (#3246335) Homepage
      Why in god's name should they subsidize it? If people don't want it they don't want it.

      Since there's no demand for solid gold toilets should the gov't subsidize it to generate interest?
      • Allowing a company to put in fiber, etc only creates a situation where you have to deal with a for-profit 'natural'-monopoly. Allow the cities and states to own the backbone - as long as they open the line to many (more than 3) firms - and you will have the happy situation whereby consumers get the service - if they want it - and the installation/maintenance pays for itself. This is the same situation that arises in many cities today. Telephone companies pay a service fee (although the feds began to allow monopolies - we know how that turned out).
        • Insightful? Government owning the roadways information travels on? I don't think so. Next thing you know they'll be owning the roadways cars travel...oh.

          Sorry. Carry on.
          • Yeah, and before you know it, people in the government will be claiming that they invented the Internet. Just as they claim that the government built the highway system.
            • i could care less if they want to claim responsibility for building the infrastructure for carrying the internet to every household in my city/county/state. i don't care who does it as long as it's done quickly and fair "service" is delivered to all w/i that region.

              some argue that it's not for the good of the community. i say it's no more for the good of the community than it was to build the electricity or phone or water infrastructure. we're in the information age now, and we live off information.
              • It is interesting to contemplate that the roads are for the most part "owned and operated" by the government, but actual construction is mostly done by private contractors. It's easy to see how this could end up being the way the Net works.

                After all, if the roads were privately owned, you'd have to stop and pay a toll every few meters, and each short segment of road would use different technology and be a different width. This is pretty much the approach of the big corporations to the Net, too.

                Also, if GM owned big sections of the roads, do you think they'd allow Ford or Honda or Volvo vehicles to have access?

                So if it's to work at all, we'll probably have to end up with the basic infrastructure firmly under the control of the government, but with most of the actual construction and maintenance done by private contractors. That way, we can have a Net that is consistent and usable, while the business people get to do their deals behind the scenes to make a comfortable living off it all.

        • Sounds good, but other posters keep using the highway analogy, which is lacking. The "lines of communication analogy" is more to the point.

          Government does, under the US Constitution, have the power "To establish post offices and post roads" [loc.gov] (Article 1 Section 8) and it IS an enumerated power.
          Since Post Roads were the typical lines of communication of the day, this new internet scheme woulld fall into that category (communications) that government DOES have the power to mess with.

          (Note, the "interstate highway system" is really the National Defense Interstate Highway System, covered under the common defense powers if the federal government)

          That being said, I would still rather see several firms given equal access to the same easements, so we don't have to wait for city hall to replace the single loop of copper they decide is "what the community needs to take us to the 22nd century.
      • Nothing subsidised will give the full value to all taxpayers. For example, everything that helps children will be an unnecessary tax for people who don't have any, to the advantage of those who do. The best we can hope for is that they all balance each other out.
        • There are advantages that acrue to a community when they bring services to people who may not be able to afford it. It may lower costs elsewhere - it may improve health and educational standards - it may reduce strain on transportation infrastructure.

          Public health is another domain like this. By subsidizing the vaccination of people who can't afford it, everyone benefits. A literate society is another benefit of this nature.

          • I can see vaccinations, I can see schools, I can see libraries, hell I can even see internet access. But is broadband internet access really in that category of things everyone really needs for society to be better? For just getting information dial-up is adequate -- I used it for years. And if you want streaming video, it'd make more sense to subsidize buying people TVs so they can watch the nightly news rather than subsidizing broadband.
            • > For just getting information dial-up is adequate

              Yeah, but that's not what the Internet was designed for. Like the phone system, it was designed as a two-way system, with every host able to contact every other host.

              One of the real reasons for applauding this sort of move is the widespread TOS clauses that say "no servers allowed". That is, you and I aren't permitted to put our own information (e.g., pictures of our kids and pets) on the Internet. The commercial world views the Internet solely as a marketing tool, with one-way access from the "consumer" to the "provider" of information and entertainment. They deny us the right to communicate among ourselves.

              A publicly-owned Internet would be as valuable as a public library. Publishers don't like public libraries (and behind the scenes this is one of the main issues of the attempts to restrict "intellectual property rights") But public access to information is important if you want a world that's worth living in. And this includes the right to communicate to others, not just to download commercial information.

      • Slashdot: having a choice about your operating system is a religous belief, but having a choice about getting broadband? Who needs one, everyone wants broadband right?
    • Unfortunantly the government has a flexable and capricious budget. The service that introduced me to the net
      was the local library [krl.org] now they've been forced to stop their free email due to budget cutbacks.
      Don't depend on the government long term.
    • part of the problem in LA is that older construction, such as from the the thirties and forties, has an earlier generation of infrastructure. This is fine for telephone line, but is a real pain for more modern services.

      The end result is that you will often have areas that seem like nice places to live, but where broadband has been "anyday now" for the past couple of years. And no one wants to spend the coin on the upgrade, because they will also be setting up their competition as well.

      So people sit around fuming, waiting for broadband, getting pissed in the meantime.

  • This sort of thing has happened before. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Latent IT ( 121513 ) on Thursday March 28, 2002 @11:48PM (#3246316)
    For the most obvious example, you can look at the USPS, vs. Fed Ex and UPS. In that area, it's fairly safe to say that the government version hasn't stifled the private sector interests. Fed Ex gets it there faster, and UPS gets it there better, either cheaper, or if it's heavier, or whatever.

    I work for city government, in that other city, on the other side of the country. A city run ISP will be concerned with either value, fair service, or information security, or maybe a combination of the three. This is hardly a bad thing. Cities have a way of wanting to avoid lawsuits, badly.

    That being that, private offerings will be able to compete with higher speed, more features, package deals, etc. Like the USPS, a city ISP would offer a baseline of service, and any private ISP that couldn't at least match it would crash and burn, but they'd probably deserve it.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Heh. Uh, well... exceptions to the rule... *mutter*

        Erm.

        Well, you see, uh...

