Telco Sues Municipality For Laying Their Own Fiber 408
unreceivedpacket writes "Ars Technica reports that a company called TDS Telecom is attempting to sue the town of Monticello, Minnesota for deploying their own fiber network. Shortly after the town voted to lay the fiber, TDS Telecom filed suit and notified the town that they would be deploying their own fiber network. The telco has recently responded to Ars Technica, saying they only sued to save Monticello from itself, apparently feeling that the municipality is unprepared for the onerous costs of maintaining such a network, and would lack the expertise to do so."
Craziness (Score:5, Interesting)
Expect to see the telecom draw out this lawsuit as long as they can possibly take it (think SCO here) and deploy their own network in the meantime, then sue the town again if they try to lay their own network thereafter for tortious interference with business practices or other such legal BS (IANAL and don't know what statutes they could use).
Craziness. I hope a judge knocks this down quick, but I'm not optimistic.
It's basically the company telling the town, "Stay the fuck out of our business or it'll cost you dearly. It's our monopoly, dammit."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Craziness (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Craziness (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Craziness (Score:5, Interesting)
I too hate an extra layer for the user to resolve problems...but, in this case...I think it might be justified to give the user the best service for his $$'s, and to also keep the govt. out of the regulation of said service.
Re:Craziness (Score:5, Funny)
I think there's a network admin [networkworld.com] in San Francisco that can handle this...
Then make the largest raceways possible. (Score:5, Interesting)
If it were up to me, municipalities all over the place would be putting in precast, modular component tunnels [uvauburn.com] under major streets that would be big enough to stand inside and to carry telecom lines, electrical lines, gas lines, and so on, all on top of water and sewage lines. This would cut monopoly power waaay down and massively decrease the cost, likelihood, and problems related to breakdowns, not to mention make things like greywater processing much more practical.
Re:Then make the largest raceways possible. (Score:4, Informative)
What seems "kinda stupid" to you is considered far safer by silly folks like electrical engineers, civil engineers, facilities managers, and building code regulators. But now that you've explained it to us all in such convincing detail I'm sure that they'll change their minds.
If, perhaps, you just haven't thought it through, as it happens, I've written a little overview on the subject [typepad.com]. I wasn't planning to linking to it in this thread but in the face of your devastating and profound critique I thought that maybe you could use just a few more facts to help refine your admittedly already deeply wise understanding.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a question. Why is it in mine, the private citizens, best interests to have to pay a private company to use a network I have already p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't pay to build it. The municipality sells bonds to pay for the construction, then leases out bandwidth/pipe space to interested companies. The income from this pays back the bonds and pays for the maintenance of the infrastructure.
You pay for access to the leased space, at a markup of course. You are paying for the content: water; natural gas; telephone; IP address, connectivity, and bandwidth.
I'm also very much in favor of small government, but the municipality should own the power lines, com li
privatized water (Score:3, Informative)
Notice that I indicated leasing pipe space to the water vendor (and other, similar products). Some communities own their own water company and/or power company.
Actually in the US most places own their own water system, whether it be city or county. Only about 1 in 20 [nytimes.com] people get their water from the private sector. Atlanta, GA [www.cbc.ca] was one of the first cities in the US to privatize water, when they sold the water system to United Water. United Water is now owned by France based Suez, the world's largest privat
Re:Craziness (Score:5, Interesting)
town doesn't have money to keep fighting legal battles.
Not True. According to their Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [govoffice2.com] (CAFR) they have $37.8 Million in Cash Investments alone. That should get them some decent representation.
Google any your city plus CAFR and see how much money your city/county/school district/state is hiding from you.
Re:Craziness (Score:5, Interesting)
Taxpayers aren't necessarily good at taking a long-term view. Yes, the investment should benefit the taxpayer (investing in infrastructure, decent education - things that build up the society over the long-term) but should probably not go into the taxpayer's pockets. The recent US "tax refund" was no such thing, since everyone knew damn well the money would end up in the hands of merchants almost immediately. Most likely, the populace got nothing of any worth out of the deal - the amounts involved were far too trivial and Americans work on a debt culture not a saving culture. Pure bread and circuses. All illusions to make people feel better, without giving them anything worth feeling better about.
