Power Companies Offering Cable (TV, Net) Service 195
MankyD writes "CNN is running an interesting story about a power company offering cheap cable and broadband internet to its customers. What's even better is that they aren't looking to make a profit, just break even on the venture. They estimate that they've saved their customers $32 million. Furthermore, it's available in a rural area where the telecomms don't offer service anyways."
Where can I sign up? (Score:1, Redundant)
cool.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I am trying to get my township here to open up the cable market....Time Warner is gouging us...for basic cable and internet I pay 84 bucks....my wifes friend who lives near by in another town has 2 cable companies to choose from and pays $79 for digital calbe, free HBO that comes with the digital cable, more basic channels, and internet access. I looked tha the company website...for whay I have with Time Warner, my wife's friend would pay $54.
Re:cool.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:cool.... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're serious... well, thanks for cheapening the Bill of Rights, and everything else this country stands for.
Re:cool.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That sounds like a good deal to me, actually, if you have some sort of broadband connection.
Also, in many markets, even if you only have one cable company (like in my area), you still have the option of going to DirecTV [directv.com] or another satellite TV provider. I decided to completely avoid my cable company, I get both TiVo and satellite for $45 a month. My DSL line costs me about $50 a month. I'm actually paying more than you, although I suspect I have more channels, more features (see below), etc. (No HBO, though.) I believe I can also get some sort of cable internet now, but I'm more likely to switch DSL providers to get a better deal there.
Anyway, my point is that there is some competition, even though there might be somewhat more competition in some places. "Gouging" seems like an excessive characterization considering what you are paying.
I should also note that I can record two channels at once and watch recorded material at the same time with "DirecTiVo" and I get local channels too, but that's fairly old news. I doubt I'd even be interested in a second cable company unless they could match those features.
Re:cool.... (Score:1)
Re:cool.... (Score:1)
That sounds like a good deal to me, actually, if you have some sort of broadband connection.
Good deal?! My God, man, I'm paying 64 bucks Canadian for basic cable and broadband internet. If you figure that works out to around 42 dollars US, he's paying twice what I am for exactly the same service. Time Warner is fucking him sideways at that price.
Re:cool.... (Score:1, Funny)
Not a power-line network (Score:5, Interesting)
In particular, anything that provides additional connection options for small appliances with embedded operating systems is always welcome. In this specific case there are some protocol issues concerning communication with Glasgow residents of that type - a difficult (for outsiders) "accent" if you will, but one day it will be possible to exchange the latest news and information on toast (just as an example) with one's peers. That will be a good day.
Cheap Broadband means more advertising? (Score:1)
Not related to article: For you posters who are speaking of the astronauts. Yes it is a tragedy, it is very sad. Yet, you come here and say our priorities are screwed up? Obviously you visit this page and are aware about how to post here. So are you that heartless as to come here and insult us when you should be reflecting on current events?
Re:Cheap Broadband means more advertising? (Score:1)
Hmm, i've only paid 4.95/month for that since 97.
Re:Not a power-line network (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not a power-line network (Score:1)
And in other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And in other news... (Score:2)
Ah cool, maybe I can get some real service now (Score:2, Informative)
If our power company offered us cable internet service I'd be in an eternal bliss, because I could drop my horrible provider. I hope this idea spreads.
Re:Ah cool, maybe I can get some real service now (Score:1)
Re:Ah cool, maybe I can get some real service now (Score:1)
I've reported them to the BBB and haven't gotten many results. Is it so much to ask for a stable connection and my own IP?
Just wondering... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just wondering... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just wondering... (Score:2, Funny)
Excuse me? :)
Dear Pedernales Electric Company (Score:2, Funny)
Your friendly customer.
Anonymous Coward
Damn it feels good to be a gangster.... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not new... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is not new... (Score:1)
Sneaky (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing new here.... (Score:5, Informative)
We had this in another town in Kentucky (Murray, which is probably on par with Glasgow) and were the 2nd town in the US (Canada being one large rural area seemed to have a lot more broadband at the time) back in late 1996, early 1997.
The only notable thing, is that as this sort of thing gets widespread, cable companies will have to either add more value to the service (free PPV perhaps, or more digital channels) or price it cheaper. Competition is a wonderful thing. I paid $25/month for a cablemodem capable of 512k down/256k up in a city that had competing cable tv, internet and even local/longdistance telephone service. The existing cable company (Charter) had to drastically reduce prices, hurry out their digital tier services, and price them competitively, as in the course of a summer the Electric Company had started offering a cable package with 10 more channels than the Cable Company, for around 12 bucks a month, compared to the cable company's 25. They're still fighting and the person who will end up winning, is the consumer.