        Oh well. Maybe he got it on with the UPS guy's girl, or something. ;p
      • Both UPS and Fedex tell people to pack anything in enough material so it will survive a fall from a good height. Their workers handle millions of packages a day and can't be expected to give each one the loving care and individual attention it deserves. I've bought PC's and monitors and they arrived fine with Fedex and UPS. I've shipped a monitor through the USPS and made sure it was packed better than how it was originally was shipped.

        If you can't follow simple instructions like that, then you're just stupid. If you think someone is going to lovingly care for you package instead of the millions of others that day, your're stupid and naive.

    • This affects me (somewhat) directly, so I say bring it on!

      I wish to bring the fastest internet connection possible to my doorstep, by whatever means necessary.

      sincerely,

      cannonball_X

    • Actually, this is an interesting case. Haven't there been companies that got in trouble with the USPS because they took their first class mail from city a to city b, put it in a box and shipped it via UPS/FedEx.

      The USPS came down hard on them saying they are a government monopoly and you MUST use them for first class mail.

      And postage rates still rise.

  • Oh my god (Score:4, Insightful)

    by abe ferlman ( 205607 ) <bgtrio@nOSpaM.yahoo.com> on Thursday March 28, 2002 @11:49PM (#3246320) Homepage Journal
    Do you suppose it's possible to say something so hypocritical, so mindbendingly and offensively pointing to one's own guilt, that the speakers' head actually spins 360 degrees Exorcist-style then reseats itself as if nothing had happened?

    I mean, the telecom behemoths want to complain about unfair competition after the way Excite, Rhythms, etc were treated?

    Good gravy. Since the government created these corporate monsters through deregulation, perhaps the government is the only entity that can compete with them. Note to conspiracy theorists- perhaps this is all a clever ploy to keep the telecom bribes flowing, so the fatcats don't get too comfortable.

    • Re:Oh my god (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FaithAndReason ( 112179 ) on Friday March 29, 2002 @12:14AM (#3246396)
      Note that the two detractors cited in the article were representatives of cable companies, not ILECs (it mentions that the NCTA primarily lobbies for cable companies.)

      What's their beef? "'Don't forget that they (the city) make us carry unnecessary community channels, they force us to provide local infrastructure...'" <verysmallviolin>Such a terrible burden, to actually give something to the community!</verysmallviolin>

      The lobbyist goes on to bemoan the fact that "Municipal power boards can offer service at a fraction of the price of a private competitor. Cities use existing rights of way from the power grid to lay their networks, they face a reduced regulatory burden to get the license to operate and they do not have to run at a profit".

      Then he pulls out his trump card: "At the end of the day it boils down to, do we want the government being in this business?"

      Well, I'm about as anti-government as any slashdotter, but it seems to me this is exactly the business we want the government to be in. Unless we want to actually have multiple "pipes" leading to each and every home and office, the responsibility for building and maintaining the lowest level of the network infrastructure should belong to the same sort of institution responsible for maintaining the water, electricity, sewer, etc.

      After all, if they really want to put their money where their mouth is, the telcos and cablecos can just lease the city's infrastructure and gain the advantage of all those cost savings. It remains to be seen whether they spend their money on that, rather than on more lobbyists...
      • There ought to be a place in hell for the chutspah of the companies that complain municipalities are unfair competition. The vast majority of cities and towns who create their own networks do so because the regular ILECs and cable vendors offer patently outrageous prices, or refuse to enter the market at all. When a forward-thinking city leader finally starts up a municipal network, the companies often sue so that they can wait and take their own sweet time about picking up the plum of an exclusive network.


        Now that I've gotten that of my chest, I do believe that cities should be careful about funding (not using municipal bonds, for instance) and do a few other things to insure they are fair. I have written about the movement in the article Echo of the TVA Comes Over Municipal Data Networks [oreilly.com]. There have been several court cases brought in various states by telephone and cable companies; they've been resolved in different directions and the whole legal ground is unclear.

      • Are you sure? The utilities don't have a very good track record recently. And the state departements tend to be quite arrogant, even when dealing with other government agencies.

        OTOH, monopolies are clearly the wrong approach. Monopolies and utilities are worse than the state agencies. They are not only arrogant and unbending, but they are more so, and greedy besides.

        As you can tell, I rather like SlashDot.

        I don't have a real answer. The government is the best choice that I have. But make it a local (county?) elective board. And forbid them the right to censor anything whatsoever. If you just must have a board of censors, then have them be elected separately from the group that runs the district. But I think that slashdot style moderators are a better approach. That allows the actual community to determine what's acceptable.

        (Moderators should be required to be resident in the district, and choosen randomly from among all of the user machines connected to. NO SUPERMODERATORS!!! Supermoderators are an acceptable part of a private non-monopoly newsboard. They have no place in a government or monopoly site. NONE!)

        Moderators should gain or loose probability of moderating depending on the long-term running average of their meta-moderation. Meta-moderators should be choose randomly in the same way that modertors are, but without the "probability filter".

        All items in local elections should be granted free posting as stories on the site. And need to put up with the feedback.

        User Ids would need validation. ssh might be enough. But after identification, anonymous status should be guaranteed when desired (with attendant lowering of posting points), and the guarantee enforced (partially via source code inspections, partially by the enabling legislation, neither one alone being sufficient).

        In addition to anonymous coward, which would require an identification at some point, there should be another classification "outsider", where others not known to the system at all could post.

        It's not ideal, but it could help build a sense of community. And it would allow for feedback. (As usual, it wouldn't assure that the feedback wasn't just ignored.)

  • Who owns the roads? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Thursday March 28, 2002 @11:50PM (#3246324)
    With a few exceptions, the public utility that most americans think least about... Our public road and highway infrastructure, is completely publicly owned. There's just no way to effectively manage an entire system of roads cost-effectively at a profit.

    There exist a few turnpikes, toll-roads, and troll bridges out there... (*rimshot*) but for the most part Americans are used to paying for the right to use the system out of tax dollars.

    Power is going the same way, as can be evidenced by the collapse of the California power grid. How long will the state pay for the power companies to stay solvent until the state becomes the primary power-provider? Phone will go too, IMHO.

    Internet is going to be the next public utility, probably even before the phone system. Already communities all over the country are building 'municipal' internet services. Look for these to become tax-supported in the near future.