On the other hand, the sum total of cash was quite considerable. Had the same total amount been spent on, oh, debugging the US educational system, or getting Amtrak some more rolling stock, people may not have experienced the same peak level of happiness, but a whole lot more people would have had actual value added to their lives.
I know, I make a lousy American. Blame the British in me. But blame or credit, it is indisputable that Governments have the resources to invest in things that will have a longer-term benefit to many, individuals (barring the super-rich) barely have the resources to invest in things that will have any meaningful (ie: not bread and circuses) impact on even themselves. They certainly can't affect anything beyond the tiniest of microcosms in the macrocosm of an entire nation. That's why, tens of thousands of years ago, they figured out how to organize collectively to do such stuff.
Doesn't surprise me one bit (Score:5, Informative)
Corporatism (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't have unregulated capitalism. That would actually be a good thing. While there is a government there is no unregulated capitalism. without a government this wouldn't even be an issue.
Re:Corporatism (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have unregulated capitalism. That would actually be a good thing. While there is a government there is no unregulated capitalism. without a government this wouldn't even be an issue.
sorry, wrong.
I live in the southeast.
Whenever a hurricane hits the gas prices shoot up a buck because the republicans killed off the regulations on oil speculation, and refuse to punish oil cos when they go-a-gouging.
The last time we had "unregulated capitalism", snake oil salesmen made people wary of medication, meat was as hazardous as nuclear waste, and we had a stock market crash that put 30% of the populace into hoovervilles.
The correct answer is "proper regulation".. the kind that places big business and the government at loggerheads.
When big business and government fight each other making no gains, the little guy wins.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is more to economics than Ron Paul.
In your first sentence, you are saying that a True Scotsman's [wikipedia.org] capitalism would have prevented the collapse.
You have a minority view of the causes of the Great Depression.
There is no evidence at all for your statements about the New Deal (dogma notwithstanding).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When the Gallup poll in 1939 asked, 'Do you think the attitude of the Roosevelt administration toward business is delaying business recovery?' the American people responded 'yes' by a margin of more than two-to-one.
It's a leading question. You could ask a lot of questions in the form of "Do you think $politician's $policy is worsening $problem?" and get a positive response. If there's any doubt or controversy people will be inclined to say yes. A more honest survey would list the item and ask how the person felt about it, on a negative to positive scale.
The business community felt even more strongly so.
Shocking! Who could imagine that the business community would take negative views towards regulation?
"Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression."
Another leading question. The people running these surveys ei
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Corporatism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you don't regulate companies so that they can't take advantage of people and things, they will act in manors which destroy the middle class (the foundation of a good economy).
Can you support your assertion that the middle class is the "foundation of a good economy"? I'm not necessarily expressing disagreement; it just sounds like one of those random statements about macroeconomics that people so often throw out without really knowing what they're talking about.
And of course companies will try to take advantage of people. And people will try to take advantage of companies. That's precisely how capitalism works: "it is not from the benevolence of the butcher the brewer, or the b
Re:Corporatism (Score:5, Informative)
And the neocons say unregulated capitalism isn't destroying our democracy. Eisenhower, how we miss thee...
What you don't realize that every city in the United States is ran like a corporation!
Every city/county/state/school district must publish a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), just like every corporation must publish and Annual Financial Report and send it to their stockholders.
Here is Monticello, MN CAFR [govoffice2.com]. They have $37.8 Million in cash assets alone. Simply google CAFR and any government institution to see how much money they're hiding from you (its in the open but kept separate from their annual budget).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I were a citizen, I would countersue the company by demonstrating future harm.
Re:Craziness - from a Monticello, MN. resident (Score:5, Informative)
I Live in Monticello, Mn. and have been following this for some time. I'm fully in favor of this and believe it's in the best interest of the community. It'll benefit home users, but it's even more critical to attract big business and help grow the town.
Just a couple of things I want to set straight.
First, Monticello is being sued by Blackwater Communications (TDS) for using bonds to pay for the city fiber network. They can't stop the city from putting it in, but they're trying to make it painful. Originally it was to pay for itself and not cause additional taxes. The mayor has now openly said it may take taxes to do it, but the city will see it through.
Second is that several years ago, TDS, as well as the local cable co. were approached by the city to partner in this effort. Both flat out said no.
