Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet United States IT

Broadband War & an Interactive Municipal Map 231

Posted by timothy from the gosh-the-state-does-a-swell-job-with-education dept.
Ant writes "Broadband Reports mentions a CNET News.com story on the U.S.'s growing debate over municipal broadband. Across the country, acrimonious conflicts have erupted as local governments attempt to create publicly funded broadband services with faster connections and cheaper rates for all citizens, narrowing the so-called digital divide. The Bells and cable companies, for their part, argue that government intervention in their business is not justified and say they are far better equipped to operate complex and far-flung data networks. There is also an interactive municipal broadband legislative map that details the major battlegrounds on the issue. At stake is the fate of high-speed Internet access for millions of Americans, hinging on a fundamental question of civics and economics--whether the government or private industries should take the leading role in building out what's considered this generation's critical infrastructure challenge. Its map shows a breakdown of muni-projects in each state, which have or are developing fiber or Wi-Fi projects, and are facing (existing or pending) legal barriers to doing business."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Broadband War & an Interactive Municipal Map More

Broadband War & an Interactive Municipal Map

Comments Filter:

  • Unbelievable... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sirch ( 82595 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @08:42AM (#12418862) Homepage
    Can anyone explain how in the hell the Baby Bells etc. are actually managing to push bills preserving their effective monopolies through state governments?

    (Hint: saying 'bribery' might be true, but it ain't the kind of answer I'm after!)

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @08:47AM (#12418908)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @09:05AM (#12419059)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:Unbelievable... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Golias ( 176380 )
          The problem is, the "digital divide" is a big fucking myth.

          Anybody with a garage sale PC or Mac from ten years ago can get on the net at a decent speed for less than the cost of cable TV.

          For that matter, any laptop with a PCMCIA slot and a $10 802.11 card will let you access the Internet from any of dozens of free wireless hotspots in every major city.

          The total monthly cost of being connected is far less than the total montly cost of owning a car, and plenty of low-income folk manage to own cars, even if

          • Re:Unbelievable... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by smackmywhammy ( 862422 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @10:10AM (#12419688)
            Spoken like someone who's never had to deal with the digital divide. It *is* real, especially in rural areas. Without government subsidy or initiative, there is an excellent chance that many communities in our state (NE) will never see an improvement in offered digital services. There simply isn't enough population density for any company to deliver in a cost effective way. Continuing (or restarting) education is a real priority to help people that have lost access to 'blue collar' jobs, and that would otherwise be suckling from the taxpayer's teat. High speed internet access is key to cost effectively providing retraining. Go hang out in Salem, Nebraska for a day or two, and let me know how satisfactory you find the Internet service to be, after you are done paying long distance charges for 19.2K dial up.

            • Re:Unbelievable... (Score:3, Insightful)

              by robertjw ( 728654 )
              Spoken like someone who's never had to deal with the digital divide. It *is* real, especially in rural areas.

              That is a GREAT point. I don't see this municipal broadband existing in larger communities, there is too much competition and the current ISPs are too well entrenched. Where this is really going to be a great thing is in all of the small towns across America. There are so many small communities all across the midwest that are in the exact situation you describe. If those communities can use ta

            • Re:Unbelievable... (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Golias ( 176380 )
              It *is* real, especially in rural areas. Without government subsidy or initiative, there is an excellent chance that many communities in our state (NE) will never see an improvement in offered digital services. There simply isn't enough population density for any company to deliver in a cost effective way.

              You know what? You can't get really good live opera or chinese food out in most rural communities either.

              Part of moving out into the sticks is making the choice of giving up certain big-city advantage
            • Check out the federal Rural Electrification Act (1936). The reasoning was very similar.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification _Act_Amendments [wikipedia.org]

          • For that matter, any laptop with a PCMCIA slot and a $10 802.11 card will let you access the Internet from any of dozens of free wireless hotspots in every major city.

            Which is great, but only if you live in a major city.

            What if you live in Bumf*ck Iowa, where the only communications infrastructure you have are the brittle old telephone lines that were erected 80 years ago? The local baby-Bell won't spend a cent on upgrades because there's not enough users to make it profitable.

            Where's your opportunity

            • Re:Unbelievable... (Score:2, Interesting)

              by Golias ( 176380 )
              What if you live in Bumf*ck Iowa...

              Where's your opportunity to get online now?

              Des Moines.

              If you want the ammenities of a city, move to one.

        • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @09:21AM (#12419187)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Ideology. Many people believe that governments:

        Actually, many people believe that the government is not our parents and is not here to give us everything we want. The government is not here to feed us, clothe us, or to wipe our bottoms after we poop. It has a specific set of responsibilities, and "wireless internet" is not one of them.

        Unfortunately, those who think the government IS our parents and should give us our every want and desire are getting their way right now, because they whine about how awf

      • Verizon and the other Baby Bells argue that Muni's should not operate their own networks because they could do it better. Yet, the Baby Bells turn around and say they cannot provide coverage everywhere. If you ask me, I think if a private firms are genuinely better than government at delivering a service, it should be more effective at doing so, and so competition from the government should not be a problem for them. Let the muni's field their networks. There's no difference between a city building a wat

    • Re:Unbelievable... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by blatantdog ( 829922 )
      Remember just because the old copper and coaxial aren't sexy doesn't mean they don't have clout. How does a local Bell force this? Well there's that little tax that is tacked on to your phone bills by the States, and guess what Mr. State? The Federal Government keeps sending you messages not to touch VoIP, so what is going to fill those coffers? Who's going to approve the bonds to raise the money for your network? etc.

    • Re:Unbelievable... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by telecsan ( 170227 )
      "...bills preserving their effective monopolies..."

      You know, 'effective monopolies' are not necessarily a Bad Thing(tm). Imagine a world where electricity and landline telephone service still had the 'last mile' problem that current high speed internet service has. When an endeavor is not profitable on its own merit, sometimes the government does have to get involved for the benefit of the people. For that matter, many places electricity is still a regulated industry, because it's such a fundamental ser

    • Re:Unbelievable... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Toddlerbob ( 705732 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @09:19AM (#12419172)
      The idea that business is necessarily more efficient and competent than government is laughable to anybody who's read a Dilbert cartoon.

      Not only is it unwise to let private monopolies in broadband develop because of the excess costs to support lobbiests and bribes to elected officials, it's also unwise to institutionalize private monopolies as the gatekeepers to our information. Democracy may be cranky and ineffient, but the alternatives are much worse.

    • Can anyone explain how in the hell the Baby Bells etc. are actually managing to push bills preserving their effective monopolies through state governments?

      The Bells having monopolies? Anywhere the Bells are able to provide DSL, Cable Networks are already there. And the cable networks are already providing broadband. Kind of blows away your Bell internet monopoly theory.
    • The politicians, the think tanks, and the corporate lobbies (i.e., the economic elite, CorpGovMedia) have us pretty much where they want us right now. The white working class are split prettu evenly: most of the educated, white office culture is in the Democratic party camp as so-called liberals. And the rest of the white working class--the blue collars and what is left of the white office workers are in the GOP camp. Two major vectors are being used to seperate the white working class:
      1. racial guilt and r

  • What the Bells et al don't tell you is... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Morosoph ( 693565 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @08:43AM (#12418873) Homepage Journal
    Municipals still need someone to do the work.

    They appear to be suggesting that the municipal will compete unfairly; in truth, they simply fear a large buyer with the clout to get a better deal from them for the end consumer.

    • Re:What the Bells et al don't tell you is... (Score:5, Informative)

      by A beautiful mind ( 821714 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @08:48AM (#12418920)
      Actually it happened in the town i live (Not US). I have a much better service and speed than the 'regular' users of my ISP, because our town created a non-profit organization to act as a 'legal proxy' towards the isp. Yay for me.

  • Needs to move through the courts (Score:4, Insightful)

    by erick99 ( 743982 ) <homerun@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @08:44AM (#12418887)
    Twenty states have already passed, or are trying to push through, legislation that would impose heavy restrictions on communities creating their own networks in areas already served by Bells and cable companies.

    This will eventually (hopefully) be tested at the Supreme Court level. Cities that want to provide this service, as they do any other utility, ought to be allowed to do so.

    • IANAL, but I can't see how a court could prevent a municipality from providing WIFI or WISP broadband service (providing that the municipality foot the bill for the wireless intrastructure).

      If the municipality wanted to provide cable/DSL broadband, there is an issue of the municipality commandeering the local cable provider's wires for public purposes. I can't see a municipality laying down hundreds/thousands of miles of its own wires. A court would need to decide if emminent domain would apply.

    • Re:Needs to move through the courts (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Golias ( 176380 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @08:58AM (#12419011)
      This is not a war. This is not a civil liberties issue.