My cable bill in Kentucky was 55/month. This included digital cable and a cable modem. Now I move to a large city, and I'm paying 50/month just for DSL, cable was just as expensive, and I can't afford the digital cable at all, as that's another 50/month. Things were much different in a small town with two providers, and they're doing very well, and I have hope that the idea will catch on everywhere else eventually and the cable monopoly will get bumped aside in favor of fair prices and better service.
Re:Nothing new here.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Mediacom, who is the local competitor to our local municipal cable/data product is trying to get the law changed in Iowa to prevent the formation of new Communications utilities and severly limit the ability of the already formed utilities to do business. The link to the legislation is here [state.ia.us].
In Iowa, like most states, there are open meetings and open records laws. Mediacom has, in the past, requested and received all of our financial data including customer counts, contracts with providers, etc. We, on the other hand, can not ask them for any of that information which results in an unlevel playing field.
Our product costs less because we don't have to pay off stock holders and the like. All that we have to pay off is our municipal bonds that were floated on the creation of the utility.
Re:Nothing new here.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nothing new here.... (Score:2)
Great idea! We can call it...penny picher video.
Just hope they don't go the other way round... (Score:5, Funny)
(UK in-joke, sorry)
Putting all your eggs in one basket (Score:5, Interesting)
My issue is putting all your eggs in one basket... A few years back when there was a giant ice storm in Quebec, we were reminded of how dependant people have become on electricity. Now lets just say that using the power grid to access information becomes popular- power grids are already very central to survival in the modern age.
if something happens to the grid you're not going to have power, so it wont matter if you can access the net; slowly the infastructure can be repaired and the chances of taking out all power lines at once is very slim. On the other hand if you were to take out a couple power stations you could disrupt the flow of information, as well as disrupt the lives of people for a considerable amount of time. It would be much harder to replace a power plant than wires and transformers.
Re:Putting all your eggs in one basket (Score:5, Funny)
My issue is putting all your eggs in one basket... A few years back when there was a giant ice storm in Quebec, we were reminded of how dependant people have become on electricity. Now lets just say that using the power grid to access information becomes popular- power grids are already very central to survival in the modern age.
Gosh. You're right! Since they're line sharing internet access and power, if the power goes out, they won't be able to access the internet either!
Oh... wait...
Re:Putting all your eggs in one basket (Score:5, Funny)
We already have that (Score:2)
Re:Putting all your eggs in one basket (Score:2)
I don't know, with the possibility of a war on iraq looming, gas prices may skyrocket. Maybe a steam-powered information delievery system is the way to go.
Re:Putting all your eggs in one basket (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been working on moving my computers towards more energy effecient technology and using alternatie energy to offset the utilty bill. It's amazing how your utility bill drops if you do something as simple as move your lan to solar/wind power. It also makes your network more stable as it isn't often you have outages of public utilities, sunlight, and wind all at once.
Kinda-sorta-not-really (Score:3, Insightful)
It's good you considered this, but given this is being used for last-mile internet (as opposed to actual infrastructure, such as backbones), this isn't really an issue. Besides, if you disrupt power, you're going to take out most people's ability to access the network anyway.
Those who have backup power (and need it) ought to have concern for this, of course. They will probably not be using this as a solution anyway. (Probably should not.)
isn't trying to profit from the service (Score:1)
Also, they say ~$45 gets them cable TV and fast Inet access, which is 'half the national average', well, that's exactly what I pay here in the metro Detroit, MI area for both as well for basic cable package plus thier 1.5 Mb cable modem servise (Wide Open West provided). My other option was Comcast, but Wide Open West blows thier doors off in pricing, and I like thier channels better.
-me
Re:isn't trying to profit from the service (Score:2)
You undermined your very point by noting that Wide Open West (apparently a very good local deal for you) "blows thier[sic] doors off in pricing" compared to Comcast, but in most of the nation national carriers like Comcast are the only choice, so the power company is probably correct.