Third, only after the city was about to break ground did TDS decide to put in there own fiber network. Which by the way, I don't believe is truly fiber all the way to the wall. Seeing that the cities network fails is the only way to control pricing as the city had already stated what services would cost and trust me, it blew TDS out of the water!
Fourth, TDS has also begun a misleading campaign calling local residents, including myself, telling them about how the cities network will be under par and how business services are superior. Funny, cause I work in IT and am pretty technical; BS always smells! It's all about what "Joe Schmoe" doesn't know and how they usually believe what they are told. Oh ya, and the idiots accidentally called the mayor pitching the bull; oops! They've also started blanketing the neighborhoods with 1-year free broadband offers. Read the fine print cause if you bite your screwed! It's another way to lock things up by removing potential customers for the cities network. I get these adds in the mail literally every couple of days. I'm so sick of it I'm considering calling them and telling them not to mail me.
Personally I can't stand TDS anymore and won't even consider using them for anything EVER again. My land line with them has been dropped, my internet switched to cable (until the cities fiber is available), I use my cell and Skype. This is a prime example of corporate greed hurting the community!
Re:Craziness (Score:5, Interesting)
I see lots of unknowns here. (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, if we're thinking about this as a business, which is a distortion but I'll run with it, it's normal for telecom companies to spend as much as a couple thousand dollars to acquire business customers. So if we assume five hundred businesses, then we're talking about just acquiring that business being worth about a million of that money. If we assume 700 children of school age who would use that service, well, buying computers for that many kids would last nowhere near as long and would cost over a million bucks, all things considered.
It all comes down to numbers, though, doesn't it? Do we compare this to a sewage system, which will deliver value for a hundred years or more, or do we compare it to a wireless network which will need to be rebuilt every five years or so?
How many years of service would this proposal provide?
How much of this money goes for short-term equipment like routers and how much for long-term infrastructure like fiber and putting in channels?
Who will own that city-provided infrastructure?
How many customers will use this?
Of what types?
Will they billed for this and if so, how?
I don't know. And afaict, neither do you. You've got interesting and useful things to say about the contract type and such, for which I thank you. But as for total net value, unless you've got answers to most or all of the questions above, you might want to get off your high horse a bit and cut them a little more slack.
"they only sued to save Monticello from itself" (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"they only sued to save Monticello from itself" (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh. I get it. Less like a rubber chicken and more like rubbing a chicken.
I'm not sure how that applies to the telco. But I suspect it does.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"they only sued to save Monticello from itself"... please someone tell me that this is a f@ckin joke.
The town should look up Dalton Utilities [dutil.com], Dalton Ga. for some good legal fodder. Back in the late 90's when I was still there working as an engineer in a carpet mill over the summer, they were deploying fiber while pulling new power lines to the mills, mainly for their power monitoring systems. Thus they had a fiber backbone across most of the city before the dot com boom/bust. Using this as a starting point when the internet took off and people started demanding faster broadband, they started deploying FT
what? (Score:2)
Re:what? (Score:5, Informative)
I read TFA and I still have no idea what the legal basis of this claim is. Does anyone have any idea on what grounds they are suing?
On the basis that any suit will cost the town more than it will the telco, if not in dollars then in time. The article explains this quite clearly (make sure you read both relevant Arsicles).
Re:what? (Score:5, Informative)
The city decided to lay cable. Bridgewater Telephone interrupts, "Too bad, because that would put you in direct competition with our cable. The word `incumbent' is probably the reason this argument won't work. Bridgewater's cable did not exist at the time of the city's decision and, in fact, it does not exist now. But according to TFA you say you've read, that's the legal basis of the claim.
Re:what? (Score:5, Informative)
Revenue bonds.
The telco is saying that the town would not be able to -even- -think- about building a fiber network if it was taxpayers money footing the bill(many of whom may not utilize the service).
Because bonds are being used, and the business model pays for itself with little financial risk to the town, the telco is saying its an unfair business advantage.
Imagine that... a town with the intellect and means to provide a service the people actually want, and are willing to provide it the way the people actually want it.
suddenoutbreakofcommonsense
I hope the town wins. Hard, and fast.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Except you can't sue the government. Federal and State governments have sovereign immunity: they cannot be sued, except on the basis that they have explicitly allowed.
This doesn't apply to city governments though. Residents of Monticello should be expressing outrage with their state legislatures and getting them to pass legislation that will stop the Telco in their tracks.