      This is politicians buying votes with taxpayer money, plain and simple and boring as that.

      If I want "free" wireless broadband, I can get it from my local coffee shop. I see no reason whatsoever why the old lady next door to me who doesn't even own a computer should be forced to pay for me to have free wireless in my house.
      • If I want "free" wireless broadband, I can get it from my local coffee shop. I see no reason whatsoever why the old lady next door to me who doesn't even own a computer should be forced to pay for me to have free wireless in my house.

        Except when her house catches on fire, and she wants the firemen to be able to communicate. Or she wants her water meter read without having to have someone visit every house in the county. Or she wants automated signs on the highway telling her where the next accident is

      • Re:Needs to move through the courts (Score:4, Insightful)

        by qodfathr ( 255387 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @10:24AM (#12419838)
        I see no reason whatsoever why the old lady next door to me who doesn't even own a computer should be forced to pay for me to have free wireless in my house.

        Why does a couple with no children, who have never had children, and never intend on having children pay local taxes which, to a large extent, go directly to the public schools?

        Look, I'm not saying free internet access is nearly as important educating our children; the point is that there is precedence for taxes to be used to support services for which the tax payer is not a direct beneficiary.

        Personally, I'm somewhat indifferent about this topic; I believe communities have a right to govern themselves. If my local government recommended a move to free wifi internet access, I'm not so sure I'd support it. If they could demonstrate that it truely would help the community by providing broadband to those who can truly not afford it, I think that would be a good thing. At the same time, I fear that the design and implementation would be mismanaged, at the money would be better spent paying $15/mo for a NetZero account for each of those folks. [Yes, I know that NetZero is not broadband; I'm saying that a poor WiFi installation could easily result in sub-dialup speeds for the citizens.] Geez, a $40/mo cable broadband connection for those who cannot afford my still be cheaper. (I live in a relatively small town, ~10,000 citizens. It's very hilly with lots of forest. WiFi would be difficult. I'd say the majority of the citizens are 'doing okay' and could afford cable internet if they wanted it. If we had to support 100 homes with taxpayer supported cable and paid full-price, that's $4000/mo. I could easily see an appropriate 'free' WiFi solution costing substantially more. The necessary head-end bandwidth alone could easily cost that much.)
        • I'm glad you brought up the public school/property tax thing, I was going to chime in with that myself. My example was that somebody chooses to send their child to a private school, but they still have to pay those public school taxes.
      • The little old lady, however, does receive benefits from it. A municipality that has free WiFi or municipal FTTH for $15/month will attract young professionals, especially if it's a bedroom community for a larger city. Young professionals pay taxes to the municipality, which then has money to provide services for everyone, including the little old lady.
  • I mean, look what that's gotten us so far.

    We could do it ourselves [66.173.232.178] if we really wanted to.

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I have a lot of trouble understanding corporate actions in this sense.

      Some people can't afford access to high speed internet. Tough luck? Oh wait, municipal government is willing to take a cost to provide these people with access.

      Corporations have a problem with this because it will cost their shareholders money. Should shareholder rights be held in higher regard than those who need a leg up?

  • co-op

    Yep, rather than the municipalities doing the WiFi stuff and fighting with the, gramdma in her rocking chair bring me my bedpan dammit old-fat-cats, they might fund a cooperative research foundation or some other animal, that's a political hot potato and legally difficult for the big companies to deal with, that will eventually become self supporting and do for net-comms what open source has doem for SW.

    If you want to talk models reply and if it gets out of hand for /. I'll crank up a forum.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @08:51AM (#12418944)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Analogy (Score:2, Informative)

      by ericschoon ( 814346 )
      No, you theoretically have to return the book to the library. Further, the selection in a library may not be up to par (especially in rural areas). If you want a particular good quality book guaranteed to have the last chapter still intact, you would probably choose to buy the book.

      How this relates to municipal broadband? The systems being proposed would be as good, if not better than existing DSL systems in rural areas and a boat-load better than the dial-up most of the current bell customers are stu
    • Wouldn't the philosophical analogous argument be that libraries are publicly funded, and provide free information and entertainment to anyone and everyone?

      No, that's not a good analogy, because bookstores are not a monopoly public utility. All the major types of broadband -- cable, dsl and wireless -- require exclusive use of limited resources, specifically the physical cable plant or specific radio frequencies. There is effectively no limit to the number of bookstores one can build in a town, while the
    • Bookstores aren't competing with libraries. Libraries use tax money to purchse books that are in turn lent out, not given away.