    • Re:Who owns the roads? (Score:4, Funny)

      by leviramsey ( 248057 ) on Thursday March 28, 2002 @11:55PM (#3246346) Journal
      There exist a few turnpikes, toll-roads, and troll bridges out there

      Hey, when I cross a bridge, the toll attendant doesn't give me a receipt that's "fr15t p0st b1tche5!" printed on a goatse.cx background.

      Nor do they give me a receipt that eight miles wide, either...

      *groan*

    • Re:Who owns the roads? (Score:5, Informative)

      by FatRatBastard ( 7583 ) on Friday March 29, 2002 @12:00AM (#3246359) Homepage
      Power is going the same way, as can be evidenced by the collapse of the California power grid. How long will the state pay for the power companies to stay solvent until the state becomes the primary power-provider? Phone will go too, IMHO.

      Power went haywire in Calif. not because of de-regulation in general, but California's "de-regulation" [reason.com] specifically.

      I love proof by single (usually simplified and incorrect) example.

      • Re:Who owns the roads? (Score:3, Informative)

        by 56ker ( 566853 )
        I thought power went the way it went in California because the government told them what prices they should charge (partly influenced by Silicon Valley - a major power user) - so a lot of the power companies didn't have the money to invest in their infrastructure - so a few went bankrupt - and brown outs started occuring.
        • The power companies pushed for this plan because they thought they'd be able to make out like bandits. The government went for it because they thought they could get the benefit of regulation--stability--with the benefit of privatization--efficiency. Both of them lost out, so the power companies starting pointing figures at the government because the executives didn't want to lose their nice cushy jobs.

        • Re:Who owns the roads? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ahfoo ( 223186 )
          Oh, Silicon Valley was the culprit?
          And here I was thinking that some Texas fuckheads who specialized in manipulating power markets and later went on to have the biggest bankruptcy in history might have something to do with it. But that would be naive.
        • I've seen that lie also. But it's a lie. Sorry. I know that the new media told it to everyone, but do you really trust that source? They process stories to be simple and entertaining. Sometimes shocking. Think of the news as a gossip columnist writ large, and you'll be about right.

          And they never check their sources. Not even as much as they used to. (And remember that the new media is the source of most of the stories about heroic reporters that you have read. They exist, but they are rare!)

      • Power went haywire in Calif. not because of de-regulation in general, but California's "de-regulation" [reason.com] specifically.

        Which was heavily lobbied for by the private electric companies.

        I live in Los Angeles. My house is served by LADWP, which was not subject to the deregulation. While the rest of the state suffered rolling blackouts, power shortages, and long term contracts for overpriced electricity, we had the same good level of service we've always had, without interruption.

        Private sector solutions to consumer's needs are not always superior to "inefficient" government agencies. It all depends on the agency in question.

        And these guys wanna do internet access now? Bring it on! I'm sure they could do a better job than Verizon and Comcast.

        • Re:Who owns the roads? (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Arandir ( 19206 )
          The private electric companies lobbied for "deregulation", because it is in their best interest to be regulated. It seems counterintuitive, but it's a fact of life that corporations like to be regulated. It keeps the small time operators out of the industry.

          This whole use of the term "deregulation" is the epitome of Newspeak. People now distrust deregulation even though nothing was ever deregulated in the power industry in California. For the same reason, people distrust free trade because of NAFTA, which had nothing to do with free trade other than its name.
      • Power is going the same way, as can be evidenced by the collapse of the California power grid. How long will the state pay for the power companies to stay solvent until the state becomes the primary power-provider? Phone will go too, IMHO.

        I'd like to point out that LA itself has been largely immune to the state's power crisis- because the City of Los Angeles generates its own power!

      • There's an excellent article on the history of the California power crisis here [cppf.org].
    • But is this a good thing? I mean, the government seems to do a pretty shitty job of things in some locations. If it becomes a public utility then it will no doubt be a severe disadvantage to anyone in inner-city or rural areas.


      I realize that it already IS a problem for these people to get access, but by making it a government utility does it take it from "unavailable" to "never available"? It could work out ok, but there has to be a committment to provide quality service to EVERY citizen in this country.


      I think the next 5 years or so are going to be important in this regard. Think about the state of computers 5-7 years ago....ie, 1995 or so. If I recall right the web browser really took off in 1994 (or thats when I encountered it, as a part of Prodigy). We've come so far, so I really hope in the next 5 years or so corporations that sell broadband can make it as widespread as the PC. And I hope that government regulations can enable real competition as it happens as well....

      • I realize that it already IS a problem for these people to get access, but by making it a government utility does it take it from "unavailable" to "never available"?

        Of course it doesn't. In Oregon, at least, the State's decision to lay fiber to a variety of rural "cities" (we call towns of 3,000 people a "city" in my state) has led not only to Internet access by inhabitants but economic growth based on it. The markets being served most likely would've gotten broadband access in the next two or three decades but getting it a few years ago hasn't exactly pissed anyone off ...
    • Power is going the same way, as can be evidenced by the collapse of the California power grid. How long will the state pay for the power companies to stay solvent until the state becomes the primary power-provider?
      Not likely really. California is the only state that fucked up power management that badly, and it took a lot of different fuck-ups to reach that point -- twenty years of demand increases outpacing power-plant construction combined with a botched half-"deregulation" attempt and an unluckily dry winter (which meant the hydroelectric plants in the west produced less power than usual, driving up prices). For a better example, see Texas, whose deregulation is going just fine (with the exception of Enron, but they died for reasons entirely unrelated to power provision).

  • "This is unfair.....it's just sooooo unfair......" (Score:4, Funny)

    by Dr_Marvin_Monroe ( 550052 ) on Thursday March 28, 2002 @11:53PM (#3246339)
    "....it's just so unfair.....I mean....we worked really hard to box in these customers and make them accept our terrible service and with no choice of providers....now the mean bully util's are totally wrecking our whole business model!.....what's capitalism coming to when you have to compete...sounds more like communism to me...."