Re:isn't trying to profit from the service (Score:1)
automag this is because the power company has a natural monopoly over the industry and is thus controlled by the government to ensure that they aren't gouging the customers. The reason that this type of monopoly is allowed to exist is the simple fact that you don't want to have 20 sets of power lines for different companies in one location. I am forced to think back to my economics classes where we were shown pictures of New York City with hundreds of different phone lines going down the streets and across the buildings.
but this article isn't directed at poor rural folk that only have one choice in everything. this is directed at small towns that could benefit from a little competition.
Re:isn't trying to profit from the service (Score:1)
Let the lawsuits begin! (Score:1)
Damn, got me all excited (Score:2, Interesting)
Awesome... but the power company? (Score:4, Interesting)
Using ADSL modem (Score:1)
does anyone know if an ADSL modem will work with this?
BELD - Braintree, MA. (Score:2, Interesting)
3 miles down the road (and not in Beld's area
If that's not bad enough, Beld supplied him with a cable box that had spdif output for decent surround sound (apparantly ATTBI supply a shitty box with analogue stereo output only), and his internet download speeds rocked... consistently ~2.5Mb/s
You know, I'm not *too* pissed off about my internet service at the moment. Mediaone/Attbi have been ok, both from the point of view of performance and reliability. They've also been reasonably friendly wrt running a web server. Yes it'd be nice if it were a bit cheaper, but it's not outrageous. Now Comcast are due to take over, I'm worried about their restrictive AUP, $45/month to be a web consumer is too much..but I digress.
What *really* hacks me off is the $45/month for basic cable - considering that nearly all of the channels are commercial-supported, and the amount of commercials seems to increase every month. It's outrageous.
Re:BELD - Braintree, MA. (Score:5, Insightful)
Local broadcasters have 2 methods that they can use to get their signals on your cable system. They can elect for a Must Carry (you have to carry them per FCC regulations) or a contract. The Must Carry is free. A contract of any sort is going to involve dollars.
We are currently in renegotiations with the local NBC and ABC affiliates. The ABC affiliate wants us to pay $0.25 per subscriber per month to carry their signal. The NBC affiliate wants us to carry their signal, roll out their HDTV signal in 30 days, still provide a channel for their weather broadcasts, advertising swaps, and what the cable industry calls Most Favored Nation (i.e. they get paid what the highest local affiliate charges us to carry their local signal - in our case $0.25 per sub per month).
HDTV alone is going to cost us about $10k a channel to add (the reason is that the UHF channel spectrum that the off-air broadcasts use is not directly transportable on a cable system without wastng channel space. The UHF channels don't match up directly with the cable channels). So, we have to either take their off air channel, upconvert it, and sell a box to the subscriber to get it. Or, we can waste channel space, and a normal HDTV ready TV would be able to watch the signal.
That, and the ABC contract says that if we roll out HDTV for any other local broadcaster, then we have to roll theirs out too.
Basic cable is something that cable companies are required by the FCC to carry. It isn't always as cheap as you might think.
I've got this, and its wonderful (Score:5, Informative)
Things that make this service fantastic:
1) Price. No question. I consolodated my monthly phone bill (~$25) plus my monthly cable bill (~$75 for digital + two premium tiers) plus my high-speed internet bill (I was paying $125 for business-class DSL which was the only service provider with a static IP in my area) down to ~$100/month (in a single bill) to a single company
2) Services available. For $100/month I get 1.5 MB (256 kbps upstream) cable with a single static IP, digital cable with two premium tiers (I selected HBO and Skinimax), plus local phone service with $.10/minute long distance. Everest just released a new feature I'm interested in but haven't yet taken the plunge - integrated PVR service. For an extra $20/month you can get an upgraded box with 40gb HDD and Tivo-style PVR service.
3) Customer service. You can call their support number 24x7 and its answered immediately by a real person. Level-2 tech support people who know what they're doing.
4) Let me ditch a few companies I'm happy not to do business with: Time Warner Cable and Southwestern Bell (SBC).
All great stuff, in my opinion. This type of competition is just what these markets need, in my opinion... especially the cable TV market.
These systems are very beneficial (Score:5, Informative)
I pay about $20 a month for phone service with callerid, call waiting, etc. Another $27 for extended basic cable which is about 70 channels and then $19 for internet access. If I were to go with the competeing companies in town I would be paying $40 a month for cable an additional $40 for cable modem service through them, *ahem* charter *ahem* overpriced *ahem*, plus a phone line and long distance through bellsouth, at least $30 before caller id, call waiting, etc. Did I mention because of this we only pay $0.07 a minute for long distance.