      However if Libraries started giving away books, I'd be willing to bet the bookstores would have a real problem with that.

      So no, I don't think your analogy is accurate.

  • How the PUDs went wrong in Washington State (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @08:52AM (#12418956)
    The idea of public broadband has always been an attractive one for slashdotters, the incursion into this arena by Grant County PUD in central Washington State stands as an example of why we don't want bureaucrats meddling in business.

    In this state the PUDs are treated as municipalities under the law and are given a set of rules under which they can operate. Broadband and electrical power are different services so it took an act of the Legislature to allow them to enter the market. The legislature, under some pressure from the big telecoms who were afraid that the PUDs would "cherry pick" the larger communities and leave the rural people to fend for themselves, allowed the PUDs to be "wholesale" only. The first thing Grant County PUD did was ignore that law.

    Grant County PUD had first partnered up with two local ISPs which charged $20 to $25 per month for the broadband servoces back at the inception of the project in 1999. But at the same time the Manager of that PUD was trying to attract an outside competitor, also a utility provider, to enter the market in this county at a subsidized rate of $8 per month.

    The PUD did attract that utility but only by entering into secret (and illegal) agreements to subsidize the program at cost plus 10%. So the new provider would risk nothing and could make 10% on the rate-payer's money even if they gave away their services for free. Then the PUD employees threw as many of the new customers to this new competitor as possible while their managers used their position as investors to pressure prices to a point where the commercial ISPs could no longer compete profitably.

    It was only after the PUD had spent several million dollars propping up this outside provider that the story became known. Meanwhile, the PUD had raised the electrical rates to cover the $100 Million cost of fibering only 1/3 of the County but lied when asked about it. The Commissioners and Managers claimed that the rate increases were due to other factors. However their own emails, obtained under the State's public disclosure act, showed this to be untrue.

    Agricultural interests were incensed because they use a lot of that electrical power. A large farm might have a $500k yearly power bill for their irrigation pumps. While 4% isn't much for my house, it's a chunk of money on a half-million dollars.

    It took almost a year after the discovery of the secret contracts and a State Auditor's report which also found illegal and improper actions, to rid ourselves of the management team that led us into this debacle. The largest ISPs in the area, including the first two to partner up with the PUD, went out of business and were gobbled up by another outside competitor; costing jobs and an economic drain on the communities' resources. The Commissioners who were supposed to keep a rein on the PUD managers are now up for re-election and facing some tough questions.

    The problem with bureaucrats going into business is that, essentially, they don't understand profit and loss. It's all other people's money and if they make a mistake they just raise the rates to cover it. We could have fibered this County up for the money they spent, had they spent that money wisely. Instead they created a NOC they thought they could make profitable (not at $3 million a year to operate they couldn't), they installed fiber to the areas where their managers lived regardless of population density (it turns out the telecoms fears of "cherry picking" were well-founded, but the managers weren't smart enough to do it that way), and they drove jobs and money out of the area.

    Had they simply created the infrastructure for the product instead of getting involved in creating subsidies for favored businesses we would have been ok. But that's the problem. Bureaucrats don't make good business people.

    So if you don't want to see jobs go away, money disappear and your power rates rise, treat the entrance of government into business with caution. These things are run by politicians, not business people. And it's not their money.
    • Yawn. You take a situation where people on both sides broke the law and you use it as an example against government services? Try again.

      These things are run by politicians, not business people. And it's not their money.

      Yeah, Dennis Kozlowski, Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Andy Fastow, the Adelphia guys, the bond traders in NYC, the NYSE, Halliburton.. they all proved that businesspeople always do best, even when it's not their money, right?

  • the question (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bosz ( 621199 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @08:52AM (#12418962)
    Well if the The Bells and cable companies are better equipped to roll-out cheap broadband for everybody, when the hell are they going to do so.

  • Pennsylvania (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jeffkjo1 ( 663413 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @08:54AM (#12418972) Homepage
    The map claims that there are no laws against municipal projects in Pennsylvania, and this after the huge fight over Philly's muni project, which eventually included legal concessions that, while Philly get's to build their project, anyone else has to ask Verizon first.
    Sounds an awful lots like laws against municipal projects to me.