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
We don't need more legislation. We need the judicial branch (ie, the court the suit is going into) to do it's job. Whether that would lie in the town or the telco's favor, I won't side - but this is not something legislation should fix.
Re:what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe the municipality needs to get a license to lay the cable? They might be okay along road alignments they control but they may be crossing property boundaries at some point.
Phew... (Score:3, Funny)
Good lookin' out, TDS. Cough.
Inane (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In a nutshell the telco is suing the city with the justification that they are protecting the city from itself? I think I would have a lot more respect if they just came right out and said they didn't want the city as competition.
In the same statement they said that was the SECOND reason for suing the city.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhhh, actually ... back then, many bridges were privately owned, and the owners charged tolls. So, it wasn't quite as stupid to consider buying into a bridge as people think.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Inane (Score:4, Funny)
I bring my own lampshade. Can't rely on the host to have one that fits.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I usually make do with a 12 pack box. The handle holes make excellent eye slits when it is crammed down over your head. You can then walk around insisting people bring you a shrubbery. A lampshade with a twist.
So Just.... (Score:4, Insightful)
How do towns set up a municipal electric service without being sued?
More importantly, how many speeding/parking/jaywalking tickets does this Telco plan to get when passing through town?
Support The Municipality (We're Onto You) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Support The Municipality (We're Onto You) (Score:5, Informative)
Why let a town build a network with taxpayer money when you can build a network with that same money, then charge them again for using it? It's the classic telco business model.
I think you are missing a very key point, here. It's true that telcos were paid government funds to build a significant part of the telephone network. But it's also true that in the vast majority of cases, those parts are the UNPROFITABLE parts.
Let's say you have a water pumping service, doing business in town, and you're making whatever profits you are making. For this example, we'll ignore the fact that most communities have community water. Business is good, you're expanding to cover more and more houses, starting with the most profitable ones first. (densest neighborhoods)
But then de gubbmint comes in and tell you that you have to do a bunch of stuff in order to continue to do business, because of the benefits to the general health of the community or whatever. For example, since you provide water to some houses in your town, now you have to provide water to ALL houses in your town.
Now, it's not as though you wouldn't love to serve all the houses in the town, but some of those houses are over a mile apart! Just the cost to dig the pipes out that far will cost you over $10,000 per house! Since you are charging $50/month for water service, it's going to take almost 20 YEARS before you even break even on the base cost, nevermind the finance charges you'd incur to borrow the money to deliver the service the gubbmint requires!
And you can't charge the homeowners, either - they aren't buying anything, they didn't ask for it, and making them pay would be onerous on them, too.
So, in circumstances like these, it's very typical for the private company (your water company) to ask for funding to assist in the problem areas. It often comes as a sort of deal: Your water company enjoys a monopoly status, subject to various regulations that you have to perform, in exchange for funding to cover the plumbing for the unprofitable areas.
So the net effect goes something like this:
1) Your company is now a monopoly that must turn in a Profits and Loss statement, along with proof of regular water testing to the city council every month or so. You cover 100% of the houses in the community, and you have no effective competition. One of your concessions is that the municipality can levy taxes via your bills. You have to calculate this bill, and turn over the tax money to the city quarterly.
2) The city has now satisfied its goal of everybody having 100% availability to clean drinking water. It's paid for costs of plumbing by taking out a bond, secured against a tax raised against people's water bill.
3) Everybody who lives in the community now pays a 5% monthly tax on the water bill to cover the cost of plumbing outlying areas. Financially, it's a raise in your bill if you were already contracted with the water company when it was all private, it still brings benefits such as improved local economy resulting from the improved infrastructure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It often comes as a sort of deal: Your water company enjoys a monopoly status, subject to various regulations that you have to perform, in exchange for funding to cover the plumbing for the unprofitable areas. ... The city ... paid for costs of plumbing by taking out a bond, secured against a tax raised against people's water bill.
How is enjoying a monopoly an exchange for receiving tax dollars to build out your infrastructure?!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because otherwise it wouldn't happen?
Or maybe you'd like to be out there digging ditches and laying pipe for free. Sounds to me like you're willing. You should start cold-calling mayors.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The company receives additional customers, satisfies the government's requirement of supporting all citizens, is granted a monopoly, *and* receives capital to do it all.