Now many people are seeing this as a very bad deal because the power company is supposed to be non-profit because they have a natural monopoly over the services. Well it doesn't have to be, the way our community handled this is that the electric company issued bonds to the community to pay for the project. In essence the community owns the service, anyone that has a problem with the service are invited to public meetings held about every six months. But the one thing you have to keep in mind is that with your local power company hosting all of your services you also have all your hard earned money going right back into your own community. Sure our previous service was based here but the profit leaves the area and goes to where ever their home office is.
What ever you do if you hear that your local electric company is considering this goto their board meeting and hear them out. It will come to a vote eventually and your vote could be the one to make it happen for you as well.
Non-profit = antitrust? (Score:2, Insightful)
1) The telecom companies may have a point in their claims that it's anti-competitive. I mean, no private company would go into business with the goal of "breaking even". How is this much different from a monopoly selling their products at cost to drive out competition?
2) That being said, the power companies have great potential in the telecom business if, as mentioned in the article, cable/internet could be offered over power cables. The network in the article is run over power-monitoring wires, and i'm not sure how widespread this type of wire is... Cable (and broadband interenet to a lesser extent) are so widespread now, that it may not be a bad idea to offer them as city-sponsored commodities, like power, and hopefully even run them over power lines.
3) This is going AGAINST the trend of privatization of publicly owned ventures. That means that the only reason that this is cheaper is that the prices set by cable/telecom companies are inflated. This could lead to a huge drop in cable/internet prices... and the telecoms are trying to fight this through legal means. Fighting a new distribution model through courts - **AA anyone?
Re:Non-profit = antitrust? (Score:2)
As long as there is no gouging going on and the city does not attempt to buy out of the competing avenues of access (such as cable, telephone wires) i do not really see a problem.
Manassas VA (Score:1)
Private Telecoms Go WAAAAAA!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone knows how cheap fiber and net access REALLY are... Cents per gig.. or pehaps fractions of cents. Consumer net access is currently overpriced, overhyped and slow. If local Hydro can provide cheap, fast internet to everyone with power, let them!
i like this section (Score:5, Interesting)
Violate First Amendment by placing distribution of content under government ownership? Aren't libraries city-owned?
Its sad how hard business owners will try to keep hold of their profits rather than doing what's right for society..
Click! Network in Tacoma, WA (Score:2, Insightful)
It's basically city-subsidized bandwidth. I got 2048x256 Mbit cable for $25/month, and later bumped it up to 4096x512 (basically uncapped) for $80. When I had to move up to Seattle for work reasons, this was one of the hardest things to give up (since I'm now paying the same price for 768x384 DSL - granted, Speakeasy [speakeasy.net] encourages their customers to run web servers, etc, and I get 2 static IP's).
For businesses, Click! offers extremely competetive rates on connections up to an OC-48, and you can get one just about anywhere in the city. They're also expanding (slowly) into nearby cities, too (Tacoma has had a lot of internal neighborhoods become incorporated, so it's unfortunately not like they're expanding very far).
Not sympathetic here (Score:2)
Oh, cry me a river! (Score:2)
This, from companies who do everything in their power to screw their competitors and customers. Advertise high-speed, always-on internet service, but don't make guarantees as to the speed or the uptime. Grudgingly provide their infrastructure to their competitors as mandated by law, but give preferential treatment to their own services and relentlessly play the blame game when the problems lie in their network. It's pathetically laughable to hear them preaching about how the playing field must be leveled.
~Philly
The Rules of Business (Score:2, Insightful)
The rules of business are not being ignored, it's an investment for the future.
Re:The Rules of Business (Score:1)
Re:The Rules of Business (Score:2)
And to that, I say who cares? Should we be angry that a company wants to *gasp!* make a profit? The people who have this available to them should be grateful that they can get it at a reduced price.
Nothing new here, move along... (Score:2)
One interetsing point, not in the article, is how many "Rural" co-ops are no longer rural, since many are now suburbs of major metropolitan areas, such as the EMCs surrounding Atlanta GA; areas taht private companies would gladly serve, if the EMC would only go away. That won't happen, given the political clout of the customers.