  • Censorship and old technology (Score:3, Interesting)

    by michaelmalak ( 91262 ) <michael@michaelmalak.com> on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @08:54AM (#12418974) Homepage
    Letting the government control the Internet is letting it control the press.

    Besides, Wi-Fi is old technology (in terms of providing wireless-anywhere service, as opposed to providing wireless-in-your-own-building service), to be replaced by EVDO.

    • How so? The "Internet" doesn't publish information. The "Internet" doesn't have editorial boards. The Internet is merely a communications network.

      If you're so concerned, why not push for the requirement that law enforcement acquires a warrant before tapping your connection?

      Right now, there's nothing stopping Comcast or Verizon or SBC from monitoring your traffic and eliminating ads for competition or unpopular political viewpoints. All they'd have to do is put a revision into their TOS and there's nothin

    • Letting the government control the Internet is letting it control the press.

      Well, better shut down all those public libraries, then. Can't have the government controlling (and by "controlling" I mean "providing") access to any type of information.

  • Self organizing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TuringTest ( 533084 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @08:54AM (#12418980) Journal
    What's wrong with the local governments by the people, for the people, deciding how to spend their dollars in a democratic and free way?

    For me, this (and any other subject of public services) is not a problem of government vs businesses. It's a matter of small, economically efficient distributed units providing goods required by their clients, versus bloated and highly centralized institutions.

    If the efficient providers are managed by a transparent and public process instead of the power of the dollars in a few hands, so better for them.

    • Re:Self organizing (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Entropy ( 6967 )
      What's wrong with the local governments by the people, for the people, deciding how to spend their dollars in a democratic and free way?

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      Democracy my "friend" is nothing but two wolves and a lamb voting on whats for dinner.

      The goram governments allready have too damn much of my money as taxes - let's come out and call it the theft that it is - why should they get another cent?

      FUCK THAT.

      And then once they have these glorious and utopic nets of the citizens, by the citizens, etc, wh

  • Repeating an old mistake? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ath ( 643782 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @08:54AM (#12418981)
    When cable was rolled out in communities, the local municipalities gave monopolies to the cable companies. I really do not understand why such a narrow minded approach needs to be taken again, especially with wireless.

    Why not allow private companies and governments both to setup wireless networks? Whichever one can do it more efficiently and effectively will win the business. I do not agree that everyone will automatically flock to the "free" wireless networks provided by municipalities, which are just paid for with taxes or even by charging fees. Most people are very willing to pay for superior services, and this kind of competition would only drive the offering of such services.

    To me, it sounds like the private companies want to repeat the cable scenario. Namely, they want to be granted an effective monopoly in a municipality to avoid any competition whatsoever. The difference now being that the capital investment of implementing a wireless network is getting cheaper and cheaper, thereby eliminating the high cost of entry (and capital investment) that has been such a barrier in other network access methods. Competition, therefore, has less obstacles on the technical and business side. It seems that the only obstacle left to build up is a governmental restriction.

    • To me, it sounds like the private companies want to repeat the cable scenario. Namely, they want to be granted an effective monopoly in a municipality to avoid any competition whatsoever

      Cable companies provide Internet, TV and are looking at phone. Telcos provide Phone, some Internet (and are trying to expand that) and are looking at TV once the internet is upgraded to fibre from copper. Those two are already competing in areas with DSL, and as the fibre rolls out, they will be competing in even more.
      • Ah yes, you're right! In 15-20 years when the cable companies have gotten around to rolling out fiber and the telephone companies have gotten around to rolling out fiber, instead of one monopoly in each field providing shitty service at shitty prices, we'll have two giant companies competing to provide shitty service at shitty prices!

        Meanwhile we'll still lag behind second-world Asia, and the excuses for the situation will still sound just as lame.
    • "When cable was rolled out in communities, the local municipalities gave monopolies to the cable companies."

      Actually, they didn't. Virtually no local cable franchises have exclusivity provisions. Cable is an _effective_ monopoly, since building a second network in an area where one already exists rarely makes economic sense; witness RCN's bankruptcy. Companies _choose_ not to overbuild each other, but they could if they wanted to.