What's wrong with forcing the company to either pay for the construction or stop expanding their network in the area. There just might be another company willing to make the investment to capture the rest of the region's customers.
If tax dollars are going to go toward this construction, then these portions of the
Re:Support The Municipality (We're Onto You) (Score:5, Informative)
DING DING DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!
See, that's the thing that people don't seem to get: these telcos got the tax dollars, but aren't being subject to regulations, which is the entire problem!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, because pipes never break, get dug up, etc. If you have 5 times the pipes, you have something like 5 times the cost of maintaining them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They took the damn money, so they ought to build the network. If they don't, then they shouldn't only allow others to do their job, they should be forced to return the money.
And they haven't been doing the job that they took the money to do.
Re:Support The Municipality (We're Onto You) (Score:4, Interesting)
It works rather differently here in outlying parts of Los Angeles County, and I'm sure this isn't unique:
The local water companies charge $15k to hook up to the water network, plus a monthly usage bill.
However, they've lately taken it a step further: If you live within one of these private water districts, drilling your own well is now prohibited (even in very rural areas). In fact, if you have an existing well and it is shut down for ANY reason (even something that would normally be temporary) -- you are prohibited from restarting your well, and you MUST hook up to the water company's system.
Needless to say, this gov't-enforced enhancement of their busines model makes the little local water companies delerious with joy.
Now, if you're starting from no water at all, they're not a bad deal compared to a well -- their water usage rate costs about half what pumping it yourself does, and the hookup cost is about 1/3rd of the price of a new well. But if you have an existing well, and are forced to switch over, you just got robbed of the $40k+ it cost you to drill it, plus the $15k charge for new hookups.
(And no, this isn't hearsay; it's straight from a conversation I had with the president of a local water company.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not like it's just a handout.
If you're pumping ground water, you're drawing down the water table. If more than a few people are doing this, the water table then has to be replenished regularly.
Individuals that have drilled their own wells aren't going to pay to replenish their
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The ground water supplying private wells is 400 feet down. The water company wells go about 1500 feet. Both are fed by a very large underground river that originates outside this county, and which there are zero efforts to "replenish" by anyone. However, the water company (and ag wells, which are exempt from this forced monopoly) draw vastly more water than all the private wells combined. So your argument doesn't, uh, hold water :) nor to my knowledge has that argument ever come up. AFAIK, the only argument
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are the one missing something - the monopolies were the ones paid years ago to provide the country with fiber (by congress) and they haven't built anything yet.
It seems to me, they haven't fulfilled their part of the contract and thus forfeit their monopoly status by not providing service. By now, no one should have be using dial-up service anymore.
Well in that case (Score:4, Funny)
It was right magnanimous of 'em to sue.
Thanks, but no thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this any different than a town building a road. A solid internet infrastructure is just as important to city/state growth as a the transportation system. It's just simple.
"No fair, I can't compete with the state." is not a good enough reason for me to care about your problem. Things like this would have been used to stop building the Interstate system in late 50s. Reasoning like this has allowed the infrastructure of the US to suffer, because someone companies are magic beings that solve problems and the government just ruins your life.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this any different than a town building a road. A solid internet infrastructure is just as important to city/state growth as a the transportation system. It's just simple.
Actually, a better analogy is the power transmission industry. This is exactly what happened in the early days of electric power, with power companies suing cities and trying to lobby to pass laws and bribe officials to prevent cities from rolling their own... even when those same power companies were unwilling to invest in serving those cities.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you forgotten that the government is a MONOPOLY? That governments get to take your money whether you want to pay it or not? Contrast that with competing companies that have to persuade you to part with your dollars.
Yeah, competing companies are magic beings (although of course they don't mean to be) and the government just ruins your life )when it tries to do more than keep the peace).
Re:Thanks, but no thanks (Score:4, Funny)
You're not a LISP or Scheme programmer by chance, are you?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Freaking retarded (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Madness! (Score:5, Funny)
...they only sued to save Monticello from itself, apparently feeling that the municipality is unprepared for the onerous costs of maintaining such a network, and would lack the expertise to do so...
So the company loves the city more than the city loves itself?
How ironic! This sounds preposterous to me.
These United States never cease to amaze.