If you really want more info, visit:
http://www.touchstoneenergy.com
I work for an isp that works with one of these (Score:1, Informative)
Just started this in Provo (Score:2, Interesting)
The thing that is really nice about this is that a very large percentage of Provo is populated by students. Brigham Young University (30,000+ students) is in Provo and Utah Valley State College (~25,000 students) is 5 minutes down the road in neighboring Orem. They're actually going around and putting fibre into entire apartment and condo buildings. If that isn't great enough for college students, they're going to be running everything (power, phone, cable, internet) and all at a very nice price. There's several different options for cable and internet, depending on your requirements, and they are all nicely priced.
One cool thing I read is that if you live in Provo and have a business there as well, you'll be able to connect to your business online at something like 50 Mbps.
There's all sorts of cool things about doing this. I can't wait to get back to school!
I wish these guys would come to San Francisco... (Score:2)
Japan (Score:2, Interesting)
Not A Company, Not Rural (Score:3, Insightful)
if only this happened down under ... (Score:1)
They try to force people into buying their more expensive and less convenient one-way satellite services. ugh.
If utilities would take it upon themselves to provide where telstra doesn't, imagine the profits they could make, even at a modest markup, like another poster mentioned!
(On a side note, i'd love to become involved with a project such as this
Great, Great. Freaking crap.... (Score:2)
Which just happens to be where I live. Of course; an exciting new broadband prospect pops up, and I live in town center of the test case that prevents it.
Just my luck.
This Just In (Score:2)
Nebraska? (Score:2)
Failure to take advantage of the medium (Score:5, Interesting)
This (AP) article on CNN.com is exactly the sort that could benefit from being on the web. As it is, it is not much more than an electronic reprint of a newspaper-style article. The only "improvements" made are that it is heavy on cruft, what with the ads, partner tie-ins, subscription offers etc..
There's a little generic warning and associated icon at the bottom: "All external sites will open in a new browser. CNN.com does not endorse external sites." That might be helpful if it referred to a practice that was actually being used somewhere on the page. But the only "external" links seem to be to affiliates and advertisers. I guess the old media paranoia about letting us get away is still pretty strongly in effect.
Sorry, that's enough *vague* bitching. Here are some specifics:
What I really want to complain about is that there quite a few interesting details that were merely summarized, and not further explored; and that there were any number of jumping off points that could have been made active.
How about at least a link to the American Public Power Association [appanet.org], or one of the utilitis mentioned as an example? Or better yet, fill in some of those details. Which eleven states prohibit public power companies from offereing teleco services, or force them to charge artificially high rates. (If I live in one, I want to start writing letters!) How about a list (with links, maybe?) of the "511 publicly owned utilities now provide telecom services" mentioned in the "fact box"?
So much potential in this web medium is still wasted. Most news stories on the web just look like a slightly slicker and more colorful version of 1994, back when "old media" "didn't get it".
Huh? (Score:2)
Huh?
"You are destroying the tax base! I mean, instead of us getting the money and you, the governemnt, getting a percentage in taxes, you get it all! That is not good economics for the government!"
Does that make any sense?
In addition, how much tax base does a huge corporation like BellSouth or AOL/TW really create in a small town like Glasgow?
Also, I am guessing that the residents of Glasgow have the opportunity to get cable or at least satellite television from elsewhere, meaning that the government provides media distribution, but only as one of many choices.
As a resident of Kentucky, I am glad to see things like this going on in the state.
Rural areas need cable TV competition, badly! (Score:2)
However, their cable TV service usually sucks, too. People are getting reamed like you wouldn't believe. Prices *are not* any lower than in the big cities. They're about the same, for about a third to half as much stuff. So it's really a lot more expensive for what you do get.
The biggest problem is that you don't get a full, 24hr feed of most of the channels. Things like CNBC, USA, and even the regular on-air "big 4" networks are only on during prime time, then switch to infomercials and religious crap the rest of the time. The local cable company makes more money this way. The upshot is that you don't actually get half the stuff you got cable for to begin with.
Furthermore, that fifty bucks a month for basic-plus service (everything but premium movie channels) is a much bigger portion of the household budget in places where $8/hr is considered good job.
Finally, these places have virtually *no* public access programming, which can be a vital community resource.
I wish I could get this.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just Break Even? (Score:2, Insightful)
RTFA - 1st paragraph even (Score:5, Interesting)
To compete or not to compete... (Score:2)
Just curious.