  • The Internet: A Public Utility? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by zhar ( 533174 ) <.mike. .at. .goldtwo.net.> on Thursday March 28, 2002 @11:56PM (#3246349) Homepage Journal

    When the government steps in like this, we should begin to consider the internet access they are offering to be more of a public utility than just a general service. To begin with, this would have the potential to lower prices, increase uptime and public meetings if any real changes in service are going to take place.

    Public meetings are already required (in most states) if the electric company wishes to increase rates, or if there will be a loss of service for an extended period of time. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to express your opinion about where the city should increase rates by five dollars if the bandwidth increase is only 128Kbps? If anything, this would allow for more public control over the internet, and how much we pay to recieve it.

    • What more is there to say?

      So I'll say it again.
      Censorship, however, is a real danger.

      It's always bad, but when somebody has a monopoly, as a government would be likely to, it's much worse.

      Of course, the problem also exists if somebody besides the government is the monopoly.

      • Note that most ISPs are already heavily involved in censorship. For example, most of them have a "no servers" rule. You can't (legally) put your own files up on your own web site, or run an IRC site, or whatever. This is total censorship. Of course, it's not anything unusual. In the commercial world, "free speech" means you have the money to run your own publishing firm.

  • This isn't competition!!! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Aniquel ( 151133 ) on Thursday March 28, 2002 @11:59PM (#3246356)
    Read the article: It says that the city will offer SONET service to the ISPs/CLECs etc. It's just providing the pipe - It's up to the consumer to choose who to buy the upstream access from!
  • I can only hope they would make it all run on IPv6.... which brings another question to mind, if they start it out on IPv6 (duh) how will addresses be assigned? I could imagine the city giving out 10.X.X.X and selling public routable addys, it just makes one wonder.

  • Three Cheers for LA's Water District (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Schlemphfer ( 556732 ) on Friday March 29, 2002 @12:01AM (#3246362) Homepage

    Was really surprised by the slant of this article. Are we supposed to feel sorry for the cable companies? Here's a couple sentences from the article that make it seem like the cable companies are being handed a raw deal.

    Not only must they compete with the city, they must obey regulations from this same entity. A kind of double burden.

    The whole reason that cable is regulated is because it's inherently a monopolistic product, in that multiple cable providers can't cost-effectively run multiple cables to every house in a city. So these companies should be constantly under the gun in every way possible. Otherwise, there would be all kinds of pricing abuse.

    As I see it, one of the primary advantaes of living in a city is that you should be able to get broadband for far less than you can in the country. If you couldn't, something is be terribly wrong. It's nice to see that LA's Dept. of Water & Power is keeping the cable companies scrambling to provide the best possible deal to consumers. That the cable companies are griping is merely a sign than government is doing its job

    .
    • I don't think pricing abuse would run that rampant. There are alternatives to cable tv which include satellite or if the price is high enough 'honest' folk will resort to sharing with their neighbor. Phone service will be the same way. If the price becomes too high people will start using cell phones as their main line of communication. You will only run into a problem when companies like Verizon control both sides. The land line phone system and your cell phone.

  • TVA (Score:2)

    by Mr.Ned ( 79679 )
    I guess that opening the (deregulated) (customer-gouging) (proprietary) (won't let me run any servers) broadband industry to government competition would be like when FDR created the TVA and opened up the private companies to government competition. I'm happy with the energy we get here. They offer competitive, renewable options. Much better than some of its competitors, like the nearby incenerator which provides power but is going to be shut down because it's incredibly toxic.

    As long as there remains private competition, this is a good thing.
  • The only way it becomes unfair is if the regulation gets mixed in with the competition; ie. the local government puts regulations into effect that directly limits how each company can do business. So long as the regulation serves only to ensure compliance with anti-trust laws, and the government's competitive companies do not themselves violate anti-trust laws, I can't see how this is the least bit unfair. I think oversight is a must, obviously, but this shows excellent potential for a model of how the rest of the country could push broadband to each person's doorstep at an affordable price. Real competition has always forced each company involved to push forward as hard and fast as possible. Look at the difference in browser quality when M$ had competition from Netscape. IE 2 -> IE 3, and up through 5. I like 5 very much, but with no competition anymore from Netscape, 6 is nothing more than 5 with teletubby icons.

    Right now, the broadband field had a few, large dominating companies. Verizon and Comcast are huge. Their service sucks, but what other choice is there? 56k modem? I make my living using computers and the internet, and I can't do that effectively on a modem. I hope and pray for something like what Los Angeles is doing to come to my area. Perhaps then my Comcast cable modem wouldn't go down for 2 minutes at a time 20 times a day. Right now it's (high quality | high speed | low cost) -- pick two.

  • It's about time... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JordanH ( 75307 ) on Friday March 29, 2002 @12:02AM (#3246366) Homepage Journal

    Nobody seriously believes that our entire road system should be turned over to toll roads, with the obvious congestion and complication this would cause with every burrough, county, city, state and the federal government collecting payments every few miles.

    Why must we live with oligopolies that "compete" against each other to provide these services. Somehow, the cable companies always seem to show up within months of the DSL offerings in an area with roughly the same service offering at roughly the same price. Yeah, the free market will bring us the best result, sure.

    The US Founding Fathers knew the value of a free people freely communicating. They established the post office to ensure that people could easily communicate over great distances, without regard to their economic status or resources.

    These days, this means Internet, and tomorrow, it'll mean broadband. Every aspect of society benefits from cheap and available broadband. Schools, industry, small business, homes, everybody. I'm surprised that local and state governments aren't more involved in making sure that their area has the best broadband service.

    Hey, I'm all in favor of the telecommunications industry and the cable industry profiting from providing good service, if they would just get off the dime and do it.

    It's time that government, at all levels, makes sure that all of that unused fiber capacity that's supposedly lying around gets lighted up and serving the people. If we leave this to the oligopolies, that fiber won't get used until it's already obsolete.

    I'm pretty conservative most of the time, but what's happening now must be some kind of market distortion that the government should work to correct. If there's all this unused capacity and lots of demand but not at the current price point, then the markets need a little prod to close the gap.

    Let's do it. Nobody would wait for competing water, sewer or electric services to come hook up your neighborhood. Seeing as Internet can enhance everbody's life in important ways (eGovernment anybody?), we shouldn't have to wait for Broadband either.