Maintenance Cost of Fiber are Actually Lower (Score:4, Interesting)
Switching from copper to fiber is a big deal in heavy manufacturing and especially in electric plants. Most electric plants are heavily wired with copper. Problem is that copper is more prone to interference. When copper fails, it can be quite difficult to isolate the failure. Copper is also several orders of magnitude lighter (weight wise) than copper and a lot less bulky. Vendors usually quote a "50%" cost reduction from copper.
In the building trades, fiber only construction saves a good amount of space and labor. I've read that medium size office buildings can sometimes shave $300,000 off their construction costs.
I can't recall exactly, but I believe most new airplanes are being built with fiber. It's much easier to install and maintain than the copper it replaces. I remember reading years ago that some lab at MIT (I believe) developed a device to allow fiber optic cable to directly replace the copper wiring coming out of the instrument panels. I am afraid I can't remember reading if this was ever implemented.
I'm not an expert, but I think the rational for this lawsuit is rather weak. I don't know what else their town is working on, but I doubt they expect their parks and recreation staff to maintain their fiber network. They'll hire a subcontractor, probably the same people the telcos were going to hire and be done.
Good for them.
What a load (Score:5, Insightful)
Towns already run their own water pipes, sewer pipes, fire alarm systems, roads, etc. What is one more cable?
I call BS if you say running fiber takes more expertise than running water and sewer pipes. Electrons can go uphill of their own accord, water needs help.
Can't run our own telco? (Score:2)
Ptttht....if the telco really feels this way, I tell them "here, drop the lawsuit, and if we truly can't match par with your network, we'll sell the line to you guys and admit we were wrong."
Would the telco take them up on this? Shah right...
How ISP should be run (Score:3, Informative)
Since the fiber plant is going to be a monopoly, this is how internet access should be sold: have the part that is going to be a monopoly be regulated, and then allow competition where that is easy.
The only trick is not allowing the people in charge of just the fiber to interact with the data running over that fiber, as the Canadians are discovering with Bell [arstechnica.com].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That was one of the big issues of the - now repealed - '96 telco reform act. Each incumbent local exchange carrier (Monopoly) would have to give access to their network. However there was no guideline that they couldn't give themselves access also.
The problem was that they would always find ways to sell the service to themselves far cheaper than any competition could get it. It was impossible to compete against say Verizon DSL by buying wholesale access to Verizon networks and rolling out your own DSL.
Of
Simple Economics (Score:3, Insightful)
TDS comments smell exactly... (Score:2)
Businesses are looking out for us! Yay! (Score:2)
they only sued to save Monticello from itself, apparently feeling that the municipality is unprepared for the onerous costs of maintaining such a network, and would lack the expertise to do so.
I, for one, am deeply grateful to our corporate overlords for saving the population of Monticello from themselves.
Way to go!
Yes and no (Score:2, Insightful)
Governments should not be competing with private businesses. It's not their role. Monopolies aren't fun, but government run monopolies are downright depressing. Even if the government allows competition, how do you compete with an entity that has the power to tax or borrow against taxes?
Much of the current "problem" is due to previous government created monopolies in local telephone and cable. The solution is not more of the same intervention.
At the same time, I think the lawsuit is misguided. If I were a s
Re: (Score:2)
You say that like it's true.
Your devotion to your ideology is religious. Judging by your sig, I guess there's not much I can say to change your mind. But just for kicks, I want to say this: I think you may be well-served by entertaining the possibility that your heroes could have been wrong.
Just sowing seeds...
Re:Yes and no (Score:5, Insightful)
When is the U.S. going to stop frivolous lawsuits? (Score:2)
How do we prevent more of these pesky lawsuits?
My only idea is we increase penalties so parties like this telco can be ordered to build out the network for free or some major penalty.
Now that would be justice!
When Ann Arbor was about to repave Division st (Score:5, Insightful)
I recall, decades ago, when Ann Arbor was about to repave Division street - the main north-south drag for the core city. They were going to do it up properly so it would last.
They'd had a lot of trouble with utilities tearing up the roads to work on their underground stuff, then not restoring them adequately. (In southern Michigan winters this resulted in frost heaves that soon tore the road back open, resulting in the need for more repairs - sometimes over and over. By which time the information about which utility had torn it up originally had been lost.)
They couldn't really ban them from digging up the street to work on their stuff.