Re:To compete or not to compete... (Score:2)
Competition has it's place, but it's also not economical. It's cheaper to run one power line to all houses, and have it managed by one organiztion. It's also cheaper to citizens since it's not for profit, but for service. It can be better for citizens because quality isn't cut for the sake of profit.
Of course, the problem with government is that due to lack of competition, one can point out the bloat and inefficiencies in many government run organizations. However one can see that with a proper checks and balance system, and with consumers keeping these utility companies accountable, it's very possible to offer a better solution publically. In many cases this approach is not the right way to go. But again the Internet is approaching the status of Utility, which is where I think it makes sense to be a not-for-profit enterprise. I also dissagree with the power company offering cable TV, as this is, IMHO, not a utility, and should be left to the soomewhat "free market".
Re:To compete or not to compete... (Score:2)
The way I see the last point being addressed, is to seperate the infrastructure from the content, such that the nationalised medium is not responsible for the quality/nature of the private content.
But I'm not sure it's relevant to internet supply. BT for instance in the UK has a bare bones broadband service, which just supplies access, you have to sort out your own mail provider etc.
Re:Just Break Even? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just Break Even? (Score:5, Insightful)
Try reading the article.
Re:Just Break Even? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, what strikes me is that usually a government-owned venture is nowhere near as competitive as the private sector. The real question here is why the heck private companies are charging so much more than these quasi-governmental companies. The private sector SHOULD see very little threat from these ventures. The fact that it can be done this way at so little cost simply reveals how badly we are being gouged by our local cable and broadband providers currently.
OT:Just Break Even? (Score:5, Informative)
The key word is "well run", which is something that both private companies and governments have trouble doing, especially on large scales. Private companies are immune from having inane and pointless structures that cause tons of waste, just because they're private. The market isn't magical, and it doesn't just fix this. The private sphere and the public sphere both boil down to people, and their motives. If their motives are corrupt (Private corruption "Lets bilk the entire population for everything they've got and we'll be filthy rich!" or Public "Lets just stay in office forever, and never change, I don't like change") then the result will be corrupt. However, if either have good intentions (Private "Lets offer a good product at a decent price, and make a living off of it" or Public "Lets provide something good for the public, to improve their lives") and they allow those intentions to guide them, the outcome isn't usually horrific. No one meaning well intentionally screws over the people they're trying to help.
I think the key to this is the size of the endeavor. A small business that knows its customer base intimately will be much more sensitive to their needs and demands. A large one that must meet a projected profit every quarter will be willing to sacrifice them in order to stay in good with the stock market. Similarly, a large government (ie, Federal in the US) will lose track of its vision in all its complex infighting. However, for a small city to do something like this? They're not going to set up a government endeavor just to screw themselves, since 14,000 people isn't a population worth exploiting to that degree.
To summarize after all that rambling: public ownership is not always evil and inefficient, nor is private ownership always good and effective. Find a balance for the situation that provides the best outcome for society. Its not always going to be the market.
Yes, just break even. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is an excellent idea to treat internet and cable TV as what they are - utilities - and charge fairly for them. Bravo to them, I wish I could live in such a town.
I would subscribe to cable TV if I could get it for $17 a month (price quoted in the article). I disconnected my cable TV 2 years ago after the constant price hikes.
As it is, AT&T is now bombarding me with offers for packages that cost $90 a month. NINETY DOLLARS! That is a significant proportion of my disposable income. For something that I'd watch for about an hour a week and is stuffed with commercials? And they wonder why I haven't taken them up any of their offers yet..
Re:Just Break Even? (Score:2)
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:1)
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:4, Funny)
You apparently have yet to run incident II.
mod parent up (Score:2)
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:1)
"The worst spacial incident in recorded history occurred less than one day ago and you people are talking about power companies offering cable service?!?! My GOD, people, GET SOME BLOODY PRIORITIES!"
"Recorded history" apparently begins for this meatsack sometime after January 28, 1986.
Said meatsack obviously missed the thread about the disaster right here on Slashdot.
Dear meatsack: please die. Thank you kindly!
Yes, meatsack. It IS a tragedy. But life goes on. If I tell the PhoneCo and CableCo to get some bloody priorities and stop sending me bills, I won't have a phone or cable TV.
I can mourn the passing of STS-107, as well as be interested in cheap cable, telephone and highspeed internet access.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
And, finally. Yes, I know that meatsack is a troll, and not a very good one, either.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
The people that died in the pursuit of science would be honored if we continued on our pursuit of science.