    • Nobody seriously believes that our entire road system should be turned over to toll roads, with the obvious congestion and complication this would cause with every burrough, county, city, state and the federal government collecting payments every few miles.

      Definately not. I find it amusing that here you recognize that governments inability to be efficient would cause delays and problems, but yet you still support the idea of govt getting involved in broadband.

      Why must we live with oligopolies that "compete" against each other to provide these services. Somehow, the cable companies always seem to show up within months of the DSL offerings in an area with roughly the same service offering at roughly the same price. Yeah, the free market will bring us the best result, sure.

      I'm guessing you meant that last comment to be sarcasm, but it's misplaced. That is not free-market competition. Both industries are highly regulated. Most areas only allow one cable company, and most only have one phone company. As a result, they have no fear of true competition. Yes, cable/dsl compete with each other, but DSL has a limited availability based on distance from the CO. So they get most of those, and the cable gets everyone else. No competition necessary.

      The US Founding Fathers knew the value of a free people freely communicating. They established the post office to ensure that people could easily communicate over great distances, without regard to their economic status or resources. Actually, the Post Office originated from Britain. It was abandoned and reformed during the period of revolt under the articles of confederation, and was not placed in the constitution till months later, and then only as a temporary act that was continued several times before being made permanent. IMO, this is an example of even early americans being accustomed to govt provision.

      Surely private industry could have done a better job. As evidence, I would submit the pony express. The US Mail was doing a horrible job of delivering mail to california. The founder of the pony express company (central overland something) couldn't get any backing from the govt for an official mail route to do the job right so he started his own company and successfully ran mail until the day the telegraph run was completed.

      I'm surprised that local and state governments aren't more involved in making sure that their area has the best broadband service.

      Yeah, me too. Only I am surprised they haven't done so by truly deregulating those industries which can make it happen. (Not the pathetic stuff they've called "deregulation" so far) and giving incentives like tax breaks and cheap or free permits for the needed infrastructure work.

      It's time that government, at all levels, makes sure that all of that unused fiber capacity that's supposedly lying around gets lighted up and serving the people. If we leave this to the oligopolies, that fiber won't get used until it's already obsolete.

      That's called extra capacity, and it's there for the purpose of future expansion. The major cost of fiber is in its use, not laying it. And that fiber isn't going to be "obsolete" anytime soon, so I wouldn't worry about that if I were you.

      I'm pretty conservative most of the time, but what's happening now must be some kind of market distortion that the government should work to correct. If there's all this unused capacity and lots of demand but not at the current price point, then the markets need a little prod to close the gap.

      Yes, it is market distortion, and it is caused by too much government involvement, not too little. The more they prod the market, the worse it will get.

      Let's do it. Nobody would wait for competing water, sewer or electric services to come hook up your neighborhood.

      I would. I grew up using a well for years because the local government couldn't be bothered to run water lines to my home. And I owned a home for a few years in the late 90s that STILL didn't have public sewer availability and it was two minutes from the city limits. Gimme private industry and competition any day.

        • Definately not. I find it amusing that here you recognize that governments inability to be efficient would cause delays and problems, but yet you still support the idea of govt getting involved in broadband.

        I'm not sure I follow you here. Where do I recognize that governments inability to be efficient would cause delays and problems?

        • I'm guessing you meant that last comment to be sarcasm, but it's misplaced. That is not free-market competition. Both industries are highly regulated. Most areas only allow one cable company, and most only have one phone company. As a result, they have no fear of true competition. Yes, cable/dsl compete with each other, but DSL has a limited availability based on distance from the CO. So they get most of those, and the cable gets everyone else. No competition necessary.

        I live in an area where DSL and cable are available. I chose cable because of the nightmare stories about service and connection problems from my local DSL provider. The phone company here is notoriously bad about service.

        I've worked in the government and I've worked in regulated monopolies. I don't see any difference in efficiencies, really. If the government is supplying broadband to my house and the heavily regulated monopolies aren't, well, I don't see the difference, really.

        Do you think these mega-corps would be more likely to provide broadband service if there was less regulation? I think they would still only provide it where it was cheapest and most profitable to do so. If a municipality wanted to take matters into their own hands, let 'em, I say.

        Now, why is it that you seem to recognize the need for natural monopolies and yet you also seem to advocate free market solutions in this case?

        • Yes, it is market distortion, and it is caused by too much government involvement, not too little. The more they prod the market, the worse it will get.

        A pat answer based on assumption that government involvement in the "marketplace" always makes things worse. Did Electricity costs to people in rural Tennesee go up or down due to the TVA? Did electricity costs go up or down to Los Angeles and Las Vegas after the Hoover dam? How about the Erie and Panama Canals? Did those increase or lower shipping costs? Would we be better off if we didn't invest tens of millions of $/yr. on the Army Corp. of Engineers keeping waterways clear? True, the Interstate Highways did do a number on the railroads (market distortions), but transportation costs went down and enabled Americans to vacation conveniently in America. A net benefit, I think.

          • Let's do it. Nobody would wait for competing water, sewer or electric services to come hook up your neighborhood.

          I would. I grew up using a well for years because the local government couldn't be bothered to run water lines to my home. And I owned a home for a few years in the late 90s that STILL didn't have public sewer availability and it was two minutes from the city limits. Gimme private industry and competition any day.

        Something of a non sequitur. No commercial interest ran in to fill the need in either of those cases. Do you think that public sanitation would be better if there were not public water and sewers? Do you really want only private industry and competition in all aspects of society? How about national defense? How about courts? Where, exactly, do you draw the lines?

        • Do you think these mega-corps would be more likely to provide broadband service if there was less regulation? I think they would still only provide it where it was cheapest and most profitable to do so. If a municipality wanted to take matters into their own hands, let 'em, I say.

          Well, I'm not sure about megacorps. They do tend to be slower-moving and prefer larger markets. However, de-regulation isn't there to help the megacorps, it's there to help the small companies that form to fill demand. A good example of this is the internet when it was still in its dialup days. No regulation. And the large companies (prodigy/aol/etc) weren't filling the need. Small companies popped up /everywhere/ filling that need. The only broadband arena that I really have hope for right now in the long term is wireless. Because (at least for the moment) it's an open market, and anyone (even the small guys) can compete.