So they passed a new ordinance that would result in a MAJOR cost for any company that tore up the street AFTER it was redone, for a decade or so, and gave 'em some large number of months to get their underground installations fixed up and upgraded before the repaving. (I think they imposed some "fee" - read "fine" or "tax" - but don't know the details.)
That street was dug up all summer as the several utility companies rebuilt everything under it and installed new conduit and manholes for future expansion. (Better to get it in now, while there's no special issues on doing the work, than take the chance that the city's post-repaving gotchas would stick in court - or cost more in court fees to get them struck.)
And that road surface stayed pristine for years.
Now it seems to me that, if this telco wants to play hardball, this municipality could find similar stuff to do to them. B-)
Granted that the courts might eventually strike down whatever the city does as unfair competition, too. But it would still cost the telco more money to get that to happen - and tit-for-tat is well recognized as a very successful strategy.
Downside is it needs to be done in a way that doesn't end up stalling both projects while the citizens sit on their thumbs waiting for an internet connection.
= = = =
Also: Didn't a federal court just strike early-termination fees for cell phone providers? Might be possible to go after that if the telco does a long-term contract lockin to try to keep the citizens on their net once the delayed city net is live.
Broadband prices AREN'T coming down (Score:3, Insightful)
The Telco's have no rights to force people to buy their goods.
I might add that CABLE TV SUCKS too. There is no variety or quality.
Great news! (Score:2)
Great news! Now to get my municipality to vote to build their own fiber network, and Verizon will run Fios.
Not a government's job (Score:2)
As little as possible should be done by the government — that's the principle.
Having them provide Internet service is like running word-processing in a kernel.
Re:Not a government's job (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not a government's job (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a perfect example of something a *local* government should do, if the local populace votes and approves of it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A little background from a resident (Score:5, Informative)
I live in Big Lake, MN which is just a few miles away from Monticello, MN. The story misses a few things. First of all Monticello approached the Bridgewater to build the fiber network, and Bridgewater decided not to. So Monticello went ahead and decided to do itself. The second thing people should know is that Monticello does not have a normal small town finance system. Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant provides a huge cash influx to the city, allowing it to pursue large projects.
Protection racket (Score:5, Insightful)
*spits on ground in disgust*
The way I would build a municipal fiber network... (Score:5, Insightful)
...would be to build as just a foundational infrastructure. It would be fiber all the way from each home and business to the various connection points. These would be buildings, not little pedestals. These fibers would then be leased out to any company wanting to provide services over them. There would be 4 actual optical fibers to each home and business (more for special cases), so it would be possible for "light up" providers to offer only one type of service, and customers could get their phone, TV, and internet, from different providers if they so choose. Or people and businesses could lease them directly to have a very high speed point to point service wherever they want.
It's not competing against the telco ... it's providing them with a fiber based infrastructure they can use. It's not competing against cable TV ... it's providing them with a fiber based infrastructure they can use. It's not competing against broadband services ... it's providing them with a fiber based infrastructure they can use.
It's just a road. The city and state generally build roads and let people use them. The directions the telcos and cable TV companies are trying to go is the equivalent to not only them building the road, but also them building all the vehicles and allowing no other vehicles on the road, and them restricting what parts of town people are allowed to even go to.
Cities often provide public transportation. So some basic default services is not out of the question, anyway. But it might get structured so it is not a major competition. For example, it might provide connectivity only within the city itself and not to the world internet. It might carry only over-the-air TV stations, and not all those satellite based national channels.
I'd bet a lot of business would love to jump in and provide services over an infrastructure they don't have to pay all that up front cost to build. Whether it's paid for by leasing the fibers, or by taxes, is something the city would have to decide.
The situation, in haiku form (Score:5, Funny)
made of many fiber strands /
stymied by lawsuit
Re: (Score:2)
Re:TDS Is An Effing Joke (Score:4, Insightful)
And who are you?? Fucking George Carlin?
If the guy wants to be a namby pamby who can't say what he means, then leave him alone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In related news, armies of telco lawyers have been spotted approaching Burlington, VT.
Seriously, Burlington may be grandfathered in, but newcommers will not be so lucky. We have a similar success story in Tacoma, WA. These anecdotes undermine the telcos claim that they seek to 'save municipalities from themselves'. So it is important for the telcos to stomp these out wherever they might crop up.