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:1)
Not really. (Score:4, Informative)
Your "trick" only applies in areas where they haven't gotten complete control of their system.
Re:You Monsters! (Score:1)
Do you think that 7 people inventing a new and expensive way to die is more important than the rampant death and disease we blithely ignore all over the world? Or worse, inflict on each other?
The best thing we can do is get people communiating any way we can. If we can open the lines of communication we can save more lives in one minute than we lost in the history of space travel.
The world moves on.
Re:You Liberals are tearing this country apart! (Score:3, Insightful)
You know not everything is about making money (I know its shocking isn't it), from the sounds of it, these people have the right idea, invest in cheap broadband access for the community and the payback could very well be a much bigger and better educated community for the future.
You know what founded the US? It was justifiable anger at taxation without representation, thats what led to the American Revolution, not capitalism.
Oh and one other thing, any organisation that exploits third world labour - often under age - is an evil organisation in my books.
Re:You Liberals are tearing this country apart! (Score:2)
Re:You Liberals are tearing this country apart! (Score:2)
Just because you appear to be a greedy self centered person don't assume that everybody else is.
Re:You Liberals are tearing this country apart! (Score:2)
'm so tired about hearing about "The Kommunity". Little secret... no such thing. It's complete horseshit made up by hypocritical, idealistic fucks who are only out for themselves. (ie: help ME for the sake of the community).
That is effectively the position of the large cable companies: ban state-funded agencies from offering service and give us a monopoly so we can continue to gouge the public. The state-funded agencies in question are offering low prices and good service, which is what you tend to expect from public utilities (like gas and electric).
Utility companies (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, despite being marked as flamebait I'm going to bite and take your message as sarcasm instead.
The simple fact is that in some cases natural monopolies will occur. Electric service is the classic example of this. My dad worked for a local power company for years. Trust me, the idea is NOT for them to be a non-profit. They are allowed to make a modest profit-- and they DO! It's not Microsoft or Enron style profit, but it's a good clean simple profit that keeps the shareholders happy.
A utility is in the business of providing a service for a reasonable price. If they don't have a reaosonable price, people start voting politicians out. Politicians don't like that, so they make sure the rates are reasonable. And you know what.. it has worked JUST FINE for around a hundred years! At least, until the politicians started deciding to deregulate-- which combined with some other bad decisions allowed Enron to happen.
Think about our phone systems. Great, we now have all these baby bells that have remerged into 2 or 3 big ass companies. None of them are in the business of providing services for a modest profit, they are in the business of gouging their consumers (note: not customers) for as much money as they can! It was mentioned on Slashdot not even a month ago that with the advent of digital telphone switching and IP telephony it has become a LOT cheaper to operate a telecommunications company.
So why are we still paying high prices? Yes, they are lower than years past, but given the decrease in maintenance costs they should be about 10 times lower than they are now. Well, we're still being gouged because we are willing to pay it. We pay what the MARKET WILL BEAR. Telephone service is another natural monopoly. It's easier to just have one company handle it and to simply keep a leash around their neck. This is what AT&T was-- a GOVERNMENT GRANTED monopoly whose rates WERE determined by the government. The government COULD have chosen to simply regulate the shit out of AT&T. What exactly was so bad about them? They spent that money keeping people like Dennis Ritchie, Keith Thompson, and Brian Kerningham working! Working on things that (go figure) actually paved the way for IP telephony and other modern telephone systems as well as helped the entire computing community. Specifically BECAUSE AT&T didn't want to sell it because they had the telephone monopoly, they gave it away.
Shit, they were already on track to turning the telephone system into an entirely digital one. Why? Simple, because their rates were regulated and thus if they could provide the same service for less money then they'd make KILLER profits-- at least until the regulators caught up with them.
So someone please remind me why we're supposed to deregulate everything and allow the next Enron to happen? Why can't we simply learn from history. And just so you all know.. I consider myself to be a conservative. Not the religious zombie head-up-ass conservative that is so prevalent in politics these days. But hmm.. if we think about it.. isn't it actually the democrats that wanted the deregulation? AFAIK, Clinton was praised for his great energy policy which eventually led to Enron. And Reagan didn't make many friends keeping IBM together.. but look where we are today! IBM evolved into a company that makes a killing AND helps the computing community! Isn't that what business is SUPPOSED to be about?
-Dave
Utility companies don't make a profit! (Score:2)