          A pat answer based on assumption that government involvement in the "marketplace" always makes things worse

          It's not a pat answer. And most of your examples range in an area that yeah, it's nearly impossible to prove has been (or can be) done better by private industry. Maybe a couple of them can't. But I'd be willing to bet a years wages that if the demand was there, and govt wasn't filling it already, someone would find a way to fill it, and for a company to do so.

          Something of a non sequitur. No commercial interest ran in to fill the need in either of those cases. Do you think that public sanitation would be better if there were not public water and sewers?

          Honestly, I don't know. I've never had an opportunity to find out. No commercial interest ran in because there's no way the local govt would've permitted them to do so. If I had to guess, I'd say if there was a way to do it, private would be better. I want to clarify though. When I say private, I mean private with competition. Not a natural monopoly.

          Do you really want only private industry and competition in all aspects of society? How about national defense? How about courts? Where, exactly, do you draw the lines?

          No. As I said before, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. Government has its rightfull place, but that is not in the economy, or in business. National Defense is one of the very few valid roles of the central government. Courts are another valid role for government. I've heard some compelling arguments otherwise, but none that describe a society I would want to live in.

          Where do I draw the lines? That's a good question. It becomes particularly hairy when you start dealing with limited resources. For example, water pipes and sewer pipes. While I don't claim to know it all, I can't think of a way for those to be shared. Maybe the best solution for those /is/ to be run by your local government, and we just have to suck up and deal with the negative aspects of what that means. Or maybe it means a natural monopoly. Not that those are any different.

          However, internet, telephone, and cable infractructure isn't the same way. They are still limited resources, but not in the same fashion, they can be shared. While I wasn't of this opinion before, I read a couple accounts of some local munincipalities which laid the infrastructure and then paid for it with money from leasing it to various companies. With specific limitations (open leasing, no regulation) I would be open to this sort of thing I think. Still pondering it though.

            • National Defense is one of the very few valid roles of the central government.

            Then, the central government is in the economy in a big way. This requires tax money and tax money has a notable effect on the economy.

            National Defense these days means support for a lot of research institutions. The most effective way to do a lot of this is to support higher education through grants. The Interstate Highway system was built to support national defense. Are there strategic industries like energy and steel that have to be supported in some way to ensure a national defense?

            National Defense doesn't stop at a bunch of guys with guns who are expected to interrupt their sleep anymore.

            Or, is your idea of National Defense stop at our borders? Total isolationism? The Germans and Japanese might have won WWII had this been practiced. If not, the Soviets certainly would have taken Europe after WWII.

            • No. As I said before, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. Government has its rightfull place, but that is not in the economy, or in business. National Defense is one of the very few valid roles of the central government. Courts are another valid role for government. I've heard some compelling arguments otherwise, but none that describe a society I would want to live in.

            How about schools? Does the government have a responsibility to ensure that people are educated?

            If this is accepted, then will we also need to ensure that all those going through an educational system have access to internet? What if the Internet is shown to lower costs and greatly improve the efficiency of education? (Not that this has been shown, mind you, just a hypothetical.)

            I gave a bunch of examples where government involvement in big projects appears to be a big benefit. Do you believe that these examples don't counterbalence all the great harm that government involvement does? I actually might be able to accept that.

            Especially with the low quality of pandering, scheming, self-serving people that government has attracted lately. Campaign finance reform is an amazing example of how low we've bent. The politicians are actually arguing that there need to be restrictions such that they won't be bribed. These restrictions are actually restrictions on our free speech. The solution would be just for there to be full disclosure of who and to what extent all of the campaigns and issue ads are being financed. But, that might actually benefit one party over the other if people actually knew who was supporting what, so they've instead taken to banning speech.

            If the prohibition against government involvement in the economy is solely on principle and not based on benefit/cost then you have to deal with the tough issues of where the lines are drawn.

      • Nobody seriously believes that our entire road system should be turned over to toll roads, with the obvious congestion and complication this would cause with every burrough, county, city, state and the federal government collecting payments every few miles.

        Definately not. I find it amusing that here you recognize that governments inability to be efficient would cause delays and problems, but yet you still support the idea of govt getting involved in broadband.

        It's not that governments are too inefficient to charge for roads and make a profit, it's that collecting tolls is inherently inefficient. No private company could provide a self-funding road system.

        A small portion of routes could be converted to for-profit toll roads. But a few highways do not a road system make. The street out in front of our houses must be a publically maintained and owned facility -- they always has been, always will be.

        Maybe every ubiquitous, distributed service doesn't need to be like roads. But there is a place for public facilities. Particularly in cases where there is a need for service that covers all people, not just people in profitable areas or who need a level of service that is most profitable.

  • Better Service for less money? Sign me up (Score:5, Informative)

    by rbergman ( 127856 ) on Friday March 29, 2002 @12:10AM (#3246387)
    I work for a Public Utility Department in the State of Washington. We have built a fiber optic system through out the county which we provide open access to for whoever want to provide services be it internet, video, or phone. I myself benefit from this with what is basically a 100MB link to the internet and a public IP address for only $45 a month. Until this project was undertaken, Qwest refused to run phone lines to some of the more remote residents of the county. Now that phone services are provided via fiber, what a surprise Qwest was out there running phone lines. Television via cable is still limited to 30 some channels while customer with fiber can access over 150+ channels. This is an idea whose time has come.
    • I'm curious how people could get goverment to consider this. I live in the metro area of MN, but I'm in 56k hell - no DSL provider, the local telco (a subsid of Sprint) has been telling me "within the next 6 months" for 3 years...and a cable company based in Bumf*ck, MN that is entirely uninterested in offering cable internet. I called them on it and their reply was "Why would we want to do that?". Ugh.
      So how did the PUD (unfortunate acronym, that) of WA get such enlightenment?
      Help a guy join the 21st century from home.
  • ... but they started out with buying out a bankrupt cable television service. As you would expect, AT&T (the only other cable provider for the area) threw a fit and complained about unfair competition. These complaints took the form of full length commercials on cable TV (their network, of course) telling people to go complain to city hall about how bad it is for the government to get involved in the private sector. I went to the meetings just to "attaboy" the council members. I seriously got flashbacks to the town meeting when I read that article, all the same points got made. The council members told AT&T where they could file their complaints (hint: not in the city office), and I went away happy.