  • Biggest Challenge? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @08:55AM (#12418986) Homepage
    whether the government or private industries should take the leading role in building out what's considered this generation's critical infrastructure challenge

    Critical infrastructure challenge is lobbing Wi-Fi in cities? Exactly how for the vast majority of people is this a more important issue than roads, rail and airline infrastructure? Even for the techo-geek community there are options like 3G that are delivering this in most civilised countries already. How the hell does Wi-Fi bridge the digitial divide? If you don't have a computer it hardly helps, and if you do have a computer its liable to be in your house, not travelling around a city. And if its in a house in a city (these efforts are NOT aiming at remote communities for the most part) then you can get relatively cheap Cable or DSL. Wi-Fi, WiMax etc etc will do nothing to bridge the digitial divide, and in many cases would just help the digitially mobile increase their advantage.

    This isn't a big challenge, its not even a big issue. In the question of what tends to deliver the most cost effective infrastructure its always the private sector. Goverments get involved when those companies go bust due to commoditisation and errosion of profit margins.

    Biggest Challenge ? A sense of perspective for where Wi-Fi access sits in the list of important issues in America today.
    • Wi-Fi, WiMax etc etc will do nothing to bridge the digitial divide, and in many cases would just help the digitially mobile increase their advantage.

      I have to disagree in terms of 802.16/802.20 WiMax. Unlike WiFi, WiMax can support thousands of users per antenna array, and putting up WiMax antenna arrays is vastly cheaper than hardwiring every residence and business to support xDSL, cable and T-1/T-3 broadband Internet access. With WiMax, we mostly avoid the messy Last Mile connection issue and this will

  • If the Bell's don't want to see municipal broadban (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @09:09AM (#12419089) Journal
    then they should lower their rates. When the price of comcast highspeed is roughly $50/month - that is HIGH cost. Make it 25/month and the gov't will let it go - especially since that is what most municipalities are thinking of charging around. Now if the gov't can do it at 25 - and we know how bad gov't is at managing money - then the broadbad providers should have little to no problems doing this.

    But they are greedy and they will lobby.
    • If the Bell's don't want to see municipal broadband then they should lower their rates. When the price of comcast highspeed is roughly $50/month

      Uh, hold it right there. COMCAST IS NOT A BELL. I will repeate that. COMCAST IS NOT A BELL. They are a cable company. There IS a difference.

  • There is a solution (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ccozan ( 754085 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @09:21AM (#12419198) Homepage
    In some European countries, one may receive cheap services and products from the municipality if it proves the income is lower then a certain limit.
    Why not apply the same for internet access? These days, having access to global knowledge is as much as important as food and shelter.
    • In some European countries, one may receive cheap services and products from the municipality if it proves the income is lower then a certain limit. Why not apply the same for internet access? These days, having access to global knowledge is as much as important as food and shelter.

      Tell me the last time someone died from lack of internet access. Tell me how someone who can not afford internet access even over a phone line can afford a computer. Tell me how that money couldn't be better spent on the sch

  • disguised argument (Score:4, Insightful)

    by supernova87a ( 532540 ) <kepler1@@@hotmail...com> on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @09:25AM (#12419238)
    Don't be confused by the companies saying that this is government interference in their business. Local governments passing statutes regulating their activity would be government interference. This, on the other hand, is outright fair competition -- providing more and cheaper access to people who want it -- and the broadband companies just can't take it. They should stop whining and improve their services and prices before the end gets near.
  • In this day and age there is a fairly good argument that , tele-Communications are a nessecity to function properly in modern society.
    many things rely on the functions of tele-communication networks in one form or another to function.
    Be it , Standard telephone , VOIP(soon enough) , internet , Mobile/cellular or otherwise .

    I strongly belive that these should be gouvernmentaly controlled and classed as a municiple service .

    Why.. well , you try to function without a telephone .Be it bussiness , emergncy or

  • Status Quo != Free Market (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Eslyjah ( 245320 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @09:51AM (#12419490)
    The mistake that everyone seems to be making is conflating the telecom giants with the free market. This is absurd. The reason telecom giants exist is because the telecom industry is heavily regulated. As the industry deregulates, we will see more competition. For instance, isn't it great that Vonage and Skype are now competing with AT&T and Verizon? If we saw increased regulation of VOIP, these nimble, innovative companies might die out and AT&T and Verizon would become further entrenched.

    It is apparent that many people here are disappointed with the quality of ISP services provided by market at this time. They think the government could provide better service. That may be true. But I am certain that government could not provide better service than a truly free, dynamic market in telecommunications, and that is what we geeks and nerds should push for.
  • What an odd collection of states have municipal fiber-to-the-premises working! What's the pattern here?
    AL (Sylacauga)
    FL (Quincy)
    GA (Dalton)
    IN (Auburn)
    OK (Sallisaw)
    PA (Kutztown)
    TN (Jackson)
    UT (Provo)
    VA (Bristol)
    WA (Chelan Co., Clallam Co., Douglas Co., Grant Co., Mason Co.)
    WI (Reedsburg)
  • I want my MTV, damnit, and I want the government to give it to me.