    The city recently divested itself of the operational aspects of the cable service, but retained ownership of the wires. The company that bought the management contract pays rent to the city for the line space, and is required in their contract to allow ISPs to use the line also - they don't have exclusive access.

    Eventually, the city will start running fiber optic cable throughout the city and will offer the same deal to new ISPs: rent bandwidth, and resell it to your customers. No exclusive contracts. AT&T (the only viable cable internet provider in the area as well) is no doubt throwing another tantrum, probably in cooperation with Qwest DSL (the only significant DSL sevice in the area, partnered with MSN internet, for your convenience). I'll proabably miss the City council meeting, though, since I cancelled my cable contract and AT&T won't get a chance to invite me to oppose them again.

    I'd love it if every city in the country followed the examples of these cities, it's about time that internet became an expected utility, just like water, gas, and electricity.

    Oh, this is Provo, Utah, in case anyone cares.
  • My fear when dealing with a government run internet utility would be government regulation. Not that it can't happen with private providers, but somehow I can't help but be more worried about the government...

    And I'd also worry about quality, given the level of service that one often gets from underpaid and unmotivated civil servants. Private ISPs have enough trouble getting and keeping good techs and customer service people, it would seem to be really tough on government pay scales.

  • I've never worked on the Quality assurance side of an ISP, but I'd like this answered.

    When I pick up my phone, theres a dialtone, and other then some rare occasions, I place a call, I get through.

    I turn on a light switch, there is always power. I turn on the stove and the gas is flowing. I turn on the tap, and water comes out.

    So why can't my ISP have this quality? My guess is they just hav'nt had the same amount of time other utilities have had to work out all the bugs.

    This may be a simple question with a difficult answer, but I'd like to know why.

    • Re:Why is internet service so spotty? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by clone304 ( 522767 ) on Friday March 29, 2002 @02:59AM (#3246649)

      Well, you're right to an extent. The telephone has been around for most of the last century, so it's not like it's new technology. However, DSL is not rocket science. Although there are many physical line quality factors that can get in the way of good service, from my experience as a tech support rep for a large Bell DSL ISP, I'd have to say that the lack of quality service is more due to the greed of providers rather than the technical hurdles that have to be crossed. They provide access really only because they have to. If it were up to them, they'd roll back the technological clock and make DSL disappear. It's an expensive business to start. And, they don't want to pay for it, because they are a for-profit business. Wiring the country, out to the boonies, with fat pipe is an expensive endeavor. It doesn't pay for itself. So, are we going to wait for the fat cats to take it upon themselves to do it when they feel generous? Or, are we going to do it the sensible way? Pay for it ourselves?

      Our government could fund nationwide broadband rollout for a fraction of the cost of a private corporation. It is something that we will all need in the future, so it's not a good competitive market. Telecomm companies are dragging their feet, because they know it will benefit them more to be forced to provide service than to lay down the necessary infrustructure on their own dime. If they don't do it, the government will force them to do it and subsidize it. So, in the end it will be much cheaper for the companies involved and then they will get to reap the profits from the newly installed infrastructure.

      At least, that's what I figure. Money motivates corps. Or maybe I'm just a wacko. Either way, I'm sticking to what makes sense until someone shows me that I'm wrong.

      .

  • Adelphia, my cable company, claims crippled by DWP (Score:3, Informative)

    by Thagg ( 9904 ) <thadbeier@gmail.com> on Friday March 29, 2002 @01:40AM (#3246567) Journal
    We live about 100 yards from the Mulholland Drive mentioned at the end of the article, right in the middle of Los Angeles. Interestingly, and frustratingly, even though this part of Bel Air and Beverly Hills is full of people who would desparately like to have broadband access, there is none. No DSL, no cable modems. ATT has pulled out its fixed-wireless system. Metricom of course went belly-up.

    Adelphia would be our cable modem provider. They've been busily laying cable for the last year, and have all but completed their network. Now I read in this story, Adelpha claims that it being crippled [latimes.com] by DWP, because they can't get power to their network.

    I wonder if the Department of Water and Power sees Adelphia as competition, and is inhibiting them in the obvious way. Or, this might be another case where you shouldn't attribute to malice what can equally be explained as bumbling by a cable company.

    It will be interesting. Adelphia claims that they'll light up the fibers here within the next month or so. I can't wait.

    thad

    • Well... You could get off your rich asses and pitch in on a T1 or T3 that you then split via wire or wireless to each contributors home. But, apparently you are just going to wait for the man to give you the access that you want..

      Call your local Baby Bell and get yourself wired. Share your connection with your neighbors for a fee. Is capitalism to advanced a concept for you to grasp?

      .
      blah, somebody needs to pull me over for a PUI, posting under the influence ;)
    • I wonder if the Department of Water and Power sees Adelphia as competition, and is inhibiting them in the obvious way. Or, this might be another case where you shouldn't attribute to malice what can equally be explained as bumbling by a cable company.

      I understand a general dislike for the cable company, but come on. What is your cable company motivated by? Profit. Profit is the lifeblood of any company. They didn't spend all that money laying cable so that it could just sit there. They want customers to use it. I find it highly unlikely that your cable company is holding it up on purpose once they've already laid the infrastructure. Their claims regarding DWP are entirely believable.

      I don't know that I would attribute it to malice, there's no real need for them to worry about competition, as they are a govt entity, but I think it's quite likely DWP's typical slow-moving-government status is the problem.

  • Our fucking plutocracy... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Draxinusom ( 82930 ) on Friday March 29, 2002 @01:57AM (#3246596)
    When did people start believing that the purpose of the government is to ensure that someone makes a profit instead of to serve the public interest? "We need the DMCA because what improves the lives of millions of electronics consumers infringes on our right to make money." "We need absurd patent laws because the free exchange of ideas among the people impedes our ability to make money." "Giving everyone cheap broadband makes us less money!"

    All these corporations need to remember that the reason we happen to have a free market economy is that we've determined that incentivized competition is the best way to serve the public good, not as an endin and of itself. It's the job of the government to serve the people, and the responsibility of private enterprise to figure out how to make money anyway. I mean, if a magical fairy flew down tomorrow and promised to turn the earth into a paradise, giving everyone as much material comfort as they wanted, all the corporations would be screaming about how it's unfair and going to cost them money.

    And yes, I do realize that the "public" is comprised partly by exactly those corporations and people who have a stake in them, but tell that to me again when 1% of the population stops owning 50% of the stocks and bonds.

  • Privatize everything! (Score:3, Funny)

    by aquarian ( 134728 ) on Friday March 29, 2002 @02:03AM (#3246601)
    I'm for privatizing everything, including the sidewalks. And the best way to ensure complete sidewalk construction is through forced adoption of a standard sidewalk shoe, which you can buy from AT&T/TW for $400/pair. Laces are extra.
  • In Ashland, Oregon the city is running a broadband access network (with cable modems) and faster fiber optic connections for those who want to pay up.

    We certainly didn't mind, as it spurred Charter (cable company) to speed up their service deployment so we actually have competition for cable service - what an interesting concept.

    On the other hand, the City of Ashland also owns the water and electric utilities... and has put the "telecommunications" (the internet & tv business) as a part of the electric utility... check out the Ashland Fiber Network [ashlandfiber.net], and the City of Ashland [ashland.or.us].
  • What's interesting to me about this debate isn't so much the particulars of it, but what the presence of the debate itself reveals about how we view goverment in this country.

    You can't get much more local than city government. We're not talking about behemoth state governments or the federal government here. And yet here we are debading whether it's unfair for one of the smallest units of government, one of the entities closest to the people who elected it, to offer us services for our taxes.

    The privatization of government services seems to have gone so far that we now seriously consider almost every city government function replaceable by private contractors (security services, health services, and so on), yet for local government to "intrude" into an arena now dominated by huge for-profit entities is somehow taboo.

    Government is often painfully inefficient - I say that because I've worked in government. But it baffles me that when the people from our own neighborhoods whom we elected to help our cities run better actually offer something superior to what private industry can offer, we run screaming that the free markets are being sabotaged.

    Ah, how far we have come.

    • It's because the people screaming aren't the people being benefitted.

      The cable companies are finding that their monopoly is being threatened. Because people are getting a bit tired of their not providing any service.

      I'm not sure that government is the right answer. But I'm sure that the monopolies aren't. So what's left?

  • Ashland Fiber Network (Score:4, Informative)

    by cheinonen ( 318646 ) <cheinonen&hotmail,com> on Friday March 29, 2002 @02:40AM (#3246623)
    Unlike Portland, OR, where the city tried to tell AT&T that, despite paying for all the hardware upgrades themselves, they had to open up their lines to other companies, Ashland, OR [ashlandfiber.net] got it right. The laid down fiber in the whole city, sell access rights to a variety of ISP's, and they call compete for prices. @Home was a horrible option compared to the city's network, and the profits went back to local companies, so everyone won.


    They also used the fiber to provide cheaper, better digital cable for everyone in the city as well. Future plans included adding 802.11b to the whole city so cable modem users could be online anywhere in the city for one low fee. For a town of 20,000 people in Southern Oregon that only has a Shakespeare Festival and a University, it's a pretty amazing network. The city also has their own power company, so you can get everything locally, it costs less (when their was a power shortage, the city was still fine), the city gets all the profits from it, parks and roads improve, and there is high bandwidth everywhere. Almost makes me wish I was still going to college there instead of living in Seattle where my DSL line the same speed costs almost $100 a month.

  • backwards priorities (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mmusn ( 567069 ) on Friday March 29, 2002 @03:19AM (#3246676)
    People don't exist to give companies a level, competitive playing field. Rather, companies exist in order to satisfy the needs of people. High speed Internet access companies have failed to do so, and that's why municipal goverments have stepped in.

    In any case, in a democracy, it is up to the people to decide how public rights-of-way and public airwaves are allocated. We have made a decision in many places to have public utilities, and we can do the same thing with Internet access if we think it serves our needs better.

  • 100mbit (Score:2, Funny)

    by Rumagent ( 86695 )
    "If it gets 100Mbit access to my front door it HAS to be good!"

    I would worship satan if that would bring 100 mbit any closer to my door step.

  • If the private sector cannot or will not provide a public utility at a reasonable rate and with a reasonable level of facility, then the public sector not only should, but must step in and rectify the situation.

    The telco's and the cable companies have used deregulation to set themselves up as governing bodies over access to communications, trumping municipal, state or even national mandates with corporate mandates that serve to disenfranchise citizens from a reasonable level of service. No servers on broadband, no broadband to remote or "unprofitable" (read: low income, or worse, black) neigborhoods, long delays for install or repair, recurring technical problems that are deliberately ignored, no choice in providers, etc, etc, etc.

    Screw 'em. They have been using the free market to wrangle quasi-monopolies and dictatorial cartels, obviating the entire purpose of a free market. The municipal government must step in, and provide services vital to the growth and prosperity to a community... this means municipal networks, even at the cost of breaking the priovate sector's back.

    It's the private sector's own damn fault. They were given a fair chance, and they frittered it away. Now they get to shape up, or loose revenue.

    SoupIsGood Food
  • There should only be four infrastructure links going into your home or apartment: Data, power, water, and sewage. It's pointless to operate and maintain separate feeds for internet, telephone, and cable, and the like when they are all really the same thing - data. It would be far more efficient to maintain a single fiber optic link to the home/complex in terms of cost, lifetime, maintenance (especially of the wires), service addition (especially for novel services), power requirements, billing, and quality of service. In fact, coupled to a wireless network and backup power, it could be far more reliable and flexible in all respects. Why shouldn't the government handle something like that?

    I could care less if some greedy cable company gets put out of business - the gov't should be in the business of providing and regulating key services to the public, even if it makes it difficult for private companies. Deal with it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson

Close