  • Competition is the answer (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pyite69 ( 463042 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @10:18AM (#12419772)
    I believe in private sector competition. However, the government should be allowed to compete (fairly) when the private sector are slackers.

    Why should citizens have to suffer because the phone companies are slackers with an un-serviceable amount of debt?

    Some of the cities here in Utah have 100 megabit service to their residents for dirt cheap...

  • seems like a "fucking duh" to me. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lord Bitman ( 95493 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @10:22AM (#12419817)
    The government funds libraries, the government should fund high-speed internet. Make people get an internet card the way they get a library card, pay for high usage the way they pay for late fees, seems fairly straight-forward to me. Libraries are closing due to lack of interest- shut down five real libraries to open one lower-cost digital library.
    • Close down public libraries and use those funds for muni broadband? That's the most insane proposal I've heard surrounding this whole concept.

      You want to close down the one avenue of free (to the user) reading and research material, in favor of broadband? The barrier to entry for the library is a library card. The barrier to entry to use broadband is having and maintaining a computer.

      Kids don't read enough now, and you want to cut off the library? When was the last time you read a book on your PC?

  • Rural access (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jsw32 ( 881025 )
    I see municipal broadband as important. It will get the bells and large corporations to either do as promised and deliver broadband to rural areas, or watch revenue streams dwindle. (streams that meant nothing to them before this became an issue. They were happy to ignore people like me.) The simple fact that free municipal broadband is even happening is because the large corporations haven't delivered this service. I am still on dialup because nothing else is available. (Starband does not count) The line

  • I'm no politician, but what about this solution? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geminidomino ( 614729 ) * on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @10:43AM (#12420070) Journal
    In all these areas where Verizon, SBC, etc... haven't rolled out high-speed service, or are cost-prohibitive, etc... and the government wants to set up municipal WiFi:

    Step 1: Have a vote in the municipality that wants to set up such a service, to determine that it is in line with the public interest.

    Step 2: Let the companies in question have a crack at it. Find out how long it would take the government to roll it out, and how much it would cost, and give the companies that much time to get it rolled out at that price. If they won't or can't, tough noogies, let the local government do its job and perform the will of its people.

  • The telcos and cable companies ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by The Cisco Kid ( 31490 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @10:54AM (#12420176)
    ... are more interested in dragging their feet and ensuring that they have monopoly control over any markets they invest in, so that they can charge a far higher price for less service than competition would normally lead to, than in actually innovating and taking any lead. They are also only interested in 'dense' markets where there are lots of customers.

    Since they seem to be playing the 'the government shouldnt compete with us' card, I suggest that communities instead form co-ops (which would be greenlighted thru rights-of-way and other resources) that would own and operate the services. Basically the same thing, but it takes away the BS objection that the incumbents have.
  • Hailing from northern california here, where a debate between caltrans and SBC left us without real broadband for five years or so. What was the problem? CalTrans was overcharging for laying fiber cable on a bridge by a couple million. Not that the money was a problem, it was getting pushed around by road workers that got SBC's panties all knotted. Five years for 300 ft of cable... good work 'public' utility companies. (if you think broadband isn't a public need at this point.. your problem)

    So the point I

  • i thought ... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Bontux ( 832206 )
    "At stake is the fate of high-speed Internet access for millions of Americans, hinging on a fundamental question of civics and economics--whether the government or private industries should take the leading role in building out what's considered this generation's critical infrastructure challenge."

    I thought this generation's critical infrastructure challange was repairing our power grid. remember... that blackout in the summer of 2003.

  • Who paid for the internet to start with? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tony ( 765 ) on Tuesday May 03, 2005 @12:45PM (#12421462) Journal
    I'm most likely insane, but I recall this whole old-fashioned internet thang was designed, built, and expanded by tax dollars. Now these multi-billion dollar megacorps want to control access to this beast that was built by *ahem* THE GOVERNMENT?

    Let me get this straight. They think that they have a God-given right to profit from a publically-built system, and the public which funded it, must go through them for access.

    Well, exCUSE the fuck out of me if my heart fails to bleed for them.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close